DeMint dismisses Cornyn’s “big tent” strategy.

And in response to assurances on Honduras, he drops his hold on two Obama nominees.

Don’t read too much into Hasan’s shouts of “Allahu Akbar.”

Yesterday’s EPW vote means the climate bill’s in bad shape. Or maybe it’s in good shape.

Has Nate Silver taken down Strategic Vision?

Krugman says Obama’s economic cautiousness could do him in.

In case you missed it: for 8 minutes and 31 seconds, Jon Stewart is Glenn Beck.

Just a coincidence? For the past 40 years, they Yankees are undefeated in the World Series under Democratic presidents and winless under Republicans.

I am deeply disappointed by Chairman Boxer’s decision to violate the rules and longstanding precedent of the committee. The Republicans offered a clear path forward to a bipartisan markup, but it was summarily rejected by Chairman Boxer. Instead, she decided to ignore the entreaties of all 6 ranking members from Senate committees with some share of jurisdiction over climate change legislation, as well as leading moderates in the Senate. Her action signals the death knell for the Kerry Boxer bill.

I’m not so sure Boxer violated the rules — by passing the bill without amendments, she would appear to have obviated the need for a quorum with GOP representation — though she certainly circumvented precedent. As for the “clear path forward to a bipartisan markup”: what Inhofe and his colleagues were demanding was a re-analysis of the bill by the EPA, after EPA officials insisted that a new analysis would be nearly identical to the previous one (which, by the way, was more thorough than any counterpart at this stage in the debate over previous climate legislation).

Elana Schor notes that Inhofe “seems to delight” in forcing Boxer’s hand, but the end result is that the legislation will now be molded by other committees and the Senate leadership, without input from Inhofe and his Republican EPW colleagues.

The vote for passage was an unusual maneuver. Without a quorum that included at least two Republicans, the committee was unable to open formal debate on amendments to the bill. But passage requires just a simple majority, and Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and the Democratic leadership chose to forgo amendments in order to move the legislation quickly, given that the end of the GOP boycott was nowhere in sight.

So where does it go from here? Prospects for passage by the full Senate are murky at best. Several other committee chairmen want to get their hands on the bill, and the Senate leadership will have to merge some dramatically different pieces of legislation before the full Senate vote. In the end, it’s likely that the Boxer bill won’t have legs, writes Dave Roberts; other players will likely decide the legislation’s fate:

[The Boxer] bill will be a dead letter. Already there’s an undercurrent of anxiety in Washington that a bill can never pass as long as it’s associated with an unpopular lady senator who runs one of the body’s most liberal committees. The Senate isn’t like the House. There is no party discipline among Democrats; in fact, Democratic senators are fond of explicitly disclaiming party discipline. It’s a chamber full of large, jostling egos and not a little old-boy sexism. They’re not about to let a combative liberal woman run the show.

So a bill that’s Pure Boxer won’t fly. That’s why you saw, on Wed., the Senate’s perceived centrists—Kerry, Graham, and their new buddy Joe Lieberman—swoop in and and open a “dual track” of negotiations, in consultation with the White House. [...]

[B]y stepping in, Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman are letting the political establishment know that the Very Serious grown-ups are back in charge. (It’s pretty telling that Kerry feels the need to craft another bill alongside the one with his name on it.) They will go to the White House, close the door, and hash out what kind of bill can really pass.

Update: Sen. Carper’s office informs me that Carper showed up to the hearing late and voted for passage. I’ve amended the vote tally from 10-1 to 11-1 to reflect this change.

First, Steele proclaims a “Republican renaissance”:

Steele says the elections were not a referendum on Obama:

Steele argues there should have been a primary in NY-23:

Steele responds to my questions about the future implications of the NY-23 contest:

After losses by Christie and Deeds, Obama might have some convincing to do in Wisconsin.

The new stepping stone to the presidency: a book deal.

A TV remake caters to the Tea Party set.

GOPers say the lesson of yesterday’s election is that Dems need to move to the center.

Silver lining for Dems: Owens’ win marked the fifth straight Democratic victory in contested congressional special elections.

Buoyed by the NY-23 revolt, Rubio launches a new Website, with pointed attacks on Crist.

And oh yeah, a coup in Pakistan could be imminent.

He praised the volunteer efforts to get Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie elected as governors in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively, saying, “Our folks are fired up.” Yet he expressed some misgivings about the process that led to Democrat Bill Owens’ victory in New York’s 23rd Congressional District.

“There should have been, in New York 23, a primary process,” he said.

I asked him about the view among some conservatives that the NY-23 result was a victory, since it emboldened the conservative wing of the Republican party.

“I don’t see a victory in losing seats,” he responded, adding, “Winning’s a lot sweeter, and if you don’t think last night was sweet, you need to see a doctor.”

He also disputed the notion that the results were a referendum on President Obama, saying, “I don’t think this is so much a referendum on the president. I think it’s a checkpoint on the policies.”

We’ll have video of the event shortly.

Update: Watch video of the Michael Steele press conference here.

Well, today we’re seeing a repeat performance — only it appears genuine. The Chamber has posted a letter on its Website that it sent to the leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.) — “outlining [its] continued support for strong federal climate change legislation.” The description is peculiar, given the Chamber’s unequivocal anti-cap-and-trade stance, but the message is nonetheless important:

The challenge of drafting comprehensive climate legislation is not “whether” to do something, but “how.” There are many good ideas out there that can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense and realistic foundation on which to craft a bill. The Chamber commends Senators Kerry and Graham for their recent New York Times editorial on the need for comprehensive climate legislation. The Chamber welcomes the call for a new conversation on how to address the issue, and believes their editorial can serve as a solid, workable, commonsense foundation on which to craft a bill.

If that seems absolutely game-changing … well, don’t get too excited. The letter continues:

The Chamber will continue to oppose bad policies that resemble the failed climate proposals of the past, such as bills that jeopardize American jobs, create trade inequalities, leave open the Clean Air Act, open the door to CO2-based mass tort litigation, and further hamper the permitting process for clean energy.

Which is basically code for: “We’re open to hypothetical legislation that liberal Democrats would never endorse, but we couldn’t possibly support anything resembling what’s actually been proposed.”

Still, you get the sense that the Chamber felt it was swimming against the tide. Its anti-climate legislation stance has led a number of its prominent member companies to leave the Chamber. Now, with a conservative Republican (Graham) getting behind the effort to reduce carbon emissions, the Chamber appears to have sensed it was the right time to shift its position.

Last week, Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-Okla.) threatened to boycott the markup unless the committee received an Environmental Protection Agency analysis of the bill that was more to his liking (the EPA did release an analysis two weeks ago, but Republicans charge that it is incomplete). This morning, environmentalists were pleasantly surprised to see Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) at the hearing — but after a 15-minute monologue, he promptly departed, leaving the Republican side of the table empty.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) chided his Republican colleagues for their tactic, arguing that the EPA analysis was as complete as could be expected and pointing out that Inhofe and most of his colleagues will oppose the bill no matter what the EPA says. He referred to a comment Inhofe made about health reform this summer, when he told a town hall audience, “I don’t have to read the bill or know what’s in it. I’m going to oppose it anyway.”

Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) extended something of an olive branch across the aisle last night, when she wrote a letter to the ranking Republicans on the committee, pledging:

To meet your concerns, however, and in the spirit of collegiality, I have arranged for a recess of the markup to take place Tuesday, November 3, at 2:30 pm, so that EPA can be available to answer questions from EPW members on its analysis. In addition, we are offering to extend the deadline for first-degree amendments on the Minority side until close of business tomorrow.

It appears unlikely that the committee’s Republicans will view this as a sufficient concession.

According to gridiron theory, Lieberman just helped Reid toward a first down.

After Reid blasts Republicans for holding up her nomination, the new Surgeon General is confirmed.

Jeb Bush accuses Obama of “attack[ing] capitalism.”

A theory for Dem malaise: it’s harder to unite behind doing stuff than doing nothing.

The NY Times profiles the Senate’s Dr. No.

Krugman on health care: it’s time to take sides.

Human pollsters say Corzine’s up; machines favor Christie.

Once again, a Fox News poll shows good results for … Fox News.