Just a joke? You decide:

Mitt Romney, left off Time's list of the 100 most influential people, takes a jab at the list and, by extension, the Republicans on it.

Romney jokingly suggesting in an interview with CNN's John King that they'd been included for looks, not influence:

KING: As you launch this effort, anyone who picks up "Time" magazine this week and sees the 100 most influential people, will see two Republicans in that magazine. They'll see Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh. Is that helpful, hurtful, indifferent?

CANTOR: You know, they are two individuals that have a lot of ideas, and our party should be about ideas. That's what this effort is about and the National Council for a New America, and that is what they're about. So I don't think any of us should have any monopoly on the ideas. And I know that there are some who like to make it all about personalities, but it's about ideas. It's about how we take this country forward.

ROMNEY: John, I'd like to have a lot more influential Republicans. I think there are a lot more influential Republicans than that would suggest. But was that the issue on the most beautiful people or the most influential people? I'm not sure. If it's the most beautiful, I understand. We're not real cute....

> Read more & share

When news broke last week that Supreme Court Justice David Souter was set to retire, much media attention seemed to focus immediately on two questions: a) who would Obama nominate to replace him and b) what would be the political consequences of any given selection (otherwise known as “will Obama get his man, or woman, through, and if so, how cleanly”). The first question will be answered in due course by Obama himself (or maybe a clever reporter capable of prying it out of Rahm Emanuel). The second question seems like a relatively simple one to answer: As it stands, there are 59 Senators who caucus as Democrats in the Senate (should Al Franken be seated, the Democrats will have a bulletproof 60 votes), and it is basically inconceivable that even in fairly extreme, and dire, circumstances any of them would vote against Obama on something like a judicial appointment. That automatically means that whoever Obama nominates will be approved by the Senate by a bigger margin than Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. So, unless Obama’s nominee is discovered to have had major league tax problems (like Tim Geithner), or worse, my suspicion is that he will be able to appoint whoever he wants and guarantee himself a result that will be hard to describe as anything other than a clean “win.” The more interesting question, therefore, at least in my mind, is what the Souter retirement, and Obama getting the opportunity to nominate a new Supreme Court Justice so early on means for Republicans and conservatives—a question that I think is arguably more complicated, but one that White House advisers will be considering since its answer can potentially guide Democrats, and...

I've posted before about New Hampshire inching towards legalizing gay marriage, and the drive to do so within the legislature there. I have also noted, here and elsewhere, my strong preference for gay marriage being legalized via actual legislative action, instead of via court decisions, which (despite my view that constitutional equal protection clauses can give rise to viable claims that same-sex civil unions and/or gay marriage should be permitted) tend to stir up controversy rather than quell it or resolve what is manifestly a (still) somewhat controversial matter. So, I'm pleased to see that the New Hampshire Senate voted today to legalize gay marriage within the state. Via Now! Hampshire:

The Democratic controlled New Hampshire Senate passed an amended version of the controversial measure to legalize gay marriage today. The vote was 13-11 in favor of the measure.

The House passed a similar measure last month by a 186-179 vote. The two chambers must reconcile small changes between the two measures in a conference committee but this is seen as a technicality. Democratic Gov. John Lynch must decide whether he will sign or veto the bill or allow it to become law without his signature. Lynch has been silent on the matter, though he has stated in the past that he opposes same-sex marriage....