* High crimes and misdemeanors? Fun times as Grover Norquist seems to suggest that letting the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire, as signed into law by Bush himself, could constitute an impeachable offense for Obama:

NORQUIST: Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach. The last year, he’s gone into this huddle where he does everything by executive order. He’s made no effort to work with Congress.

That would go over well. Andrew Sullivan notes this proves that some conservatives care more about tax cuts for the rich than they do about the Constitution.

* Digby flags video of another good Elizabeth Warren moment: She makes the case it’s “wrong” for Romney’s income to be protected while a higher tax rate is paid by those “who work for a living.”

Key question: How will Scott Brown vote when the Buffett Rule finds its way to the Senate floor?

* Joan McCarter weighs in with a good endorsement of Sheldon Whitehouse’s Buffet Rule proposal:

It has the advantage of not requiring any tinkering with the existing tax structure, it works with it, and thus can be voted on quickly and not included in a long and drug out serious of compromises required in a larger tax reform debate. It would also have the advantage of putting Republicans on the record right now for tax fairness, when the topic is white hot. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should definitely force this issue now, and the Whitehouse proposal is the perfect vehicle for it.

* Ed Kilgore (by the way, congrats to Ed, who’s excellent, for his new gig replacing Steve Benen) has some fun with the idea, too:

If they hurry, Senate Democrats could perhaps get this vote scheduled for the day the Beltway Pundits crown Mitt Romney, who would be a direct party of interest in this initiative, the putative GOP nominee.

* And David Dayen notes the larger significance of this initiative: “one thing is becoming clear — Senate Democrats will try to put Republicans up against the wall on taxes.”

* Meanwhile, Obama is gearing up to push Congress to pass some form of the Buffett Rule, too. This is going to be a big story.

* Another very harsh ad from Newt Gingrich attacking Mitt Romney for serial dishonesty, and arguing that his dissembling ensures he’d lose to Obama.

* The Romney campaign is not responding to the Post’s requests for copies of disclosure forms it says it filed to the Treasury Department that would reveal more detail about Romney’s offshore holdings.

* Romney appears to be on track to winning Florida, but Gallup finds Newt has again expanded his national lead, with Romney again down below the familiar 25 percent number.

* Another day, another Romney falsehood: Politifact knocks down his false claim that Obama didn’t mention rocket attacks on Israel in his speech to the U.N.

* Smart Times editorial: Amid Congress’s tearful farewell to Gabrielle Giffords, no one thought to say anything about its abject failure to fix the gun control failures that cut short her career.

* Why do cable anchors keep repeating Jan Brewer's story that Obama was testy when she’s the only person present who continues to make this claim, and two others have flatly denied it?

* Your sorely needed Friday comic relief: A fun Think Progress video comparing Obama and Romney defending their health reform plans in awfully similar terms.

* Or as Adam Serwer put it, Republicans are about to nominate “Obamacare’s most eloquent defender.”

This, again, is why many conservatives worry Romney will have a tough time prosecuting the case against “Obamacare” without making himself look kind of, well, silly.

What else?