DNC Chair Tim Kaine emailed supporters today to announce that the committee's fall meeting will be held in the Lone Star State. In the email, Kaine likens Texas to Virginia, arguing that it is poised to shift to the Democrats. He says Dems should have every reason to feel "bullish" about their hopes in Texas. Kaine writes:

It wasn't that long ago -- less than 10 years, in fact -- that Virginia was considered just as strong a lock for the Republicans as Texas has been. In Virginia, we had Republican Governors, Republican U.S. Senators and a strong Republican majority in our Congressional delegation and state legislature. And we didn't merit any attention from Presidential candidates during general elections because no Democratic candidate since Lyndon Johnson had won Virginia's electoral votes.

Today? I'm the second consecutive Democrat to serve as Governor of Virginia, we took back the State Senate and have reached near parity in the House of Delegates. Both of our U.S. Senators are Democrats, and Democrats are the majority of our U.S. House delegation. And of course, in November, Barack Obama became the first Democratic Presidential candidate since 1964 to carry the Old Dominion.

In so many ways, I believe Texas is poised to move towards our column, just as Virginia has.

Maybe Governor Perry will add that to the list of reasons Texans should secede.

Speaking about the bankruptcy of General Motors at the White House this morning, President Obama sought to reassure Americans that he's not interested in being the CEO of a car company. After praising Chrylser for its surprisingly swift moves to restructure through bankruptcy and sale to Fiat, the President spoke carefully and soberly about the "unwelcome position" the government has found itself in as a major shareholder in the struggling auto giant. Part of the restructuring plan GM has formulated involves granting the government a 60% stake in the company in exchange for $30 billion, bringing the total government commitment to GM to nearly $50 billion. Obama called the government "reluctant shareholders" in GM, but said that another alternative - loaning the company more capital - would have been irresponsible as GM is already weighed down by enormous amounts of debt. "What we are not doing -- what I have no interest in doing -- is running GM," Obama said. "The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions.  When a difficult decision has to be made on matters like where to open a new plant or what type of new car to make, the new GM, not the United States government, will make that decision.In short, our goal is to get GM back on its feet, take a hands-off approach, and get out quickly."

The President is engaged in a delicate balancing act here. On the one hand, Americans are suspicious of government interference in the free market. Taxpayers don't want to be de facto shareholders in failing businesses either. But on the other hand, in order for the government to realize any real return on its investments (and therefore for taxpayers to see direct benefits from it), the government needs to retain it share until GM sees profits, or at least a healthy cash flow, again. So the real question for the President is this: How do you define "get out quickly"? And what is the criteria for making that decision? What benefits can taxpayers expect the Government to reap from this massive investment? Is there an expectation for any of the capital to be recouped? Or is simply staving off complete failure enough?

Interestingly, Republicans have been almost silent on the GM plan. Although such deep government investment in a corporation is no doubt an anathema to most free market GOPers, nobody wants to be the guy saying this iconic American company should fail. 

On a day full of sobering news about missing planes and failing auto giants, at least we have some answers to one of the important questions of our time: What's it like to go on a date if you are the President? Via the New York Daily News, we have all sort of details of the Obamas date on Saturday night. They made a low profile escape to New York City, late Saturday afternoon, to continue their long tradition of date nights, and their new traditon of getting out of the White House as often as possible. Earlier the in the day, the President had played the part of soccer dad, traveling to a local field to watch his eldest daughter Malia play, and win.

The First Couple dined at Blue Hill, a small (83 seat) Greenwich Village restaurant with a seasonal menu featuring local produce sourced from the Hudson Valley. Entrees range from $28-$36. Mrs. Obama apparently had 2 martinis. It's unclear whether they were gin or vodka, shaken or stirred, dirty or with a twist. Alas, investigative journalism units are all but a thing of the past... But I digress. The President had wines that were paired with a tasting menu. Their fellow diners were exceedingly polite, according to the NYDN, refraining from ogling the first couple or whipping out their cell phones for twitpics. But they did burst into spontaneous New York applause as the Obamas got up to leave.

The President then took his wife to a Broadway Show, the fulfilment of a promise he'd made to her during the election. They saw "Joe Turner's Come and Gone" by August Wilson at the Belasco Theater. The curtain was held for 45 minutes while the First Couple made their way to the theater. There, they recieved a five minute standing ovation. Some patrons stood on their chairs to catch a glimpse of the Obamas, but seemed indifferent to the presence of Meryl Streep, who was also taking in the show.

The Obamas copped some flak from the RNC, who criticized them for extravagence at a time when American giant GM prepares for bankruptcy. The White House hasn't announced how much the trip cost, but did indicate the Obamas would have been happy to catch the shuttle had Secret Service allowed it.

Our favorites this morning from around the web: