I don’t know who else gets it or where else it gets published. But for the last month or two I’ve been on the mailing list for something called “Dick Morris Reports.” I didn’t sign up. Someone else must have. But I don’t know who since it’s on my personal email address. In any case, today’s just showed up and the message today is that John McCain is now officially no longer the frontrunner for the 2008 GOP nomination. At least in MorrisWorld, though I think I’d agree. Anyway, a few snippets.

Until now, the status of front-runner in the Republican primaries for president was jointly held by Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. McCain is clearly no longer the front-runner. In the last week or so, Giuliani has moved out to a clear lead.

* McCain’s latest fund-raising report, for the fourth quarter of 2006, was pathethic: He raised only $1.7 million and has only pocket change – $472,454 – on hand.

* A Fox News poll of Jan. 30-31 shows the former mayor jumping out to a significant lead among Republicans – 34 to 22 percent.

* A Gallup poll taken Jan. 25-28 shows Giuliani is better liked by Republicans than McCain -74 to 21 percent and more trusted to handle a crisis (68-20). Some 60 percent say Giuliani “better understands the problems of the average person,” against 33 percent who pick McCain. By 58-34, America’s Mayor is seen as the stronger leader.

Conversations with conservative activists also show a remarkable openness to supporting Giuliani – a belief that he can overcome (perhaps finesse) his pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-immigration positions. Feelings seem bitterer over McCain’s role in Washington battles – his opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his support for “amnesty” for illegal immigrants and for campaign-finance reform.

I think even some DC folks are clueing in to the reality that Republican just don’t really like John McCain. But this why these are fun days not to be a Republican. Let’s run that sentence again: “Conversations with conservative activists also show a remarkable openness to supporting Giuliani – a belief that he can overcome (perhaps finesse) his pro-choice, pro-gun-control, pro-gay-rights and pro-immigration positions.”

Let’s be frank. On most or all of these issues, Giuliani is to the left of a good number of Democrats outside the northeast and the west coast.

Basically, for social conservatives, Giuliani is way on the wrong side of every signature, litmus issue. But there’s a “remarkable openness.” How about remarkably desparate? They just don’t have anybody in this race at the moment that’s catching any kind of fire in the nomination process and has any chance in a general.

We had our late afternoon editorial meeting here at TPM this afternoon. And the five of us on the call had a difficult time figuring out just what the Republicans were fighting for other than using the filibuster to prevent the senate from voting a vote of no confidence in the president’s war policy. But this article in the Washington Post explains pretty neatly what’s up. The nominal issue is the Gregg Amendment which, pretty ridiculously, claims that the Congress has the responsibility to fully fund any mission the president decides to authorize for the US armed forces. But the key is they won’t let the senate vote on the Iraq War. It’s that simple. No vote, no debate on Iraq that can’t get over 60 votes. That simple.

That’s fine. The senate allows for that. The filibuster is an important right that sizeable minorities have in the US senate. But you take responsibility for what you try to filibuster. So let’s note exactly what’s happening here. The Republicans — even ones who say they’re against escalation — are using the filibuster to prevent the senate from opposing the president’s war policy. That simple. That’s all this is about. Every Republican vote here is for a free hand for the president in Iraq.

Both sides try to spin these things to their own advantage. Sometimes they make them sound simpler than they are. But this one’s just clear. They’re using the filibuster to protect the president’s war policy.

There you have it: Sen. Lieberman just vote ‘against cloture’, i.e., for the filibuster to prevent the anti-surge resolution from coming to a vote.

TPM Reader SS on the senate squabble: “I think it’s pretty simple. Everyone voting today to shut this down “voted to support President Bush’s escalation in Iraq.” That’s the language I would bash them over the heads with for the 21 months between today and election day 2008. There’s nothing untrue about that statement. It’s a parliamentary tactic designed to support the president’s escalation in Iraq by silencing those who wish to criticize the President’s decision.”

So there you have it. Two Republicans buckled and voted against the filibuster — Sens. Coleman and Collins.

Update by G.S.: Here’s a list of all the GOP Senators up for reelection in 2008 who backed it.

Jim Webb on his infamous encounter with President Bush: “I don’t think the lack of courtesy was mine.”

So, the Washington Times story about Speaker Pelosi demanding a military aircraft to ferry her and staff and supporters around the country? Turns out it was a total crock.

Now, I thought I heard Tucker Carlson yapping this story up only this afternoon. So, here’s a question I’d love some help with. If you saw another publication — web, in print, or on TV — pick this ‘story’ up, can you drop us a line? Just shoot us an email with the basic details and as much specificity as you can provide.

Remember too that the Washington Times is a sister publication of ‘Insight magazine’, the outfit that ran the Obama slur just a couple weeks ago.

Late Update: Okay, here’s Brit Hume hawking it.

Later Update: Apparently Lou Dobbs ran with this whopper like there was no tomorrow.

Larry Johnson looks at the Plamegate timeline emerging at the Libby trial.

A special moment.

Sen. Cornyn (R-TX) sets aside time for Sen. Lieberman (ID-CT) to speak on behalf of the GOP Iraq filibuster and refuses Sen. Warner’s (R-VA) request to give some time to Sen. Collins (R-ME). Collins was one of two Republicans to vote against the Republican filibuster of the anti-‘surge’ resolution.

Lieberman.

Who’s right and who’s wrong?

Below we noted that the Washington Times story about Nancy Pelosi’s demand for a military aircraft for travel back to her district appears to be a crock. According to Thinkprogress and reporting in Roll Call, former Speaker Denny Hastert used a military plane for travel to his district. But the plane he used couldn’t carry enough fuel to fly nonstop across the country.

A Pelosi aide told Roll Call: “The Air Force determined that [Pelosi’s] safety would be best ensured by using a plane that has the fuel capacity to go coast-to-coast. All we’re asking for is what Hastert had.”

So this seems to be the issue: a military aircraft for the Speaker has been the rule since 9/11. But a larger plane is needed for Pelosi since she flies back and forth to California, not Illinois.

Okay, let’s move along.

Now, the original Washington Times story said that Pelosi wanted the larger plane so family and friends and staff and others could fly with her. But apparently that was false.

Now, Lou Dobbs has been whacking this story nonstop for a week or so on his CNN show. And he returned to it this evening with yet another segment by reporter Lisa Sylvester. And at the end of the segment he had this chatty exchange with Sylvester …

DOBBS: Lisa, let me see if I’ve got this right. She wants a plane that accommodates 42 people, private stateroom. And the reason is because she wants to be able to go nonstop from Washington to the West Coast? My goodness, she could have done that in the plane that Hastert was using (italics added).

SYLVESTER: That’s exactly correct, Lou. You’ve got that. It would be 42 people, and clearly she won’t be the only one on this plane. She wants to have members of the congressional delegation. And her critics will say, look, this is a very nice perk that she can share with her colleagues and use as leverage, should she need to.

DOBBS: Well, it’s really a fascinating thing: 42. She could take a circus with her, for crying out loud. All right, thank you very much, Lisa Sylvester.

Now, this whole issue is silly. But Dobbs and Co. has been on it for like a week regurgitating the bogus Washington Times piece. And here he says that the Hastert plane actually could fly coast to coast.

Does he know something everyone else doesn’t?

Or did he just make that up out of whole cloth?

Many consider it poor form to point out these small-ante falsehoods. But this is how the Obama-Madrassa story got jazzed all over the place.