Tony Romm is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.

The blogosphere is still rumbling this week after a suggestion by Texas Governor Rick Perry that the (now literally) Lone Star state secede from the embattled union. It does not help, of course, that a poll released on Thursday by Research2000 merely confirms the unfortunate truth that Perry's comments may have resonated among some Texans: In the survey, nearly 35 percent of respondents, mostly Republicans, indicated they felt Texas would be better off as an "independent nation."

It would be naive to take these findings seriously; gauging public opinion on any topic is difficult and daunting, especially when the questions themselves are indulgent and practically invite silliness. It is likely that many of the survey's respondents answered only out of jest, submitting to Perry's gaffe without the slightest contemplation of what secession would actually mean for their state, personal or geographic.

But that hasn't stopped a plethora of pundits from jokingly hypothesizing on their behalf. Earlier this week, Daily Kos noted a few drawbacks to Texan secession: the loss of its coveted military bases, exorbitant NASA funding and most of its dirty industry. Preceding that prediction was Nate Silver, who reminded politicos at FiveThirtyEight that an America without Texas would have catapulted the Democrats to a filibuster-proof supermajority in Congress -- even without Al Franken's help -- and ensured that not another Bush family member could have won the White House in 2004.

Indeed, we can attribute to Texas' departure a number of interesting benefits (that only those wary voters who stuck out the economy's apoplexy could reap). For example...

(CLICK TO READ MORE...)

From Entertainment Weekly's Michael Ausiello comes news that last night's plot twist on House -- Kutner's (Kal Penn) seemingly unprovoked suicide -- was hardly the result of cast infighting or creative conflicts.

Rather, as the EW blogger unveiled during an interview published this morning, Kutner's death was purely... political?

"Yes. I was incredibly honored a couple of months ago to get the opportunity to go work in the White House," said Penn, still famous for his role in the "Harold and Kumar" films. "I got to know the President and some of the staff during the campaign and had expressed interest in working there, so I'm going to be the associate director in the White House office of public liaison." [sic]

Specifically, Penn will reprise his role as an Obama spokesperson and coordinate the administration's outreach efforts with the "Asian-American and arts communities," the Chicago Sun-Times reported on Tuesday. He'll serve directly under Valerie Jarrett, chief of the Office of Public Liaison.

Penn, however, gave no indication of when he will officially assume his new position -- and, most important to the Hollywood types, whether it signifies an end to his acting career.

WASHINGTON -- Did The New York Times wrongly spike a story that would have implicated then-candidate Barack Obama in the ACORN controversy? So testified Heather S. Heidelbaugh, a lawyer representing Republicans in an ACORN lawsuit, during an overlooked House Judiciary subcommittee hearing last week.

According to Heidelbaugh's prepared remarks, NYT beat reporter Stephanie Strom submitted to her editors in late October a story that alleged Obama offered the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, a list of its "maxed-out donors" for their get-out-the-vote fundraising operations. The primary source in the piece was Anita Moncrief, a fired ACORN employee and frequent informant to Strom. However, per Heidelbaugh's testimony, the Times refused to publish the controversial article because, as Strom allegedly told her source, "it was a game changer." Strom subsequently penned not a single additional ACORN story between the described incident and the November election, Heidelbaugh added.

Although Strom could not be reached for comment, the Times' Senior Vice President for Corporate Communications, Catherine Mathis, told The Bulletin of Philadelphia that the NYT "do[es] not discuss [its] news gathering and won't comment except to say that political considerations played no role in our decisions about how to cover this story or any other story about President Obama."

Even so, it remains unclear whether any wrongdoing actually occurred. If the allegations are true, Obama's collusion with ACORN could constitute "gross violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971," Heidelbaugh said. However, the hearing's participants did not further inquire as to how or why this was the case.

Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence to indict the Times for journalistic malpractice.

Who's sick of hearing the President blame all of his problems on the previous administration?

Evidently some in the press.

The answer to a tough question usual begins with an Obama answer along the following lines: "Well, I would say you have to remember, I inherited (insert any current national crisis or issue here)."



The president didn't disappoint in delivering that answer at a press conference in which he spent most of the night defending his $3.6 trillion budget, saying the budget "is inseparable from this recovery."

Overall, the press conference seemed dull, highlighted only by Obama's eloquence in dancing around each question, giving long-winded answers normally that had little - if any - to do with what was asked and usually ended with health care reform or green energy reform and green jobs.

CNN's Ed Henry and CBS' Chip Reid called the president on the hypocrisy. Asked on the question of whether his budget tramples wishes not to "pass on our problems to the next generation," Obama kicked off his answer by blaming President Bush and Congressional Republicans.

WASHINGTON -- Bracketology, meet Barack-tology.

The two rhetorical constructions collided on Wednesday when the commander in chief, fulfilling a famous campaign promise, stopped by ESPN studios to offer his predictions for the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament.

Assuredly, journalists in the forthcoming days are likely to exhume from the First Fan's bracket a host of totally uncorroborated conclusions. College students across the country, meanwhile, are certain to frown on the president's encroachment into their traditionally apolitical (and perennially controversial) territory. Yet, none of this is to suggest that the president's picks aren't worthy of at least some analysis -- and, surprisingly, there's quite a bit to be said. Here's the pre-tournament highlight reel:

Call it a stroke of irony (or an ill-timed political mistake), but it is highly unlikely that President Barack Obama's proposed earmark reforms would have prevented the legendary "Bridge to Nowhere" fiasco -- the $233-million, pork-tastic overpass for which Alaskan politicians, including Republican Governor Sarah Palin, are most infamous.

As The Hill revealed today, the Obama administration's reform plan is designed to make the earmark process more transparent and competitive. Under the new regulations, lawmakers would be required to hold public hearings on pork projects and disclose the full details of those proposals on their Web sites. Additionally, Congress members would be barred from directing earmark funds to for-profit companies without first soliciting contractor bids.

As a result of that final condition -- which only nominally applies to states' public works projects -- the Bridge to Nowhere could have emerged from Congress unscathed, The Hill hypothesized. According to Politifact, which dissected comments made by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. on the matter, "a congressional committee directed the $225 million earmarked for the Gravina Island bridge to the Alaska Department of Transportation." In other words, because ADoT is a state agency, the bridge (had Gov. Palin not later nixed it) could have been completed without significant opposition.

Stranded Alaskans, however, would hardly be the only beneficiaries of Obama's ambiguous reforms. Under the new rules, so too could the likes of another Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham, who resigned in 2005 amid defense earmark bribery allegations, reap the personal and political benefits of scrupulous pork. Per Obama's proposal, defense earmarks regarded as secret intelligence programs would "continue to remain secret and immune to... requirements for more public scrutiny and transparency," The Hill reported. Thus, to analysts and spendthrift members alike, Obama's earmark reforms are hardly solvent, considering defense pork in the 2007 appropriations bill totaled nearly $6.6 billion.

But a more important omission from Obama's reform proposal is theoretical in nature. At the heart of the president's criticism is the presumption that voters, long frustrated by reckless federal spending, frown at the inclusion of local pet projects. The introduction of public hearings and comment periods on proposed pork, therefore, constitutes a calculated attempt by the Obama administration to use voters as a democratic check on earmarks. Yet it is politically naive to believe that constituents -- who deride the federal government for such "unfunded mandates" as education and health care -- won't frequently rubber stamp their politicians' pork-barrel initiatives. And it is equally ignorant to assert that Congress members, who stand to benefit electorally from constituent-supported earmarks, would willingly limit their collective politicking abilities. To that degree, Obama's earmark criticisms merely constitute a metaphoric "reform to nowhere." Ambiguous and unrealistic, they insufficiently address the root causes of allegedly wasteful spending.

Animated disagreement between coworkers is a venerable tradition often denied to Bright Hall's far-flung, break room-less staff. Advise & Dissent is an attempt to fix that. Click here for past debates, and click here to read Matt Negrin's first post on Obama's media management style.

In March 2003, then-President George W. Bush did the unthinkable: He snubbed Helen Thomas.

Indeed, contrary to established White House ritual, whereby Thomas concluded presidential press conferences with her signature "Thank you, Mr. President," Slate editor-at-large Jack Shafer noted at this particular Spring presser that "Bush denied her that supporting role, ending the conference with his own sign off, 'Thank you for your questions,' and flushing a decades-old White House custom."

To a press corps that is as much a part of Washington culture as the presidents they cover, Bush's misstep was pure anathema; journalists could not conceive of a previous abomination of equal impudence.

Their manifest perplexity, however, was not a function of Bush's audacity; rather, it was a byproduct of their short collective memory. Before Bush brazenly brushed-off Thomas, Ronald Reagan renounced press conferences and jipped journalists of due access to the United States' intervention in Grenada. After the impeached Richard Nixon realized he could profit from perceivably facile foreign interviews, the lore of which now lives in Oscar infamy, Bill Clinton sat cozy with critical columnists on his airplanes.

Of course, these abuses of the "fourth estate" varied in effect, duration and warrant. But they nonetheless represented repeated attempts by presidents to manhandle press-government relations and control the scope and tone of national political reportage.

Is it any surprise, then, that the Obama administration has employed a similar strategy to cordon journalists in 2009? The new president's pre-determined question lists exhibit a striking resemblance to his immediate predecessor's surprise seating rearrangements or follow-up question bans, among other silencing tactics. Add to the brewing controversy Obama's over-reported tendency to ignore conservative-leaning reporters and outlets, and it is easy to understand why journalists at large are growing increasingly upset with the new administration.

Sen. John McCain had a few words for his formal rival in response to Obama's temper tantrum the night before: chill out.

Obama ditched his beloved teleprompter at a Democratic pep rally Thursday night In Williamsburg, VA, to instead mock Republicans criticism of the bill as just another spending bill saying, "What do you think a stimulus bill is? That's the whole point. No, seriously, that's the point."



Evidently still a bit high on himself from the big win and inauguration, Obama must have realized that there are really people who don't agree with him on absolutely everything. This whole being-president thing is a bit harder than he must have thought it would be.

McCain, in what was his first jab at Obama since the campaigning, responded sounding extra maverickey.

"The whole point, Mr. President, is to enact tax cuts and spending measures that truly stimulate the economy," McCain said. "There are billions and tens of billions of dollars in this bill which have no effect within three, four, five or more years, or ever. Or ever."

After a number of minority groups expressed concern that Commerce Secretary-designate Judd Gregg would "downsize census outreach efforts," President Barack Obama decided Thursday to altogether bypass the Commerce Department and force the Census Bureau to report directly to the White House, according to Congressional Quarterly.

At issue is Gregg's prior disposition toward the constitutionally-mandated, decennial census. As a three-term GOP senator from New Hampshire, Gregg frequently supported cuts in the bureau's funding, even opposing President Bill Clinton's appeals for emergency money in 1999. In both instances, Democrats lambasted Gregg, alleging that his efforts would have complicated the counting process, especially in traditionally under-reported minority neighborhoods at risk of being subsumed into larger congressional districts.

Although Gregg has yet to defend his positions in cabinet confirmation hearings, the Obama administration hoped to preempt any political fallout on Thursday by releasing scant details of its revised census plan. Speculation, however, does exist: According to Politico and a second CQ dispatch, the revised census hierarchy would permit Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, the former chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, to "handle Census Bureau matters," though to what extent remains unclear.

Buoyed by such uncertainty, House Republicans immediately condemned the Obama administration for politicizing the census.

In a joint letter to the White House on Thursday, Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) and Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) criticized the president's plan to circumvent the Commerce Department. According to the two members, any proximal relationship between the political wing of the White House and the Census Bureau "severely jeopardiz[es] the fairness and accuracy" of a count that determines how much a congressional district will grow or shrink, how many representatives each state is afforded -- and thus -- how many electoral votes each state receives.

As of Thursday evening, neither the Obama administration nor Gregg's office had addressed the matter on record.

Republicans wanting to play nice with the Democratic majority and the Obama administration will need to quit listening to Rush Limbaugh, Obama said, and get used to the new sheriff in town.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders whom he had invited to the White House. Obama set up the meeting to discuss his planned nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.



"One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan," Limbaugh told the National Review's Byron York in response. "He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me."

"To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective," Limbaugh continued. "Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy."

The full text of Limbaugh's response can be found here.

Obama went on to arrogantly claim that he essentially planned to ram his plan through without bipartisan support, nearly saying if anyone disagrees with him then they are going against some heavenly mandate. Let there be no doubt - he's the boss.

"I won," he told GOP leaders. "I'm the president."

The ever enjoyable bickering between Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the Democratic ticket for the U.S. presidency is over, it seems, as both candidates have shifted their focus from attacking one another to focusing on the downfalls of the Bush brand of politics.

After nearly five long months of pointless arguing, the two are ignoring one another.

But it's not because they no longer claim to disagree on point after point -- Obama thinks Clinton is done, and Clinton is still trying to convince the public that she still has a chance at the ticket.

After the Kentucky and Oregon primaries Tuesday, when both candidates saw striking victories (Obama in Oregon, and Clinton in Kentucky), Obama briefly praised Clinton's efforts to bring women's interests into the spotlight, and then swept the issue aside to attack Republican candidate John McCain's stance on the economy, which Obama implied was naive.

CHINA'S STATE-RUN MEDIA says 32 radiation sources buried by the earthquake have been discovered and most have been safely defused. The article quotes "[a]n official at a French nuclear watchdog who has seen reports from the Chinese nuclear safety agency," and the Xinhua news agency, but China hardly has the moral high ground on environmental issues. One wonders how many other "hidden treasures" are poisoning the victims and rescue workers.

HOUSE REPUBLICANS are re-working their message, supposedly. Meanwhile, Politico reports top House Republican Rep. John Boehner is attracting criticism within his own party for not being aggressive enough after three major special election losses. More on this in the following days.

AN OVER-PROTECTIVE PARENT wants to cover up the "bikini baristas" at a Washington (state) coffee shop, calling the situation "terrifying." The situation is so alarming that the parent has started a petition against the private business, instead of just avoiding it entirely. No word yet whether she has ever been to a beach in Europe.

THE TENNESSEE GOP has launched a pitiful attack ad against Michelle Obama, bragging about how patriotic Republicans are and suggesting how anti-American Michelle is by contrast. Thankfully, two Republican Senators have stepped up to denounce the ad, which apparently featured a former strip club owner to represent the party of moral authority.