Last month, Rush Limbaugh criticized Mitt Romney for endorsing Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in his campaign against J.D. Hayworth in Arizona’s GOP Senate primary. “I think he’s risking his career over a guy, endorsing McCain, who is so out of step with what’s going on right now,” Limbaugh complained. Newsmax asked Romney asked about Limbaugh’s criticism in a new interview. But while Romney (surprisingly) stuck to his position, he couldn’t help but seize the moment to pander to the Limbaugh crowd:

ROMNEY: Well, you know, I find it hard to disagree with Rush Limbaugh on topics but on this one I do. I know Senator McCain. [...] It may not be right for me politically but frankly, the country’s in a posture right now. We face such challenges right now. It’s time for people to do what they think is right for the country and to spend less time about what may or may not be good for them politically.

It’s remarkable that Romney would criticize someone for taking a political stand, considering he has distinguished himself as one who regularly changes his positions for political gain.

The LA Times reports today on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s growing “large-scale grass-roots political operation” that is being “funded by record-setting amounts of money raised from corporations and wealthy individuals.” In 2009, the Chamber spent $144 million on lobbying and grassroots organizing, “well beyond the spending of individual labor unions or the Democratic or Republican national committees.” Some more details on its new initiative:

The chamber has signed up some 6 million individuals who are not chamber members and has begun asking them to help with lobbying and, soon, with get-out-the-vote efforts in upcoming congressional campaigns. [...]

The new grass-roots program, the brainchild of chamber political director Bill Miller, is concentrating on 22 states. Among them are Colorado, where incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet is vulnerable; Arkansas, where Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces an uphill reelection battle; and Ohio, where the chamber sees opportunities in numerous House races and an open Senate seat.

The network, called Friends of the U.S. Chamber, has been used to generate more than a million letters and e-mails to members of Congress, 700,000 of them in opposition to the Democratic healthcare plan. That is an increase from 40,000 congressional contacts generated in 2008.

According to the LA Times, the Chamber’s “expanding influence” is “worrisome” to top White House officials, including Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett. This frustration was echoed yesterday in a meeting with top Treasury Department officials, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, that ThinkProgress attended.

When asked by ThinkProgress what they think of the Chamber, officials agreed that the association — along with some other groups in the business community — are deliberately distorting the administration’s positions to the American public. They expressed particular dissatisfaction with the the Chamber’s ad campaign fear-mongering against the administration’s push for a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency. In January, the Chamber arranged to “fly-in” some representatives from small businesses to Capitol Hill and “lead” them to a pre-arranged series of anti-CFPA meetings. The association’s ad campaign contains the ludicrous claims that the CFPA would regulate bakeries and grocery stores.

As many federal lawmakers and the Obama administration push for cap-and-trade legislation, health care reform, regulatory reform, and corporate tax reform, the U.S. Chamber stands as the most well-funded opposition to progressive change. The group spent $10-$20 million of insurance-industry-provided cash on fighting reform. After Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, the Chamber was quick to congratulate itself for running television ads in support of the candidate.

Same-sex couples began marrying in the nation’s capital today, with some lining up as early as 3:30 a.m. to pick up their licenses from D.C. Superior Court. The first couple to officially tie the knot was Angelisa Young and Sinjoyla Townsend, who met in a constitutional law class at the University of the District of Columbia. They wed at the office of the Human Rights Campaign, along with two other couples. Watch part of Young and Townsend’s ceremony here:

D.C. is now the sixth place in the country where marriage equality is legal, following Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Watch more coverage of today’s celebrations.

Hate radio host Rush Limbaugh has been one of health care reform’s most vociferous opponents, warning that “[h]uman beings will die earlier than normal” under the “freedom killing” and “life threatening” plan, and calling for it to be “aborted.” Yesterday, Limbaugh put his money where his mouth is, saying that if health care passes and all his fears are realized, he’ll leave the country:

CALLER: If the health care bill passes, where would you go for health care yourself? And the second part of that is, what would happen to the doctors, do they have to participate in the federal program, or could they opt out of it? [...]

LIMBAUGH: My guess in even in Canada and even in the UK, doctors have opted out. And once they’ve opted, they can’t see anybody Medicare, Medicaid, or what will become the exchanges. They have to have a clientele of private patients that will pay them a retainer and it’ll be a very small practice. I don’t know if that’s been outlawed in the Senate bill. I don’t know. I’ll just tell you this, if this passes and it’s five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented — I am leaving the country. I’ll go to Costa Rica.

Listen here:

Limbaugh’s self-imposed exile should be all the incentive needed to pass health care reform.

Former president George W. Bush, “in his most active intervention since leaving the White House,” called the UK’s Conservative Party leader David Cameron to ask him to support the Northern Ireland peace process. Members of Congress wrote to Cameron last month to tell him that insurgents would be “emboldened” if the peace process is slowed down.

The International Brotherhood of Electric Workers has filed a lawsuit against the mega investment bank Goldman Sachs for overpaying its top executives. The lawsuit “seeks to stop Goldman from allocating roughly 47 percent of 2009 net revenue as compensation, saying such allocations ‘vastly overcompensate management and constitute corporate waste.’”

62 percent: Turnout in Iraq’s parliamentary elections on Sunday, “higher than in last year’s provincial ballot, despite attempts by Sunni Islamist insurgents to disrupt the vote with attacks that killed 39.”

“Leaders of nearly a dozen grass-roots immigrant rights groups excoriated President Obama and congressional Democrats on Monday, accusing them of moving too slowly to legalize the status of undocumented immigrants.” The White House said that President Obama will soon be meeting with Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to “discuss the bipartisan immigration bill.”

In Israel, Vice President Biden assured Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today that Israel has Washington’s “unstinting support,” and said the U.S. intends to curb Iran’s nuclear program. “There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security,” Biden said.

“Mideast rivals Israel and Syria” each announced ambitions to develop nuclear energy, today. Laying out their hopes “at an international conference in Paris on civilian nuclear energy,” the countries “could come under the microscope of international inspectors” to ensure they don’t use the programs to make weapons.

A bipartisan group of representatives in the House plans to force a vote Wednesday on withdrawing from Afghanistan. “We haven’t had a real debate,” said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). “We want to light the fire of the American peace movement.” House leaders plan to allow “three hours of formal debate” on Kucinich’s measure.

Nearly “200 women who served as military pilots during World War II as part of the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP) program” will finally be recognized in a ceremony at the Capitol tomorrow, where they will be awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. The women “did everything the men did except participate in combat.”

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear a case dealing with the free speech rights of Fred Phelps’ Westboro Baptist Church, an anti-gay hate group. The court will “consider an appeal from the father of a slain Marine” whose $5 million verdict against the church was overturned by an appeals court.

And finally: Disgraced former congressman Mark Foley returned to the public eye yesterday when he went to a speech by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney at the Forum Club in Florida. “People have been begging me to come back to the Forum Club,” said Foley, who was a regular before his 2006 scandal.

Follow ThinkProgress on Twitter.

The Oklahoma legislature is currently locked in a dispute over whether to tackle the state’s divorce rate, the third-highest in the nation. Although some Republicans are pushing the legislation, other conservatives are outraged at the “government intrusion” into their private lives:

Republican members proposed three pieces of legislation imposing new regulations on marriage and divorce in Oklahoma. Two of the measures were defeated, but another — requiring counseling for those planning to wed, and therapy sessions for couples considering divorce — is awaiting action.

The issue has produced sharp clashes among conservative colleagues who normally find themselves in agreement. The debates have featured charges of hypocrisy and of betraying Republican principles against government intrusion into private lives. [...]

“How far do I want government to come into my home and your home about private personal matters?” asked Rep. Leslie Osborn, a Republican from Tuttle, in a debate. She referred to state government as a “huge monster.”

ThinkProgress spoke with state Rep. Jeannie McDaniel (D), who opposes the divorce bills because one hour of counseling — as proposed by one of the measures — won’t make a major difference in people’s marriages:

We know that one hour of counseling doesn’t do anything. We have counseling programs, especially in Family and Children Services…for families that are going through divorce who have children…and those have proven to be very effective. And they’re paid for by our Department of Human Services; they have grants available. They’ve been in place for over 14 years. They have a very high success rate of good outcomes. … They [participants in the programs] sort of laughed at this and said, “One hour, you’ve got to be kidding?” And it can be by anybody — it can be by your priest, it can be by a faith-based counselor.

McDaniel noted that some of the strongest debates on the divorce measures are coming from within the Republican Party, many of whom are against the government intervention. However, some of their concern rings a bit hollow; some of these same lawmakers — including Osborn — have had no problem imposing “government intrusion” into women’s “private lives.” Last fall, the Oklahoma passed a law that would have collected personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and posted them on a public website. (The Oklahoma County District Court struck down the law last month because it covered too many topics for one piece of legislation.)

McDaniel noted that Republican lawmakers are now putting forth several anti-choice measures once again, as single bills. Just last week, for example, the state House passed a measure “that would require a woman be given a description of ultrasound images of her unborn child and be offered those images before getting an abortion.” Rep. Dan Sullivan (R), the sponsor of the abortion website legislation, opposed the divorce counseling bill in a Feb. 22 vote.

Oklahoma also bans same-sex couples from marrying — a clear “government intrusion” into private life that many Republican lawmakers seem to find perfectly acceptable.

Tony Perkins, president of the far-right Family Research Council, said that he endorses efforts to lower the divorce rate, as long as the government does not “mandate” them. “I prefer the carrot versus the stick,” said Perkins, who opposes marriage equality.

Bob Jones University

According to the Associated Press, home-schooling parents seeking textbooks that include evolution are finding the dominance of Christian-based materials to be isolating and frustrating. The publishers that largely control the home-school textbook market, which include Bob Jones University Press and Apologia Educational Ministries Inc., often include overt affirmations of Christianity and “stack the deck against evolution“:

“Those who do not believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God will find many points in this book puzzling,” says the introduction to “Biology: Third Edition” from Bob Jones University Press. “This book was not written for them.” The textbook delivers a religious ultimatum to young readers and parents, warning in its “History of Life” chapter that a “Christian worldview … is the only correct view of reality; anyone who rejects it will not only fail to reach heaven but also fail to see the world as it truly is.”

In 2007, 83 percent of home-schooling parents said they preferred to give their children “religious and moral instruction.” But science educators who have reviewed sections from some of the popular home-school books say the texts could “steer students away from careers in biology or the study of the history of the earth.” According to Jerry Coyne, an ecology and evolution professor at the University of Chicago, “These books are promulgating lies to kids.” When the AP asked for comment from Bob Jones University on the “History of Life” chapter criticized widely by scientists, a spokesman said the “ultimatum” inclusion was “an editing error” and would be excluded from future editions.

– Nick McClellan

During his reign as Senate Minority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has led his party to engage in an unprecedented level of obstruction — wielding the filibuster to block even routine bills and nominations while simultaneously lying about his own previous support of majority rule in the Senate.  No one has fared worse under McConnell’s blanket obstructionism than President Obama’s nominees to key government positions, ambassadorships and judgeships.  A massive 237 Obama nominees presently await Senate confirmation, yet Mitch McConnell has done nearly everything in his power to ensure that Obama’s nominees will never even receive a Senate vote.

Because the government includes several agencies and boards whose members are required by law to be bipartisan, however, the party-out-of-power’s Senate leader traditionally gets to make a few nominations of his own.  One such McConnell nominee is Sharon Browne, a nominee to the Legal Services Corporation’s board who fundamentally disagrees with the Corporation’s mission of providing legal services to the poor. Browne has spent most of her career with a right-wing litigation shop that repeatedly fought to cut off funding for indigent legal services; and she was a plaintiff in a court case which claimed that a method of funding legal services for poor Californians violated that state’s law. In other words, McConnell has selected someone to help lead the Legal Services Corporation who is committed to destroying the Legal Services Corporation.

Yet despite Browne’s obvious unfitness for this job, and despite the fact that her patron has fought tooth and nail to prevent President Obama’s nominees from even receiving a Senate vote, Senate HELP Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-IA) scheduled a committee vote on Browne’s nomination this Wednesday. Not one Democratic senator has taken a serious step to slow down Browne — such as placing a hold on the nomination — and she appears to be on track for confirmation.

Of course, it remains to be seen how Wednesday’s vote will go. Maybe HELP Committee Democrats will do the right thing and kill Browne’s nomination outright. It’s also possible that the HELP Committee members will lack sufficient spine to do so, but a minority of Senate Democrats will block Browne’s nomination by subjecting it to a McConnell-style filibuster. Or maybe Browne’s nomination will simply be rejected by the full Senate. Should the Senate majority allow Browne to be confirmed, however, they will send a clear message to Mitch McConnell and his ilk: “keep on blocking President Obama’s nominees, because there will be no consequences whatsoever if you do so.”

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) introduced a bill last week to cut pay for members of Congress by $8,700 a year — or five percent — and freeze their automatic cost-of-living increase. With Congress’ approval ratings “spiraling downward,” the cost-of-living pay increase “has become largely unpopular.” “Families across the country are getting by on lower wages…so why shouldn’t senators and representatives have to feel the same pinch?” Kirkpatrick said. The cut would be the first since the Great Depression:

The first-term congresswoman said she’s hopeful, given the enormous fiscal challenges facing the country, the measure can pass. She said she’s already started handing over 5 percent of her pay every month — or $870 — to help chisel away at the national debt. The monthly payment would have been less, but Kirkpatrick is, according to her office, paying extra to make up for the two months of 2010 she missed.

“I’m putting my money where my mouth is. I’m leading by example and I hope my colleagues will join me,” she said. [...]

“The last time Congress took a cut in pay was 77 years ago. I don’t know anyone who has not had a pay cut in 77 years.”

Members of Congress are currently paid $174,000 — leaders earn more — and Kirkpatrick’s office estimates the proposal would save $4.66 million a year. “Though it’s slight compared with the $12.5 trillion debt,” Kirkpatrick argued that it’s hard to justify the automatic pay increases in the current economic situation. So far, 21 lawmakers from both parties have signed on as co-sponsors and the measure is being considered in two House committees.

Tomorrow, conservative groups Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and Americans for Tax Reform are organizing a rally at the Georgia State Capitol to protest the state’s upcoming budget. The protest, like many recent anti-tax protests, is cloaked in an ideological veneer of fiscal conservatism and limited government. The invitation presents the rally, where Grover Norquist is speaking, as an opportunity to “cut spending and encourage economic growth.” But the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jim Galloway notes that the fine print at the bottom of the invitation e-mail says the list serv was paid for “by Altria Clint Services on behalf of Philip Morris USA”:

Notably, part of the new budget is a proposal to levy a dollar-a-pack cigarette tax. Both groups involved in the protest have a long history of astroturfing for corporations to build popular support for their policies. AFP is led by Tim Phillips, a longtime astroturf lobbyist who has used evangelical and conservative groups to lobby on behalf of corporations like Enron and the gambling industry. AFP was founded and continues to be funded by oil billionaire David Koch, who has aggressively used his group to oppose clean energy reforms that might cut into his business.

Palin speaking in Calgary, Canada

In November of 2009, Sarah Palin — who is always suggesting that health care reform will lead to socialism — insisted that Canada needs to reform its health care system to “let the private sector take over.” But this past Saturday in Calgary, Canada — at “her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska last summer” — Palin seemed to deviate from her fear of socialized Canadian medicine when she revealed that her family may have benefited from the Canadian system:

PALIN: We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada. And I think now, isn’t that ironic?

This isn’t the first time Palin highlighted the difficulty of obtaining affordable health care in America. During the presidential campaign, Palin discussed how she and her husband Todd had “gone though periods of our life here with paying out-of-pocket for health coverage until Todd and I both landed a couple of good union jobs.” At the vice presidential debate, Palin recalled times in her marriage “in our past where we didn’t have health insurance and we know what other Americans are going through as they sit around the kitchen table and try to figure out how are they going to pay out-of-pocket for health care?”

Palin’s experience also highlights the fact that American medical-tourism to Canada is common, despite conservatives’ claims that Canada’s health care system drives Canadians into the states. “Every year, thousands of Americans undergo surgery in other countries” where they can receive the same care “at half the price.” “In 2007, an estimated 750,000 Americans traveled abroad for medical care; this number is anticipated to increase to six million by 2010″ — far outpacing the number of Canadians coming into the United States for medical treatment. It’s good to know that Palin was once one of them.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)

Last year, the House of Representatives passed a bill reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration and devoting $70 billion to airport infrastructure through 2012. The bill also changed an inequity in labor law which has allowed FedEx to operate under the Railway Labor Act (RLA), while other shipping companies like UPS are governed by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

The RLA poses larger barriers to organizing than the NLRA, which has enabled FedEx to prevent its drivers from collectively bargaining. So the company has invested a lot of time and effort into blocking the change, including characterizing it as a “bailout” for UPS.

And FedEx has an ally in Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who is preventing the FAA reauthorization from moving in the Senate, until he receives assurance that the change in labor law won’t occur:

Corker’s action extends a years-long fight in Washington between the mostly non-union FedEx and its unionized rival United Parcel Service Inc. over how workers at both companies should be treated under U.S. labor laws. “We are supportive of the Senate FAA bill, but we have placed a hold until we can be assured that the controversial FedEx provision will not be included in the final legislation,” Laura Lefler Herzog, a spokeswoman for Corker, a Republican, said today in an e-mailed statement.

The Senate’s version of the FAA bill doesn’t actually include the change, but Corker wants to ensure that it isn’t added when the Senate bill is reconciled with the House version. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has also expressed his disapproval of the legislation. Both of these senators are invested in this issue because FedEx has its headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee.

While Corker, Alexander, and FedEx itself characterize the change as “singling out” FedEx, all it would do is level the playing field between FedEx and other shipping companies when it comes to unionizing. FedEx CEO Fed Smith — “who raised more than $100,000 for 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain and was George W. Bush’s fraternity brother” — has said that “I don’t intend to recognize any unions at Federal Express,” and the company successfully lobbied Congress in 1996 to keep its RLA status.

Not only does FedEx prevent unionization by keeping its status as an RLA-covered company, but it also systematically misclassifies its drivers as contractors (instead of full employees) so that they can’t organize. As American Rights at Work has pointed out, “by classifying nearly 15,000 drivers as independent contractors rather than employees, FedEx Ground lowers its labor costs by avoiding payroll taxes and benefits.” Its drivers are responsible for fuel and maintenance of the trucks, and are not provided with paid vacation or sick leave.

UPS spokesman Malcolm Berkley said that the change should be made because “we believe all drivers in the country, who are doing the same job, should be treated by the same law. To us, it is literally that simple.” But Corker’s obstruction is preventing that from happening.

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Lawmakers in Florida are hoping to pass a $75 million incentive package to attract movie studios to film in Florida, but a little noticed provision could deny tax credits to movies that feature gay or other “nontraditional family values.” Florida’s Entertainment Industry Economic Development Act would revise the current incentive program — which already offers a tax credit worth 2% of a movie’s production costs if it is “family friendly” — to specifically exclude movies that depict “nontraditional family values” from receiving the additional credit. Here is the relevant provision:

A certified production determined by the Commissioner of Film and Entertainment, with the advice of the Florida Film and Entertainment Advisory Council, to be family-friendly…Family-friendly productions are those that have cross-generational appeal; would be considered suitable for viewing by children age 5 or older…and do not exhibit or imply any act of smoking, sex, nudity, nontraditional family values, gratuitous violence, or vulgar or profane language. Under the current incentive program, review of the final release version is not required and nontraditional family values, gratuitous violence, and implied acts do not exclude a film from receiving this additional credit.

State representative Stephen Precourt, whose district includes Disney World, says the purpose of the credit is to encourage movies to depict cinematic life from the 1960s. “Think of it as like Mayberry,” Precourt told the Palm Beach Post News. “That’s when I grew up — the ’60s. That’s what life was like. I want Florida to be known for making those kinds of movies: Disney movies for kids and all that stuff. Like it used to be, you know?”

Precourt claims that his provision does not specifically target movies with gay characters but “asked if shows with gay characters should get the tax credit, he said, ‘That would not be the kind of thing I’d say that we want to invest public dollars in.’”

Florida has been recognized by eQualityGiving.com for being one of the least gay-friendly states in America. Florida has no statewide law prohibiting discrimination; its constitution prohibits gay marriage; and, it is the only state in the union that forbids gays from adopting children.

Today, former Bush adviser Karl Rove was on NBC’s Today Show to talk about his new book and how he became “a political mastermind.” In the interview, Rove addressed the fact that his adopted father might have been gay, and denounced critics who have used the story to attack him:

LAUER: It seems to me that their story — in particular this episode, an event in their story — is used by some to even go a step further, Karl. It is to say either you are one of two things: If you are the son of a gay man, then you were either traumatized by that — and that may be the reason for your stance against things like gay marriage — or that you’re a hypocrite. That you couldn’t feel that way about gay marriage being the son of a gay father.

ROVE: If he were gay, and that was sufficient grounds for him to reject me, he obviously didn’t. But that’s politics — our view in political issues, on issues of public policy can and should be divorced from our families. And our families shouldn’t be used as convenient targets to shoot at in order to get at people in politics.

Watch it:

Rove, however, has reportedly personally orchestrated such smears. In 2008, the Nation reported:

Rove invented a uniquely injurious fiction for his operatives to circulate via a phony poll. Voters were asked, “Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain…if you knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child?” This was no random slur. McCain was at the time campaigning with his dark-skinned daughter, Bridget, adopted from Bangladesh.

Roy Fletcher, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) deputy campaign manger, also said that the entire South Carolina smear “was orchestrated by Rove,” and Cindy McCain has reportedly said she would “stab” Rove.

In his talk with Lauer, Rove denied any involvement in attacking Bridget. “Nothing to do with it,” Rove said. “This is the kind of thing the media love, these kind of allegations. But for people in practical politics, I’ve got to tell you, I was seized with fear when this rumor began to circulate through South Carolina. It was sent out by a professor at Bob Jones University.”

Rove then went on to criticize McCain for not seeing the smear as “an enormous opportunity to give an insight into who he and his wife are.” “But rather than doing that, John McCain said, ‘I’m a victim,’ and was angry and complained about it and pointed the finger at Bush when he had no evidence whatsoever,” he added.

Rove was also involved in the leaking the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, in order to discredit her husband, Amb. Joseph Wilson, who was criticizing the Bush administration’s claims on Iraq.

Despite attacks by insurgents that killed at least 38 people in Baghdad, Iraqis “went to the polls in strength on Sunday to choose a new Parliament meant to outlast the American military presence,” with turnout higher than expected. President Obama said in a statement that he has “great respect for the millions of Iraqis who refused to be deterred by acts of violence.”

Republicans are criticizing the RNC for producing a fundraising document that includes a “racially charged depiction of President Barack Obama as the Joker from ‘Batman.’” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said the presentation is “unhelpful,” while Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called the presentation “shameful.”

A group of “leading conservative lawyers and policy experts” are denouncing Liz Cheney’s McCarthyite attacks on Justice Department lawyers as “shameful.” “We consider these attacks both unjust to the individuals in question and destructive of any attempt to build lasting mechanisms for counterterrorism adjudications,” wrote the 19 lawyers.

President Obama will met with Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) today to discuss their efforts to produce a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill. The meeting comes as immigration advocacy groups “are trying to organize tens of thousands of people from around the country for a March 21 demonstration in Washington.”

President Obama is expected to announce the nomination of ret. Gen. Robert Harding to lead the Transportation Security Administration. Harding “served in the Army for 33 years and…was the Defense Department’s top human intelligence officer.” Obama had previously chosen Erroll Southers for the position, but he withdrew from consideration after becoming “a lightning rod” for the GOP “political agenda.”

In an attempt to end the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration will start a new program that allows defaulting homeowners to sell their homes for less than they owe “and will give them a little cash to speed them on their way.” The program “could encourage hundreds of thousands of delinquent borrowers who have not been rescued by the loan modification program to shed their houses.”

Vice President Biden is scheduled to arrive in Jerusalem today just after Palestinian leaders agreed to indirect talks with Israel through U.S. mediators. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the time is “ripe for peace.” Both sides will issue a declaration announcing four months of negotiations.

U.S. troops are beginning to pull out of Haiti after helping “thousands of displaced, injured, and orphaned islanders affected by the massive January earthquake.” Meanwhile, the Senate “voted late last week to relieve Haiti of its debt” and mandated that “future aid to the island be given as grants and not loans.”

House Democratic leaders are considering “declaring a party-wide ban on earmarks this year.” The “dramatic move,” floated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in a meeting with leaders last week, would help House Democrats “outflank their Republican counterparts, who have mulled and rejected such a moratorium in recent years.”

And finally: How did House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) manage to keep his bronze glow during the D.C. blizzards?

Follow ThinkProgress on Twitter.

With President Obama endorsing the use of the budget reconciliation process in the Senate to finish health care reform, Republicans have flown into overdrive to discredit the simple majority procedural tool. Use of reconciliation would be “ripping a piece of the fabric of America off,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) on Saturday.

On CBS News’ Face The Nation today, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) declared that use of reconciliation “would be catastrophic.” Sensitive to charges of hypocrisy over the fact that Republicans have pushed legislation through the reconciliation process more often than Democrats have, Graham claimed that every time the GOP used reconciliation the bills “received bipartisan support”:

GRAHAM: Well, reconciliation will be used to clean up the Senate bill to make House members happy. House members are going to vote for the Senate bill and they hate it. And the Senate and the president saying, OK, we’re going to change what you don’t like.

And when it comes to the Republicans, you all don’t matter anymore. You just need a simple majority. So reconciliation will empower a bill that was very partisan. We’ve had reconciliation votes, but all of them had received bipartisan support. The least was 12 when we did reconciliation with tax cuts.

Watch it:

Graham’s claim that “the least” amount of Democratic votes a GOP reconciliation bill received “was 12″ is flat out false. As The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky has detailed, during the Bush presidency, the Republican-controlled Senate passed three reconciliation bills with three or less Democratic votes. The 2003 Bush tax cuts were supported by only two Democrats and needed Vice President Dick Cheney’s tie-breaking vote to pass:

Vote Count Bipartisan support?
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007* 79-12-9 Yes, although all 12 voting against it were Republicans Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005* 54-44-2 3 Democrats (Nelson (D-NE), Nelson (D-FL), Pryor (D-AR)) voted for it Deficit Reduction Act of 2005* 52-47 2 Democrats (Landrieu (D-LA) and Nelson (D-NE)) Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003* 50-50 2 Democrats (Nelson (D-NE) and Miller (D-GA)) voted for it Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001* 58-33-2-7 Yes Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000* 60-34-5 Yes Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999* 50-49 Yes, 3 Democrats (Breaux (D-LA), Landrieu (D-LA), Torricelli (D-NJ)) voted for it Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 92-8 Yes Balanced Budget Act of 1997* 85-15 Yes Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act* 74-24-2 Yes Balanced Budget Act of 1995* 52-47 Yes Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 49-49-2 No Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990* 54-46 Yes Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989* 87-7-6 Yes

In 2005, Graham voted for two of the reconciliation bills that passed with three or fewer Democratic votes, the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Transcript:
BAYH: But I do think that — a couple of things. And Lindsey will probably have a difference of opinion on this one. The bill that’s going to come before the Senate is not the large omnibus health care bill. It is instead a corrections bill that gets out the Cornhusker Kickback nobody liked, the special arrangement for Florida that many states objected. It treats middle class families a little bit better on the tax side of things. So it is a — it’s not one-sixth of the American economy. It’s a much smaller piece of legislation.

And secondly, my guess is that, you know, a lot of your viewers and Americans are looking at this, thinking, I don’t understand all of this procedural stuff. Let’s focus on the substance. And if you think that it’s actually going to be better for the American people, vote for it. And if you think it’s going to be harmful, don’t vote for it.

And for me, it was a close call in my mind on this bill. This is not the way I would have written it. But for me it eventually came down, we need to try something. It may not be perfect, but we need to try something. If it doesn’t work exactly the way we would hope, let’s come back and correct it.

But to just sit here year after year letting things fester, that’s not the right way to go.

GRAHAM: Well, reconciliation will be used to clean up the Senate bill to make House members happy. House members are going to vote for the Senate bill and they hate it. And the Senate and the president saying, OK, we’re going to change what you don’t like.

And when it comes to the Republicans, you all don’t matter anymore. You just need a simple majority. So reconciliation will empower a bill that was very partisan. We’ve had reconciliation votes, but all of them had received bipartisan support. The least was 12 when we did reconciliation with tax cuts.

So it is taking a partisan product and making it law. And I was in the Gang of 14. Remember the nuclear option with judges when we almost changed the rules? I was one of seven Democrats — seven Republicans, seven Democrats who said, don’t do that. Don’t pull the nuclear trigger. I’m glad I was in that gang. I got the heck beat out of me. We didn’t change the rules. This will be the same effect as if you had changed the rules for judges. It would be catastrophic.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s foreign policy mythology book tour continued on Fox News Sunday this morning. Romney started his interview saying that President Obama had engaged in an “apology tour.” This has been a standard conservative talking point in response to the massive positive shift in global attitudes toward America, as a result of President Obama’s diplomatic outreach.

However, Romney went further asserting that Obama’s words gave “support” to those saying the 9/11 attacks were a fabrication:

ROMNEY: It also adds fuel to the fire of those who are apart of the blame America crowd. I saw even Ahmadinejad is even saying 911 is a fabrication. These sorts of voices should not receive any kind of support from the words of the President of United States.

But I can tell you, that I am glad the the President reversed course in Iraq – he didn’t pull our troops out as he said during the campaign. He likewise supported our surge efforts in Afghanistan, having voted against the surge in Iraq… He has done some things right, but his apology tour was one of the things he did very very badly.

Watch it:

Romney’s outrageous claim that Obama’s words “support” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also belies the reality that the President’s outreach to the Iranian people helped bolster the movement for change within Iran that is intensely opposed to Ahmadinejad.

In his short answer to Chris Wallace, Romney was able to forward two more factually false statements. Romney seems to have no idea that US troops in Iraq are being pulled out at a fairly rapid rate that fits with the timeline outlined by candidate-Obama. There are now fewer than 100,000 troops in Iraq for the first time since the invasion.

Romney also claimed that the surge in Afghanistan was a GOP idea. This is completely wrong. During the 2006 and 2008 elections Democrats campaigned aggressively on shifting the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. Upon taking office Obama immediately authorized an increase in troop levels – something that President Bush refused to do – bringing US troop levels in Afghanistan to the highest they had ever been. He then authorized a further increase and a timeline for withdrawal with his West Point speech last fall.

Demonstrating again Fox News’ hilariously low standards, this morning Fox News’ Chris Wallace referred to Bill Kristol as an “expert in [the] area” of Iraq’s elections:

WALLACE: Bill, you certainly are an expert in this area. The two leading candidates seem to be the current prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, and the original prime minister [Ayad] Allawi. From the U.S. point of view, who would we rather see?

KRISTOL: I honestly don’t know. I think — the good news has been the degree of reformist parties and the new leaders who have begun to emerge in the Iraqi political system.

Watch it:

Kristol has spent the last decade proving that he doesn’t know. Here’s a classic example of Kristol’s Iraq “expertise” from 2003:

On this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.

Months later, Iraq would explode into a civil war driven by competing radical Sunni and Shia militias trying to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime.

Kristol’s propensity for error is so serious that, according to Newsweek’s Eric Margolis, Bill’s late father Irving Kristol sometimes lamented to an old family friend, “My poor son has got it wrong again.” Journalist Eric Alterman wrote in the Nation, “if one looks for a consistent pattern to Kristol’s perpetual wrongness, it’s not hard to discern. For Kristol is less interested in being correct than in advancing his side’s interests. He’s not a journalist; he’s an apparatchik working undercover as a man of the press.”

In other words, the perfect Fox News journalist.

For weeks now, Republicans have been grousing that, if Democrats use the budget reconciliation process to finish health care reform with a simple majority, it “would be unprecedented in scope.” “It would really be the end of the Senate as a protector of minority rights,” declared Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN). It would “harm the future of our country,” said Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). “They will lose their majority in Congress in November” if they use reconciliation, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) predicted.

On Fox News last week, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-AZ) declared that using reconciliation “to pass the most significant piece of public policy” of his lifetime would be “a railroading of the system”:

GREGG: We’re talking now about changing the entire way that health care is delivered in this country. We’re talking about taking the federal government and growing it from 20 percent of the economy to 25, 26 percent of the economy. We’re talking about changing the way that you and your doctor interact and you and your hospital — and your hospital treats you. These are huge public policy issues which really are way outside the reconciliation concept because they need debate. They need discussion. And they need to be subject to amendments on the floor of the Senate in order to do them correctly, or at least to have a proper airing of them and a fair treatment of them.

Watch it:

But this past week, the GOP has begun trying to downplay reconciliation in an effort to “scare House Democrats against voting for the health care plan, arguing that there’s no guarantee that the Senate approves a reconciliation package.” On CNBC, Gregg mused that “once they pass the great big bill, I wouldn’t be surprised if the White House didn’t care if reconciliation passed. I mean, why would they?” In an interview on Fred Thompson’s radio show, he even suggested that reconciliation was “almost irrelevant”

GREGG: But that’s what the game plan here is. Is to pass that bill, the big bill, and what they’re doing is they’re using this other bill, reconciliation, to basically buy off votes in the House from the more liberal members of the House who want to make this bill even bigger and more intrusive. And when they get those votes and they pass the big bill, that will go down to the president and it will be signed. And this side bill, which is called the reconciliation bill, will really become almost irrelevant. I mean, as a very practical matter, there isn’t really going to be a lot of people who really care whether it passes or not because they will have already gotten their massive bill through and it will be law.

Later in the interview, Gregg further contradicted his previous claims that reconciliation would be used as “an entire rewrite of the health care system of America.” “Even if they did something else, it would be at the margins. I mean it’s not going to dramatically impact what is this huge bill that will then be law,” said Gregg. Listen here:

Transcript:
THOMPSON: Let’s get right down to it. This reconciliation issue. It seems to me like there’s of course a lot of talk for a while there of reconciliation being so important and it’s obviously a cram down, it’s never been used in this way before. But now you’re having talk that well, it’s not all that important. The real issue is whether or not the House is going to pass the Senate bill, the one that the Senate has already passed. Which is bad news enough for those who are concerned about what the president’s trying to do. But that after they pass that bill, then they’ll try to do reconciliation, which will just be kind of odds and ends, so, reconciliation as such is not that important. Which one is it?

GREGG: Well, you’re absolutely right Fred. We don’t want to take our eye off the big enchillada so to say, which is this massive bill that passed the Senate, 2.5 trillion dollars of new government, a massive expansion of government into the health care area. Probably cause a lot of people to lose the health insurance they have today. If they like it, even if they do like it, it will raise the cost of small business a lot. And it will add two major new entitlements or expand one and add one to the federal register. So, we’ll end up with a lot of new bills going to our kids in the way of deficits and debt. It’s really a bad piece of fiscal policy. It’s a bad piece of health care policy. People were outraged about it when it passed the Senate and I think they should still be outraged about it. But that’s what the game plan here is. Is to pass that bill, the big bill, and what they’re doing is they’re using this other bill, reconciliation, to basically buy off votes in the House from the more liberal members of the House who want to make this bill even bigger and more intrusive. And when they get those votes and they pass the big bill, that will go down to the president and it will be signed. And this side bill, which is called the reconciliation bill, will really become almost irrelevant. I mean, as a very practical matter, there isn’t really going to be a lot of people who really care whether it passes or not because they will have already gotten their massive bill through and it will be law. The side bill is…

THOMPSON: The only…

GREGG: is coming back to the Senate to be voted on, but, and…

THOMPSON: People who will care, of course, will be those Democrats in the House that wanted through reconciliation to get some additional things done or taken out or what not. But for the American people it doesn’t matter whether or not those guys are disappointed, whether or not the Senate Democrat welch on their deal with their House brethern to do those things in reconciliation. I mean the Senate Democrats can just tell them to go fly a kite. We’ve got the major piece of legislation passed, so, you know, we indicated we might make you happy, but we decided not too and that would be the end of that, right?

GREGG: You’re absolutely right and that’s a perfect description of it. I mean, once you get this big bill through, this incredibly large piece of legislation, the biggest piece of legislation I’ve ever seen. Most intrusive 2,700 pages of new bureaucracy and news spending and new programs of government decisions on how you live your life. Once that’s through there isn’t going to be a whole lot of incentive for senators at least, on the other side of the aisle, my colleagues on the Democratic side to do anything else because they’ll have their bill. But even if they did something else, it would be at the margins. I mean it’s not going to dramatically impact what is this huge bill that will then be law. And remember once it becomes law, once the House of Representatives passes this thing, it’s going to be very hard to change it because even though we’ll do everything we can to repeal it and we’ll spend a lot of time talking about it and every Democrat who voted for it’s going to have to explain that for the next six months up to the election, we’re going to need two-thirds majorities to repeal it because that what it takes to override a presidential veto.

In recent days, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) has tried to simultaneously tear down President Obama’s proposals to reform healthcare, while defending his own legacy of reforming healthcare in Massachusetts. Romney’s health plan includes an expansion of Medicaid using $385 million in annual Federal money, as well as an individual mandate and a sliding scale of subsidies. Today, 98% of Bay State residents have quality, highly regulated coverage. Defending his plan last night, Romney told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren that the only way the Massachusetts “system can work” is by having an individual mandate.

Fighting to kill health reform, the right-wing has attacked the individual mandate as unconstitutional. Along with a cadre of Republican Congressmen, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC), John Ensign (R-NV), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have said that the individual mandate violates the constitution. Similarly, as a ThinkProgress investigation has found, insurance company lobbyists have orchestrated an effort to use state legislatures to pass resolutions condemning the individual mandate as unconstitutional. An individual mandate is absolutely necessary for health reform to work. Simply put, the right has hoped to kill health reform by undermining the individual mandate.

Today at the Press Club, Romney again tore into Obama’s efforts on health reform. After the speech, ThinkProgress caught up with Romney to ask him about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Romney refused to answer if the individual mandate, which underpins his own Massachusetts system, is even constitutional:

TP: What do you think about the current effort to declare the individual mandate as unconstitutional?

ROMNEY: You know I’ve got a long discussion that I could give you on that, but I’m in too harp hay of a hurry right now but I think we have that on the site.

TP: Do you think it’s constitutional though, I mean just as a quick answer.

ROMNEY: I think I’ve answered that the best way I can right now which is it’s a big topic and I’m happy to discuss it at length but I just can’t do it in the hall going to the elevator.

TP: Well I mean it is constitutional though, right?

Watch it:

On Romney’s website, there is no mention of the individual mandate. During the 2008 Republican primary, Romney famously crept to the far right, flip flopping on many core issues to appease the right-wing base. With Romney refusing to state if the core foundation of his own health plan is even constitutional, Romney is again pandering to far right conservatives.

Last year, Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), a close ally of Romney, said the Senate health reform bill “mirrors” the Massachusetts system Brown and Romney helped enact. And as Igor Volsky details, the current version of reform Congress is preparing to enact still resembles the Massachusetts plan, except that Obama’s reform proposals do far more to control costs. However, Romney is making a political calculation by attacking health reform. With Romney refusing to state if the core foundation of his own health plan is even constitutional, Romney is again pandering to far right conservatives.