* A lot of people are viewing it as big news that Eric Cantor seemed to say the GOP could accept tax loopholes as part of a deficit deal.

But he also said they would have to be offset with tax cuts elsewhere, meaning they’d be “revenue neutral.”

* Chuck Schumer gives it the thumbs down, claiming Dems won’t accept any revenue increases that don’t actually increase revenues.

* Senate Dems rush out a new video that attempts to portray Senate GOPers as being in disarray over whether they can accept new revenues.

* The Progressive Change Campaign Committee is pushing the hugely counterintutive notion that raising taxes on the rich just might also be popular in key swing states.

* Steve Benen on the farcical nature of tomorrow’s Senate vote on whether the wealthy should make more “meaningful” contributions to deficit reduction:

In 2011, we have Republicans demanding 100% of what they want or they’ll crash the economy on purpose, and Dems have been reduced to asking GOP senators to agree that the wealthy should give up something when dealing with the debt Republicans built up in the first place.

* Obama keeps saying he wants a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction, but as Jonathan Cohn notes, the plain fact is that the emerging solution is anything but balanced.

* Which may explain why Obama today used some of his strongest language yet on the debt ceiling, excoriating Republicans for using it “as a gun against the heads of the American people” to extract tax breaks for Big Oil and — he said it again! — corporate jet owners.

* Sam Youngman, on why Obama should not cave in the deficit talks:

If he stares down the GOP and comes up with a deal that makes his base happy, Obama will be showing that he remembers two of the first rules of politics: Dance with the one who brought you — and don’t go to war without your army.

* The Campaign for America’s Future, on Kent Conrad’s deeply controversial plan for an even deficit-reduction split between revenues and tax cuts:

No deal without the rich and big corporations sharing in the sacrifice. No deal that would harm the essential programs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. No deal that takes more out of the programs for middle income and poor Americans than it takes from tax breaks, loopholes and havens for the rich and the big corporations, and no deal that undermines the economic recovery.

But as Joan McCarter notes, any plan that calls for roughly equivalent concessions on both sides is by definition doomed.

* Question of the day, from Senator Al Franken: “Where are the jobs from the Bush tax cuts?”

* The problem with Obama’s willingness to embrace some right wing frames on the economy is that Americans are only hearing one side of the argument.

* Bill Clinton goes there, saying the GOP’s efforts to disenfranchise minority voters hearkens back to Jim Crow.

* And Michele Bachmann commits a huge gaffe by appearing to acknowledge that “Palestine” should have a right to exist.

What else is happening?