* A bipartisan bill to extend unemployment benefits has been reintroduced in the Senate. Arthur Delaney reports on the problem:

But the bill faces the same obstacle as before: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who showed little interest in the legislation and was happy to run out the clock after the Senate passed it in April. A spokesman for Boehner told HuffPost on Tuesday that the speaker’s response would remain the same.

So Senate Dems offer yet another bipartisan compromise on UI, and House Republicans respond with the same old “No.” It’s touching that Dems keep at this, as if all they need to do is get the policy right and House Republicans will suddenly agree to hold a vote on it. Oh, yeah, and both sides are to blame! — gs

* For those inclined to see Washington’s glass as half full, you can say that at the moment, at least we aren’t shutting down the government or enacting a debt ceiling crisis. But Brian Beutler offers a dispiriting post explaining that we’re essentially stuck in a holding pattern where things just aren’t getting better anytime soon.

* Ryan Cooper suggests a way to deal with the crisis of people coming from Central America to enter the U.S. illegally: End the war on drugs.

* Simon Rosenberg lists all the things Congress could do to address the humanitarian disaster of minors crossing the border, if Congress were inclined to even try to participate in solving this crisis.

* Here, courtesy of Elise Foley, is Darrell Issa’s solution to the crisis: Restart deportation of the DREAMers! This is demagoguery at its absolute worst, and more Republicans should be pressed to say whether they agree that we should deport them all. — gs

* As Steve Benen notes in a good post, now that he’s Majority Leader, Kevin McCarthy is walking back his previous openness to considering solutions to the immigration crisis, declaring we must secure the border before we even consider legalization:

McCarthy wants to see a different approach: Republicans should get 100% of what they want, he says, while Democrats get 0% of what they want. Once the GOP is satisfied with having everything, Republicans will then consider related policies. I have a hunch the party that was elected to control the White House and the Senate may not find the offer compelling.

* Markos Moulitsas notes that Elizabeth Warren is campaigning for multiple female Senate Dem candidates, even in red states where populism is supposedly really risky, and makes the key point about what it means:

Since these midterms will be a base turnout year, and Warren has got that niche locked up. Furthermore, and related, Democrats will win if women turn out in droves, and yup, Warren helps with that, too. There has been much energy spent trying to turn Warren into a boogeyman. This is proof that those conservative efforts have failed miserably.

Remember when Republicans were really, really psyched that attacking her as the Godmother of Occupy Wall Street would ensure Scott Brown’s reelection? — gs

* Wondering why conservatives are suddenly all worked up over the Export-Import Bank? Or what the Export-Import Bank is? Matthew Yglesias explains it, in a mere 9 bullet points.

* Paul Krugman explains: Even if it is true that in some circumstances a case can be made for killing the Ex-Im Bank, under current conditions eliminating it really could cost jobs.

* Ed Kilgore responds to the point I made this morning about the public agreeing with Obama on Iraq, but giving him low approval on the issue anyway, by noting that the real problem is Republicans:

I’d say much of this conundrum is really just an illusion based on Republican hostility to Obama. At present 60% of Republicans oppose the deployment of U.S. ground troops in Iraq, which Obama has duly ruled out. 58% of Republicans support air strikes, which Obama has conspicuously refused to rule out. Yet 84% of Republicans oppose Obama’s handling of Iraq; 64% oppose it strongly. I suspect the numbers wouldn’t change that much if Obama slavishly followed Republican “advice” on Iraq, though that’s impossible since GOPers are all over the place on the subject.

Ed’s right — because of universal disapproval among Republicans for almost anything Obama does, his approval on any issue is going to be mediocre at best, no matter what kind of job he does.

* And finally, over at the American Prospect I asked why we think that overweening ambition is troublesome only in politicians from the other party, as if you can’t be hugely ambitious and also have sincere beliefs about policy.

What else?