House Democratic leaders banned Wednesday the practice of doling out multimillion-dollar, no-bid contracts to private contractors, a move that will shake up the lobbying industry that has come to rely on securing these so-called earmarks for their corporate clients.

At a meeting of the Democratic caucus, leaders unveiled the new rule that forbids private contractors from receiving earmarks, part of the party’s effort to reclaim the reform mantle that it used successfully in its 2006 midterm campaign to reclaim the majority.

House Appropriations Chairman David Obey, D-Wis., whose panel issues thousands of these line-item grants each year, estimated that the fiscal 2010 budget included more than 1,000 earmarks to private companies, through which businesses reaped billions of dollars. Most of those earmarks were culled from the Pentagon’s annual budget.

Republicans weren’t going to just sit there, and let Democrats snatch the reform mantle away from them. Not when they are the true party of reform. They struck back swiftly and surely the very same day:

House Democratic leaders on Wednesday banned budget earmarks to private industry, ending a practice that has steered billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to companies and set off corruption scandals.

The ban is the most forceful step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the use of earmarks, which allow individual lawmakers to award financing for pet projects to groups and businesses, many of them campaign donors.

But House Republicans, in a quick round of political one-upmanship, tried to outmaneuver Democrats by calling for a ban on earmarks across the board, not just to for-profit companies. Republicans, who expect an intra-party vote on the issue Thursday, called earmarks “a symbol of a broken Washington.”

How’s that for oneupmanship? The funny thing, though, was that the Republican leaders who had spontaneously erupted in that anti-earmark fervor had blood on their hands. Enough blood to bring to mind Lady Macbeth’s wonderful turn of phrase about turning the multitudinous seas incarnadine.

On March 10, 2010, ten Republican congressional leaders released a joint statement announcing their intention to ban earmarks because they have “become a symbol of a broken Washington.” Yet despite their new found disdain for the earmarking process, those same ten Republican leaders have requested over $240 million in earmarks since 2008.

And then an even funnier thing transpired. Turns out there was also some imperfectly disclosed fine print attached to the Republican resolution. Fine print that has the effect of turning the Republicans’ lovely sounding across-the-board ban on all earmarks into the equivalent of a diet till dinnertime.

The AP gave it the kind of headline the Republicans wanted to see: “House GOP adopts earmark moratorium“. But that’s when professional scruples kicked in. They burst the bubble in the lede itself:

In an election-year appeal to voters frustrated with Washington, House Republicans promised Thursday not to stuff any of this year’s spending bills with pet projects for their districts.

And the article later amplifies:

House Republicans promised a one-year pause in earmarks instead of a permanent ban. Boehner said Thursday that suspending earmarks shows Republicans are serious about fixing Washington.

Boehner’s chief qualification for the job is his ability to say, with a perfectly straight face, things that even his own mother wouldn’t credit.

And even that “one-year” ban is only for the rest of 2010. For all practical purposes, what the GOP is saying is: “Only till the midterms, baby! Only till the midterms!”

So, hey, why not just go ahead and complicate it further?

Democratic leaders said Thursday that they were increasingly inclined to release a final health-care bill that could accomplish two of President Obama’s top domestic priorities: guaranteeing coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans and vastly expanding federal aid for college students.

Both proposals, stuck in Congress for nearly a year, are gaining new momentum as Democrats contemplate facing voters in November without having delivered on any of Obama’s major policy objectives.

Key Senate Democrats initially balked at combining the health-reform bill with a measure that overhauls the nation’s student-loan program, but on Thursday they had warmed to the idea.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) had been one of the chief opponents because he feared the education proposal — which would free up billions in federal subsidies to private lenders as it increases funds for Pell Grants — would provoke procedural challenges from Republicans. But Conrad said the Senate parliamentarian suggested in a preliminary ruling that combining the bills could work, provided that the right balance on cost was found. “I’d say yes, we’re leaning toward it,” Conrad said.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who supports pairing the measures, said Thursday night that lawmakers had made “a lot of decisions” but were still addressing several concerns related to the education bill. “We’re getting close,” Emanuel said after meeting at the Capitol with Democratic leaders.

The easy part is to understand why they’re thinking about combing the two measures. There can only be one reconciliation package per budget resolution. If reconciliation is used for healthcare alone, it can’t be used for the student-loan program (or not till a new budget resolution is passed). And the student-loan bill, like healthcare reform, doesn’t have close to 60 votes in the Senate.

So that’s where they’re coming from. What’s discouraging is what they’re thinking of, as they consider the decision, or rather — and this seems to fit Democrats a lot better, doesn’t it? — what they’re not thinking of. Conrad is worrying about procedural challenges from Republicans. Emanuel is focused on concerns that lawmakers have about the education bill. And no one, naturally, is talking about whether adding the student-loan program into the mix might jeopardize the already fragile and unpredictable legislative prospects for healthcare reform.

Four days ago, The Hill reported that combining the two was already a done deal:

Senate Democratic leaders have decided to pair an overhaul of federal student lending with healthcare reform, according to a Democratic official familiar with negotiations.

“It’s going in,” said the Democratic source, in reference to the student lending measure.

The Washington Post article quoted above suggests that may not quite be true. But Democratic leaders saying yesterday that “they were increasingly inclined” to combine the two measures could just be their way of putting up a trial balloon for a decision that’s essentially been made.

Let’s hope not, though. Because, on Monday night, The Hill also addressed the question of whether adding the student-loan program to the reconciliation bill might affect the prospects of the combined measure passing in the Senate:

Several of the Democrats who are expected to oppose the student loan legislation are centrists who could reconsider their support for healthcare reform if the two issues are joined.
[...]
An analysis from Height Analytics, an investment research firm, projected that seven Senate Democrats would vote against the student lending bill.

“We consider Democrats with the most [Sallie Mae/Nelnet Inc.] jobs in their states to be the strongest ‘no’ votes (7 Dems from PA, IN, FL, NE, VA, DE). The student lending industry is lobbying them hard and we expect to see additional expressions of concern about the [Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act],” the company wrote in a report to investors.
[...]
Centrist Democrats such as Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.) have signaled in recent days that they would support passing healthcare adjustments with special budget rules. A spokesman for Nelson declined to say how adding the student lending provision would affect his vote.

Other centrist Democrats who could reconsider support include Sens. Bill Nelson (Fla.), Evan Bayh (Ind.) and Jim Webb (Va.).

In fact, six Senate Democrats have already written to Harry Reid, expressing their opposition to the student-loan legislation:

But the education bill is strongly opposed by some Senate Democrats, particularly those in states where for-profit student lenders are major employers. In a letter to the majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, six Democrats said they disliked the president’s proposal.

“We write to make you aware of our concern with provisions of contemplated student lending reform that could put jobs at risk,” the senators wrote. “Increase our nation’s commitment to higher education funding is a priority, but we must proceed toward this objective in a thoughtful manner that considers potential alternative legislative proposals, while still delivering an equivalent amount of savings over the next ten years.

The letter was signed by Senators Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Bill Nelson of Florida, Mark Warner of Virginia and Jim Webb of Virginia.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that all six senators would actually vote against a combined reconciliation bill. And even if they did, there might still be enough votes to pass it (50, with Vice-President Biden voting to break the tie).

But then you get to the House, where the healthcare reform math is much more fragile. And thoroughly uncertain. No one seems to be at all clear how many votes there are in the House for just the healthcare package. Without any clear idea whether there is even a safety margin, are Democratic leaders really going to risk messing things up by tossing in student-loan reform into the mix?

Put like that, it sounds like a no-brainer, right? So here’s the really depressing part—Democrats may not have any option. Enter stage left, the most murky character in American politics, arcane Senate rules:

The Senate parliamentarian notified Democratic leaders that, in order to meet the reconciliation requirements, both the Senate health and finance committees would need to produce $1 billion in deficit savings each over the next 10 years, Conrad said.

With health care alone, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would not be able to show the items within its jurisdiction save at least $1 billion. By inserting the education package, the committee would satisfy the reconciliation instructions, Conrad said.

Isn’t that just dandy? It might not even be possible to do a reconciliation bill for just healthcare reform. Democrats may have no choice but to make a healthcare and student-loan stew.

(This, apparently, is what the Washington Post story finessed when they said, in the first excerpt above, “provided that the right balance on cost was found.” I’m not sure if I find that mor e incredible or more irresponsible.)

***Update, 11:34 a.m.***

I was alerted by my friend SB that not many Democrats had opposed SAFRA when it was passed by the House in September, so that folding student loan reform into the healthcare reconciliation bill may not jeopardize its passage in the House.

In fact, it looks like only one Democrat healthcare “yea” might be turned into a “nay”:

Democrats voted overwhelmingly for SAFRA when the bill passed the House in September by a vote of 253 to 171, with just nine Democrats opposing the bill or not voting at all. But at least one of the Democrats who opposed the bill — Rep. Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania — was among the Democrats in the narrow majority of 220 who supported the House version of the health care legislation in November. In explaining his opposition to the student loan bill, Kanjorski argued that the legislation would take away jobs that Sallie Mae had created in his district. (Critics note that Kanjorski is also among the leading recipients of Sallie Mae’s campaign contributions.)

David Dayen argues in FDL that “If Kanjorski is the deciding vote on health care, and he says to toss the student loan piece out, out it goes, not to return until at least next year.”

It may not be quite so simple, though.

By all accounts, House Democrats are having a devil of a time figuring out how many votes they actually have in the House for the current healthcare reform proposal. It may turn out that they do not have a very accurate count at the point when the decision has to be made whether to fold student loan reform into the healthcare reconciliation bill, or not.

In that case, would they gamble that Kanjorski isn’t the deciding vote on health care, only to find later that unfortunately he is? Or would they play safe and not fold it in? In which case, what happens to the requirement that the HELP Committee needs to show that items within its jurisdiction save at least $1 billion?

“I think that there is a real shot we are going to get slaughtered in elections this fall if we aren’t leading the efforts to reform Washington. We campaigned in ‘06 and ‘08, and if voters don’t see that change, we haven’t lived up to that promise.”

– Steve Hildebrand, deputy campaign manager for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, in an interview on CNN.

Welcome aboard, chief!

“The energized base which transformed the nation and elected our first black president (is) now disengaged,” Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile says. “If this was September, I would hit the panic button.”
[...]
Still, signs of trouble for the Democratic majority in Congress are springing up in:

Virginia, where a host of liberal groups are rallying supporters and students to protest the upcoming University of Virginia appearance of former Bush administration top Justice Department official John Yoo.

Yoo, who wrote the legal memos authorizing the use of controversial interrogation techniques against terror suspects, is scheduled to speak at the school in Charlottesville on March 19. He will be greeted by protesters, from groups such as Veterans for Peace and the National Accountability Network, who are angry that the Obama administration has declined to prosecute him for the so-called “torture memos.”

Organizer David Swanson calls the administration’s positions on protecting state secrets and war crimes “a disaster.”

The American Civil Liberties Union concurs. The group recently warned the White House not to reverse its decision to try terror suspects in civilian courts.

If Obama has suspects tried before military commissions “he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law,” ACLU Director Anthony Romero says.

• Georgia and South Carolina, where the environmental group Friends of the Earth (FOE) this month ran TV ads denouncing the Obama administration’s decision to approve $55 billion in private industry loan guarantees for what would be the first nuclear reactors built in the United States in three decades.

The group also was alarmed when Obama talked in his State of the Union Address about investing in “clean coal” and opening new offshore oil drilling, spokesman Nick Berning says.

FOE’s political arm endorsed candidate Obama but “we’ve been disappointed so far with President Obama,” Berning says.

• Arkansas, where liberal groups are backing Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a primary challenge to two-term incumbent Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who is backed by Obama.

In three days earlier this month, the liberal group MoveOn.org raised $1 million for Halter, in average donations of $30. He also nabbed the endorsement of the Arkansas AFL-CIO. “This overwhelming response to Bill Halter’s candidacy shows the depth of voters’ anger towards corporate politicians,” MoveOn Director Justin Ruben says.

A chief complaint against Lincoln: She opposed including a government-run health care program, known as the public option, in legislation that passed the Senate in December.

She’s unapologetic. “I don’t answer to my party,” she says in TV ads now airing in the state. “I answer to Arkansas.”

Costa Rica’s system of universal coverage is so effective that it actually ranks one slot above the United States in the World Health Organization’s ranking of health systems worldwide while actually spending less per capita than we do.

When you click on that second link, it takes you to a table titled: “Health Statistics > Spending > Per person (most recent) by country”. That “most recent” is very reassuring. Till you scroll down to the very bottom of the very long table and see this: “Spending per capita (PPP) in $US 1998.”

By a cosmic coincidence, I had a post yesterday in which I trotted out per capita healthcare spending numbers by country. My numbers were from 2007.

So how did I beat ThinkProgress’s statistics by a good nine years? By the thoroughly unorthodox expedient of googling “per capita healthcare costs by country”. The infoplease link I used comes up as the first hit.

How might one come up with the 1998 statistics? If you add the phrase “most recent” to the search terms (within quotes), the ancient table shows up on the first page, as item #6. The little google blurb accompanying the link reads “May 17, 2005 … Search for: health care spending per capita; money a person spends on … Health Statistics > Spending > Per person (most recent) by country …”

So if you went by that “May 17, 2005″ (which presumably refers to the date nationmaster.com put the table up on their site), and never actually looked at the table to see which year the numbers are from — which is not exactly from the best practices handbook — you could easily put yourself in the position of having to wipe egg off your face.

Isn’t that pretty much the biggest factor, though, in the the runaway increase in US healthcare costs, the fact that the underlying cost of healthcare itself — as opposed to the deadweight costs of the health insurance industry — is so much higher in the US than in other countries, and it has been increasing at a much higher rate? So why is no one talking about this at all, or inquiring why it is so, or proposing to address it?

In 2007, per capita healthcare costs in the US were $6,096. That compares with $3,173 for Canada, 3,171 for Germany, $3,040 for France, $2,560 for the UK and $2,293 for Japan.

The gap between US and these other countries is huge. And only a very trivial part of the gap comes from the profits of health insurance companies or the huge salaries paid to their CEOs or their administrative costs. It is the underlying cost of healthcare itself which is the biggest factor that makes our per capita healthcare expenditure so much higher than other countries.

Nor is the difference in per capita costs due to US hospitals and doctors offering significantly better quality of care. This June 2009 op-ed from the NYT makes it clear that hospitals in other countries, even very low healthcare cost countries, offer care that’s comparable in quality to American hospitals; it’s just a lot cheaper:

One consequence of the high cost of medical care in the United States has been the rise of medical tourism. Every year, thousands of Americans undergo surgery in other countries because the allure of good care at half the price is too good to pass up.

Average total fees at well-regarded hospitals like Apollo and Wockhardt in India are 60 percent to 90 percent lower than those of the average American hospital, according to a 2007 study by the consulting group Mercer Health and Benefits (where Dr. Milstein is affiliated). Even compared with low-cost American hospitals, the offshore fees are 20 percent to 50 percent lower.

Most medical travelers seek cosmetic procedures like facelifts and liposuction, but an increasing number have high-risk operations like heart surgery and joint replacement in places like India, Singapore and Thailand.
[...]
Which Americans consider this option? Typically, they are people who have either no health insurance or meager coverage. Though not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, they cannot afford a good health plan. But lately, even some people with good coverage have been encouraged to take advantage of cost savings abroad.

A few pioneering American insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina and self-insured employers like the Hannaford Brothers supermarket chain sent American doctors to evaluate foreign hospitals. Favorably impressed, they now offer payment for travel expenses and cash incentives as high as $10,000 for choosing offshore hospitals.

For very costly operations like open heart surgery or hip joint replacement, savings far exceed these payments.
[...]
There is reason to think the quality of care at some foreign hospitals may be comparable to quality in the United States. More than 200 offshore hospitals have been accredited by the Joint Commission International, an arm of the organization that accredits American hospitals. Many employ English-speaking surgeons who trained at Western medical schools and teaching hospitals.

Like the per capita numbers before, those medical tourism numbers are from 2007. A report from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions (part of Deloitte LLP) talks about the expected impact of the “dramatically rising U.S. health care costs” since then on medical tourism:

The impact of dramatically rising U.S. health care costs is prompting increasing numbers of consumers to consider outbound medical tourism as a viable care option. In 2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care; this number is anticipated to increase to six million by 2010.

An eightfold increase in three years suggests a pretty dramatic increase, between 2007 and 2010, in the disparity in healthcare costs between the US and other countries. But it still remains the white elephant in the room. Absolutely no one seems to be talking about even recognizing that it’s there, let alone doing anything about it.

The fuss was mostly over a $35 billion Air Force contract for refueling tankers:

Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-Ala.) decision to place a “blanket hold” on all presidential nominations until a pair of billion-dollar earmarks for his home state are fast-tracked has reignited the debate over the parliamentary tactics being deployed by the Republican Party. It also has thrust into the spotlight the clout that major defense contractors often wield on the political process.

On Thursday evening, news broke that the Alabama Republican has taken the extraordinary measure of holding up at least 70 “nominations on the Senate calendar” — essentially threatening to filibuster the confirmation processes if they came to a vote. The move has spurred a series of recriminations from Democratic officials who see it as yet another instance of over-the-top obstructionism of the president’s agenda.

It also has turned inquisitive eyes towards Shelby himself.

The Senator confirmed that he launched the hold, in part, because he is upset with a tanker contract worth $35 billion that remains unresolved between Northrop Grumman/EADs and Boeing. Shelby favors the Northrop Grummann-EADS bid largely because it would result in tankers being assembled in his home state. The two contractors, in turn, have donated to Shelby’s campaign committees, hoping ostensibly to secure favor or at least an audience with the Alabama Republican.

According to a review of campaign finance records, Shelby’s political action committee received $7,500 in donations from EADS’s PAC during the past two election cycles and an additional $21,500 from Northrop’s PAC since 2000.

[UPDATE: The investigative journalism group Center for Public Integrity looked at all political action committees associated with Northrop Grumman and concluded that Shelby has received at least $108,233 in contributions since his first Senate election in 1986.]

Shelby wanted the Air Force to rewrite the contract specifications for the new refueling tanker, to make them more favorable to the Northrop Grumman-EADS bid.

Shelby wants the Air Force to rewrite the request for proposals it is getting ready to issue for a new refueling tanker.
[...]
As the Air Force prepares to rerun the contest, Northrop warned it might not bid because a draft request for proposals shows a “clear preference” for Boeing.
[...]
When he imposed the hold in early February, Shelby said “we still do not have a transparent and fair acquisition process to move forward” on the tanker contract. The RFP “needs to be significantly and substantively changed.”

Yesterday, we learned that Northrop Grumman has withdrawn from the bidding (just like it had threatened to do):

Boeing now has the inside track on a $35 billion contract to start replacing the Air Force’s aging fleet of aerial refueling tanks after Northrop Grumman announced Monday that it wouldn’t bid.
[...]
Northrop’s decision was the latest development in the nearly nine-year effort to replace the tankers. Northrop-EADS won an earlier competition, but government auditors overturned the award after Boeing protested.

The initial contract is for 179 tankers, but the deal eventually could be worth $100 billion as the Air Force replaces about 600 tankers in what could be one of the largest Pentagon purchases ever.

In announcing that it wouldn’t bid, Northrop said the competition “clearly favors” Boeing’s tanker and denied the larger Northrop-EADS tanker any “competitive opportunity.”

It would be deliciously ironic, wouldn’t it, if Northrop Grumman’s decision to surrender in its 9-year battle for the contract was precipitated by all the negative publicity Shelby’s tantrum brought to the contract? Before the Shelby tantrum, there might have been some hope of getting the Air Force to quietly skew the specifications a bit towards Northrop Grumman. After the glare of publicity resulting from the Shelby tantrum, such shenanigans probably became impossible.

The Republican National Committee plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on “fear” of President Barack Obama and a promise to “save the country from trending toward socialism.”

The strategy was detailed in a confidential party fundraising presentation, obtained by POLITICO, which also outlines how “ego-driven” wealthy donors can be tapped with offers of access and “tchochkes.”

The presentation was delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart to top donors and fundraisers at a party retreat in Boca Grande, Florida on February 18, a source at the gathering said.

In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives.

Those are the first four paragraphs of the story. What they stress is:
a) the cynical, contemptuous attitude the RNC displays towards its donors
b) the fact that the RNC is consciously peddling fear to its donors; in fact, fear is all they are peddling.

That’s not just my opinion. The headline for the story reads: “RNC document mocks donors, plays on ‘fear’“.

After another four paragraphs, we learn:

One page, headed “The Evil Empire,” pictures Obama as the Joker from Batman, while House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leaders Harry Reid are depicted as Cruella DeVille and Scooby Doo, respectively.

The story has remained in the headlines since then. On Thursday and Friday, we had the initial hubbub over the fiasco, on Saturday an influential donor reacted angrily to the news, and Sunday brought us assorted Republican leaders criticizing and distancing themselves from the fundraising presentation.

What I find really interesting is how the story has been reported in the mainstream media. Pretty consistently, they play up the cartoon caricatures of Obama, Pelosi and Reid. They also give some prominence to the fear-motivation angle. But the contempt towards donors is just totally buried. It’s almost as if the liberal media were engaged in a vast conspiracy to minimize the fundraising damage this scandal inflicts on the RNC.

Here, judge for yourself.

First up is the Washington Post, on Thursday, March 4:

National Republican leaders scrambled Thursday to control damage caused by an internal party document that caricatures President Obama as the Joker and stokes fear of socialism to raise money in a critical election year.

The 72-page PowerPoint presentation reveals the blunt appeal to emotion that both parties use to motivate donors and prefer to keep private. But its release online and consequent cable chatter became an unwelcome distraction for Republicans, because the strategy it outlined fit squarely with Democrats’ portrait of the GOP as the party of “no.”

These are the first two paragraphs of the story; not even a mention of donor-contempt. But it’s not even as if it’s buried several paragraphs down. If you click on the link, you’ll find there’s no mention of it at all in the entire article.

We hear a lot about the Republican noise machine. But how about the Republican damage control machine? And how do you even achieve such damage control without actual money changing hands?

The Associated Press doesn’t come off any better. Again, this is from Thursday, March 4:

Barack Obama is “The Joker.” Nancy Pelosi is portrayed as Cruella De Vil, and Harry Reid as Scooby Doo — all part of a Republican Party pitch to top fundraisers.

Tucked into the 72-page Power Point presentation to GOP fundraisers in Boca Raton, Fla., last month, was a direct call to use fear and reactionary sentiments toward Democrats as a fundraising strategy.

“What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House or the Senate…?” one slide asks.

“Save the country from tending toward Socialism!” it replies.

Political groups and parties often use highly charged language to motivate their base of voters and contributors. But the RNC document is unusual in revealing a strategy in such candid detail.

You’d never know that they also took a dump on their donors, would you? The closest the AP comes to revealing that the RNC made some pretty insulting remarks about their donors is this pathetically absurd sentence:

(The presentation) also describes ways to appeal to major donors, including “peer to peer pressure,” “access” and “ego driven.”

Note they don’t even really say that donors were described as “ego driven”. And the phrase is passed off as a way to appeal to donors. What does that even mean?

By Saturday, March 6, even Ben Smith of Politico, who broke the original story, had embraced the notion that the salient features of the RNC presentation were the fear-motivation and the cartoon caricatures. (He couldn’t quite bring himself to put the cartoon caricatures first, though.) His opening paragraph:

A prominent Evangelical figure and Republican donor says he will end his contributions to the organized Republican Party in reaction to the leaked fundraising presentation that advised using “fear” to solicit contributions and displayed an image of President Obama as the Joker from Batman.

Finally, here’s the lede from USA Today’s story on Sunday morning, March 7:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky today distanced himself from the Republican National Committee’s fundraising pitch at a recent party retreat that portrayed President Obama as “The Joker” and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as Cruella De Vil.

Politico, which first reported about the fundraising presentation, said the RNC “plans to raise money this election cycle through an aggressive campaign capitalizing on ‘fear’ of President Barack Obama and a promise to ’save the country from trending toward socialism.’ “

Once again, there’s not one single word about donor-contempt in the entire story.

A pretty impressive performance, all told.

…Republicans are looking for the next legislative deal to attack and have trained their sights on President Barack Obama’s nomination of Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson’s brother for a federal judgeship.

Republicans gleefully circulated a Weekly Standard piece yesterday that asked if Obama was trying to buy Matheson’s vote by nominating his brother, Scott, to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Both the White House and Matheson’s office swiftly answered the question with a resounding ‘no.’ And both Republican senators from Matheson’s home state of Utah support the nomination.

Here’s Orrin Hatch’s official reaction to the announcement of Scott Matheson’s nomination:

I’m pleased President Obama has nominated Scott Matheson to fill the vacancy on the Tenth Circuit. I’ve known Scott a long time and he is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service. The Matheson family has had a significant impact on Utah and can rightly be proud of Scott’s nomination

The Salt Lake Tribune expanded on that:

Hatch said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination.

Utah’s other Republican senator, Robert Bennett, put out this statement, through a spokesman:

Sen. Bennett has heard of all kinds of pressure being applied and offers being made to Democrats for votes on health care, but Scott Matheson’s nomination is not one of those because it has been in the works for a long time.

And this was Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz:

“I’m very pleased that President Obama selected Scott to serve as a judge on the federal bench,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz said. “His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean, and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States, make him an excellent nominee. Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice.”

To give credit where credit is due, John McCormack of the Weekly Standard kicked it off with a gossip-column blog post on Wednesday. Politico gleefully picked it up right away (have they ever seen a piece of baseless rumor-mongering they didn’t like?). Michelle Bachmann then showed up to trumpet it on Larry King Live:

Because today, the president offered a judgeship to the brother of a member of Congress. Tonight, the president has that same member of Congress at the White House, pressuring him to change his vote on health care. We need to have an — an independent investigation into this matter…

On Thursday, Glenn Beck ranted about it on his radio show, and Fox News‘ Neil Cavuto gave it some nudge-nudge wink-wink air-time too. In the afternoon, a Fox News reporter brought it up at the daily White House briefing.

This morning, it was on Fox News‘ Fox & Friends. MSNBC’s Morning Joe dutifully stepped up to the plate, as well. As Media Matters‘ headline put it: “Morning Joe crew latest to forward baseless rumor that Obama is “selling judgeships”“.

All this despite not a shred of evidence of any quid pro quo, emphatic denials from all concerned — the White House, Scott Matheson, Rep. Jim Matheson — and strong rejections of the innuendo by several Republican members of Utah’s congressional contingent (who would be in the best position to know the inside story).

Isn’t there also the small matter of how such a deal needs to be cut? Do you just announce his brother’s nomination up front, and then expect Jim Matheson to vote as agreed? Or do you buttonhole Jim Matheson and whisper in his ear “If you play your cards right, sonny boy, your brother could be a judge, you know…”? Don’t you need to leave those ifs and coulds dangling tantalizingly in front of his eyes? Isn’t that how the game is played?

Instead of working for the greater success of the Republican Party (or, more realistically, given his capabilities, we better go with lesser), he is now dedicating himself to helping the Democrats win as many seats as possible in the 2010 midterms. Making passionate pleas to steer them away from dangerous mis-steps which could cost them votes and seats:

The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, warned Democrats on Tuesday that Republicans would use the issue of health care to bludgeon them in the November midterm elections if Democrats succeeded in passing a comprehensive overhaul.

“It will be the issue in every race in America,” Mr. McConnell said at a news conference in the Capitol. He also referenced the Republican victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election as evidence of the price Democrats would pay if they “jam” a health care bill through Congress “over the objections of the American people.”

My first reaction was: “Wow! That’s mighty big of him! Instead of holding his tongue, and starting to plan the huge Republican victory celebration that would be called for in November, he’s actually giving Democrats a chance to take corrective action before they shoot themselves in the mouth. (Mouth, because that’s usually where their foot is to be found, in my experience.)” I thought this was McConnell signaling his personal intention to return to the courtly politics of the good old days, when both sides behaved like perfect gentlemen (there’s no way he could bring his party with him on this, so it would have to be just his personal intention).

And then I thought: “McConnell? Courtly? Perfect gentleman? Naah, no way!” Which is when it hit me that this has to be McConnell’s overture to the Democratic Party, the first step of his double-cross of the Republicans. Once Democrats take his advice and win big in November (or, more realistically perhaps, just lose small), McConnell will be the toast of the Democratic party and, coincidentally, no longer welcome in the GOP.

So even if McConnell is only an unpaid consultant at this point — or, if you insist, an unsolicited consultant — if Democrats would only let his unrequited love bloom into a mutual passion, anything could happen. We could even get back to the halcyon days of the filibuster-proof 60-seat majority.

Okay, this is how far I had got in my thinking when I sat down to write this post. But, as I wrote it, it hit me that McConnell doesn’t seem to have taken any flak whatsoever for his gesture of political altruism. No one in the media or the GOP has risen up to denounce him for warning the Democrats off from electoral suicide.

The silence of the media can hardly come as a big surprise to anyone. Everyone knows that the mainstream media is one big liberal conspiracy. At some point, this liberal conspiracy was bound to infect even Fox News. We’ve obviously just seen that happen. So McConnell betrays the Republic Party, and there’s not a peep out of Fox News.

The unanimous silence from the GOP is much more striking, and would have to qualify as a surprise. But hardly a puzzle. Such unanimous silence can only mean one thing. Republicans have read the tea leaves. With the rise of the Tea Party movement, they see themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. Too many of what used to be two-way contests that Republicans won easily are going to turn into three-way contests in which Democrats are going to squeak out victories. (When McConnell referenced the Republican victory in the Massachusetts special Senate election, he was really just reminding everyone of the surprise Democratic victory in the New York special House election.) Too many Republicans are going to face primary challenges from Tea-Party supported extremists, that will drive them so far to the right to win the primary that they will sabotage any hope of winning the general election. It’s really no fun when you wake up to the realization that you’re now doomed to always be in the minority, that all your future political life has in store for you is petty obstructionism and posturing.

You can see where I’m going with this, don’t you? I’m afraid McConnell is, after all, the standard-bearer for the Republican party. His overtures to the Democrats are not for himself alone. He’s going to bring his entire party with him.

I readily concede this is just a theory at this point. But a theory that will easily prove or disprove itself in the coming weeks and months. Just look to Republicans, and see what they do. And when you find a consistent pattern of warning Democrats away from electoral disasters, you’ll know exactly what that means. And you’ll find me right here, dusting off my hands, and going “Q.E.D.!”