Is it weird that I'm happy about this news? The progressive blogosphere will have Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) -- he of the lunchtime slide shows on STDs and the decent Elton John impression -- to kick around on the Judiciary Committee.

Earlier this week I mentioned the committee crunch that could have ejected Coburn from the powerful Judiciary panel. But Coburn just confirmed to me that fellow pro-lifer Sen. San Brownback (R-KS), who is readying a likely gubernatorial run in 2010, has agreed to step aside from Judiciary so the Oklahoma senator can stay.

The House just passed a $33 billion reauthorization and expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, a.k.a. SCHIP, the legislation that Democrats tried in vain to expand last year only to meet with two vetoes from George Bush.

But now that Bush is gone, and there's no more president to protect, it seems that a few Republicans feel they're ready to support children's health care. Comparing today's House vote count to the roll-call vote in 2007, when Democrats came within about 13 votes of overriding Bush's veto. (There was another override vote that year, and a second in 2008, with similar near-miss outcomes.)

GOP Reps. Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL), Mike Rogers (AL), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL), and Thaddeus McCotter (MI) -- a member of Republican leadership who got picketed over his previous votes on SCHIP -- all voted yes today after voting against expanding the health care program under Bush.

What happened, guys? Was it Obama's post-partisan outreach that did it for you?

While Democrats and Barack Obama are hard at work thematically outlining their economic recovery goals, Republicans got down to brass tacks this afternoon. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) signaled pretty strongly that they have a ceiling for an acceptable amount of stimulus spending -- and it ain't a high one.

Obama told CNBC yesterday that his transition is starting at the low end of the possible stimulus spending scale because "our attitude was that given the legislative process, if we start towards the low end of that, we'll see how it develops". Yet McConnell, speaking to reporters in the same ornate Senate room where Democrats unveiled their "top 10" bills yesterday, all but ruled out the trillion-dollar stimulus that some economists and state governments have urged.

Boehner didn't mince words. "An $800 billion to $1 trillion package, on top of the deficit we already have; you're adding an awful lot of weight to the debt," he said, adding: "It's those of us not here" -- the classic GOP touch of referring to future generations inheriting the unpaid bills they helped create -- "who are going to pay the debt."

"You can't buy prosperity with more government spending," Boehner finished.

Even Martin Feldstein thinks you can, congressman.

Late Update: Here's the video:

From today's Roll Call (sub. req'd):

"I'm legal!" the usually jovial former Majority Leader -- looking even more jovial than usual -- was overheard announcing to former colleagues on Tuesday, as he mingled with the crowd gathered outside the Senate chamber following the swearing-in ceremonies. Lott was referring to the expiration of the ban that prevented him from lobbying.

When Lott resigned his seat on Dec. 18, 2007, ethics laws prevented former Senators from lobbying Members of Congress for a year (if he had waited until 2008 to resign, the ban would have lasted two years under the ethics law that had just been passed). The Mississippian, who now runs big-bucks lobby shop Breaux Lott Leadership Group with former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), had been offering advice to clients seeking lobbying services, but now he's able to do the real thing.

I saw him in the throng yesterday and didn't realize he was celebrating this most auspicious anniversary.

Just interviewed Pat Roberts (R-KS), former Senate intelligence chairman, about the contention surrounding Leon Panetta's nomination to head the CIA. Roberts was castigated by the liberal establishment for his performance investigating the intelligence errors surrounding the war in Iraq, but his four years helming the committee gave him a front-row seat for previous confirmation fights. And he had an interesting message: He plans to support Panetta.

"On the one hand, I think it's good to take a fresh look with a new director" at CIA, Roberts told me. "On the other hand, it's not on-the-job training [at the agency]. But Leon is a fast study."

Asked about the Obama transition's failure to inform incoming intelligence chairman Dianne Feinstein and outgoing chairman Jay Rockefeller about the Panetta nod, Roberts replied: "I don't think it's intentional -- California politics aside." (A possible reference to Panetta and Feinstein's shared history in their home state.)

Still, Roberts acknowledged that the situation Feinstein faces -- a junior member of the intel committee being told of a pending nomination before the chairman -- never occurred during his time at the helm.

Roberts and Panetta are old friends from their days on the House administration committee, and the bond of shared congressional service runs deep -- which could help win Panetta several Republican votes. But on the deeper issues of operational knowledge of the CIA and antipathy to Bush-era interrogation tactics, Panetta also gets Roberts' nod.

"I know this job entails protection of civil liberties as well as protecting America," Roberts told me, seeming to acknowledge Panetta's staunch criticism of the Bush intelligence record. "Leon's the kind of guy who's very pragmatic. He'll do what's best for the country."

When he became chairman, Roberts said, his first order of business was visiting each of the 16 agencies that comprise the US intelligence world. "My advice to him would be ... to pay a courtesy call," Roberts said of Panetta.

On the first day after any congressional recess, the mood in Washington tends to be genial and relaxed, with reporters and aides swapping more vacation stories than legislative strategies. But today was different. The souring economy focused intense attention on the closed-door meetings that Barack Obama conducted with lawmakers on both sides of the Capitol.

After Obama emerged for his second public availability of the day, taking no questions, both Democratic and Republican leaders emerged to put their spin on what transpired. And while Harry Reid referred to the need for an economic recovery bill costing between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion, Mitch McConnell mentioned only one number: 40%, the share of the package that the Obama camp has said would go toward tax cuts.

But during the leaders' meeting with Obama, McConnell said, "there was no discussion about the overall size of the package. I don't think it's been determined."

The tactic is one familiar to savvy members of Congress: If they can delay public agreement on an issue, they win more time to shape it to their liking. The longer Republicans delay in accepting the size of the bill, the greater chance they have of shrinking it.

For now it appears that Obama's team is unruffled by the numbers game taking place. On Wednesday, when the House Democratic steering committee holds its first public forum on the recovery package, we'll be listening to see whether Republicans are finally ready to reveal the price tag they can live with -- and whether the new administration is ready to agree.

In six weeks, anyone want to bet that Republicans profess their alarm at the Democrats' hijacking of the process to promote profligate government spending?

Late Update: Here's the video of McConnell's remarks:

MSNBC's First Read political blog shares a very interesting as-yet-unreleased number from the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll:

The most striking thing about the latest NBC/Wall Street Journal poll is the damage that's been done to the GOP brand. Bush is not only unpopular (his approval rating is just 29% and favorability is only 32% -- both all-time lows for him). But his unpopularity also is dragging down the image of the Republican Party to its lowest level ever in this survey (28% positive rating). For better or worse, the GOP needs Bush to improve if they want the party's image to improve.

Via Jonathan Singer, who comments: "Although it's not terribly easy to draw a conclusion from a description of poll numbers that does not contain all of the available data, these numbers do not seem to bode well for the electoral hopes of the Republican Party. And these numbers should not be viewed as simply in a vacuum, just one outlier poll making a conclusion that is not supported by the preponderance of evidence. Polling earlier this year from CBS News and The New York Times showed the exact same thing -- the Republican Party's image has seldom, and perhaps even never in recent memory, been as bad as it is today."

So where do GOP Senators stand on the President's plans to escalate the war?

Despite the administration's agressive campaign to garner support for the escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq, the plan is increasingly being met with skepticism where it really hurts: key Republicans in the Senate. And if the President loses his own party, he loses his bid to escalate.

So we're keeping track here at Election Central of which GOP Senators have passed judgment on the plan and what they've said. Here's the tally as it stands now: Seven Republicans firmly against and nine more expressing reluctance or skepticism.

Our full rundown of who stands where is after the jump -- and we'll update it as new info comes in. Have we missed anyone? Let us know in comments or by email (talk at talkingpointsmemo.com).

Read more »