* Should Obama drop his aggressive posture on jobs and try to compromise more with Republicans, as reporters suggested at today’s presser? Steve Benen gently reminds them that there’s a whole history here that’s vaguely relevant.
* David Corn translates the question reporters asked today:
“Mr. President, why aren’t you bending over backward to negotiate with a political opposition that threatened economic default in order to get its way?”
* Jonathan Cohn spells it out in Dick and Jane speak — no, Obama’s new posture isn’t just about campaiging:
Everybody assumes Obama is campaigning hard for his jobs plan primarily to make a point to the voters about who stands for what, in advance of the 2012 elections. That’s probably true. But he’s adopted this posture because Republicans refuse to compromise. And if Republicans start to pay a political price for holding up popular legislation, there’s still a chance they will relent — and pass legislation before the year is done.
* Harry Reid triggers a procedural “nuclear option” to change the rules and (it seems) toprevent filibusters. Implications aren’t fully clear yet, but it seems to be a big deal.
Update: This might not be quite right. It seems to be more focued on amendments, not filibusters. A Dem aide emails:
The Senate voted to make post-cloture motions to suspend the rules out of order. This was done because the minority has used this tactic to derail even bills with broad bipartisan agreement that successfully gain cloture, such as the China currency bill which received 79 votes on the motion to proceed and 62 votes to cut off debate. The Senate must have the ability to move forward with bills that have broad bipartisan support.
Note that this only applies to motions to suspend the rules post-cloture.
Motions to suspend the rules after cloture are not a tactic that is central to minority rights in the Senate.
A motion to suspend the rules has not succeeded since 1941, according to the Senate Historian’s office. This is simply a delay tactic the minority has used to derail even bills with broad, bipartisan agreement.
* This is interesting: Senator Scott Brown, who may face a challenge from populist Elizabeth Warren, is now calling on Republicans and Dems to compromise on a jobs bill — and is supporting Obama’s payroll tax cut extension.
* Women’s groups pounce on Brown for his “thank god” crack about Warren’s looks, and it seems this story may have, er, legs.
* ICYMI: Think Progress has the video of Obama and Joe Biden both empathizing with Occupy Wall Street, a sign that top Dems are trying to strike the right balance between recognizing the depth of emotion at play and not quite embracing the protests.
Obama’s quote: “The protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works.”
* Senator Barbara Boxer releases a new report making the case that the EPA has actually promoted economic growth, another sign Dems recognize the importance of rebutting the GOP talking point that regulations are strangling the economy.
* Good question from Dana Milbank: Will the GOP’s obsession with repealing “Obamacare” work against them in the general election?
* No, the Tea Party doesn’t really hate Wall Street at all, and no, this movement isn’t really any different from other flare-ups of right wing “populism” throughout history.
* To the extent that deficits are a problem, they are symptons of a bad economy. Therefore, the best way to fix the deficit is to fix the economy first.
* Fun fact of the day: The deficit supercommittee members have already raked in $83,000 from 19 of the PACs representing some of the biggest donors, from the health care and defense industries and elsewhere — and that’s only the beginning.
* And this strikes me as a pretty good explanation for the Herman Cain surge: It’s “the base saying ‘Perry, until you get your act together, we are with Herman.’”
What else is happening?