THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Vote-counting in Iraq is a contentious process. Maliki seems to have the early lead.

* A 7.2-magnitude aftershock in Chile, coinciding with President Sebastian Pinera's inauguration.

* Vice President Biden leaves Israel on an uneasy note.

* Getting worse slower: "The foreclosure crisis isn't over, but the pace of growth may finally be slowing down."

* Still too high, but it's good to see a drop in initial unemployment filings.

* With his eyes on the calendar, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is prepared to move ahead with financial regulatory reform next week without Republicans.

* A key development to keep an eye on: "Senate Democrats said Thursday that they are inclined to add an overhaul of the nation's student loan program to the final health-care bill."

* Meet 11-year-old Marcelas Owens.

* Rep. Mike Capuano (D-Mass.) is considering betrayal on health care reform. Sounds like his constituents might want to touch base with him.

* The Holder disclosure story hardly seems worth far-right excitement.

* The final vote on this was 356-65: "In an overwhelming show of bipartisan support for President Obama's troop surge in Afghanistan, the House on Wednesday soundly defeated a resolution setting a timetable for withdrawal."

* President Obama gives away his Nobel Prize money.

* A rebuke for the RNC's outrageous fundraising tactics: "The House has voted 416-0 to ban misleading mailers designed to look like official communications from the Census Bureau of the kind that two national Republican groups recently sent out. "

* The tragedy of Juanita Goggins.

* I don't much care if Chief Justice John Roberts didn't like the State of the Union address.

* Interesting study: having a black instructor in the sciences makes black students more likely to actually follow through and graduate from college with degrees in math or science.

* Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) will headline this year's Netroots Nation conference in July.

* And finally, Glenn Beck and followers think you, personally, are dangerous. (This is just for fun, but the video does a great job of actually incorporating your name into the clip.)

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

WHO'S HONORING US NOW.... You may have noticed that Colbert has a regular feature called, "Who's Honoring Me Now." Well, we here at the Monthly also like to make note of who's honoring us now.

Camille Esch won an Education Writers Association award -- second place in the magazine category -- for her great piece, "Higher Ed's Bermuda Triangle," in our college-guide issue last year.

Here's the award announcement.

Esch directs the California Education Program at the New America Foundation and her work was done with the assistance of an associate fellowship from the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media.

SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN THROWS A CURVEBALL.... House Dems have a fear: they can pass the Senate health care bill, only to see the Senate blow off the reconciliation budget fix agreed to by the leadership. In effect, the House is afraid the Senate will say, "We promise to approve the fix after you pass the bill," and then after the bill is passed, the Senate will say, "Sucker! We've changed our minds."

To overcome these fears, the House has taken up a variety of ideas -- insisting that the Senate approve the budget fix first, passing the bill and the fix at the same time, voting on a self-executing rule (don't ask), etc.

According to Senate Republicans, the chamber's parliamentarian is throwing cold water on the alternatives. If Dems are going to fix a law, they're going to have to make it law first.

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress' original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian's Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

Now, it's certainly possible that Senate Republicans are lying about this -- they're not exactly a truth-oriented bunch -- but this doesn't seem like the kind of thing they'd make up out of whole cloth. We also don't know exactly what question the parliamentarian was answering, and the details matter.

But let's say the report is right. What does this mean in practical terms? If the leadership can pull together the 216 votes needed to support health care reform, it would pass two bills: (1) the Senate reform bill; and (2) the budget fix. The former would go to the White House for the president's signature, and then the Senate could approve the latter and send it to the White House to complete the process.

What's wrong with this? Nothing, really, except the House has grown so distrustful of the Senate, some members would consider killing health care reform altogether rather than counting on the Senate to follow through and pass the budget fix.

And while I realize the House's concerns are genuine, killing health reform over this would be a tragedy. Sure, there are tensions between the chambers -- a common phenomenon over the last 200+ years -- but there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think the Senate would promise to pass a budget fix, and then decide not to. Indeed, the leadership is not only putting this in writing, let's also not forget that senators want to pass the budget fix -- it makes changes the senators themselves want to see -- and have no incentive to pull a fast one on the House.

We know the upper chamber can obviously be dysfunctional, but Senate Dems aren't insane -- why on earth would they want a budget fix, ask the House to pass a budget fix, declare their support for a budget fix, promise to pass a budget fix, and then decide not to vote for it? Knowing that it would make all future negotiations between the chambers completely impossible?

I get that the House is nervous, but this fear doesn't make sense.

At this point, not that much has changed. As of this morning, the House had two bills to pass -- the Senate reform bill and the reconciliation budget fix. As of now, that's still the case. The only change is the order in which things will unfold.

Word from the parliamentarian, in other words, is only bad news if House Dems allow it to be bad news.

REID HAS A MESSAGE FOR MCCONNELL..... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is making plans for the final floor activity on health care reform, and if there are lingering doubts from skeptical House Dems about Reid's intentions, they should check out his new letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell explaining the path forward on health insurance reform. In the letter, Senator Reid details the steps that Senate Democrats have taken to secure bipartisan support for health reform despite the lack of cooperation from Senate Republicans. Reid said he will seek a democratic, up-or-down simple majority vote to revise the health reform bill already passed by a supermajority of 60 Senators last December. Reid also reiterated the commitment of Senate Democrats to deliver meaningful health reform that will ensure access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Reid's letter wasn't exactly tepid. It accuses Republicans of "distorting the facts" and spreading "outright lies" while millions of Americans "struggle to afford to stay healthy, stay out of bankruptcy and stay in their homes."

Reid reminded McConnell that Republican concerns about reconciliation are "unjustified," and that "the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform." The Majority Leader added that it's McConnell's party that has long loved this same procedure: "[O]ne might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class. Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority. Either way, we disagree."

He concludes by effectively daring McConnell and his caucus to oppose the legislation: "Keep in mind that reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process. You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation. In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug "donut hole" for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so."

Seems like someone had his Wheaties this morning.

MOVEON MEMBERS STRONGLY BACK REFORM.... As health care reform enters the home stretch, proponents are going to need all the help they can get. There's been some question, though, about whether progressive groups are prepared to step up.

We learned yesterday that several powerhouses on the left -- Americans United for Change, AFSCME, SEIU -- are gearing up for one last push. And what of MoveOn.org? The grassroots organization has polled its membership, asking whether to back the Democratic package. With MoveOn's membership on board, the group was prepared to launch an "aggressive grassroots campaign," which would include media advertising.

The result of the MoveOn membership poll was not a foregone conclusion. There are still some prominent progressives -- Dennis Kucinich, much of the FireDogLake team -- that oppose the Democratic effort. Would MoveOn members agree? Apparently not. Greg Sargent got an early peek at the results from a MoveOn official.

Should MoveOn support or oppose the final health care bill if it looks like the plan recently proposed by President Obama?

Support 83
Oppose 17

As Greg noted, it seems pretty clear that "the kill-the-bill camp overwhelmingly lost the argument" among liberals. When the results are more than four-to-one in favor, it's hard to draw any other conclusion.

In terms of practical implications, MoveOn will have to act quickly. Not only is time running out, but the Chamber of Commerce, the insurance industry, and their allies are launching a campaign that will invest $10 million (on top of the millions already spent) to kill reform and make hand-wringing Dems that much more nervous.

The sooner MoveOn can help with the pushback, the better.

CIRCULATING MEMO: SUPPORT FOR REFORM ON THE RISE.... For all the talk that public opinion on health care reform simply cannot improve, public opinion on health care reform is improving.

We talked yesterday about the general trend lines in national polls, which show support increasing, and opposition decreasing, over the last couple of months. A memo that's circulating on the Hill today is making a related case directly to lawmakers.

A new polling memo from Joel Benenson, the White House's pollster of choice, argues that support for President Barack Obama's health care plan has been building in the wake of his State of the Union speech in late January.

Since February 1, according to data compiled by Benenson, 44 percent of those tested in national surveys support the bill while 45 percent oppose it -- a sea change from the 38 percent favor/52 percent oppose average of polls conducted in the three months prior.

That movement, argues Benenson, is born out of a continued desire from the American people for Congress to pass some sort of health care reform and broad popularity of some of the major measures contained in the bill.

Public attitudes can shift for a wide variety of reasons, some of which may or may not make sense. Maybe the polls are shifting because more Americans are learning what's actually in the reform package. Perhaps folks are seeing their own premiums go up, and are reconsidering their earlier skepticism about the Democratic plan. Maybe the recent summit and presidential appearances are having an effect. Perhaps folks have been turned off by absurd Republican tactics, and decided to give the plan another look. Speculating about the rationale for poll shifts is inherently tricky.

But the bottom line remains the same: the polls are shifting, and they're moving in a helpful direction for reform advocates.

For congressional Dems, this should help stiffen spines a bit, and undermine the assumption among Republicans that reform is an unpopular mess.

To reiterate a point from yesterday, if Democrats wanted to they could start pushing the idea that the tide is turning, momentum is starting to build, and it's time to start pushing a "comeback" narrative.

BECK DOUBLES DOWN ON OPPOSITION TO 'SOCIAL JUSTICE'.... This week, on his radio show, right-wing host Glenn Beck raised a few eyebrows when he condemned churches that take "social justice" seriously.

"I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church web site," Beck urged his audience. "If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"

Today, Beck returned to the subject, insisting that the notion of social justice is "a perversion of the Gospel," and "not what Jesus would say." He wasn't kidding.

He went on to say that Americans should be skeptical of religious leaders who are "basing their religion on social justice," and explained his fear that concern for social justice is a problem "infecting all" faith traditions.

Beck's condemnations aren't going over well in some faith communities. The Rev. Jim Wallis, a prominent evangelical figure and president of the Sojourners network, argued yesterday, "I don't know if Beck is just strange, just trying to be controversial, or just trying to make money. But in any case, what he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show."

It's strange enough to hear the deranged media personality share his bizarre thoughts on domestic policy, foreign policy, history, constitutional law, and economics -- subjects he knows nothing about. But we now see Beck arguing, more than once, that the central tenet of most Christian churches is a secret plot that should drive the faithful from their congregations.

We're well past the shark-jumping moment with this self-described clown, but I can't help but wonder if this is the kind of lunacy that might actually cost him some fans.

WHERE'S OUR ENSIGN FRENZY?.... Matt Yglesias highlights an important double standard: "sex scandals aren't interesting when they involve Republicans."

Interestingly John Ensign, like David Vitter but unlike Elliot Spitzer or Eric Massa, hasn't yet been driven from public life.

I continue to find the trend fascinating. Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada is caught in a truly humiliating sex scandal -- and remember, the media generally loves political sex scandals -- involving a shameless hypocrite, who ran on a "family-values" platform, committing adultery with one of his own aides, who happens to be married to another aide. The scandal involves the immediate affair, plus alleged ethics violations, hush money, and official corruption.

And yet, no media frenzy. No reporters staked out in front of Ensign's home. No op-eds speculating about the need for Ensign to resign in disgrace.

I know how tiresome it is to hear "imagine if a Democrat had done this," but in this case, it doesn't take much imagination. Spitzer got caught in a sex scandal, and he was forced to resign. Massa's controversy appears to relate to sexual harassment, and he was forced to resign. John Edwards hasn't served in public office in any capacity for six years, and yet every imaginable detail of his sex scandal continues to get an enormous amount of attention.

Then consider the folks on the other side of the aisle. Ensign's sex scandal, which appears to include possible criminal misconduct, hasn't interfered with him remaining a Republican senator in good standing. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), another right-wing, "family-values" hypocrite, got caught with a prostitute. Not only did he stay in office, but he's seeking re-election -- and polls show him winning. Gov. Mark Sanford's (R-S.C.) sex scandal got plenty of coverage, but note that he's still the governor. Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons (R) found himself in a sex scandal, but like Vitter, he not only stayed in his job, but he's running for another term, too. Former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) was caught up in an especially humiliating controversy, but he didn't resign before the end of his term, either.

This is, by most measures, backwards. For decades, Republican candidates at every level have emphasized the GOP's moral superiority on "family values." If you want to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, the argument went, it's incumbent on you to vote Republican. There's a culture war underway, Americans have been told, and Democrats just aren't as reliable on these issues as the GOP.

Republicans, in other words, have demanded higher moral standards of all of us, while failing to meet these standards themselves -- and failing to ostracize the guilty from their ranks.

It's quite a racket, which the media encourages by playing along.

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP.... Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* The bad news just keeps on coming for Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) Senate campaign. Yet another poll, this time from Insider Advantage/Florida Times-Union, shows him trailing Marco Rubio in their Republican primary by a whopping 34 points, 60% to 26%.

* Former Colorado Lt. Gov. Jane Norton, the leading Republican candidate for the Senate this year, recently told a right-wing crowd that she considers Social Security an untrustworthy "Ponzi scheme."

* Speaking of Colorado, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) out in front of former Rep. Scott McInnis (R) in this year's gubernatorial race, 50% to 39%.

* In Illinois, Rasmussen shows state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) leading Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in this year's Senate race, 44% to 41%.

* Leading neocon Dan Senor, the former top spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, is apparently thinking seriously about running for the Senate in New York this year as a Republican. He would take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

* For her part, Gillibrand doesn't sound especially worried about Senor, given his discrediting role in the Bush administration.

* There are plenty of incumbent Senate Democrats who are vulnerable this year. Sen. Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon isn't one of them.

* In Connecticut, former Stamford mayor Dannel Malloy will take on Ned Lamont in a Democratic gubernatorial primary. It will be Malloy's second attempt at the office.

* Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, a leading GOP gubernatorial candidate in California, hasn't quite figured out how to work with the press. Yesterday, she invited reporters to a public appearance, but when they asked questions, Whitman had security escort them away. Odd.

THE GOP DISCOVERS ITS DISTASTE FOR EARMARKS.... Am I the only one who finds this odd?

House Democratic leaders on Wednesday banned budget earmarks to private industry, ending a practice that has steered billions of dollars in no-bid contracts to companies and set off corruption scandals.

The ban is the most forceful step yet in a three-year effort in Congress to curb abuses in the use of earmarks, which allow individual lawmakers to award financing for pet projects to groups and businesses, many of them campaign donors.

But House Republicans, in a quick round of political one-upmanship, tried to outmaneuver Democrats by calling for a ban on earmarks across the board, not just to for-profit companies. Republicans, who expect an intra-party vote on the issue Thursday, called earmarks "a symbol of a broken Washington."

Both parties are seeking to claim the ethical high ground on the issue by racing to rein in a budgeting practice that has become rife with political influence peddling.

As a rule, I think the anti-earmark crusade can get a little excessive. The earmarking process is sometimes abused, and sometimes legitimate. Banning the practice altogether is probably unnecessary.

That said, congressional Republicans want to position themselves as the party that hates earmarks more? What a strange claim. It was, after all, a GOP House majority that nearly quadrupled the number of earmarks during their rule, from 4,000 earmarks in 1994 to 15,000 in 2005. If Republicans hated earmarks so much, why didn't they do something about them when they were in the majority, instead of making the "problem" worse.

Indeed, 10 GOP leaders issued a statement yesterday, declaring earmarks a "symbol of a broken Washington," and calling for their elimination. These same 10 Republicans requested over $240 million in earmarks since 2008.

Oops.

Chances are, this anti-earmark push isn't going to get too far -- the Senate isn't fond of the idea. But in either case, it's striking to see the earmark-loving Republican Party pretending to turn over a new leaf. I suppose the only folks who can take the GOP's grandstanding seriously are those a) with very short memories; or b) with no access to Google.

CBO WEIGHS IN.... Congress has been waiting for additional information from the Congressional Budget Office before moving forward on health care. It took a while, but the CBO weighed in this morning.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the Senate's healthcare bill will now cost $875 billion over 10 years and reduce the deficit by $118 billion.

The net reduction is lower than the original score of the Senate's bill, which was estimated to cut the deficit by $132 billion from 2010 to 2019.

The CBO originally estimated that the Senate's healthcare bill would cost $871 billion over a 10 year period.

The new CBO report does not include estimates on President Obama's proposed fixes, bridging the gap between the House and Senate bills, which should add to the overall price -- the White House version increases subsidy rates, for example -- but not enough to push the cost of the package above the projected ceiling of $950 billion over 10 years.

CBO Blog has much more on today's report.

In terms of implications, the new report should help Congress take the next step in completing the process. The Senate bill, which needs to be approved by the House, is fully paid for, it lowers the deficit, and it would bring coverage to 31 million Americans who don't currently have it, just as advertised.

* Update: I'm told there's another CBO report on the way, possibly as early as today, scoring budget fixes to be included in the "sidecar" bill.

REPUBLICANS IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES.... Of all the issues for Republicans to seize on, ethics in Congress may be the most tone-deaf of them all.

In the wake of a handful of Democratic scandals, Republicans are piling on, hoping to associate Democrats with the same stink that brought down the Republican majority: corruption. The GOP has tarred Democrats who accepted campaign money from Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), and continue to attack the Democratic leadership for what they call hypocrisy on ethics and transparency.

"Nancy Pelosi said in the very beginning that this is going to be the most open, honest ethical congress in history," said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor on Meet the Press at the end of last month, "and what we are seeing is that she is breaking that promise every day."

Many in the media actually seem to be falling for this. The NYT had a piece the other day trying to draw parallels between some recent Dem controversies -- Paterson, Rangel, Massa -- and the Republicans' infamous culture of corruption in 2006. Even Time's Karen Tumulty, who usually knows better, lent credence to the idea.

So, let's clear things up a little. First, there's a quantitative difference. Have there been some Democrats who've run into trouble of late? Obviously, yes, but the list includes a modest number of isolated incidents.

In contrast, the corruption that overcame the Republican establishment during their reign of error was systemic and overwhelming. After a while, so many GOP officials were involved in scandals, the names started to blur together. Which one was Abramoff's buddy? Which one took bribes from defense contractors? Which one had his home raided by the FBI? Which one was locked up in a federal penitentiary? If Republicans really want to talk about ethical lapses, it's worth reminding them of names like DeLay, Cunningham, Ney, Foley, Lewis, Burns, Stevens, Craig, Vitter, Miller, and Renzi, among others.

By August 2007, Republican strategist Scott Reed said the party's corruption scandals were "approaching a level of ridiculousness.... Republicans think the governing class in Washington are a bunch of buffoons who have total disregard for the principles of the party, the law of the land and the future of the country."

But that's not the only difference.

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

POOR POKER PLAYERS.... We're well past the point at which Republicans can make substantive arguments about health care policy and hope to influence the outcome. Whether a Democratic lawmaker votes for or against the final package is not dependent on the GOP raising some heretofore overlooked policy observation.

So, what's left in the Republican playbook? Scaring the bejesus out of wavering Dems. Jon Chait had a good item on this.

Republicans are warning Democrats that passing health care reform will make them less popular. They are alerting the House that Senators will betray any deal they make. And they are insisting that reconciliation will be a bloody, protracted fight, even signing a letter promising to invoke the "Byrd Rule" to strike out any non-budgetary measures from a reconciliation bill.

Clearly, this is mostly a bluff. After all, Senate Democrats would be crazy to make specific promises to the House and then renege on them -- they would never pass another bill again. Democrats aren't planning to put non-budgetary items into a reconciliation bill, so Republican can threaten all they want to invoke the Byrd Rule, but they'll lose. Anyway, threatening to fight reconciliation is a threat to fight popular changes -- delaying the excise tax, canceling special deals for Florida and Nebraska -- after a comprehensive health care reform has already become a fait accompli. The GOP would be putting itself on the wrong side of public opinion to stop a bill that's already passed.

I just wonder if Democrats are actually foolhardy enough to heed these warnings.

That's certainly the right question. Republicans are just being shameless at this point, making obvious, ham-fisted threats, trying to drive a wedge between the House and Senate caucuses, and hoping to convince some Democrats that the GOP is a reliable source of campaign advice -- as if Republicans were seriously looking out for Dems' best interests.

In other words, the GOP hopes Democrats are so weak, and have such a hair-trigger panic reflex, that Dems will do what Republicans want, simply because Republicans want it.

Chait asks whether Democrats could really be that "pathetic." My sense is, no, they can't. I talked to some Hill staffers yesterday who characterized the GOP tactics as a transparent joke. "How dumb do they think we are?" one aide told me.

I try not to underestimate some Dems' capacity for self-destruction, but at this point, the fear tactics are just too over the top to be effective.

CLOSING IN ON A DEAL.... In order for health care reform to advance, a handful of steps have to be taken. And while most of the attention has centered around getting the necessary number of votes, there's also the matter of figuring out exactly what will be in the separate budget fix, which would be approved through reconciliation.

The AP reports this morning that the a final agreement is "nearly in hand."

A closed-door meeting in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office Wednesday evening moved congressional leaders and administration officials close to agreement on such issues as additional subsidies to help lower-income families purchase health insurance and more aid for states under the Medicaid program for low-income Americans.

Democrats still need to see a final cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office -- and want to ensure it stays around $950 billion over 10 years -- but they made plans to begin to read the bill to rank-and-file Democrats at a caucus meeting Thursday.

Pelosi met with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and other top officials, and came away optimistic. "I'm very pleased about where we are," Pelosi said, adding that she and House leaders would iron out the remaining wrinkles "over the course of the reading" with her caucus later today.

"We've resolved a number of issues and seriously made a lot of good progress," Emanuel added. "The staff now has direction to go work on a couple other things to basically resolve some issues. But we've made tremendous progress."

House Dems will get their first real sense of how much progress in their caucus meeting. "We're going to get started," Pelosi said of her afternoon plans.

Also today, we're likely to hear from the Congressional Budget Office, giving lawmakers additional information about the cost and expected budget impact of the package.

And what about the Stupak Dozen? There have been no announced breakthroughs, but one of Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) key allies -- Rep. Dale Kildee (D) of Michigan -- has been supportive of Stupak's efforts, but said last night that he's satisfied with the language of the Senate bill. "I think the Senate language keeps the purpose of the Hyde amendment," Kildee told reporters. "I'll probably vote for it."

There's no official list of members in Stupak's bloc, but Kildee was likely a member. Of course, Stupak can still kill health care reform with 11 votes instead of 12, but keep an eye on whether Kildee's pronouncement influences other member of the contingent.

ENSIGN SEX SCANDAL WORSENS.... Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) doesn't want to talk about his sex scandal, but that hasn't stopped investigators from launching a probe. The controversy made the far-right senator look pretty bad before, but it appears the ongoing investigation is turning up even more damaging information.

Previously undisclosed e-mail messages turned over to the F.B.I. and Senate ethics investigators provide new evidence about Senator John Ensign's efforts to steer lobbying work to the embittered husband of his former mistress and could deepen his legal and political troubles.

Mr. Ensign, Republican of Nevada, suggested that a Las Vegas development firm hire the husband, Douglas Hampton, after it had sought the senator's help on several energy projects in 2008, according to e-mail messages and interviews with company executives.

The messages are the first written records from Mr. Ensign documenting his efforts to find clients for Mr. Hampton, a top aide and close friend, after the senator had an affair with his wife, Cynthia Hampton. They appear to undercut the senator's assertion that he did not know the work might involve Congressional lobbying, which could violate a federal ban on such activities by staff members for a year after leaving government.

The e-mail messages also hint at what Mr. Ensign's office now says was an effort by the Las Vegas firm, a small energy investment business called P2SA Equity, to improperly link Mr. Ensign's possible assistance to a promised donation.

If you're just joining us, Ensign's humiliation came to public attention in June, when we learned the conservative, "family-values" lawmaker carried on a lengthy extra-marital affair with one of his aides, who happened to be married to another one of his aides. Ensign's parents tried to pay off the mistress' family.

The scandal grew far worse in October, when we learned that the Republican senator pushed his political and corporate allies to give lobbying contracts to his mistress's husband. When Douglas and Cynthia Hampton left Ensign's employ -- because, you know, the senator was sleeping with Cynthia -- Ensign allegedly took steps to help them make up the lost income, leaning on corporate associates to hire Douglas as a lobbyist. These new emails bolster the allegations.

There are laws prohibiting aides from lobbying for a year after leaving the Hill, but Ensign and the aggrieved husband seemed to ignore the rule, and the senator used his office to cater to the needs of those who hired his mistress's spouse.

I'm well aware of the IOKIYAR rule, but I nevertheless have a hard time imagining how Ensign survives this scandal politically. Having sex with an aide, after running on a family-values platform, is merely humiliating. But the far-right Nevadan, as part of an apparent effort to clean up a personal scandal, seems to have broken a few laws -- and left a paper trail to prove it.