If he was tainted before, he is covered in Blago stain now:

Roland W. Burris acknowledged Saturday that the brother of former Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich solicited a campaign contribution from him several times in the weeks and months before Mr. Blagojevich appointed Mr. Burris to succeed President Obama as Illinois’s junior senator. . . . Mr. Burris said he provided the new affidavit to “supplement” earlier sworn testimony he gave before state lawmakers seeking to impeach Mr. Blagojevich. . . . [D]uring his testimony in January before the impeachment committee — just before he was seated in the Senate — Mr. Burris was asked directly whether he had talked to any person on a list of Blagojevich confidants . . . , but mentioned nothing of Rob Blagojevich’s more recent efforts seeking campaign contributions.

. . . “If it turns out this was some sort of attempt to avoid this coming out as part of the appointment process, then he doesn’t deserve to be senator,” Christine Radogno, the Republican leader of the State Senate, told The Sun-Times. “I think the whole thing stinks to high heaven.”

The Burris appointment always stunk to high heaven. This revelation makes it stink on the other side of the universe. And yeah, 'I told you so.' SusanG has the Illinois GOP demanding a perjury investigation. Guess what? There are grounds for it.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias writes an interesting post on the political delusions of Republicans and their enablers in the Drudge/Halperin Media. But in the end, Yglesias' best, and obvious insight (except to those fascinated by 11 dimensional chess) is this:

I’ll be the first to tell you that none of this will matter very much if the economy is in the toilet in 2012.

Indeed. Elections are, first and foremost, referendums on the governing party. I suggest those who are really interested in Democratic success worry more about whether the Obama Administration's policies will work than whatever antics the GOP is pulling. Cuz that's gonna decide the political health of the Democratic Party for the next decade at least. Given the situation in the country, President Obama can lead Dems to FDR-like dominance or Jimmy Carter-like enfeeblement. I think the Bill Clinton Third Way is no longer on the menu.

Speaking for me only

Glenn Greenwald discusses a John Judis piece about the absence of a progressive flank in our political discourse. Both pieces are good and the themes not unfamiliar to readers of this blog. As if to confirm the thesis forwarded by Judis, Greenwald and others (including me), DemfromCt at daily kos played the "unhinged" card on Krugman, in the best traditions of A Sullivan (prior to his conversion from adulating Bush to adulating Obama) because Krugman was critical of Obama on the stimulus package. But it also brought to mind the attacks, led by Atrios , on Ben Smith, who suggested there would be little progressive pushback against "entitlement reform." Atrios wrote:

I watched with inappropriate amusement as Obama DOJ spokesman reporter Marc Ambinder relayed Glenn Greenwald's queries to anonymous Justice Dept officials. The upshot?

[T]he Obama Administration has no plans to do [renounce the expansive Bush view of the state secrets doctrine] formally. They're sensitive to the politics of the case, but they're not motivated by what civil libertarians may write on their blogs

(Emphasis supplied.) As I wrote earlier in a comment, "up yours" to the ACLU used to be known as "triangulation" when a certain William Jefferson Clinton did it. Today it is known as "11 dimensional chess." Another episode today demonstrates the transformation of "triangulation" into "11 dimensional chess:"

Via Lambert:

We deal in reality," said Nancy Keenan, the president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "You have to be pragmatic, realistic and, in the end, strategic."

Absurd. When the issue activist announces publically they are ready to sell out on the issue they are supposed to be agitating for, what can you expect from the pols they are agitating? Nothing, of course. Some activism.

Speaking for me only

This is an interesting thought.

[The 1.8 million admirers who gathered on the Mall to hear President Obama's inaugural address] was probably the largest pro-government demonstration in U.S. history.

A pro-government demonstration. Think about that. Americans turning out to celebrate government as a force for good. I think Michael Kazin is correct when he writes:

That spirit is probably strong enough to withstand the news that some high-placed Obama appointees had failed to pay their taxes -- and may even be bolstered by the president's apology for "screwing up" the process.

[more ...]

Refreshing candor from an American president:

“I’ve got to own up to my mistake, which is that ultimately it’s important for this administration to send a message that there aren’t two sets of rules,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with NBC News. “You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes.” ...

He added, “I’m here on television saying I screwed up and that’s part of the era of responsibility.”

After living for eight years with a president who could admit no mistakes, Obama's frank admission of "screwing up" is change for the good.

Murray Waas has a new article up on Talking Points Memo in which he reports that Karl Rove's attorney says Rove will cooperate with the the federal grand jury probe of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

Murray has more info on his own site.

Rove has been interviewed by investigators in the internal DOJ probe into the prosecution of former AL Governor Don Siegelman.

The criminal investigation into the firings is being led by Nora Dannehy, the Acting U.S. Attorney for Connecticut.

Luskin said that Rove "has not and will not assert any personal privileges." He also said that in regard to the earlier probe, Rove had not done so, but had rather only "followed the guidance of the White House."

Go read Murray for why he thinks Rove won't cooperate in the Judiciary Committee probe and why Obama won't invoke executive privilege.

Tom Daschle, plagued by questions about his failure to pay taxes on a car and driver that an equity firm provided for his use, has withdrawn his nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. That decision renders moot this discussion by five tax experts about whether Daschle's erroneous tax filings should have prevented his confirmation (consensus answer: no).

Nancy Killefer announced earlier today that she would not serve as chief performance officer because of her own tax issues.

Harvey the Bum, who hasn't worked and therefore hasn't had to file tax returns for the last decade, remains available for a White House appointment.

In 1933, Congress enacted the Buy American Act:

. . . [O]nly such unmanufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been mined or produced in the United States, and only such manufactured articles, materials, and supplies as have been manufactured in the United States substantially all from articles, materials, or supplies mined, produced, or manufactured, as the case may be, in the United States, shall be acquired for public use.

Despite the existence of this law, a Buy American provision was attached to the House stimulus plan. I neither understand the clamor for this provision nor the opposition to it. It seems superfluous to me. What am I missing?

Speaking for me only

After making the splashy headline about limiting executive compensation pay (which is fine, but does nothing to help the economy), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) stuck in the shiv to House Democrats. From a HuffPo interview:

McCASKILL: I think that there have been some mistakes made [by House Dems]. From my perspective there have been mistakes made on the stimulus bill. There has been such a starvation diet for some of these programs that the appropriators got a little over anxious in the House. They probably did some things they shouldn't have...

We do need to look at the safety net side of the stimulus bill that can get into the economy quickly. But we can't right every wrong in terms of programs we support in the stimulus bill. And the other thing is, whether it is the National Endowment of the Arts or some of the STD funding or contraceptive funding, all we did was just tee up ammunition for the other side to tear this thing down. And I would like to think we are smarter than that. I'm hopeful on the Senate side we will be smarter than that.

[MORE . . .]

The Senate passed a bill yesterday that will expand health insurance coverage for children. The 66-32 vote included 9 Republicans who favored the bill. The House passed the bill two weeks ago by a vote of 289-139 with the support of 40 Republicans. Two previous efforts to enact the law met with George Bush vetoes, but President Obama will sign the bill into law.

One of the most significant sections of the child health bill would allow states to use federal money to cover children and pregnant women who are legal immigrants. Under existing law, legal immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for five years after they enter the United States.

[more ...]