ASS HYSTERIA.... It's been a few days since President Obama's interview on the "Today" show, and most of the political world has moved on. NBC's Matt Lauer suggested it is "not the time to meet with experts and advisers" about the oil spill, but rather, it's a time to "kick some butt." The president explained, "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."

I figured just about everything that could be said about this has been said, but that was before I saw Jeffrey Kuhner's column in the far-right Washington Times. Obama, Kuhner said, has "degraded the office of the presidency" by "being vulgar."

Mr. Obama should be ashamed of himself.... Mr. Obama occupies a sacred and noble position entrusted by the American people. His comments convey utter contempt for the office he occupies. This is street-gangster language more befitting a community organizer in the South Side of Chicago than the leader of the Free World.

Kuhner, a Times columnist, right-wing radio host, and think tank chief, wasn't kidding. His hysterical tirade was inspired entirely by the word "ass."

This three-letter word -- which didn't make the George Carlin list and isn't problematic to the FCC -- is, in Kuhner's mind, evidence of a president who has degraded his office, brought shame to himself, demonstrated contempt for the presidency, and with just a racial of racial animus, reminiscent of "street-gangster language."

And in case the subtext wasn't clear enough, Kuhner's column added that Obama "has been part of the nonproductive segments of society, the parasitical elements living off the wealth of the private sector."

All because of the word "ass."

There's a hysterical wing to the Republican Party, and it's strikingly odd.

RELIGIOUS RIGHT FEELS NEGLECTED AGAIN.... I can understand why the religious right movement isn't happy. Not only has society moved forward and left the movement's right-wing social standards behind, but their Republican friends haven't delivered much for them, either.

After religious right groups and leaders elected a GOP majority, Republican policymakers didn't do much to tackle the issues the movement cares about. Now the party is giving most of its attention to Tea Partiers -- many of whom are secular, and don't care about the culture war -- and the religious right is feeling left out again.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R), a possible presidential contender, went so far as to tell the Weekly Standard that the next president "would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. ... We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while."

It's just about sent the religious right over the edge.

A skirmish is breaking out on the right just when key components of the Republican coalition -- the fiscal, social and national-defense conservatives -- appeared to have a tacit agreement to focus on economic issues going into the 2010 midterm elections.

The dispute erupted Thursday when prominent social conservative Tony Perkins challenged Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels to retreat from his stance that abortion should be put on the political back burner until the nation overcomes its fiscal woes.

In his newsletter, the president of the Family Research Council complained that Mr. Daniels, widely considered an A-list contender in the 2012 Republican presidential contest, has become "noncommittal about his role as a pro-life leader."

Perkins added that the idea of culture-war truce is "astonishing."

The next step for religious right leaders is threatening to hold their breaths until Americans start paying more attention to their issues.

FROM THE BOARD ROOM TO THE WAR ROOM.... There's no shortage of candidates this year who've never sought or held elected office, but who are running for high office based on their business experience. Karen Tumulty reports today on the larger phenomenon, and notes that it often goes poorly.

As Meg Whitman, California's new Republican gubernatorial nominee, puts it, she and GOP Senate pick Carly Fiorina are the "worst nightmare" of career politicians: "two businesswomen from the real world who know how to create jobs, balance budgets and get things done."

Is she right? There is a long history of executives attempting to make the leap into public office.... The trouble is, by and large, CEOs have turned out to be pretty mediocre politicians.

There are, of course, exceptions, and Tumulty takes note of NYC's Michael Bloomberg (I) and Virginia's Mark Warner (D). But there are many more CEOs who've either lost despite spending enormous sums, or won and failed in office.

But most of the analysis covers successful business leaders who try to make the transition to public office. What I find fascinating is when awful business leaders try to parlay private-sector failure into political success.

Take Carly Fiorina, for example. Fiorina is the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate in California this year, and her most notable accomplishment is having served as the CEO of Hewlett-Packard. The key detail to remember, however, is that Fiorina was laughably bad at her job.

During a June 9, 2010 appearance on Fox News' On the Record, Carly Fiorina attempted to deflect criticism of her tenure as CEO of Hewlett Packard, claiming, "I'm really proud of my record, and the good thing about business is the facts are clear." The facts are clear, but they're nothing Fiorina should be proud of. She fired at least 18,000 people, sent jobs overseas, instigated a disastrous merger with Compaq, and was eventually fired.

I'm hard pressed to imagine what she's even thinking running for the Senate. It doesn't occur to most folks to think, "Well, I just got fired for running my company poorly. Next step: U.S. Senate!"

LETTING A RARE OPPORTUNITY SLIP AWAY.... The vote was far closer than it should have been, but a narrow Senate majority rejected Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-Alaska) scheme to undercut the EPA. That's the good news. The bad news, the vote made it increasingly obvious that the Senate doesn't want to address energy policy this year, an impression reinforced later in the day.

Senate Democratic leaders and chairmen emerged from a meeting on climate change Thursday with no decisions on how or whether to move forward with legislation this summer, with some saying there is little appetite among even the chairmen with jurisdiction over the issue to take on the politically dicey topic this year.

Senate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) said the "dominant concern" in the meeting of six chairmen and five Members of the Senate leadership was whether Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) have 60 votes to beat back an expected filibuster of their bill to regulate greenhouse gases.

"What's the point of doing anything without 60 votes?" Rockefeller asked. "I think there's some feeling that you don't spend time on the floor trying to figure out if you've got 60 votes. You have to understand before you go to the floor that you have 60 votes."

He added there is some worry that the legislation could cause political problems for some vulnerable Members of the Democratic Conference. He said most of the participants at the meeting had concerns about embarking on a wide-ranging climate change debate this year, but he noted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did not take a position.

Rockefeller is not exactly a credible voice on the subject -- he was one of six Dems who voted for the Murkowski measure -- but his comments nevertheless shed light on a larger truth. Some key senators are looking for excuses to let the initiative die, rather than looking for solutions on how to get it done.

Greg Sargent noted last night, "[I]n the wake of possibly the worst environmental calamity in our history, this is, well, freakin' insane."

I couldn't agree more. Look, this need not be complicated. Our existing energy policy is a mess; global warming is getting worse; our international competitors are getting way ahead of us in investing in a next-generation energy framework; and our dependence on oil is undermining the nation's interests in a wide variety of ways.

There's a reasonable, modest bill -- the American Power Act -- on the table, which was crafted by a Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent. It doesn't go far enough, but it addresses global warming; it reduces our oil dependence; it improves American competitiveness; it creates jobs in a critical industry; and it lowers the budget deficit. The effort enjoys the support of the president, and the leadership of both chambers, and polls show public support for this kind of effort -- support that's growing in the midst of a disastrous oil spill.

And yet, Republicans refuse to even consider acting, and a few too many Democrats are scared to try.

If nothing gets done this year, an opportunity like this one will not emerge again for quite a while. The consequences of failure will be severe.

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* I'll believe it when the checks arrive: "Oil giant BP, under mounting pressure to meet its obligations in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, has agreed to implement a more transparent and expedited claims process to pay individuals and businesses harmed by the disaster, U.S. officials said Thursday."

* Is BP doing enough to protect the health of workers fighting the oil spill in the Gulf? Probably not.

* President Obama spent about an hour today with the families of those killed if the Deepwater Horizon explosion.

* House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is still working out his argument when it comes to taxpayers being on the hook for the disaster in the Gulf.

* Afghanistan: "A suicide bomb ripped through a wedding party for a family with ties to police in the Taliban's heartland in Afghanistan, killing at least 40 people and wounding dozens more, officials said Thursday."

* Things aren't going as well as we hoped in Kandahar, and Gen. McChrystal wants more time.

* New applications for unemployment benefits -- still too high.

* After recent events in Arkansas, at least the White House seems to realize it needs to mend some fences with labor.

* The conference committee on Wall Street reform got to work today.

* GOP lawmakers in Tennessee tried to pass measures to block the Affordable Care Act at the state level. They failed. (thanks to reader P.A. for the tip)

* Glenn Greenwald references this post of mine from December in a critical way, but re-reading what I wrote, I think the larger point stands up pretty well. Yglesias has some related thoughts.

* A college degree is hardly a guarantee when it comes to staying out of poverty.

* The press conference on the Hill today on mohair subsidies went surprisingly badly for Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). Put it this way: it's a bad sign when members of Congress leave a press conference bleeding.

* If it's all right with Politico, I'd prefer we skip the discussion over what White House officials are wearing.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

SENATE REJECTS 'BIG OIL BAILOUT' -- BARELY.... The very idea was absurd. The government is going to have to regulate carbon emissions to combat global warming, and if Congress refuses to act, the Environmental Protection Agency can use the Clean Air Act to move forward.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), working with oil company lobbyists, crafted a scheme to deal with the problem a different way -- push a rarely-used tactic through the Senate that would strip the EPA of its authority to act. The idea, known in some corners as Murkowski's "Big Oil Bailout," would allow Republicans to block Congress from tackling the problem and block the administration from taking any action.

The gambit needed 51 votes. It came just a few votes short.

The final roll call was 47 to 53. Every single Republican -- including so-called moderates Snowe, Collins, and Brown -- voted against science, against the environment, and for Murkowski's scheme. They were joined by a few too many Democrats, including Sens. Bayh, Rockefeller, Pryor, Landrieu, Lincoln and Ben Nelson.

The argument pushed by Murkowski and her allies was that the power to act should rest in the hands of lawmakers, not EPA officials. (It was a rather pathetic argument from those who don't want lawmakers to act, either.) But immediately after the measure failed, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) called their bluff: if they think lawmakers should take the lead, now's their chance to play a constructive role in passing a comprehensive climate/energy bill.

[Kerry and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)] called on those who supported today's measure to strip greenhouse gas regulation authority from the EPA to step up and support the American Power Act.

"The Senate made the right decision today but the big question is what comes now. Many supporters of the Murkowski resolution argued passionately that climate change is real but that addressing it is a job for Congress not the EPA. We hope they will now engage with us to pass our pro-business, pro-jobs approach so the EPA doesn't have to do the job that the Senate has failed to do," the Senators said in a joint statement. "We have an unprecedented coalition of business supporters standing behind our bill, including many who have successfully killed previous legislation. They know that the American Power Act is not your grandfather's climate bill. It contains business incentives and provisions that non-partisan analysts agree will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, protect consumers, and put us on a path towards energy independence. Now we face a test of whether the Senate can do what even the Murkowski resolution's proponents said we should be doing."

That's a very good message. I'm just skeptical about its efficacy.

Today's vote was heartening, to the extent that a ridiculous idea failed. But the margin points in a very discouraging direction -- Republicans will block any and all legislation related to global warming, and demand a 60-vote majority. As of today, not one GOP senator is prepared to do their duty and take this issue seriously. Literally, not one.

I'm delighted Murkowski's "Big Oil Bailout" failed, but I'm hard pressed to imagine how supporters of evidence, science, and common sense will navigate the road forward.

PAUL BROUN'S CREATIVE MEMORY.... The 2008 financial industry bailout continues to be a problematic issue for Republicans. Nearly two years later, they're still anxious to use it against lawmakers who supported it -- it's a strategy that's working in some primaries -- but there are some lingering pesky details, including the fact that it was championed by conservative Republicans.

To be sure, the industry rescue has become something of a litmus test -- if you supported TARP, the right can't support you -- but it requires some revisionist history. After all, the bailout enjoyed support from the administration (Bush and Cheney), the House Republican leadership (Boehner, Cantor, and Blunt), the Senate Republican leadership (McConnell and Kyl), the Republican presidential ticket (McCain and Palin), and assorted, high-profile conservative voices (Mitt Romney and Glenn Beck).

Not exactly a left-wing bunch.

So, what to do? If you're Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.), you blame former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson -- and then you change his party affiliation.

"I wanted to put some perspective on 2008, too. That's when the President's chief economic adviser -- I guess the Treasury Secretary -- told him that the sky was falling and that we needed to pass the Toxic Asset Relief Program, or TARP, which many Republicans voted against. I didn't buy the Democratic Treasury Secretary under a Republican President because that's exactly what Hank Paulson is."

First, Paulson was a Republican. Does anyone seriously think Bush/Cheney would choose a Democratic Treasury Secretary?

Second, the sky really was falling.

Third, I'd like to thank Broun for using the word "Democratic." He probably meant to get it wrong on purpose, but it was good to hear a congressional Republican getting the majority party's name right.

THE BOEHNER BACKPEDAL.... Following up on an earlier item, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) probably realizes how politically problematic his remarks were this morning.

To briefly recap, Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued last week that American taxpayers should help shoulder the costs of the BP oil spill disaster. Given the affection between the Chamber and congressional Republicans, Brian Beutler asked Boehner, "Do you agree with Tom Donohue of the Chamber that the government and taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill?"

Boehner endorsed het Donohue line: "I think the people responsible in the oil spill -- BP and the federal government -- should take full responsibility for what's happening there."

Soon after, Boehner's spokesperson said the Minority Leader "didn't understand" what Beutler asked. Now, Boehner's office is saying we didn't understand the Minority Leader's answer.

According to Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, the GOP leader stood by what he's said since May 3 -- "Not a dime of taxpayer money should be used to clean up [BP's] mess."

"He's said for a month now that BP will bear the full burden of this disaster," said Steel.

The "responsibility" Boehner was talking about was not taxpayer money cleaning up the spill. It was whatever reform and restructuring comes after the leak is stopped.

Beutler's inquiry wasn't exactly vague: "Do you agree with Tom Donohue of the Chamber that the government and taxpayers should pitch in to clean up the oil spill?" It's a pretty easy yes-or-no question. Boehner certainly seemed to agree with Donohue's sentiment, and the answer he gave to reporters is quite a ways from the "clarification" from his office.

Apparently, we've begun the phase in which the meaning of the word "responsibility" is parsed.

If Dems stay on the offensive, this will remain a political problem for the GOP.

Update: Speaking of staying on the offensive, Jim Manley, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), issues a statement this afternoon calling on Republicans to explain whether they agree with Boehner or not.

"Leader Boehner just took Republicans' defense of special interests to a whole new level by saying taxpayers should pay to clean up BP's mess. This may explain why Republicans have repeatedly blocked Democrats' attempts to hold BP accountable, and why today they're trying to hand a $47 billion giveaway to Big Oil.

"Senate Republicans should tell the American people whether they agree with Leader Boehner's comments. The public deserves to know whether Republicans are going to join Democrats to hold BP accountable, or just continue to protect big oil companies -- the same way Republicans have protected big banks and health care companies."

CHRIS WALLACE SLIPS, TELLS THE TRUTH.... Officially, Fox News and its various personalities try to maintain the fiction that it's an objective, independent news outlet. No serious person believes that, but the Republican network likes to keep the facade going.

At least most of the time, that is. This morning, Fox News' Chris Wallace -- ostensibly, one of the people at the network with some standards of professionalism -- talked to Don Imus about Helen Thomas' seat in the White House press briefing room, now that she's retired. The radio host said Fox News deserves the front-row chair, and Wallace not surprisingly agreed.

But it's how he agreed that was interesting. As Wallace explained it, Fox News getting the seat would be "payment for Helen Thomas," because "obviously, she was very far to the left wing." Wallace added, "If her seat were to be taken by Fox News, it would just be kind of poetic justice."

Of course, it's obvious exactly what he meant -- Thomas was to the left, Fox News is a Republican outlet. It would be "justice," from Wallace's perspective, precisely because it's payback, trading someone from one end of the spectrum for someone at the opposite end.

Imus noticed the implicit concession, and called Wallace on it. The "Fox News Sunday" host quickly realized he'd gone too far. "Well, I just realized that's probably not the way to go on this," he said, with a very different tone in his voice. "We're fair and balanced."

Sure you are, Chris. Sure you are.

I'm not entirely clear on who, exactly, makes the decision on who gets the front-row chair going forward, but here's hoping Wallace's accidental truth has some bearing on the evaluation. Fox News is a propaganda outlet, not a legitimate news organization with professional standards.

And once in a while, its on-air talent will even admit it.

KRISTOL THE CLOWN.... In dealing with the BP oil spill disaster, NBC's Matt Lauer suggested to President Obama this week that "this is not the time to meet with experts and advisers," but rather, it's a time to "kick some butt."

The president explained, "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."

There's been a little too much scrutiny of this, most of it focused around the word "ass." The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol, however, has his own unique take on the remarks. (via Jon Chait)

Guess the criticism of him as a professor and seminar leader has gotten to him. But his pseudo-macho defense of "talking to experts" is itself professorial: He talks to experts so he'll "know whose ass to kick." Real men don't need experts to tell them whose asses to kick.

As Adam Serwer put it, "There's so much stupid in this sentence you could freebase it."

As a rule, when chickenhawk neocons start beating their chest and talking about "real men," it's time to reach for the Maalox. But Kristol's nonsense is especially nauseating because it reinforces his most disturbing qualities.

To hear Kristol explain it, "real men" should just "kick ass," regardless of guidance from those who know what they're talking about. This is, to be sure, anti-intellectualism taken to a pathetic level, but it also points to a fundamental recklessness that permeates far-right thought.

In Kristol's vision, one imagines President Obama would head down to the Gulf Coast with a baseball bat, swinging it wildly in a variety of directions, like a blindfolded child aiming for a pinata. Obama could presumably ask someone what direction to swing the bat in, but that would be a sign of weakness -- if the president is a "real man," he'll just know intuitively who deserves a beating.

Remember, Bill Kristol is one of the most influential voices in Republican politics. When I lament the intellectual bankruptcy of the right in the 21st century, this is what I'm talking about.

BOEHNER WANTS YOU TO PICK UP THE TAB.... Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, raised a few eyebrows last week when he addressed the costs of the BP oil spill disaster. While President Obama and congressional Democrats have been emphasizing the need for the oil giant to pay for its own catastrophe, Donohue said he wanted to spread the burden around.

"Everybody is going to contribute to this clean up; we are all going to have to do it," he said. "We are going to have to get the money from the government and from the companies and we will figure out a way to do that."

And when Donohue says "money from the government," that necessarily means money from American taxpayers. When he says "we" are "all" going to have to bear the financial burden, Donohue is suggesting the public and BP split the tab.

Of course, congressional Republicans and the Chamber of Commerce are joined at the hip. Does the GOP agree with their buddy Donohue about taxpayers helping pay for the disaster? Actually, yes. Brian Beutler has this report.

In response to a question from TPMDC, House Minority Leader John Boehner backed Tom Donohue, President of the Chamber of Commerce, in saying taxpayers should help pick up the tab.

"I think the people responsible in the oil spill -- BP and the federal government -- should take full responsibility for what's happening there." [...]

The Chamber is extremely influential in Republican politics, so on that level it's not particularly surprising that Boehner has Donohue's back on this one. But the politics of asking the federal government (i.e. taxpayers) to help cover the multi-billion dollar cleanup and rescue efforts are deadly. Look for Democrats to jump all over this one.

As well they should. Politically, this is a potential game-changer. There's ample polling data that reflects public frustration about the disaster in the Gulf, and that's certainly understandable. But if the cost debate turns partisan -- Dems want BP to pick up the tab; Republicans want you to pick up the tab -- it can change the politics of the story in a hurry.

Does Boehner really want to see Republican candidates explaining this fall why they want their constituents to pay for BP's disaster? The 30-second ads write themselves.

Update: Boehner's office is now trying to walk this back. The spin, however, isn't especially persuasive.

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Despite party pressure, Rep. Gresham Barrett (R), at least for now, refuses to drop out of the Republican gubernatorial runoff against state Rep. Nikki Haley. The election is in two weeks.

* Despite his scandalous past, ethical problems, and lack of any government experience at any level, Rick Scott is now leading Florida's Republican gubernatorial primary. A new Quinnipiac poll shows him leading state Attorney General Bill McCollum, 44% to 31%.

* The same poll shows another neophyte, Jeff Greene, closing the gap in the Senate Democratic primary, trailing Rep. Kendrick Meek by just two points, 29% to 27%, with "undecided" in the lead with 37%.

* In Connecticut, a new Quinnipiac poll shows Richard Blumenthal (D) leading Linda McMahon (R) in the open Senate race, 55% to 35%. Blumenthal's 20-point lead is down slightly from a month ago.

* It seems unfathomable, but a new Rasmussen poll shows Sharron Angle (R) leading Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) in Nevada's Senate race, 50% to 39%.

* In California, Rasmussen shows state Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) narrowly leading former eBay CEO Meg Whitman (R) in their gubernatorial contest, 45% to 44%.

* Despite the controversy surrounding his repeated public falsehoods, Rep. Mark Kirk (R) leads Illinois' Senate race in the latest Rasmussen poll, with Kirk ahead of state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) by three, 42% to 39%.

* Daily Kos has dropped Research 2000 as its pollster.

* A ballot measure was approved in California this week that may have a significant impact on the state's elections. The measure "puts in place an unusual 'top two' primary election process [that] could lead to a renaissance for centrist lawmakers."

NAF EVENT.... That panel discussion the Washington Monthly is co-hosting with the New America Foundation will get started in about a half-hour. As I've mentioned, it's about federal regulators and doing more to make regulatory agencies more effective.

You can watch the event online here.

THEOCRATIC JUDGES FALL SHORT.... We talked last week about a group of Christian conservative attorneys in Southern California who were running for the San Diego Superior Court. They were surprisingly candid about their intentions: they considered themselves to be on a "mission from God," and wanted to impose their theocratic views on the public. Instead of making decisions based on the rule of law, these four judicial candidates vowed to base rulings on "Christian values."

To follow up, it's worth noting that all of the theocrats lost this week.

Four Christian lawyers who vowed to be God's ambassadors on the bench have lost their bids to oust four San Diego Superior Court judges.

With 100 percent of precincts reporting early yesterday, incumbent judges Lantz Lewis, Joel Wohlfeil, Robert Longstreth, and DeAnn Salcido handily beat the conservative attorneys.

Craig Candelore, Larry "Jake'' Kincaid, Bill Trask, and Harold J. Coleman Jr. garnered no more than 35 to 40 percent of each race's vote. They were backed by pastors, gun enthusiasts, and opponents of abortion and same-sex marriages.

The results, fortunately, were not close.

Judge Lewis, who has been on the bench for two decades, told the Union-Tribune, "I think it's confirmation that the electorate recognizes the importance of judicial independence."

Imagine that.

The more the nation's Taliban wing suffers these kinds of setbacks, the better. That said, the local right-wing "movement" backing the candidates has vowed to try again.

DOUBLING DOWN ON THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT.... There are more than a few issues dominating the public discourse right now, but with an eye on the midterm elections, a new push is getting underway today to promote the merit of Democrats' new health care reform law.

And as part of the effort, this 60-second ad will begin running this week on cable television, touting not only the new law, but blasting Republican efforts to repeal popular provisions. (Also note, the DNC's ad refers to the new law as the "Affordable Care Act." I credit Yglesias.)

Democratic officials have been saying for months that they see no reason to be embarrassed about delivering this historic victory, and the party now appears to taking concerted steps to boost the popularity of their success.

Dems even seem to be approaching this with some swagger. "Oh how the worm has turned," said DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse. "A majority of Americans want to give the law a chance, benefits are rolling to young people, seniors and small businesses and in the only race general election style race so far where the Republican ran on repeal, the special in PA12, he lost ... overwhelmingly."

This push also coincides with new rebate checks that will be sent to about 4 million American seniors who fall into the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" coverage gap. The $250 checks start going out today -- slightly ahead of schedule, no less.

What's more, Christina Bellantoni reports that the DNC's Organizing for America is hosting a series of events to help promote the new health care benefits that are already kicking in.

The timing may not be ideal -- the national focus seems to be far more on energy and environmental policy right now -- but the push may help give a boost to the law's popularity, which would in turn improve Democratic candidates' standing in advance of the miterms.