From my Twitter feed:
-News that Jake Tapper won't be reporting fact-checks on air makes This Week/Politifact arrangement far less important than it might have been
-Rachel Maddow again hacks it up with claim that GOP is "already pledging to filibuster" Obama's Supreme Court nominee
-Republicans who didn't believe in Iraq WMD or 9-11 ties supported the war more than Democrats who did
-NYT's David Leonhardt debunks the misleading claim that 47% of households owe no taxes
-New context on the state of the 2010 generic ballot from Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin
-News photo of the year
-Slate's Tim Noah on continued misperceptions about the uninsured's access to health care (see also my research on correcting misperceptions with Jason Reifler)
Update 4/14 11:43 PM: Jonathan Bernstein objects to my Maddow tweet above:
On the narrow point, I suppose that Nyhan is correct: the GOP hasn't "pledged" to filibuster. In the real world, however, Senate Republicans are filibustering Barack Obama's choice for the Supremes. Obama knows, as he makes his selection, that he's going to need 60 votes in the Senate. Does Nyhan really think that it's even remotely likely that a nominee could be confirmed, say, 53-47? I don't. It's a 60 vote Senate, and any pretense by Republicans to the contrary is just posturing. In other words, any nominee unpopular enough that she won't draw 60 votes will trigger Republican "threats" to force a cloture vote. Given that, I think it's much better to use clear language and talk about the need for 60 votes, which requires calling, a filibuster a filibuster.
It would be false to claim that all 41 Senate Republicans are committed to opposing any nominee Obama sends up. Clearly, that's not the case. It's not even absolutely certain that there are no potential votes for yes on cloture, no on the nominee. But realistically, Obama has to worry about getting 60 votes, not getting 50 votes plus Biden and hoping that there's no filibuster. And in my view, reporting and commenting on the nomination should make that clear.
I don't disagree with any of what Bernstein writes, but it's not a direct rebuttal of my point. Maddow is misrepresenting Republican statements to suggest they are pledging a filibuster; this is false. Whether Republicans will filibuster in the end is a different issue. Also, note that Bernstein himself isn't saying Republicans will filibuster. He's saying they would if they had enough votes to block the nominee -- a conditional claim that is far different than the phony filibuster pledge that Maddow has manufactured.