CALIFORNIAFICATION.... I'm on the other coast, but from afar, California seems to have a basic problem when it comes to governing. Part of it is a public expectation of strong governmental services and benefits, coupled with revulsion to paying for them, but the structural issues are arguably more important.

On the one hand, Republicans in the state have moved to almost comically conservative levels, and can't win legislative victories outside their stronghold areas. On the other, Democratic struggle to actually govern, because of mandatory super-majorities needed to advance an agenda.

If you're starting to think this sounds familiar, there's a good reason.

Nationwide, the electorate has high expectations on public services, but are generally resistant to tax increases. The GOP contingent in Congress has shrunk badly as the party has moved sharply to the right, but Democrats aren't able to govern as they'd like, due in large part to a procedural, structural straightjacket.

Rich Yeselson proposed a thought experiment yesterday. Imagine if President Obama, as chief executives of yore used to do, was able to pursue his policy agenda by having a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate approve legislation he proposes. (This is old-school thinking, I know.) The stimulus would have been stronger; the health care bill would be more ambitious; the climate change bill could be further reaching, etc.

Except, that doesn't seem to be on the table.

We are living through the Californiafication of America -- a country in which the combination of a determined minority and a procedural supermajority legislative requirement makes it impossible to rationally address public policy challenges. And thus the Democratic president and his allies in Congress are evaluated on the basis of extreme compromise measures -- supplicating to dispassionate Wise Men like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, buying Olympia Snowe a vacation home, working bills through 76 committees and countless "procedural" votes -- rather than the substantive, policy achievements of bills that would merely require a simple majority to pass.

It is sheer good fortune that the Democrats had 59/60 Senate seats this cycle and thus were able to pass any stimulus at all, albeit the inadequate one they did. Think about it: With a robust 56 Senate Democratic seats, the stimulus would have failed -- and otherwise, Galston/Brooks would be talking not about Obama's "going too far," but, rather, about a "failed Obama presidency." And they would be wrong. What we would be witnessing -- and are still witnessing -- is a failed system of democratic governance. It's something procedural liberals should be deeply concerned about and should remedy as quickly as possible.

In the abstract, the landscape probably seems a little ridiculous. After extraordinary failures, Republicans were pushed into a tiny, humiliated minority. Democrats received a mandate unlike any we've seen in a generation -- a major presidential win (365 electoral votes), a huge House majority (256 seats, or 59%), and the largest Senate majority in decades. The GOP quickly became a small, discredited minority, and Democrats were positioned to do largely as they pleased.

And yet, the Californiafication issues persist.

Kevin Drum added, "In Washington DC, federal deficits have become enormous, Republican tax cuts have made them even worse, healthcare costs are skyrocketing, unemployment is about to break double digits, and it's nearly impossible to seriously address these problems because the Republican Party has adopted a policy of making the filibuster a routine tool of state. If you can't get 60 votes in the Senate, you can't pass anything of consequence these days."

With 58 Democrats and two independents who caucus with Democrats, it means necessary legislation to address pressing crises stalls every time Joe Lieberman starts to feel unloved or Ben Nelson has a bad day.

There's a lot of talk in the political world about "reform" - - health care reform, energy reform, education reform, etc. When Americans elect a political party to deliver on an agenda, and it can't because the system undermines democratic governance, it's time for "structural reform" to be part of the conversation.

—Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (40)

WHEN HALLOWEEN BECOMES APRIL FOOL'S.... It's one thing to set low expectations for House Minority Leader John Boehner's (R-Ohio) weekly address. It's another to actually hear the darn thing.

For example, just a few days after conceding there is no GOP alternative reform proposal, the House Minority Leader now believes there is a rival health care plan after all.

"We first released our health care plan in June, and over the last six months, we have introduced at least eight bills that, taken together, would implement this blueprint."

I see. Take a brief printout with some talking points, combine it with eight unrelated pieces of weak legislation -- not one of which has been endorsed by the party's leadership -- throw it in a blender without a coherent policy structure, and viola! House Republicans have both a "plan" and a "blueprint."

And to think I questioned the seriousness with which the House GOP took policy matters. Don't I feel embarrassed.

Boehner went on to point to a handful of ideas Republicans like, some of which are already in the House reform bill.

He added that the majority's reform package will "put unelected boards, bureaus, and commissions in charge of who gets access to what drug and what potentially life-saving treatment," which is obviously untrue. Boehner also said reform "will cut seniors' Medicare benefits," which is obviously untrue.

Boehner then complained about the debt -- which he helped add $5 trillion to by supporting Bush/Cheney policies -- and economic growth -- which he wanted to stunt with a five-year spending freeze at the height of the economic crisis.

DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse responded, "Apparently, John Boehner has his holidays confused because his remarks are far better suited for an April Fool's address."

—Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

UNDERSTANDING REDD.... Following up on yesterday's post, tropical deforestation accounts for 20 percent of all carbon emissions into the atmosphere, more than the combined emissions of every car, truck, ship, plane and train on the planet. A new market mechanism, REDD -- Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation -- is being developed so that residents of tropical forest properties can earn more money from the standing forest than from its removal.

The REDD concept is part of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, which would allow U.S. companies to offset the carbon they emit by paying tropical countries and their citizens not to cut down their rainforests. A market-based system that includes REDD will also be on the agenda at the UN-sponsored talks in Copenhagen this December, where representatives hope to hash out a new climate change treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The Washington Monthly published a special section in the July/August issue, "A Clear Cut Crisis." Yesterday, the New America Foundation co-hosted an event with the Monthly on this idea.

The report and the video from Friday's event are online here.

—Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (2)

WAIT, WASN'T THIS A GOOD WEEK?.... Yesterday, Joe Scarborough, reflecting on the state of the debate over health care reform, said, "This week has been a mess for the Democrats." NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd agreed, saying the party "decided to take two steps back after they took one step forward."

I suppose I can understand what Scarborough and Todd are thinking. A handful of Senate "centrists" don't want there to be public-private competition, and may oppose cloture. In the House, Speaker Pelosi couldn't get exactly the bill she intended, and had to compromise with some of the less progressive contingents in her caucus.

But to describe the week as "a mess for Democrats" seems to focus far too heavily on the trees, missing the forest altogether. Morgan Weiland explained:

Speaker Pelosi reported out a full House bill, the American Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3962), that achieves a number of key fiscal goals that only this summer many in the media were insisting were out of reach. The Congressional Budget Office found that the bill reduces the deficit by $104 billion over the next decade, and continues to chip away at it in the subsequent decade. Plus it comes in under the magic $900 billion number for the net cost of coverage expansion over 10 years -- a cost that is, in CBO's words, "more than offset." [...]

If anything, all of this adds up to a big step forward -- arguably a bigger one than has ever taken to achieve comprehensive health care reform in this country.

Agreed. For the first time ever, major health care reform bills are on the move in the House and Senate. There's broad agreement within the majority in both chambers, and there's a growing sense that a major breakthrough on this issue -- after more than a half-century of attempts -- is all but inevitable.

This week wasn't a "mess"; it was a milestone.

Paul Krugman called this "the defining moment for health care reform."

Past efforts to give Americans what citizens of every other advanced nation already have -- guaranteed access to essential care -- have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, usually dying in committee without ever making it to a vote.

But this time, broadly similar health-care bills have made it through multiple committees in both houses of Congress. And on Thursday, Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House, unveiled the legislation that she will send to the House floor, where it will almost surely pass. It's not a perfect bill, by a long shot, but it's a much stronger bill than almost anyone expected to emerge even a few weeks ago. And it would lead to near-universal coverage.

As a result, everyone in the political class -- by which I mean politicians, people in the news media, and so on, basically whoever is in a position to influence the final stage of this legislative marathon -- now has to make a choice. The seemingly impossible dream of fundamental health reform is just a few steps away from becoming reality, and each player has to decide whether he or she is going to help it across the finish line or stand in its way.... History is about to be made -- and everyone has to decide which side they're on.

The column wasn't about the punditocracy, but I suspect, as the process unfolds over the next couple of months, they'll be reflecting quite a bit on why everything is good news for Republicans.

—Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

SCOZZAFAVA SUSPENDS CAMPAIGN FOUR DAYS BEFORE ELECTION.... In a bit of a surprise, Republican congressional candidate Dede Scozzafava, just four days before the special election in New York's 23rd, announced this morning that she's giving up.

In a statement posted to the candidate's website, Scozzafava, a state assemblywoman, explains that she's come to believe she will lose on Tuesday, and has chosen to suspend her campaign.

In recent days, polls have indicated that my chances of winning this election are not as strong as we would like them to be. The reality that I've come to accept is that in today's political arena, you must be able to back up your message with money -- and as I've been outspent on both sides, I've been unable to effectively address many of the charges that have been made about my record. [...] It is increasingly clear that pressure is mounting on many of my supporters to shift their support. Consequently, I hereby release those individuals who have endorsed and supported my campaign to transfer their support as they see fit to do so. I am and have always been a proud Republican. It is my hope that with my actions today, my Party will emerge stronger and our District and our nation can take an important step towards restoring the enduring strength and economic prosperity that has defined us for generations. On Election Day my name will appear on the ballot, but victory is unlikely.

As an assessment, Scozzafava is almost certainly correct. Despite being the Republican candidate in a Republican district, her support has deteriorated in recent weeks, especially as far-right activists have rallied behind Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman.

To this extent, the right-wing base has a feather in its cap this morning -- it forced a moderate Republican to flee from the campaign she seemed likely to win as recently as a month ago.

For the Republican Party, however, it's much tougher sell. Scozzafava had the support of the Republican National Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee -- and she was still running third in a district the Republican Party has held since the Civil War.

The next question, of course, is what happens next. Recent polls show Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens effectively tied, and where Scozzafava's supporters go will dictate the outcome. Given the history of the district, Hoffman would appear poised to get a big boost. On the other hand, some locals are turned off by Hoffman's right-wing positions, his unfamiliarity with local issues, and the fact that he doesn't actually own a home in the congressional district he's running in.

Indeed, there may well be some moderate Republicans who'll hesitate before rewarding the far-right candidate who wants to drive moderates from the party.

Time will tell.

—Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is Halloween-related news from TV preacher Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network. In a truly bizarre piece, CBN published fears from Kimberly Daniels about Halloween, which, I assure you, was not a parody.

During Halloween, time-released curses are always loosed. A time-released curse is a period that has been set aside to release demonic activity and to ensnare souls in great measure ... During this period demons are assigned against those who participate in the rituals and festivities. These demons are automatically drawn to the fetishes that open doors for them to come into the lives of human beings. For example, most of the candy sold during this season has been dedicated and prayed over by witches.

I do not buy candy during the Halloween season. Curses are sent through the tricks and treats of the innocent whether they get it by going door to door or by purchasing it from the local grocery store. The demons cannot tell the difference.

The CBN piece, which was eventually removed from the site out of embarrassment, went on to say, "While the lukewarm and ignorant think of these customs as 'just harmless fun,' the vortexes of hell are releasing new assignments against souls. Witches take pride in laughing at the ignorance of natural men (those who ignore the spirit realm).... The danger of Halloween is not in the scary things we see but in the secret, wicked, cruel activities that go on behind the scenes." These "scary things" include, according to the article, "orgies between animals and humans," "animal and human sacrifices," and "sacrificing babies to shed innocent blood."

My friend the Rev. Barry W. Lynn noted, "I've heard of the devil being in the details, but to think he's lurking inside a Snickers bar is a little too much. Pat Robertson has always peddled some scary stuff, but this is over the top."

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Christopher Beam ponders the question of how governments decide what constitutes a legitimate religious tradition: "A French court fined the Church of Scientology $888,000 on Tuesday after a couple claimed they'd been manipulated into buying between $30,000 and $73,000 worth of church products. The verdict is 'a historical turning point for the fight against cult abuses,' said the leader of France's 'government cult-fighting unit.' How does this special cult-busting unit distinguish between cults and bona fide religions? Vaguely."

* The Catholic League's Bill Donohue finds something new to get excited about: "On Sunday's 'Curb Your Enthusiasm,' Larry David was taking a 'new pill' that caused him to urinate with excessive force. This caused a lot of splash back, some of which ended up on a Jesus painting hanging on the bathroom wall of his pious assistant, who later sees Jesus 'crying' and assumes a miracle has taken place." Donohue is not pleased.

* And in North Carolina, a Baptist church has organized a book burning for this evening, focused largely on torching Bibles that are not the King James version. "We are burning books that we believe to be Satanic," Pastor Marc Grizzard said. If you happen to live near the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, N.C., you probably shouldn't make plans to stop by tonight's event -- it's by invitation only.

—Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

THE BIGGEST ZOMBIE LIE OF 'EM ALL.... Looking back over the last six months of debate over health care reform, the right-wing allegations of "death panels" have practically become notorious. No other lie was as insulting or as ridiculous, and those who repeated it deserved to be labeled disreputable hacks.

To their credit, House leaders decided to embrace the common-sense idea that has long generated bipartisan support. The NYT reported yesterday, "Undaunted by the August uproar over 'death panels,' House Democrats would authorize Medicare to pay doctors for providing advice to patients on end-of-life care. The new bill says such consultations are 'completely optional.'"

You know what comes next. Sean Hannnity told viewers last night, "The death panels are back."

Apparently so. On one of Fox News' straight news segments yesterday afternoon, analyst Peter Johnson Jr. interviewed Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and asked, "So with regard to the death panel, nothing much has changed." Cornyn responded that it's "certainly something we'll be focusing on."

I don't doubt that. Yesterday was a banner day for Republicans anxious to re-embrace their summertime favorite. Hannity talked it up, of course, as did GOP sites like FoxNews.com and BigGovernment.

The claim has been debunked repeatedly, even by news outlets reluctant to draw policy conclusions based on objective facts. That, of course, only matters to those approaching the debate in good faith.

The House bill intends to reimburse seniors for voluntary counseling, which means the right's favorite nonsensical talking point is back in play. Lucky us.

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (9)

GROWTH VS. DEFICIT.... An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll (pdf) was released the other day, and it included an important question that's gone largely overlooked.

Respondents were asked, "Which of the following two statements comes closer to your point of view? a) The president and the Congress should worry more about boosting the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits now and in the future; or b) The president and the Congress should worry more about keeping the budget deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover."

Given the precarious state of the economy and widespread concerns about unemployment, common sense suggests the former would have overwhelming support. It didn't -- 62% want policymakers to focus on deficit reduction, even at the sake of economic growth, while 31% prefer an emphasis on boosting the economy. That's a two-to-one margin.

Once in a while, public opinion is wildly wrong, and this is one of those times. Matt Yglesias explained yesterday:

A lot of politicians and political operatives in DC are very impressed by polling that shows people concerned about the budget deficit. I think it would be really politically insane for people to take that too literally. If Congress makes the deficit even bigger in a way that helps spur recovery, then come election day people will notice the recovery and be happy. If, by contrast, the labor market is still a disaster then people will be pissed off. It's true that they might say they're pissed off at the deficit, but the underlying source of anger is the objective bad conditions.

Once in a while, policymakers have to be responsible enough to ignore polls and do the right thing. If these results are accurate, people care more about the deficit than the economy. But that's crazy. Imagine politicians telling a person who's lost her job and benefits, and who's struggling to stay afloat, "Yeah, but at least I've helped lower the deficit by a fraction of a percent in relation to the GDP!"

Shifting the emphasis from economic growth to deficit reduction -- the Hoover approach to growth in a crisis -- is a recipe for disaster. If the poll is right, the majority is wrong. As Noam Scheiber noted, "[T]he source of the anger isn't the deficit; it's the labor market. The deficit only adds insult to injury, and it does you no good to deal with the insult without treating the injury. Conversely, if you're able to fix the labor market, then I suspect people with think the deficit is basically worth it."

—Steve Benen 9:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

MORE THAN ZERO.... Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the House Republican caucus' point man health care reform, sent out an interesting press release yesterday afternoon.

The header read, "Health Care Solutions Group -- Roy Blunt, Chairman." The release read:

In Case You Missed It...

Blunt on Fox News: the Democrats' 1,990-page government takeover of health care "could very well die under its own weight."

The release included a big screen-grab of Blunt's soundbite, and a link to the YouTube clip. It is, in other words, a quip that Roy Blunt and the "Health Care Solutions Group" is especially proud of. It's probably something Blunt and his allies will be repeating quite a bit.

There are, however, a couple of problems here. First, going after legislation based on its length, rather than its merit, is pretty silly. Second, calling the reform plan a "government takeover" is a lie, no matter how many times conservatives repeat it.

But most important is Blunt's invitation to comparison. The Missouri Republican wants to bring attention to the Dems' 1,990-page bill, based on the assumption that 1,990 pages is too many. But the next question is obvious: "OK, Rep. Blunt. How many pages is the Republican health care reform plan?" For now, the correct answer is, "Zero."

It was, after all, none other than Roy Blunt who boasted, "I guarantee you we will provide you with a [health care] bill." That was 136 days ago.

Given the severity of the problem, Blunt is effectively asking Americans to choose: address the health care crisis with a 1,990-page bill or ignore the crisis with nothing. Seems like an easy choice to me.

—Steve Benen 9:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

'A PERPETUAL REVULSION MACHINE'.... I've been trying to write a lot less about the so-called "feud" between the White House and Fox News -- is there a 12-step program? -- but CNN's Campbell Brown raised an important-but-wrong point this week that underscores the confusion that exists among many mainstream journalists.

Brown explained that it's "obvious," at least to her, that Fox News and MSNBC are bookends on the ideological spectrum: "Just as Fox News leans to the right with their opinionated hosts in prime time, MSNBC leans left. I don't think anyone at Fox or MSNBC would disagree."

It's hard to overstate how wrong this is. It's a fundamentally lazy way of looking at the larger media dynamic, and those who make the argument -- which is to say, a whole lot of D.C. political media establishment -- almost certainly haven't watched much in the way of cable news.

Jon Stewart's segment on Fox News this week is worth watching. He notes at the outset that a variety of right-wing personalities have accused the White House of "censorship" because some officials have dared to offer mild-but-accurate criticism of the Republican network. Cal Thomas went so far as to compare the White House criticizing a partisan news outlet to Stalin's Russia. (Oddly enough, just a year ago, when the Bush White House went after MSNBC, Cal Thomas was delighted, and wondered why the Bush team hadn't done more of this.)

But the point of "The Daily Show's" segment was to note that the alleged wall that separates Fox News' high-profile opinion shows and Fox News' objective hard-news reporting doesn't actually exist.

And that continues to be the point that Campbell Brown and others keep missing. On MSNBC, a viewer can find three hours a day of left-leaning opinion journalism. Viewers can also find three hours a day of a show hosted by a conservative, former Republican congressman. Throughout the afternoon, however, MSNBC offers straight news, without an ideological bent.

Fox News' straight reporting isn't straight reporting. The wall between news side and the opinion side doesn't exist. This isn't a network that does legitimate journalism during the day, and then let's GOP clowns run wild at night -- this is a network that acts as the arm of a political party and a cog in a larger partisan machine all day. As Jamison Foser explained the other day, "Fox's daytime, ostensibly 'straight news' programs are filled with right-wing misinformation. And remember: It wasn't Sean Hannity or any other prime-time host who suggested during last year's presidential campaign that Barack and Michelle Obama had performed a 'terrorist fist-jab.' It was a daytime news anchor."

It was also a daytime anchor, Jon Scott, who has read Republican Party talking points -- typos and all -- on the air, presenting them as Fox News research. This during the "straight news" portion of the day.

Josh Marshall, who keeps the cable networks running throughout the day at the TPM offices, noted recently, "[A]s a product [Fox News'] straight news is almost more the stuff of parody than the talk shows which are at least more or less straightforward about what they are.... MSNBC has now made a big push to refashion itself as a liberal or perhaps just non-hard-right-wing alternative to Fox. But the distinction between the two operations becomes clear whenever you watch 'news' on MSNBC as opposed to Maddow, Olbermann or Ed."

In the bigger picture, the FNC-MSNBC comparison is itself foolish. For one thing, figures like Maddow and Olbermann bring intellectual seriousness to their work, while Beck and Hannity peddle bizarre and unhinged conspiracy theories. What's more, Maddow and Olbermann are not partisans -- regular viewers realize that they criticize the Obama White House and congressional Democrats all the time. Fox News doesn't offer anything similar because that would be crazy -- an appendage of the Republican Party wouldn't dare criticize the Republican Party.

Why is this so difficult for the mainstream to understand?

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

FALSE POSITIVES.... I can only imagine how excited conservatives were yesterday afternoon after the White House released its visitors logs, detailing the thousands of people who've came to the White House since January. As the New York Daily News noted, "For one brief, shining moment, it looked like conspiracy theorists had found the mother lode."

The reason for the short-lived exhilaration was that the logs included names such as William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and Michael Moore. True to form, several prominent conservatives pounced. The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb proclaimed, "I tried to warn you, America. Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers!"

As is too often the case, the right failed to think this one through. As Norm Eisen, special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform, explained:

There's an important lesson here as well. This unprecedented level of transparency can sometimes be confusing rather than providing clear information.

A lot of people visit the White House, up to 100,000 each month, with many of those folks coming to tour the buildings. Given this large amount of data, the records we are publishing today include a few "false positives" - names that make you think of a well-known person, but are actually someone else. In September, requests were submitted for the names of some famous or controversial figures (for example Michael Jordan, William Ayers, Michael Moore, Jeremiah Wright, Robert Kelly ("R. Kelly"), and Malik Shabazz). The well-known individuals with those names never actually came to the White House.

Yes, someone named William Ayers visited the White House this year, but not that William Ayers. Someone named Jeremiah Wright stopped by, but not that Jeremiah Wright.

Conservatives got excited for nothing. Goldfarb's national "warnings" notwithstanding, there is no controversy here.

It's also worth noting that the Obama White House deserves some credit for embracing this level of openness and transparency. The Bush team, as you may recall, fought like hell to keep visitor logs shielded from public view. Obama's team is not only making the information available, it's putting all the information online. It's the most transparent White House ever.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Iran seemed amenable to the proposed nuclear deal. Then, it didn't.

* Not an easy day for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Pakistan.

* Weak consumer confidence has consequences.

* Good move: "President Obama has strengthened the authority and independence of an espionage oversight board made up of private citizens with top-level security clearances and a mandate to uncover illegal spying. In an executive order released Thursday by the White House, Mr. Obama rolled back several changes made by the Bush administration that had weakened the Intelligence Oversight Board, a panel that helps presidents make sure spy agencies are obeying federal laws and presidential directives."

* Hmm: "House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July." But is there less here than meets the eye?

* Chris Hayes asks a terrific question: Anyone notice that the president signed a $680 billion defense appropriations bill in the midst of our heated debates about $90 billion a year for heath care?

* Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) thinks the health care debate is more important than the 9/11 attacks. If a Democrat had said this, would the right be all right with it?

* What was the CBO score on the House reform bill? That's a little complicated.

* Will the public plan have higher premiums than private insurance? Ezra Klein takes a closer look.

* More evidence that a lack of health care coverage can lead to American deaths.

* It pains me to admit it, but Rick Santorum's criticism of the Bush administration's Afghanistan policy happens to be correct.

* I'm afraid Stephen Spruiell is badly confused about education policy.

* Sounds like financier and philanthropist George Soros has an interesting new project.

* I'm not at all pleased about publius' "semi-permanent vacation." He's long been one of my very favorites.

* White House goes open source, embraces Drupal.

* It's odd that Jeb Bush, after all of his exposure to government and politics, still doesn't understand what "capitalism" means. There's just something wrong with those Bush boys.

* Fox News' interest in the "War on Christmas" seems to come earlier every year.

* Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) has a habit of saying remarkably dumb things.

* CNN's Lou Dobbs thinks his critics are shooting at his home. There's reason for skepticism.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

SLAYING THE 'DINOSAUR'.... Now there's a senator I can agree with -- a young New England Democrat who realizes that the filibuster is an institutional menace. He not only calls the parliamentary maneuver "a dinosaur" that had become "a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today," he actually took steps to kill the filibuster once and for all.

The senator is Joe Lieberman ... in 1994.

At the time, Lieberman, part of a Democratic minority, believed Senate obstructionism had gone too far. Even though Republicans had the majority, he and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) decided to take the bold step of pushing for majority rule in the Senate -- even if it made it easier for the new GOP-led chamber to pass legislation. At a press conference 15 years ago next month, Lieberman argued:

"[People] are fed up -- frustrated and fed up and angry about the way in which our government does not work, about the way in which we come down here and get into a lot of political games and seem to -- partisan tugs of war and forget why we're here, which is to serve the American people. And I think the filibuster has become not only in reality an obstacle to accomplishment here, but it also a symbol of a lot that ails Washington today.

"But I do want to say that the Republicans were not the only perpetrators of filibuster gridlock, there were occasions when Democrats did it as well. And the long and the short of it is that the abuse of the filibuster was bipartisan and so its demise should be bipartisan as well.

"The whole process of individual senators being able to hold up legislation, which in a sense is an extension of the filibuster because the hold has been understood in one way to be a threat to filibuster -- it's just unfair.

"I'm very proud to be standing here with Tom as two Democrats saying that we're going to begin this fight, because we've just been stung by the filibuster for a period of years, and even though the tables have now turned, it doesn't make it right for us to use this instrument that we so vilified."

In 1994, when Lieberman thought filibusters had become an outrageous abuse worthy of elimination, there were 39 cloture motions filed. Last year, there were 139. This year, Senate Republicans will likely break their own record.

And Lieberman this week threatened to help them, by opposing a vote on a once-in-a-generation opportunity at health care reform if it includes a provision to let some consumer choose between competing public and private health plans.

One wonders what Lieberman '94 would think of Lieberman '09.

—Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

STIMULATING.... On MSNBC this morning, Joe Scarborough (conservative Republican) and Pat Buchanan (conservative Republican) were discussing the recent reports on economic growth. Scarborough conceded it may have been the result of "the federal money that's gotten in there." Buchanan was more dismissive, calling recent growth "steroids," adding, "[The president] pushed all of this money into the economy and pumped it up."

In context, this seemed like criticism, though I haven't the foggiest idea why. Wasn't that the point -- to inject capital into the system before it collapsed? To fill the hole in the economy with government spending? Shouldn't Republicans want to see the economy "pumped up," too?

If I didn't know better, I might think Scarborough and Buchanan were saying, "We're all Keynesians now."

Scarborough added, "It's all about jobs." It looks like the White House agrees.

The federal stimulus program has saved or created 650,000 jobs through aid to states, infrastructure projects and federal contracts, the Obama administration claimed Friday morning, adding that officials believe they are on track to meet their goal of 3.5 million jobs over two years.

The new figures are based on reports being released today from 131,000 recipients of the stimulus money and are intended to give the clearest sense to date of how many jobs are being created or saved directly by the stimulus. Until this month, most jobs figures have been based on the estimates of economists -- not actual reports.

The figures do not include jobs indirectly created by the money pumped into the economy through tax cuts, unemployment benefits and aid to states for Medicaid. If those were included, the administration estimates, the tally would rise to more than 1 million jobs saved or created.

Jared Bernstein put together a good piece on the data, explaining, "Thanks to unprecedented real-time data collection by the independent Recovery, Accountability, and Transparency Board (RATB), you will soon (as in this afternoon) be able to visit Recovery.gov and learn about the approximately 650,000 jobs directly created by part -- and I emphasize that these 650,000 or so jobs are a subset of the more than one million -- of the Recovery Act dollars at work in our economy."

The EPI's Josh Bivens noted, just on the basis of the GDP numbers, "This third quarter data will almost surely re-ignite debate as to whether or not the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) aided a recovery from the recession that began at the beginning of 2008. A serious look at the evidence argues that this debate should be closed: ARRA has played a starring role in pushing the economy into positive growth." (Bivens posted some great charts, too.)

Of course, all of the concerns that have existed since January -- most notably, that the stimulus package should have been bigger, and shouldn't have been negotiated down by "centrists" -- are still entirely valid. The recovery legislation has done so far what it was expected to do, and given the economic abyss we were facing, that's obviously good news. The congressional Republicans calling for a five-year spending freeze as a response to the crisis look even more insane now than they did at the time.

But the boost should have been, and could have been, far stronger. As Paul Krugman explained earlier, "[W]e've gotten the big boost, and it's clearly far short of what we really need."

—Steve Benen 2:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

PEACEFUL RESOLUTION IN HONDURAS.... Matt Yglesias noted earlier that foreign policy achievements "have a way of not getting noticed if they don't involve killing anyone with high explosives. This is too bad, since finding ways to resolve conflicts that don't involve killing anyone with high explosives is generally preferable to approaches based on death and destruction."

That's a good point. And it's a reminder that the Obama administration's success in Honduras is laudable.

A lingering political crisis in Honduras seemed to be nearing an end on Friday after the de facto government agreed to a deal, pending legislative approval, that would allow Manuel Zelaya, the deposed president, to return to office.

The government of Roberto Micheletti, which had refused to let Mr. Zelaya return, signed an agreement with Mr. Zelaya's negotiators late Thursday that would pave the way for the Honduran Congress to restore the ousted president and allow him to serve out the remaining three months of his term. If Congress agrees, control of the army would shift to the electoral court, and the presidential election set for Nov. 29 would be recognized by both sides. Neither Mr. Zelaya nor Mr. Micheletti will be candidates.

On Friday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called the deal "an historic agreement."

"I cannot think of another example of a country in Latin America that, having suffered a rupture of its democratic and constitutional order, overcame such a crisis through negotiation and dialogue," Mrs. Clinton said in Islamabad, where she has been meeting with Pakistani officials.

The Micheletti government wanted to wait until after a Nov. 29 election, but the U.S., the U.N., and the Organization of American States said the way to secure international recognition of those elections was to strike an agreement on the restoration of the constitutional order now. The Obama administration sent two diplomats to the country on Wednesday, who helped strike the deal.

Zelaya, under the agreement, will return to office in a power-sharing agreement until the end of his term in January. Tim Fernholz added, "While the White House's domestic opposition will no doubt call this deal a sham or attack the president for helping restore a controversial leader to power, this outcome will likely improve inter-American relations, and that is a win for a relatively green foreign-policy team."

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

EPW BOYCOTT TO DELAY ENERGY REFORM BILL.... Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) intends to move on its climate change bill on Tuesday. The legislation, championed by Boxer and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has drawn some support from Republicans, and would clear the committee easily -- Dems enjoy a 12-7 majority on the panel.

So, to scuttle the legislation, committee Republicans have decided not to show up on Tuesday.

Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee will boycott the mark-up of the Kerry-Boxer climate bill if Chairwoman Barbara Boxer tries to take it up next week.

The seven Republican members on the committee met on the Senate floor last night and unanimously agreed to a boycott, according to Republican aides.

Boxer doesn't need their votes, but she does need at least two of the seven to actually be in the room and establish a quorum. The boycott will make that impossible, at least for now.

The Politico report added that the boycott is "being led by the two most moderate Republican members on the committee: Sens. George Voinovich of Ohio, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee." That seems a little hard to believe -- Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the ranking Republican on the committee, began orchestrating the boycott a week ago.

It's worth noting that conservative Republicans aren't the only problem with reforming U.S. energy policy. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), the caucus' most conservative member, was asked this morning whether a cap-and-trade proposal can garner congressional approval before the end of next year. "No," he said. "I haven't been able to sell that argument to my farmers, and I don't think they're going to buy it from anybody else."

A few weeks ago, the prospects of meaningful Senate action on climate change looked pretty good. Today, they look far less encouraging.

—Steve Benen 2:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

REVERSING A SENSELESS BAN.... The Reagan administration and then-Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) imposed a travel and immigration ban more than two decades ago on those with HIV.

Today, President Obama announced the end of the ban.

President Obama called the 22-year ban on travel and immigration by HIV-positive individuals a decision "rooted in fear rather than fact" and announced the end of the rule-making process overturning the ban.

The president signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009 at the White House Friday and also spoke of the new rules, which have been under development [for] more than a year. "We are finishing the job," the president said. [...]

The lifting of the ban removes one of the last vestiges of early U.S. AIDS policy. "We're thrilled that the ban has been lifted based on science, reason, and human rights. Our hope is that this decision reflects a commitment to adopting more evidence-based policies when confronting the AIDS epidemic and developing a comprehensive national AIDS strategy," said Kevin Robert Frost, CEO of amFAR, an AIDS research foundation.

The president added, "It's a step that will encourage people to get tested and get treatment, it's a step that will keep families together, and it's a step that will save lives."

The announcement came as Obama signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act of 2009.

It's only fair that I note, as the president did this morning, that progress first began on the travel/immigration measure a year ago. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and then-Sen. Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore.) pushed for the change in the 2008 PEPFAR legislation, and the Bush administration approved the bill. It's a win for common sense, human decency, and bipartisanship.

The last major effort to drop the ban came in 1991, but it fell apart in the face of intense right-wing criticism. Fortunately, the country has come a long way since then.

—Steve Benen 1:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

A POLL LIKE NO OTHER.... As regular readers know, most national polls from major news outlets are interesting for their results. Fox News polls are interesting for their questions. Most reputable news outlets try to maintain a degree of seriousness with their poll questions. Fox News prefers to add a little panache to their surveys.

The network's latest (pdf) doesn't disappoint. It asks, for example, "Who do you think is more determined to win the war in Afghanistan -- President Obama or the leaders of the Taliban and al Qaeda?" As Dave Weigel noted, "I tried to cross-reference this with the way Fox News asked the question during the Bush administration's seven years of muddling through in Afghanistan. Surprisingly, it never got asked."

Fox News also asked a number of questions about the White House saying mean things about Fox News. And wouldn't you know it, Fox News' poll found that a majority of respondents believe Fox News is "right in this debate." Imagine that. Greg Sargent added, "This is not the first time Fox has polled on its own confrontation with the White House, either. Legit news outlet Fox News is happy to continue making itself the story. Would you ever see MSNBC indulge in this sort of thing?"

But there was one legitimate question in the poll that offered a result the network surely didn't care for.

"Who do you think is more responsible for the current state of the economy -- President Barack Obama or former President George W. Bush?"

A clear 58% majority consider Bush more responsible for the country's economic difficulties, while only 18% blame Obama. Among self-identified independents, it was an even larger margin -- 59% blame Bush, while 11% believe Obama is more responsible.

Even 29% of Republicans consider Bush more responsible.

I don't imagine that'll get a lot of airtime on the network.

—Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

PRESIDENT HONORS TROOPS, CHENEY ATTACKS PRESIDENT.... President Obama paid his respects to fallen U.S. soldiers yesterday at Dover Air Force, as flag-draped coffins returned home from Afghanistan. Even some of the president's conservative detractors were willing to show some decency -- National Review's Peter Hegseth, for example, called it "a classy move." A blog called Right Wing Nut House added, "[T]he emotion that animated [Obama's] face during this solemn, heart rending ceremony showed that he understands his responsibilities."

Some right-wing voices were far less gracious.

Liz Cheney called out President Obama for his early-morning trip to honor fallen soldiers arriving at Dover Air Force Base yesterday, suggesting President Bush honored America's heroes with a bit more class than his successor.

Cheney, on Fox News Radio's John Gibson Show yesterday: "I think that what President Bush used to do is do it without the cameras. And I don't understand sort of showing up with the White House Press Pool with photographers and asking family members if you can take pictures. That's really hard for me to get my head around.... It was a surprising way for the president to choose to do this."

Actually, what's surprising is how pathetic Liz Cheney's sense of decency has become.

President Bush didn't used to "do it without the cameras"; President Bush didn't used to do it at all. After seven years of the war in Afghanistan, Bush didn't greet returning caskets once. He didn't even want journalists to take photographs of the events, fearing that the images may turn public opinion against the war.

What's more, President Obama didn't "show up with the White House Press Pool." The trip was not announced in advance -- the White House wasn't seeking publicity -- and only a "small contingent" of journalists were allowed to attend. In fact, "most of the event was closed to media."

Most of the right simply ignored the president's appearance at Dover. Limbaugh didn't mention it, and while "Fox & Friends" managed to mention ACORN 23 times during yesterday's program, the inane hosts somehow neglected to mention the Dover event altogether.

Of course, given a choice between right-wing silence and Liz Cheney's contemptible sleaze, I'll take the former.

—Steve Benen 12:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

UNDERSTANDING REDD.... Tropical deforestation accounts for 20 percent of all carbon emissions into the atmosphere, more than the combined emissions of every car, truck, ship, plane and train on the planet. A new market mechanism, REDD -- Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation -- is being developed so that residents of tropical forest properties can earn more money from the standing forest than from its removal.

The REDD concept is part of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill, which would allow U.S. companies to offset the carbon they emit by paying tropical countries and their citizens not to cut down their rainforests. A market-based system that includes REDD will also be on the agenda at the UN-sponsored talks in Copenhagen this December, where representatives hope to hash out a new climate change treaty to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

The Washington Monthly published a special section in the July/August issue, "A Clear Cut Crisis." This afternoon, at 12:15 eastern, the New America Foundation will co-host an event with the Monthly on this idea.

Panelists include Daniel Nepstad, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center; Tia Nelson, Co Chair, Task Force on Global Warming for Governor Doyle of Wisconsin; Nigel Purvis, President, Climate Advisers; and Steve Schwartzman, Anthropologist and Director of Tropical Forest Policy at Environmental Defense Fund.

If you're not in D.C., a live webcast of the event is available here.

—Steve Benen 12:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

FRIDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* With just a few days left in New Jersey's gubernatorial race, the polls are all over the place. A Research 2000 poll shows Chris Christie (R) leading Gov. Jon Corzine (D) by one point; a Democracy Corps poll shows Corzine up by five points; a Fairleigh Dickinson poll shows Corzine up by one point; and a SurveyUSA poll has them tied.

* For his part, Christie's new message yesterday dared the governor to "man up and say I'm fat."

* In Virginia's gubernatorial race, the last Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos before the election shows Bob McDonnell (R) leading Creigh Deeds (D) by 10 points, 54% to 44%. It's one of many polls this week showing McDonnell with a double-digit lead.

* In the special election in New York's 23rd, all three candidates were supposed to debate on Wednesday night, but Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman refused to attend because the event was hosted by a public radio station. Last night, all three candidates attended a debate at the local ABC affiliate in Syracuse. The ill will between Hoffman and Republican Dede Scozzafava was apparently obvious.

* In the PCCC poll we talked about earlier, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) leads state Sen. Gilbert Baker (R) in a hypothetical match-up by two, 41% to 39%.

* New Mexico Democrats were pleased to learn that former Rep. Heather Wilson (R) has decided not to run for governor next year. She was considered the Republicans' strongest candidate. Lt. Gov. Diane Denish (D) is now considered the frontrunner to succeed Gov. Bill Richardson (D).

* A special election in California's 10th next week has been largely overlooked, but a new SurveyUSA poll shows Lt. Gov. John Garamendi (D) as the leading candidate to fill the vacancy left by Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), who joined the Obama administration earlier this year.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

REID HOPES TO RALLY PUBLIC ON REFORM..... If the Senate Majority Leader is simply going through the motions on the public option, he has a funny way of showing it.

"Anyone that cares about [the public option], make sure you contact your representatives back here in Washington and push hard," Harry Reid said yesterday in a web video. "We want a health care bill that has a public option that keeps the insurance industries honest and creates a level playing field."

I found this interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it suggests Reid really is going for it. There's been some talk that Reid's commitment was for show -- he'd put the public option in the bill, but isn't prepared to see it through. In this respect, yesterday's video was doubling down.

Second, Reid's message has the added benefit of being true -- if reform advocates want the public option to survive, it's going to take some grassroots activism to help make it happen.

I was part of a small group that talked to Arlen Specter a couple of weeks ago, and someone asked him what interested Americans could do to help the reform effort. He encouraged the public to write some letters and pick up the phone.

It's good advice.

—Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

HARKIN'S HINTS ABOUT LIEBERMAN.... Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) doesn't have a whole lot to gain from siding with Republicans against health care reform. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), however, offered some subtle speculation this week about something Lieberman still has to lose.

"[Lieberman] still wants to be a part of the Democratic Party although he is a registered independent," Harkin said. "He wants to caucus with us and, of course, he enjoys his chairmanship of the [Homeland Security] committee because of the indulgence of the Democratic Caucus. So, I'm sure all of those things will cross his mind before the final vote."

To be sure, this is hardly an explicit threat. But it is an instance in which a powerful Democratic senator raised the specter of connecting Lieberman's vote on reform and his role as a committee chairman and caucus member.

A little something for Lieberman to have "cross his mind."

In related news, Lieberman also told ABC News yesterday that he's likely to campaign for Republican candidates next year. "I probably will support some Republican candidates for Congress or Senate in the elections in 2010," he said.

Lieberman, of course, actively campaigned for several GOP candidates in 2008, and Democrats chose not to punish his betrayals. The Connecticut independent therefore has no qualms about doing the same thing again.

So, taken together, Lieberman is threatening to help Republican block a vote on health care reform, prepared to help Republican candidates in the midterms, and using his committee gavel to lend credence to Republican attacks against the White House, all after promoting the Republican presidential candidate last year.

Democrats are prepared to let him stay on as the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee? To use Harkin's word, that's quite an "indulgence."

—Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (37)

IF LINCOLN IS SWAYED BY PUBLIC OPINION.... There are about five members of the Senate Democratic caucus who are likely to be the biggest obstacles to health care reform. Near the top of the list is Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D), a center-right Democrat from a state that's moved sharply to the right in recent years.

She's up for re-election next year, and Republicans have painted a bull's eye on her back. Lincoln's vote on health care policy is likely to make a big difference -- and she knows it.

What she may not know, however, is that while Arkansas has become more painfully conservative lately, it's also a state where Democratic reform ideas remain popular. A new Research 2000 poll, commissioned by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America, helps make this clear.

Yet another public opinion poll in a state with a conservative Democratic senator shows that the public option not only is widely popular among voters, but could become a potent issue in the upcoming congressional elections.

One day after releasing a Research 2000 survey of Indiana residents -- in a study designed to get the attention of Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh -- the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America is going public with the results from Arkansas, home state of Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln. The findings are equally persuasive.

Specifically, Arkansans support a public option, 56% to 37%. Among independents in the state, it's even better, 57% to 32%. Moreover, if Lincoln sided with Republicans on a filibuster, 35% of Arkansas independents would be less likely to vote for her, while only 10% would be more likely. Among state Democrats, 49% would be less likely to vote for her, only 7% more likely.

It's unclear if Lincoln will face a primary challenge, but if she backs the GOP's filibuster and has to earn the Democratic nomination, 48% of Democrats would be less likely to support her in a primary.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Stephanie Taylor concluded, "This polling shows that voting against the public option -- or helping Republicans block a vote on health care altogether -- would be career suicide for Blanche Lincoln. It would alienate large numbers of Democrats and Independents when she's already facing an extremely tough re-election."

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

SURGEON GENERAL APPROVED WITHOUT OPPOSITION.... About three weeks ago, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee approved Dr. Regina Benjamin's nomination to be the next surgeon general. The vote was unanimous, and there was little doubt she'd be confirmed by the Senate.

Until, that is, some Senate Republicans decided to put a hold on the nomination. They were angry, apparently, because HHS told Humana to stop using taxpayer money to mislead the public about health care reform. As "punishment," the GOP decided to block all administration health-related nominees from receiving up-or-down votes.

This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said enough was enough. Senate Republicans, perhaps concerned about the public's reaction to blocking a vote on a surgeon general nominee during a public health emergency, quickly backed down.

After much agitation earlier in the day, the Senate voted to confirm Dr. Regina Benjamin as the nation's surgeon general on Thursday night amid a national emergency over the swine flu outbreak.

The Senate approved her on a voice vote. On Thursday morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, had taken to the floor to complain that her nomination, along with others, had been held up.

Given the larger context, it seems Reid's forceful public criticism sparked the change and led to the confirmation.

It's a reminder of the role of public shame in the Senate process. The GOP caucus, for example, obstructs the majority on an unprecedented scale. It's not that the rules changed, necessarily, to make it easier for this Senate minority to be obstructionist. Other Senate minorities could have behaved this way but didn't -- they feared looking ridiculous and sparking a public backlash.

Perhaps the key, then, is shining a brighter light on Senate Republican tactics?

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

BACK TO THE MACABRE NONSENSE... About a month ago, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) caused a stir when he described the conservative approach to health care: "Don't get sick. That's what the Republicans have in mind. And if you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly."

The GOP and its allies were outraged. Grayson made it sound as if Republican policies are literally life threatening. The remarks, conservatives said, crossed a line of decency. No one, the argument goes, should accuse their rivals of promoting lethal health care policies.

A month later, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) told a conservative radio host that the public option favored by most congressional Democrats and most of the American public "may cost you your life."

Dennis Miller asked McConnell specifically about the state opt-out compromise. The Minority Leader said it didn't matter because a public plan that competes with private plans is inherently dangerous.

"I think if you have any kind of government insurance program, you're going to be stuck with it and it will lead us in the direction of the European style, you know, sort of British-style, single payer, government run system. And those systems are known for delays, denial of care and, you know, if your particular malady doesn't fit the government regulation, you don't get the medication.

"And it may cost you your life. I mean, we don't want to go down that path."

It's a reminder of just how pathetic the debate itself has been over health care reform. After six months of back and forth -- hearings, debates, town halls, reports, committee votes, interviews, analyses -- the highest ranking Republican in Congress still feels comfortable telling a national audience that competition between public and private health coverage "may cost you your life."

Indeed, one of the few constants throughout the process is conservative Republicans on the Hill, unwilling or unable to debate the policy on the merits, trying to convince people that Democratic policies may actually kill them.

What a sad joke.

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

DISCOVERING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROCEDURE AND POLICY.... Yesterday afternoon, Sen. Evan Bayh's (D-Ind.) office released a statement about where the senator stands on the status of the health care reform bill. It read:

Senator Bayh will support moving forward to a health care debate on the Senate floor, where he will work hard to address his concerns and craft affordable legislation that reduces the deficit and lowers health care costs for Indiana families and small businesses.

That is, to be sure, good news. There are several key procedural votes, and the measure Bayh's office is referring to here -- the motion to proceed -- is the first one. By voting with the majority on this, Bayh is allowing the reform bill to go to the floor, where it can be debated, subjected to amendments, etc.

But there are some concerns to be considered. First, I'm reluctant to give Bayh too much credit here. Voting for the motion to proceed is the bare minimum expected of a Senate Democrat at this stage. Republicans opposing against this motion are effectively arguing, "We oppose reform so strongly, we don't even want the Senate to talk about it." Bayh announced he's not willing to go that far. I'm glad, but I don't want to reward the Hoosier with the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Second, and more important, by supporting the motion to proceed despite misgivings about the overall legislation, Bayh is making an important distinction between procedural votes and policy votes -- which is exactly what he said a few days ago he would not do.

Reform advocates have pleaded with center-right Democrats, asking them to reject a Republican filibuster when the legislation is ready for a vote. Senators like Bayh can obviously oppose the bill, but the key is the procedural vote -- support cloture and let the Senate vote up or down on the bill.

On Wednesday, Bayh said he could make no such commitment because he doesn't see "much difference between process and policy." As the argument goes, if he disapproves of the policy, he disapproves of the procedural motion that would possibly let the policy pass.

Except, Bayh's votes aren't matching up with Bayh's rhetoric. He's voted for cloture several times on bills he opposed. Indeed, just yesterday he voted with Dems to waive a point of order on a resolution included in a conference report, only to vote soon after with Republicans against the conference report.

The same is true with motion to proceed on reform -- he has reservations about the policy, but he's backing the procedure to let the bill move forward.

If Bayh and other center-right Dems can take this same approach when health care reform is ready for a vote, we'll all be just fine.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

THURSDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* CBO gives the House Democrats' health care reform bill an $894 billion price tag over the next 10 years. Just as important, the bill, if passed, would reduce the deficit by $104 billion over the next decade.

* Iran wants to change the nature of the nuclear deal. What a surprise.

* Sounds like HRC isn't satisfied with what she's seeing from Pakistan: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's said on Thursday it was 'hard to believe' that no one in Pakistan's government knew where al Qaeda leaders were hiding, striking a new tone on a trip where Washington's credibility has come under attack."

* Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) is on board with the motion to proceed, which will at least send health care reform to the floor for debate and amendments. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said the same thing this afternoon. Baby steps.

* President Obama talks up small businesses.

* More evidence of the stimulus helping: "A historic nosedive in state tax collections extended into the third quarter of the year, and only an infusion of federal stimulus money has averted widespread program cuts and worker layoffs."

* Jon Cohn takes a closer look at the merits of the new House health care reform bill. (He likes it.)

* If you've seen the AP story on the stimulus and job creation, you should know that it's pretty misleading.

* A graphic display of inequality.

* Steve Miller, the director of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE), testified under oath this morning about Bonner and Associates sending fake constituent letters to members of Congress. It really didn't go well.

* Same-day voter registration. Sounds good to me.

* I wonder why Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is afraid of Rachel Maddow? I can say from personal experience that she's a delightful interviewer.

*MSNBC is only too pleased to air an anti-Dobbs advertisement.

* Best wishes to Fred Clarkson on a speedy recovery.

* Crowley and Gates meet for beers, again.

* "Tea Party" activists tried to organize a "flash mob" to protest at the Capitol this morning, when House Democrats unveiled their health care reform bill. By most estimates, about 10 right-wing activists showed up. One Northern Virginia Teabagger said, "If this is organized, we suck."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

THEIR LYING EYES, REDUX.... Either they're lying, or these guys haven't been paying attention to the health care reform debate at all.

House Republicans slammed the new Democratic health care reform bill this morning, but didn't say when or if they'll be offering a reform package of their own.

GOP leader John Boehner led a press conference to voice his concerns about the bill an hour or so after Pelosi was done presenting it outside. He walked carrying the nearly 2,000 page house bill, which he dropped with a thud onto the podium.

"Through August and September, the American people made it clear they want no part of a government-run system for providing health care," he said. "[But] this bill amounts to a government takeover of our health care system."

It's quite tiresome to hear someone talk about a "government takeover" when the legislation does anything but offer a government takeover.

As a policy matter, Boehner and his cohorts are, of course, whining about provisions in the Democratic plan that would allow eligible consumers to have a choice -- getting coverage from either a public or a private plan. As House Republicans see it, private insurers offer such a horrible product at an unreasonable price, the public plan would win and consumers would save money and get better care. And that would be bad. Or something.

But I'm struck again by this notion that, as far as the GOP caucus is concerned, the "American people" have "made it clear" they're against a public insurance plan. Boehner is the latest conservative to see all kinds of polling data showing a strong public demand for public-private competition, and pretend that it simply doesn't exist.

How many more polls would it take to convince congressional Republicans that the American people have made it clear they want a public option?

As for the alleged perils of a "government-run system for providing health care," I'll look forward to Boehner's press release calling for the elimination of Medicare, Medicaid, the V.A. system, and S-CHIP.

—Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

THE H1N1 'POLITICAL TEST'?.... The New York Times reported today that the shortage of an H1N1 vaccine poses a "political test" for President Obama. I'm not sure if that's a fair characterization.

Indeed, given the reporting in the article, it seems as if the president has already passed the political test.

The moment a novel strain of swine flu emerged in Mexico last spring, President Obama instructed his top advisers that his administration would not be caught flat-footed in the event of a deadly pandemic. [...]

Aware that the president would be judged on how well he handled his first major domestic emergency, the Obama administration left little to chance. It built a new Web site, Flu.gov -- a sort of one-stop shopping for information about H1N1, the swine flu virus. It staged role-playing exercises for public health officials and members of the news media.

It commissioned public service announcements, featuring the fuzzy Sesame Street characters Elmo and Rosita singing in English and Spanish about "the right way to sneeze." The president added a swine flu update to his regular intelligence briefing -- he also receives an in-depth biweekly memorandum on the prevalence of the disease worldwide and in the United States -- and appeared in the Rose Garden to urge Americans to wash their hands.

Early on, Mr. Obama told his aides he wanted them to "learn from past mistakes," said John O. Brennan, Mr. Obama's domestic security adviser, who has been coordinating the flu-preparedness effort.

In June, the president even invited veterans of the 1976 effort to a private meeting in the White House, hoping to draw upon their experiences dealing with the last major flu epidemic, including the proper public role for a president in this situation.

Taken together, it seems the president immediately recognized the seriousness of a public health issue, mobilized officials, launched a public information campaign, and ordered the creation and distribution of a vaccine. The White House sought out all the right advice, from all the right people, and acted quickly. This isn't my area of expertise, but it sounds like the White House has been responding to the H1N1 problem exactly the way it should.

So, what's the problem? Apparently, HHS relied on estimates from manufacturers about the speed and supply of a vaccine, and the manufacturers were overly optimistic about what they could produce. The private companies reported in July they would have 120 million doses available by this week. They were off by about 97 million.

Counting on manufacturers' assurances, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, may have been "naive." Perhaps. But it was obviously outside the control of the administration.

The NYT report added that vaccine shortages are "threatening to undermine public confidence in government." Quality, accurate reporting should let the public know that wouldn't make any sense.

When we think about government failures on public emergencies -- the response to Hurricane Katrina, for example -- we see certain characteristics, such as negligence, incompetence, tardiness, and ignorance. None of these concerns seems to apply to the administration's handling of the H1N1 emergency.

—Steve Benen 4:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

FAILING TO MEET THEIR OWN STANDARDS.... The House Republican leadership "guaranteed" that they would offer an alternative health care reform bill. If my count is right, that was 134 days ago.

Asked about when Americans can expect to see the GOP plan, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said it's "pretty difficult" for Republicans to come up with a "solid plan," because the minority caucus is "not quite sure how the majority intends to proceed."

I'm not sure what that's even supposed to mean. Republicans started putting together their health care reform proposal in June. They've had plenty of time to meet behind closed doors and craft the superior plan that will prove the seriousness with which the GOP takes this issue. What's the holdup?

Boehner wants to know first how Democrats intend to proceed? Well, here's a tip for the Minority Leader: Democrats will probably hold a vote on the reform bill they've spent the last year putting together. The question is, how does he intend to proceed?

Of course, when House Republicans live up to their word and present an alternative bill, the one thing we can count on is having plenty of time to read it before it reaches the floor for a vote. After all, if there's one thing GOP lawmakers have been harping on for months, it's the need for health care reform plans to be publicly available, for all the world to see, before lawmakers cast a vote. If there's one thing Republicans would want to avoid hypocrisy on, this is the issue, right?

Republicans have been insisting for months that Democrats are shoving a secret bill down the throats of the American public. The health reform legislation "should be posted online for 72 hours so members and the American people get a chance to see what's in these bills," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) told Fox News. "But it seems to me that Democrat [sic] leaders want to rush these bills through Congress before anybody has a chance to read them."

In fact, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) "has repeatedly pledged to Republicans that the health bill and any manager's amendment would be posted online for at least 72 hours before the House votes," and he promised again this week.

At a press conference this morning, a reporter turned the tables on Boehner and asked whether he'd post the GOP plan for 72 hours. Boehner declined to make such a pledge.

Boehner responded to the question by saying, "Uh, we'll uh, we'll have our ideas ready."

Polls show widespread dissatisfaction with Republicans' handling of the health care debate. Imagine that.

—Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

REID BLASTS UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTIONISM.... Maybe this will help bring some much-needed attention to the story.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) excoriated Republicans on Thursday for stalling more than 200 executive and judicial nominees that in some cases have been lingering on the executive calendar for months.

"Senate Republicans are simply so opposed to everything, absolutely everything, that they even oppose putting people in some of the most important positions in our government," Reid said in a floor statement.

In the midst of the H1N1 flu outbreak, Republicans put a hold on President Obama's surgeon general nominee. The federal courts are backlogged, but Republicans are blocking votes on President Obama's judicial nominees. The White House has sent qualified people to the Hill to lead the Office of Legal Counsel, head the General Services Administration, and a variety of diplomatic posts, but Republicans have put holds on all of them, too.

This just isn't normal. Indeed, the Senate isn't supposed to function this way -- and it never has functioned this way. It's obstructionism on a scale without precedent.

Keep in mind, we're not talking about regular ol' opposition to White House nominees. If GOP senators wanted to reflexively oppose, en masse, every nominee the administration to the Hill, that would be fine. In fact, it'd be a huge improvement over the status quo.

Instead, Republican senators simply don't want these nominees to get a vote at all. The officials wait in limbo for months -- some have had their lives put on hold since March, waiting for a simple up-or-down vote -- and government posts that need to be filled remain empty while the 40-seat minority dithers.

It's an embarrassment to the institution.

—Steve Benen 2:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING.... Back in August, Jon Stewart did a segment on South Carolina, kicked off by a report about a South Carolinian who loved his horse just a little too much (twice). Stewart said, "We here at the show can't help but notice that South Carolina has taken its rightful place amongst the states that make our lives here at the show easy." From there, he pointed to provocative scandals surrounding Mark Sanford and a state GOP official who compared a gorilla to First Lady Michelle Obama.

That was before Joe Wilson became a national embarrassment/right-wing hero and two South Carolina County Republican Party chairmen praised Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) in a newspaper editorial as being like a Jew who is "taking care of the pennies."

This week, a deputy assistant South Carolina attorney general, who also happens to be a right-wing Republican, was caught on his lunch break with a stripper, sex toys, and Viagra in his sport utility vehicle.

Roland Corning, 66, a former state legislator, was in a secluded part of a downtown cemetery when an officer spotted him Monday, according to a police report obtained by The Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act.

As the officer approached, Corning sped off, then pulled over a few blocks away. He and the 18-year-old woman with him, an employee of the Platinum Plus Gentleman's Club, gave conflicting stories about what they were doing in the cemetery, Officer Michael Wines wrote in his report, though he did not elaborate.

Corning gave Wines a badge showing he worked for the state Attorney General's Office. Wines, whose wife also works there, called her to make sure Corning was telling the truth.

When asked about the Viagra pill and sex toys, Corning told the officer they were always in his S.U.V. "just in case."

He was promptly fired. State Attorney General Henry McMaster said such a trip to the cemetery "would not be appropriate, at any time, for an assistant attorney general."

Josh Marshall added, "In happier days, Corning was an ardent pro-life politician best known for introducing a law in the South Carolina legislature that would have made the subdermal contraceptive device Norplant mandatory for women on welfare. Even then though he was no stranger to controversy. In 1994, during a floor debate with pro-choice state Rep. June Shissias, Corning asked Shissias whether she herself had ever had an abortion. Later he admitted the remark was 'probably insensitive' but said he was 'sick and tired of the women representatives in this body acting like, just because we're men and male, we don't know anything about women.'"

I still think South Carolina hasn't quite caught up with Florida -- where I was born and raised -- in the Most Ridiculous State contest, but it's getting there.

—Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (38)

AN IMPRESSIVE WIN ON DEFENSE SPENDING.... President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, funding the military for the next year. At a White House event for the bill signing, the president took some time to note the significance of this particular spending bill.

"[W]hen Secretary Gates and I first proposed going after some of these wasteful projects, there were a lot of people in this town who didn't think it was possible, who were certain we were going to lose, who were certain that we would get steamrolled, who argued that the special interests were too entrenched, and that Washington was simply too set in its ways," Obama said. "And so I think it's important to note today we have proven them wrong."

The president was right to tout the accomplishment. This really is something of a breakthrough.

[A]s the president signed a $680 billion military policy bill on Wednesday, it was clear that he had succeeded in paring back nearly all of the programs and setting a tone of greater restraint than the Pentagon had seen in many years. [...]

White House officials say Mr. Obama took advantage of a rare political moment to break through one of Washington's most powerful lobbies and trim more weapons systems than any president had in decades.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said Wednesday that the plan was to threaten a veto over a prominent program -- in this case, the F-22 fighter jet -- "to show we were willing to expend political capital and could win on something that people thought we could not."

Once the Senate voted in July to stop buying F-22s, Mr. Emanuel said in an interview, that success "reverberated down" to help sustain billions of dollars of cuts in Army modernization, missile defense and other programs.

"They probably get an 'A' from the standpoint of their success on their major initiatives," said Fred Downey, a former Senate aide who is now vice president for national security at the Aerospace Industries Association. "They probably got all of them but one or maybe two, and that's an extraordinarily high score."

Now, it's worth emphasizing that the administration didn't actually cut defense spending. Obama increased the military budget and doesn't intend to make reductions so long as we're in two wars. Rather, the president is spending more money smarter, directing funds away from wasteful projects that few had the political courage to take on.

Defense contractors and lobbyists don't lose often, especially not in recent years. The White House and the Pentagon took the leap anyway, and scored a big win. Good for them -- and for us.

—Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

THE DISJOINTED DEBATE OVER 'FUNDING' ABORTION.... Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is part of a House Democratic contingent balking at health care reform, not because of the public option, and not because of cost curves or reimbursement rates. Stupak's concern, which he's said can derail the entire health care reform effort, is about public funding of abortion.

Now, conservatives have argued for quite a while that reform would finance abortion, and reform advocates have consistently pushed back, rejecting the claim. Stupak, a Democrat who opposes abortion rights, is siding with the right on the issue.

Time's Amy Sullivan had an item yesterday, unrelated to Stupak's specific argument, which addressed the larger issue nicely.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the fungibility argument that many pro-life groups and politicians have employed to oppose health reform. The problem, they say, is that if any insurance plan that covers abortion is allowed to participate in a public exchange, then premiums paid to that plan in the form of taxpayer-funded subsidies help support that abortion coverage even if individual abortion procedures are paid for out of a separate pool of privately-paid premium dollars. You can debate about whether it makes sense to use this strict standard, but that's the argument.

But are those pro-life organizations holding themselves to the same strict standard? As it happens, Focus on the Family provides its employees health insurance through Principal, an insurance company that covers "abortion services." A Focus spokeswoman confirmed the fact that the organization pays premiums to Principal, but declined to comment on whether that amounts to an indirect funding of abortion.

Even if the specific plan Focus uses for its employees doesn't include abortion coverage -- and I'm assuming it doesn't -- the organization and its employees still pay premiums to a company that funds abortions. If health reform proposals have a fungibility problem, then Focus does as well. And if they don't think they do have a fungibility problem, then it would be interesting to hear why they think the set-up proposed in health reform legislation is so untenable.

The same applies to Stupak, who seems to agree with Focus on the Family's argument.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

THURSDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* A new Rasmussen poll shows Bob McDonnell (R) building on his earlier leads in Virginia's gubernatorial race, and now enjoys a 13-point edge over Creigh Deeds (D), 54% to 41%.

* For his part, Deeds is going with a closing message that uses some of his awkwardness as a selling point. "If you want 'slick' go with the other guy," the narrator tells viewers in the Democrat's latest ad.

* Over the summer, when Gov. Jon Corzine's (D) campaign was struggling badly in New Jersey, the White House took a more active interest in the race. After meetings with David Axelrod and political director Patrick Gaspard in the Garden State, Corzine made some changes, including replacing his pollster.

* In the special election in New York's 23rd, a new Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos shows Democrat Bill Owens with the narrowest of leads. The results, which won't be formally available until later, show Owens leading with 33%, with Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman extremely close behimd with 32%. Republican Dede Scozzafava, who was in second, is slipping badly, with 21% support.

* MoveOn.org moved yesterday to help support the Owens campaign.

* A right-wing group calling itself Common Sense in America is pulling a dirty trick this week, "praising" Dede Scozzafava for some center-left positions. The ad, engineered by Hoffman supporters, called Scozzafava "the best choice for progressives." The intention, obviously, is to convince Republican voters that Scozzafava isn't nearly conservative enough, while hoping to fool Democratic voters.

* In Texas, where Gov. Rick Perry is facing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in a closely-watched Republican gubernatorial primary, Dick Cheney has weighed in, throwing his support to Hutchison.

* The latest Ohio Newspaper Poll (pdf) shows Gov. Ted Strickland (D) leading Republican challenger John Kasich (R) by just one point, 48% to 47%.

* And in New York, Chris Collins' (R) gubernatorial campaign is off to a bad start, after the county executive compared Jewish state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver to Hitler and suggested he might be the anti-Christ.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

SETTLING FOR GOOD ENOUGH.... You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you can pass in a House caucus with 51 Blue Dogs.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will unveil a bill Thursday that falls short of the liberal vision of a public option -- and the liberals, so far and somewhat surprisingly, are going along with that.

After months of public hand-wringing and strident proclamations in support of the strongest possible government-run health coverage, liberal Democrats are bowing to the reality that party leaders don't have the votes.

So Pelosi will unveil a bill that creates a public option but one that would allow doctors and hospitals to negotiate rates with the government. Liberals wanted a bill tethered to Medicare rates.

House progressives put up a good fight. Indeed, it was their diligence on this specific provision that helped keep the public option alive when much of the establishment thought it was dead. But it became apparent this week that the votes weren't there for a robust public option, so House liberals are doing the right thing -- fight like hell, for as long as possible, and then go with the best bill you can pass.

This is not to say there's unanimity on the point. Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, one of the leaders of the Progressive Caucus, will continue to pursue a Medicare+5 amendment, but in general, most of those who worked for the robust public option are prepared to go with the bill as presented this morning by Speaker Pelosi. As Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) put it, "I would have preferred the other way, but we're looking at this bill holistically."

Part of this is fueled by the recognition that the Speaker's office did everything it could. "They did everything possible," said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.). "There's no sense pushing back for something that can't be done."

Also keep in mind, though, that the compromise to a public option with negotiated rates was reportedly made easier by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's decision to include a public option in the Senate reform bill. It signaled to House progressives that a final bill with public-private competition is more likely.

And what happens if the Senate has to scuttle the provision in light of Republican obstructionism and opposition from center-right members of the Democratic caucus? Time will tell.

—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

THE AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE FOR AMERICA ACT.... As promised, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unveiled the House health care reform bill this morning at an event on Capitol Hill. The legislation, a combination of similar bills passed over the summer by three House committees, is now called The Affordable Health Care for America Act.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) unveiled a health-care reform bill Thursday that includes a government insurance option and a historic expansion of Medicaid, although sticking points in the legislation involving abortion and immigration remain unresolved. [...]

"Today we are about to deliver on the promise of making affordable, quality health care available for all Americans," Pelosi said, describing a bill that she said would insure 36 million more Americans. "...We are putting forth a bill that reflects our best values and addresses our greatest challenges."

The House legislation aims to provide health insurance of one form or another to 96 percent of all Americans at an expected cost just below $900 billion over 10 years, without increasing the federal budget deficit for at least 20 years, House Democrats said. "It opens the doors to quality medical care for those who were shut out of the system for far too long," Pelosi said.

One of the big questions surrounding the bill as it was being crafted was, of course, about the public option. The leadership's goal was to have "Medicare +5" legislation, which would reimburse medical providers at government rates. Over the last week or so, it became apparent that there simply weren't enough votes for this approach to garner a House majority. Instead, the Democratic plan will have a public option with negotiated rates (the "level playing field" compromise pushed in the Senate by Chuck Schumer).

The larger bill has several other elements of note, including expanding Medicaid eligibility to 150% of the poverty line, and strong employer and individual mandates.

In terms of financing, House Dems would paid for the bill with a surtax on high-income people, applied to couples with incomes exceeding $1 million a year and individuals over $500,000 (the top 0.3% of the country).

According to materials distributed by the Speaker's office, the overall price tag of the House bill is $894 billion over 10 years -- below the $900 ceiling recommended by the White House -- none of which would be added the deficit. Indeed, preliminary results from the Congressional Budget Office suggest the House reform bill would cut the deficit by about $30 billion in the first decade. What's more, coverage would extend to 96% of the population.

Moving forward, House leaders hope to have the bill on the House floor next week, with a vote, if all goes well, before Veterans Day, Nov. 11.

For more policy details, I found these materials put together by the House Committee on Education and Labor helpful.

Update: The entire legislation is now online (pdf).

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

ECONOMY COMING BACK TO LIFE.... From Fall 2008 through Summer 2009, the nation's gross domestic product retreated. The four consecutive negative quarters was the longest since the government began keeping track six decades ago.

It comes as something of a relief, then, to see the U.S. economy come back to life in the third quarter of 2009 -- spanning July, August, and September -- with GDP growth at 3.5%. It was the strongest quarterly economic performance in two years, and it came "without a major surge in inflation." The three-quarter swing of 9.9% was the largest in three decades.

Despite conservative opposition to economic recovery efforts, the growth in the U.S. economy was "fueled largely by government recovery programs," including the now-expired cash-for-clunkers program and the tax credit for first-time home buyers. The AP report added, "Brisk spending by the federal government played into the third-quarter turnaround."

The piece went on to say, "The Commerce Department's report Thursday delivered the strongest signal yet that the economy entered a new, though fragile, phase of recovery and that the worst recession since the 1930s has ended." CEA Chair Christina Romer, however, added, "[T]his welcome milestone is just another step, and we still have a long road to travel until the economy is fully recovered. The turnaround in crucial labor market indicators, such as employment and the unemployment rate, typically occurs after the turnaround in GDP. And it will take sustained, robust GDP growth to bring the unemployment rate down substantially."

And with that, here's another home-made chart, showing GDP numbers by quarter over the last two years:

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

PRESIDENT AT DOVER.... For all the talk in recent years about whether American media should be allowed to cover -- and whether the American public should be allowed to see -- flag-draped caskets as fallen U.S. soldiers return home, it was good to see President Obama pay his respects this morning at Dover Air Force Base.

It was apparently the president's first trip to the air base. The trip was not announced in advance and Obama arrived shortly after midnight. Obama stood at attention to salute Army Sgt. Dale Griffin of Indiana, whose family gave permission for this morning's coverage.

The NYT reported, "The bodies returning to Dover Air Force Base shortly after midnight included seven Army soldiers and three agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency who were killed when their helicopter crashed on Monday in rural Afghanistan. The bodies of eight soldiers killed in an attack on Monday also arrived on an Air Force C-17."

Obama also met with family members in the chapel of the Air Force base. The AP added, "Most of the event was closed to media and journalists were only allowed to see the transfer of the last casket."

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

IF BAYH IS SWAYED BY PUBLIC OPINION.... It became apparent yesterday that Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, one of the Senate Democratic caucus' more conservative members, is one of a handful of Dems whose support for health care reform is in doubt.

If the senator is at all interested in public opinion -- and with Bayh's re-election bid coming next year, he should be -- he may want to at least consider a new poll from Research 2000, as commissioned by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

Bayh, to be sure, remains quite popular with Hoosiers*. But residents also prefer a fairly progressive approach to health care. Using the same wording as a recent NYT/CBS poll, a 52% majority in Indiana support the public option, and 53% believe the plan would help people in the state.

Looking ahead, 27% of residents said they'd be less likely to vote for Bayh if he opposed the public option, and 29% said the same if Bayh joined with Republicans on a filibuster. Among Democrats exclusively, a 54% majority said they'd be less likely to vote for Bayh in a Democratic primary if he joins with the GOP in blocking consideration of the bill.

What's more, the insurance industry -- which has rewarded Bayh with about $1.5 million in contributions -- is not at all popular with Hoosiers. A 77% majority -- more than three out of four -- believe insurers care more about "making a profit" than helping patients.

Something for Bayh to keep in mind.

On a related note, Bayh endorsed Republican rhetoric yesterday, saying he doesn't see "much difference between process and policy at this particular juncture." In other words, if he's not satisfied with the bill, then Bayh has no problem voting with Republicans on the procedural vote to stop the bill from coming to the floor for a vote.

Tim Tagaris found that Bayh has not always felt that way.

Example 1: In 2008, Evan Bayh voted in favor of a cloture motion on the bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, though he opposed the bill itself. "Bayh voted with most Democrats to stop the filibuster because, he said, it was preventing amendments that could have improved the bill."[Gannett, 6/12/2008; Vote 145, 6/6/2008]

Example 2: In 2005, Senator Bayh voted for cloture on Judge Owen's nomination, but against final confirmation. Vote 127, 5/24/05: Senate.gov ; Vote 128, 5/25/05: Senate.gov. Judge Owen, you might recall, was the first nominee to reach the floor after the "Gang of 14" agreements.

Example 3: In 2004, Senator Bayh voted for cloture on the conference report to H.R. 1047, a $388 billion spending bill, then voted against final passage the next day. Vote 214, 11/19/04 ; Vote 215, 11/20/04

So, in short, when Senators take to the floor and vote for "cloture," they are saying that it is time to move beyond obstructing a health care bill and on to an "up or down vote" on the substance of the legislation.

Something else for Bayh to keep in mind.

* fixed

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

STILL THE KING.... Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on head injuries suffered by professional football players. It's a subject of increasing interest in light of reports pointing to the frequency with which former players are diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease or similar memory-related diseases -- 19 times the normal rate for men ages 30 through 49.

And while this may seem unrelated to congressional responsibilities, Congress does extend antitrust protections given to the NFL, and has a role in addressing public health issues. The formal name for the hearing was "Legal Issues Related to Football Head Injuries."

As is always the case, every member of the committee was given time to question the panel of witnesses. Rep. Steve King (R) of Iowa decided to press Roger Goodell, the commissioner of the National Football League, aggressively -- about Rush Limbaugh.

Apparently, the right-wing congressman is angry because his favorite talk-show host was dropped by a team of investors interested in buying the St. Louis Rams. So, during a hearing about health issues, King badgered the league commissioner for having previously said that "divisive comments are not what the NFL are all about," and that he "would not want to see those comments coming from people who are in a responsible position in the NFL."

The Iowa Republican insisted to Goodell, "I don't think anything Rush Limbaugh said was offensive." Given King's record of truly insane rhetoric, that's not exactly surprising, but the far-right radio host's record speaks for itself.

King added that "Fergie and J-Lo" own a share of the Miami Dolphins, and they have "performed lyrics in songs that are far more offensive" than anything Limbaugh has said.

In the bigger picture, of course, this is all terribly foolish. Goodell didn't stop Limbaugh from buying a team; Limbaugh's fellow investors decided they didn't want to be associated with him anymore. But more importantly, why is a member of Congress wasting time berating the NFL commissioner for having a negative impression of a notorious radio shock-jock?

For a few too many members of Congress, Limbaugh rules their world.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

THE SUBPRIME STUDENT LOAN RACKET....Every year, at least two million students enroll in private, for-profit colleges belonging to huge publicly traded corporations. The majority leave with nothing to show for their efforts except piles of debt they can't pay off -- debt that often carries predatory terms, like 20 percent interest.

Learn more about how these corporate giants, aided by the federal government, are getting rich by preying on working-class people trying to better their lives in "The Subprime Student Loan Racket" by Stephen Burd, in the new issue of the Washington Monthly.

—Steve Benen 9:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Pakistan: "The arrival of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pakistan was overshadowed Wednesday by a devastating car bomb that tore through a market in the northwest city of Peshawar, an attack aimed at civilians and marking a clear escalation in the Taliban campaign to undermine the government." At last count, the bomb killed as many as 101 people, most of them women, and wounded about 160.

* Kabul: "Taliban militants wearing suicide vests stormed a guest house used by U.N. staff in the heart of the Afghan capital early Wednesday, killing 12 people -- including six U.N. staff -- in the biggest in a series of attacks intended to undermine next month's presidential runoff election. One of the six U.N. dead was an American, the U.S. Embassy said."

* Ahmed Wali Karzai, on the CIA's payroll?

* President Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act this afternoon in the East Room. In the process, an expanded hate-crimes measure also became law.

* Words fail.

* Expect the House health care reform bill tomorrow.

* Nevada Republicans may think it's funny, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really was targeted by a car bomb in 1981.

* Did Dick Cheney try to banish New York Times journalists from Air Force One? Dana Perino acknowledged today "it's possible." (Follow-up question for Perino and the media establishment: anyone prepared to condemn this as a Nixonian abuse reminiscent of Hugo Chavez?)

* In related news, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reportedly met today with Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall....

* South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanfrod (R) might still get impeached, but probably not anytime soon.

* Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) recently called a Federal Reserve official a "K Street whore." Yesterday, he apologized.

* The investigation into Census Bureau worker Bill Sparkman's murder has been ongoing, albeit quietly. A local law enforcement official said the probe is progressing, and should be complete in a matter of weeks.

* Isn't the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supposed to be against frivolous lawsuits?

* Can online learning help low-income students get degrees?

* Paul Begala labels Joe Lieberman "Traitor Joe."

* Wealthy Democratic donors occasionally visit the White House. I'm not sure why anyone would find that shocking.

* Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says a lot of outrageous things. Opposing the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education isn't one of them.

* If you missed it, my latest appearance on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" was last night. Keep in mind, the lighting was off, and my makeup was weird, so I look much paler in the video than I do in real life. (And I'm really not responsible for the fake-book backdrop.)

* And finally California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger got creative in a letter to state lawmakers this week, with a seven-line note. The first letter of every line collectively spells "f**k you." The governor's spokesperson called it a mere "coincidence." There's a one in 10 billion chance he's telling the truth.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

A BIPARTISAN TEAM.... To hear his conservative detractors tell it, President Obama is a cutthroat partisan, out to destroy those on the other side. He's a "Chicago-style," modern-day Nixon, complete with "enemies lists." He's "politics as usual," unwilling to move towards a "post-partisan" approach.

In Grown-Up Land, of course, President Obama not only reaches out to Republicans, he keeps hiring them. Indeed, no modern president has added so many officials from the rival party to an administration the way this president has.

President Barack Obama has appointed former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (Neb.) to serve as a co-chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

During his time in the Senate, Hagel was highly critical of the Bush administration's approach to the Iraq war. The Nebraskan refused to endorse Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in last year's presidential election and rumors emerged that he might back Obama. He never did endorse a candidate.

Hagel served on the Foreign Relations Committee and Intelligence Committee before retiring from the Senate at the end of his term earlier this year.

If memory serves, Hagel is the seventh Republican to take on a fairly significant role in the Obama administration. He follows John McHugh (Secretary of the Army), Ray LaHood (Secretary of Transportation), Robert Gates (Secretary of Defense), Jim Leach (National Endowment for the Humanities), Jon Huntsman (U.S. Ambassador to China), and Anne Northup (Consumer Product Safety Commission). It would have been eight were it not for the unpleasantness with Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).

The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed Obama's numbers slipping on his "willingness to work with people whose viewpoints are different from his own."

I'm not sure what more the White House can do on this front. Obama has not only repeatedly sought out GOP lawmakers for support on legislation, but he also keeps giving Republicans jobs in his administration, arguably at a level without modern precedent.

Also note that the president's efforts haven't generated any goodwill with the opposition party. Obama has added more than a half-dozen Republicans to his team, and GOP leaders continue to whine about the president being some kind of strident partisan.

If White House officials hope putting together a bipartisan team might lower the partisan temperature a bit and discourage Republican attacks, they're likely to be disappointed.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

POINTING NORTH.... I can appreciate the notion that congressional Republicans would bring in some outside advisors to offer policy advice to lawmakers. This, however, seems like a very bad idea.

House Republicans have a new foreign policy adviser with a controversial pedigree: Oliver North.

North, an aide on Ronald Reagan's National Security Council who is best known for his role in the Iran-Contra scheme to sell arms to Iran and divert the funds to Nicaraguan revolutionaries in the 1980s, was the special guest at a House Republican Conference meeting on Tuesday. North was convicted on three counts related to the Iran-Contra scandal and his efforts to cover it up, but the convictions were later overturned.

By all accounts, North told GOP lawmakers exactly what they wanted to hear -- send tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops in Afghanistan, or the war will be "lost."

Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) explained, "Col. North is someone who enjoys the very broad respect of the House Republican Conference."

I don't doubt that's true, but that hardly makes it better.

North was at the heart of the most serious political scandal since Watergate, misled Congress, and destroyed documents as part of a systemic cover-up.

House Republicans couldn't find someone else to talk to about U.S. policy in Afghanistan?

—Steve Benen 3:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

LIEBERMAN, ONE DAY LATER, FIVE YEARS LATER.... Well, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is certainly getting plenty of attention today, which suggests his threats yesterday have given him exactly what he wanted.

Today, Lieberman added that a public option would have to be "off the table" entirely before he'd consider supporting the bill.

"We can come back in three or four years if the reforms -- the other reforms we adopt are not working," Lieberman explained. "But I think they will."

Just so we're clear, this puts Lieberman to Olympia Snowe's right. Snowe's argument is that there should be a trigger -- if reforms come up short of expectations, a public option would kick into existence, and insurers would know that possibility exists, so they'd have a built-in incentive. Lieberman's argument is that even a trigger is too much -- if reforms come up short of expectations, then maybe lawmakers will think about debating something in "three or four years."

Funny, Lieberman had a much different position* when he was running for president five years ago.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) seems to have seriously changed his position on a public health insurance program -- from supporting it years ago, to staunchly opposing it now.

Back when Lieberman was a full-fledged Democrat and sought the party's nomination for President.... Lieberman was presenting the public option as a sensible, centrist plan for the country. But now he's promising to filibuster a Democratic proposal to establish one. So what changed?

Michael Goldfarb asked yesterday whether Joe Lieberman is "the greatest senator ever." I think we know the answer.

* Update: TPM is walking this report back, explaining that Lieberman proposed expanding government-run health care programs for the young, extending it up to age 25, and the creation of an exchange modeled after the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. He stopped short of offering a public option at the time.

—Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

NO WAY TO RUN A POLITICAL PARTY.... Party discipline among Democratic lawmakers has long been something of a joke. Part of this is the result of party norms and traditions -- insert obligatory Will Rogers reference here -- and part of this is the result of a structure that helps dictate party decision making.

Matt Yglesias flags an interesting quote from Sen. Chris Dodd (D) of Connecticut, who was asked whether Sen. Joe Lieberman (I) would face retribution for his willingness to side with Republicans in blocking a vote on health care reform.

"No, no, no. People are going to be all over the place," [Dodd] said when asked if Lieberman should be punished. "The idea that people are going to be reprimanded because somehow they have a different point of view than someone else is ridiculous. That isn't going to happen."

I think that's backwards. Political parties that expect loyalty from caucus members tend to be more effective and have more success advancing their agenda. And as a rule, party loyalty isn't the result of polite pleas and gracious appeals -- politicians tend to be more loyal to their party when they know their party has the means and the will to punish them. If those who are disloyal face no consequences -- indeed, if they're rewarded despite their recalcitrance -- it encourages less fidelity.

In the Lieberman example, we have a politician who routinely ignored the party's priorities when he was, in fact, a Democrat. He did so, not because he represented a conservative "red" state that forced him to the right, but because he was actually pretty conservative. In 2006, he was defeated in a primary, and proceeded to run against the Democratic Party's candidate. In 2008, Lieberman spent the better part of the year trashing the Democratic Party's presidential nominee and working to keep the White House in Republican hands. In 2009, his two most notable accomplishments have been holding a nonsensical hearing about "czars" and announcing his intention to support a Republican filibuster of the top domestic policy priority of the Democratic Party of the last 70 years.

Is it really so "ridiculous" to think Lieberman might face some consequences from his party in response to his conduct?

Matt had a good piece a couple of weeks ago about the nature of political parties. "The Senate Republican caucus is organized, like the House caucuses of both parties, like a partisan political organization whose objective is to advance the shared policy objectives of the party. The Senate Democratic caucus, by contrast, is organized like a fun country club trying to recruit members. Join Team Democrat and Vote However You Want Without Consequence! But it's no way to get things done."

—Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

BAYH ENDORSES MCCONNELL LINE ON CLOTURE.... Democrats and other supporters of health care reform have a very simple message for center-right Dems who oppose fixing the system: just let the Senate vote.

The issue, of course, is cloture. Reform proponents don't need 60 senators to pass a bill; they need 60 senators to simply let a vote happen. The message to Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu, et al, is, "Agree to let the Senate vote on the bill, and then feel free to vote against it."

Obviously, Republicans are going to fight like hell to blur the difference between the procedural vote and the actual vote. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky said the procedural vote "will be treated as a vote on the merits of the bill." Why? Because he says so.

And Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, one of the Senate's more needlessly conservative Dems, apparently wants to help advance McConnell's GOP message.

Bayh, who is undecided on the opt-out, is now asserting that he sees no difference between a vote to bring that measure to the floor (which requires 60) and a straight up or down vote on it -- a claim that's in perfect harmony with the GOP's songsheet. [...]

This one will really help maintain unity in the Dem caucus. It's one thing, after all, to threaten to block efforts by the majority party -- your own party -- to stage a straight up-or-down majority vote on the bill's substance. It's quite another to claim that the initial procedural vote, which requires 60, is not materially different from a straight up-or-down majority vote on the bill's substance.

Bayh specifically said he doesn't see "much difference between process and policy at this particular juncture." Republicans liked the quote so much they're spreading it around.

Got that? Evan Bayh is undermining this once-in-a-generation chance at health care reform and helping advance the Republican message at the same time.

I should note that this isn't entirely new -- in July, Bayh was saying the same thing. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told his colleagues at the time, "Don't let the Republicans filibuster us into failure." Members of the caucus "may vote against final passage on a bill," Durbin said, but like-minded colleagues should at least reject the idea of "allowing the filibuster to stop the whole Senate." Almost immediately, Bayh said he disagreed, and that the procedural vote and the policy were practically the same thing.

Remember, this is total nonsense. Senators voting to end debate on a bill, only to ultimately vote against the same bill, happens all the time. Joe Lieberman has done it repeatedly.

Of course there's a difference between procedural and policy votes. Bayh is helping Republicans for no reason.

It couldn't be simpler -- if legislation Bayh doesn't like comes to the floor, he can vote against it. Before that, he can offer amendments, give speeches, and encourage others to agree with him. Just let the Senate vote.

—Steve Benen 1:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (45)

THEIR LYING EYES.... When it comes to reform opponents pushing back against polls showing support for a public option, they have some credible options to choose from.

Conservatives could, for example, argue that there's still some confusion about the policy details, so the poll results should be taken with a grain of salt. That's not unreasonable. They could also argue that the public has simply embraced a bad idea, and that what it popular is not always right. That, too, is a plausible approach.

Simply pretending that the polls don't exist, however, is far more annoying.

Yesterday, for example, Glenn Beck said only "35% of the population" supports the idea of public-private competition. Noting that Harry Reid has said "the public wants this," Beck called the Majority Leader's remarks "a lie."

A Wall Street Journal editorial the other day was especially striking. It argued, "[T]he reality is that no one wants a public option except the political left." The editorial board said the media is cooking the books "by asking rigged questions."

Conservatives may find reality inconvenient, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.

Let's have a look at these "rigged questions." Here is the wording of the Washington Post/ABC News poll, which tracked support for the public option from August through October at majorities of 52, 55, and 57 percent:

"Would you support or oppose having the government create a new health insurance plan to compete with private health insurance plans?"

Here is the wording of a September Kaiser Family Foundation poll, which tracked support for the public option from July through September at majorities of 59 percent, 59 percent, and 57 percent:

"Do you favor ... [c]reating a government-administered public health insurance option similar to Medicare to compete with private health insurance plans?"

Here is the wording of a September New York Times poll, which tracked support for the public option from July through September at majorities of 66 percent, 60 percent, and 65 percent:

"Would you favor or oppose the government offering everyone a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?"

Here is the wording of a newly released CNN poll, which tracked support for the public option in August and October at majorities of 55 percent and 61 percent:

"Would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?"

The public has consistently said it would like to see eligible consumers have a choice between competing public and private plans. Conservatives disagree? Fine. But let's not pretend the polling data simply doesn't exist.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* The polls in New Jersey's gubernatorial race continue to be all over the place. A new Quinnipiac poll released this morning shows Gov. Jon Corzine (D) leading Chris Christie (R) by five, 43% to 38%. It's the first time Corzine has led in a Quinnipiac poll all year. Two weeks ago, Quinnipiac had Christie up by one.

* In Virginia's gubernatorial race, Bob McDonnell (R) appears to be pulling away from Creigh Deeds (D). SurveyUSA now has McDonnell up by 17, while Public Policy Polling shows him leading by 15.

* There's increasing grumbling among Virginia Democrats that Deeds isn't just going to lose, but may also be a drag on Democratic candidates down-ballot.

* Despite Deeds' troubles, President Obama campaigned alongside the gubernatorial hopeful yesterday in Norfolk. "A lot of people are saying, 'Oh, you know, the polls don't look the way we want them to,' and 'I'm not sure it's going to happen,'" the president said. "Listen, let me tell you something. I don't believe in can't. I don't believe in giving up."

* Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd continues to pick up endorsements from leading right-wing figures. Yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) bucked his party and threw his support to Hoffman. Reps. Tom Cole of Oklahoma and Dana Rohrabacher of California did the same thing.

* And Sen. Arlen Specter's standing in Pennsylvania continues to fall in advance of his re-election bid next year. A new Franklin and Marshall poll shows him leading Rep. Joe Sestak in a Democratic primary by 12, down from a 26-point lead in August. The poll put Specter's overall approval rating at just 29%.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (6)

WHAT OPT-OUT STATES WOULD 'PAY FOR'.... Greta Van Susteren claimed last night that states that chose not to give their residents the choice of a public option would "still have to pay for it." She didn't specify what "it" referred to.

This seems to be catching on, though, as a key conservative talking point. Rich Lowry asked this week, "Does a state get to opt-out of the taxes too?" Karl Rove asked rhetorically, "What state is going to say -- what governor and legislature of Republican or Democrat majority is gonna say to its citizens of its state, 'You can pay for this sucker for decades and decades to come, but you're not gonna -- we made a decision -- we're not going to get any of our money back?'" Newt Gingrich added, "What if a big state like Texas opts out? Does that mean they don't have to pay taxes on it?"

Before this spreads too far, let's take a moment to note how little sense this makes.

[W]hile Reid has yet to release details of the compromise Senate legislation, every other proposed bill with a public option so far has required the costs of the public plan to be covered by the premiums of those who enroll in it, and the taxes proposed in each of the bills are used to cover the expansion of coverage through Medicaid and subsidies to help certain families purchase insurance, both of which are provided to residents of every state regardless of any public option.

Right. Financing for a public option would come from those paying the premiums -- those premiums would pay for benefits and administrative costs. That's how it's been structured in both chambers, by every public option supporter on the Hill. The idea is for it to be self-funding -- a not-for-profit insurance program financed by those it covers.

It's likely that this argument will continue to work its way through conservative circles, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (74)

THE POLITICS OF THE OPT-OUT COMPROMISE.... There are credible and compelling arguments against the state opt-out compromise for the public option. I tend to think the approach would work fairly well, however, substantive concerns that have been raised are not without merit.

But in the short term, the politics of the proposal are worth considering. Josh Marshall noted the other day, "A big argument from Republicans was that the public option would force people into 'government health care' or in various other ways destroy the universe. The opt-out just says: 'fine, then don't allow it in your state. Next ...' That takes a lot of the wind out of the sails of that argument."

Now, we know that these responses only go so far. Republicans routinely repeat talking points long after they've been debunked, and cling to arguments long after they've been exposed as nonsensical. (Occasionally, you'll still hear random nuts talking about "death panels.")

But Josh's point is nevertheless compelling. It should be a fairly persuasive pitch to reasonable people: we'll give eligible consumers a choice between competing public and private plans. If people don't like the idea of a government plan, they can reject it. And if individual states don't like the idea of giving consumers that choice, they can decide to remove it. Multiple levels of choice and competition -- what's so awful about that?

Andrew Sullivan took this one step further yesterday, gaming out the politics if this plan becomes law. He called a "brutal" strategy being launched by Dems.

[T]here has to be a debate in every state in which Republicans, where they hold a majority or the governorship, will presumably decide to deny their own voters the option to get a cheaper health insurance plan. When others in other states can get such a plan, will there not be pressure on the GOP to help their own base? Won't Bill O'Reilly's gaffe - when he said what he believed rather than what Roger Ailes wants him to say - be salient? Won't many people - many Republican voters - actually ask: why can't I have what they're having?

This is why this is lethal.... Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere. Now, of course, if the public option is a disaster in some states, this argument could work in the long run. But in the short run? It's [a] political nightmare for the right as it is currently constituted. In fact, I can see a public option becoming the equivalent of Medicare in the public psyche if it works as it should. Try running against Medicare.

The genius of the opt-out is that it co-opts the states' rights argument (just as ending the prohibition on marijuana does); it has the potential to make "liberalism' popular again; it has easily demonized opponents - the health insurance industry; and it forces Republicans not to rail against socialism in the abstract but to oppose actual benefits for the working poor in reality.

Sounds right to me. Kevin Drum added, "If it passes, then for the next four years Republican state legislators all over the country will be teaming up with the universally loathed insurance industry to try and deny their citizens access to a program that, to most of them, sounds like a pretty good deal. I don't know if Harry Reid was deviously thinking exactly that thought when he decided on this, but I'll bet someone was. It's hard to think of something that could force the GOP to make itself even more unpopular than it already is, but this might be it."

Of course, it's a moot point if Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu won't even let the Senate vote on the bill.

—Steve Benen 10:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

JAMES INHOFE, HEATING UP.... Dana Milbank noted this morning, "It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther." He was referring, of course, to the tragically confused senior senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe (R).

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a key hearing yesterday on global warming, and even conservative Republicans on the panel "made it clear that they no longer share, if they ever did, Inhofe's view that man-made global warming is the 'greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.'"

"Eleven academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming," admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance."

An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to "get us beyond high-carbon fuels" and "focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars." And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change "is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention."

Then there was poor Inhofe. "The science is more definitive than ever? You keep saying that because you want to believe it so much," he said bitterly. He offered to furnish a list of scientists who once believed in climate change but "who are solidly on the other side right now." The science, he said, "already has shifted" against global-warming theory. "Science is not settled! Everyone knows it's not settled!"

Inhofe called for more oil drilling. His aides tried to debunk the other senators' points by passing around papers titled "Rapid Response." Mid-hearing, Inhofe's former spokesman, now in the private sector, sent out an e-mail -- "Prominent Russian Scientist: 'We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming.' "

Inhofe later insisted that "we went out of that natural warming cycle about nine years ago" -- a claim that's patently ridiculous.

As for Inhofe's "list of scientists," let's not forget that many of them aren't scientists, and many more are convinced Inhofe's wrong. (Some of the actual scientists included on the senator's list demanded that their names be removed -- and he ignored their requests.)

Every time I see Inhofe ranting about this, I picture him on the Senate floor, after legislation has already passed, sounding like some tragic Don Ameche, shouting to no one in particular: "Now, you listen to me! I want the voting reopened right now. Get those members back in here! Turn those machines back on!"

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

PUBLIC OPTION, STILL POPULAR.... Some interesting results in the new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most notably on health care. While the public remains skeptical about the larger initiative, the most contentious point on the Hill seems to be doing pretty well with the public.

[A] key flash point in the health-care debate is showing steadily increasing support.

A government-run insurance plan that competes with private insurance plans -- the so-called public option -- is now backed by 48%, compared with 42% who oppose it. In September, 48% opposed it while 46% supported it. In the rough month of August, when noisy town-hall meetings were tarnishing the president's health-care push, 47% opposed the public option and only 43% favored it.

Asked specifically if it is "important" to give American consumers "a choice" between "a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance," a combined 72% said it was either "extremely" important (45%) or "quite" important (27%).

On other points, some of the poll results were unexpected, but there was precious little in the way of good news for Republicans.

* The public remains in a sour mood, and 52% believe the country is on the wrong track -- the highest number since January.

* Obama's approval rating remains at 51% in the poll, exactly where's it's been for the last few months.

* 43% approve of the president's handling of health care. For Republicans, it's 23%.

* 42% have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party. For the Republican Party, it's 25%. (Update: The GOP's rating is even worse now than it was during Bush's two terms.)

* On the generic ballot test, respondents favored a Democratic candidate over a GOP candidate, 46% to 38%. A month ago, the margin was only three points in Dems' favor.

* 63% believe the economic problems the White House is dealing with were inherited from the Bush era. That's down from 72% in June, but it's still quite high.

* In a bit of a surprise, support for sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan has gone up, and Dick Cheney's whining notwithstanding, a clear majority support President Obama's delays until after the Afghan election.

* Support for gay marriage is up considerably from a few years ago, but it's still a 41% minority.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

PAY NO ATTENTION TO LUCY WITH THE FOOTBALL.... When it comes to the various compromises as part of health care reform, there are a variety of possibilities, each on different points of the quality spectrum. Different analysts may rank them in competing ways, but to my mind, from worst to best, we have no public-private competition at all, followed by a co-op plan, followed by the "trigger," then the state opt-in plan, then the state opt-out plan, and finally a robust, national public option.

It may have come as something of a surprise, then, to hear the far-right Senate Minority Whip signal some interest in one of the less-offensive choices.

Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) on Tuesday said he supports the idea of allowing states to decide whether to opt in to a publicly run health plan. [...]

The GOP whip said he prefers letting states decide whether to join instead of their being put in automatically. He said he didn't know if he would offer the idea as an amendment during the floor debate that is expected to start within days.

Specifically, Kyl said, "I agree that states should have the option to opt in." Soon after, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a very right-wing lawmaker, "indicated possible support for Kyl's idea."

The Hill added that Kyl's statement "could offer the seeds of a compromise."

That's extremely hard to believe, and Democrats would be foolish to start taking this notion seriously.

The truth is, if Senate Dems were to scale back their plan and go with an opt-in instead of an opt-out, Kyl would -- and this is key -- oppose the bill anyway. How do we know? Kyl has already said so, arguing repeatedly that Senate Republicans will reject the reform proposal no matter how many concessions Democrats make.

The state opt-in plan is not, on its face, a total disaster. There are far better ways to go in shaping a more effective policy, but as I said, on the spectrum of possible alternatives, it's somewhere in the middle.

But that doesn't change the underlying dynamic -- Kyl is Lucy; Democrats are Charlie Brown; and a bipartisan compromise is the ball.

Please, Charlie, don't go running and fall on your backside at the last moment.

Update: This afternoon, Kyl's office said The Hill's report was wrong. When the senator said, "I agree that states should have the option to opt in," it was, the argument goes, taken out of context.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

WHERE THINGS STAND.... Monday was obviously a big day for health care reform, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announcing that he's moving forward with a bill that includes a public option with a state opt-out compromise. Tuesday was nearly as big a day -- senators got a chance to respond to what they heard on Monday.

The White House, you'll recall, expressed some skepticism about proceeding with Reid's plan, not because the president and his team disagreed with it on the merits, but because they did not see a scenario in which it could get 60 votes for cloture. There are 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and two independents in the Senate. Getting to 60 means no room for error -- with no GOP votes, Democratic leaders can't spare a single member of the caucus.

And yesterday, center-right Senate Dems did exactly what the White House feared they might do.

Senate Democrats voiced deep disagreements on Tuesday over the idea of a government-run health insurance plan, suggesting that the decision by the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, to include a public plan in major health care legislation had failed, at least initially, to unite his caucus.

Simply to get the Senate to take up the legislation, Mr. Reid has said he needs 60 votes -- effectively all 58 Democrats and the two independents who caucus with them. Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, who had been open to supporting the bill, said Tuesday that she would oppose Mr. Reid's version because of the public plan.

But while some who oppose a public plan said they were willing to let Mr. Reid bring the legislation to the floor, the continuing apprehension of others indicated substantial uncertainty.

Joe Lieberman, as you may have noticed, is not only opposed to a bill with a public option, but announced yesterday he's prepared to join with Republicans in blocking a vote on reform. He was not, however, the only trouble-maker: Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.), and Arkansas' Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor all said, at a minimum, they were not prepared to endorse the legislation.

For her part, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) not only said she opposes Reid's proposal, but would even vote to block the Senate from considering the bill at all (i.e., the motion to proceed). At this point, though, even the center-right Dems are unlikely to join the GOP on this, and will vote to send the bill to the floor to begin the debate and amendment process.

For what it's worth, yesterday was annoying, but not altogether unexpected. Roll Call reported that Reid's office was largely unfazed by yesterday's developments: "The Majority Leader is taking the long view, and he appears unconcerned by the early opposition from Democratic moderates, although he is not dismissing it. According to a senior Democratic Senate aide, Reid understands that some centrists might be playing to a home-state crowd, while others are looking for bargaining power as the final bill takes shape."

Indeed, one of the more striking observations of the day was that most of the Hill still seems convinced that health care reform will pass -- in one form or another -- in the near future. The NYT added, "With or without a public plan, Democrats expressed growing confidence that a version of the health care bill would be adopted."

As for the House, the search for 218 remains challenging, but the leadership is reportedly making progress, and still expects to begin debate on a bill as early as next week.

—Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

TUESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* Afghanistan: "Eight Americans died in combat in southern Afghanistan on Tuesday, bringing October's total to 53 and making it the deadliest month for Americans in the eight-year war. September and October were both deadlier months overall for NATO troops."

* The significance of Matthew Hoh's resignation in Afghanistan: "[I]n a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency. 'I have lost understanding of and confidence in the strategic purposes of the United States' presence in Afghanistan,' he wrote Sept. 10 in a four-page letter to the department's head of personnel."

* Iran responds to nuke offer: "Iran accepted the general framework of a U.N.-draft nuclear deal Tuesday, but said it would seek 'important changes' that could test the willingness of world powers to make concessions in exchange for a pact to rein in Tehran's ability to make atomic warheads."

* Good move: "The Obama administration is giving a jolt to the futuristic 'smart' electric grid, hoping to more quickly bring America's power transmission system into the digital age. President Barack Obama, during a visit to a solar energy facility in Arcadia, Fla., is announcing Tuesday that he is making available $3.4 billion in government support for 100 projects aimed at modernizing the power grid."

* Global cooling doesn't exist. Quick, someone let Inhofe know.

* In May, a new credit card law stopped banks from arbitrarily raising interest rates. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) is taking the next step, proposing "freezing interest rates and fees on existing credit card balances until a new law took effect."

* The votes still aren't there for a robust public option in the House.

* Snowe's prepared to support the GOP filibuster.

* This Politico piece is easily the most annoying thing you'll read all week.

* At the mercy of big-time college athletics.

* Ordering Hispanic workers at a New Mexico hotel to Anglicize their names is crazy.

* And right-wing activist Randall Terry "has launched a contest to encourage people to make videos burning House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in effigy." Seriously.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

AN EVER-EVOLVING RATIONALE.... OK, so Joe Lieberman would rather see health care reform fail than allow some consumers to have a choice between public and private coverage. But one of the key clues to an unprincipled mind is an evolving explanation for opposition.

In June, Lieberman said, "I don't favor a public option because I think there's plenty of competition in the private insurance market." That didn't make sense, and it was quickly dropped from his talking points.

In July, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public is going to end up paying for it." No one knew what that meant.

In August, he said we'd have to wait "until the economy's out of recession," which is incoherent, since a public option, even if passed this year, still wouldn't kick in for quite a while.

In September, Lieberman said he opposes a public option because "the public doesn't support it." A wide variety of credible polling proved otherwise.

Which brings us to October, and the latest in a series of weak explanations.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. "To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don't think we need it now." [...]

Lieberman said that he'd vote against a public option plan "even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

Jon Chait explained that this "literally makes no sense whatsoever. A public plan does not provide a new entitlement. It just doesn't. It's a different form of providing an entitlement. Nor is it more expensive. In fact, the stronger versions of the public plan would cost less money. Lieberman is just babbling nonsense here."

Not that it matters -- it's almost November, which means Lieberman will have some equally unpersuasive argument very soon.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

SELECTIVE USE OF SENATORIAL 'RIGHTS'.... Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) was specifically asked this afternoon why he couldn't just vote for cloture -- letting health care reform come to the floor for a Senate vote -- and then oppose the bill itself. "Because that is not using the rights I have as a senator," he replied.

What's worth remembering, though, is that Lieberman uses his "rights" selectively, and has a record of ending filibusters on legislation he ultimately votes against.

In March 2005, the senator joined 55 Republicans and 13 Democrats in backing cloture on a bill that made several significant changes to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, chief among them making it more difficult to file for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act ended up passing the Senate by a vote of 74 to 25, with Lieberman in the opposition.

In September 2006, Lieberman did the same thing. The senator voted to invoke cloture on The Secure Fence Act, which would have used advanced technologies -- including unmanned aerial vehicles, ground-based sensors, satellites, radar coverage, and cameras -- to create "operational control of the borders." The bill would pass by a vote of 80 to 19, with Lieberman joining many of the Democratic Party's more progressive members in voting nay.

In April 2007, Lieberman again granted a parliamentary pass to a bill that he ultimately opposed. The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountability Act would have funded troops in Iraq provided that certain demands be made of the Iraqi government and that a timeline be implemented for the removal of U.S. forces. The bill ended up being passed by a vote of 51 to 46, with Lieberman voting against it, only to be vetoed by then President George W. Bush.

Lieberman, in other words, has "rights" that he only takes seriously when he wants to.

—Steve Benen 4:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

HOW LIKELY IS THE BLUFF?.... Marc Ambinder notes this afternoon that Senate Democratic leaders and the White House still think that Joe Lieberman, when push comes to shove, will join Dems and support cloture on health care reform. "They think he's posturing for power but will cave," Ambinder said.

Ambinder added:

Now -- the final bill, post-conference, is going to look a bit different from the reconciled Senate bill. Lieberman is giving himself the power to influence the final bill. I doubt that the Senate leadership is going to press him too hard right now, preferring to see if he can be accommodated in the final debate.

To be sure, Lieberman seems to have left himself a little wiggle room. The senator said today that he's told Harry Reid that he'll support a Republican filibuster "if the bill remains what it is now." Since the amendment process will no doubt alter the bill, the argument goes, then Lieberman may yet come around.

But I wouldn't count on it.

I understand the argument. Lieberman loves attention and power. By threatening to join the Republican filibuster, he gets both -- Democrats have to scramble to make him happy, since there's no margin for error in putting together 60 votes. Lieberman gets to feel very important for the next several weeks by making this threat less than 24 hours after Harry Reid stated his intentions, but that doesn't necessarily mean he wants to be known forever as The Senator Who Killed Health Care Reform.

I find it very easy to believe, however, that Lieberman is capable of doing just that. He left himself some wiggle room, but not when it comes to the public option -- he's against it, no matter what, even with all of the compromises thrown in.

What's more, Lieberman didn't have to make the explicit threat to get the attention he craves -- he could have just as easily said he's keeping his options open, forcing Dems to cater to his demands. Instead, he went further, explicitly vowing to stop the Senate from even voting on the bill if some consumers in some states have a choice between public and private insurance plans.

What does Lieberman have to gain by following through on this threat? Well, if he plans to seek re-election in 2012, he'll need a lot of Republican support to have a chance. Running as the independent who single handedly prevented public-private competition would probably be a big selling point.

That said, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was asked this afternoon about Lieberman's willingness to filibuster reform. Reid told reporters, "Joe Lieberman is the least of Harry Reid's problems."

I'm not sure how that's possible -- he can't get to 60 without Lieberman, and Lieberman is now vowing not to be part of the 60 -- unless Reid thinks the Connecticut senator might be more flexible than he's letting on.

—Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

LIEBERMAN VOWS TO FILIBUSTER BILL WITH PUBLIC OPTION.... He's with Democrats on everything except foreign policy? I don't think so.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told reporters today that he would in fact filibuster any health care bill he doesn't agree with -- and right now, he doesn't agree with the proposal making its way through the Senate.

"I told Senator Reid that I'm strongly inclined -- I haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined -- to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together because it's important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill."

Let's break this down a bit. Lieberman is prepared to vote with Democrats to support a motion to proceed -- that is, he'll allow health care reform to move on to the Senate where it will be debated, be subjected to amendments, etc.

But after that stage, the reform bill will eventually be ready for a vote. At that point, a Republican filibuster will mandate 60 votes in order to let the Senate approve or reject the legislation. And Lieberman vowed today to join with Republicans -- if the bill gives eligible consumers a choice of public and private health coverage, Lieberman will work with the GOP to kill health care reform.

There are several angles to keep in mind. First, Lieberman says his main objection to public-private competition and giving consumers a choice is cost -- he believes the public option is more expensive than the alternative. Lieberman apparently hasn't been paying attention, and doesn't realize this is backwards. He's basing his entire opposition on one provision that he doesn't seem to understand.

Second, Politico reported late last week, "An aide to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said that, while the senator does not favor a public option with a state exemption, he would not vote to filibuster the bill." I guess he's changed his mind.

Third, it's worth appreciating how extreme Lieberman's position really is. For some reform advocates, the starting point was single-payer. Then there was a compromise to a robust public option. Then there was another compromise to a negotiated public option. Then there was yet another compromise to a negotiated public option with a state opt-out. Lieberman is saying these compromises aren't enough -- his opposition to competition and giving consumers a choice is so intense, he'd rather kill health care reform then let senators even vote on the bill.

It will be a vote decades in the making, giving policymakers a once-in-a-generation opportunity. And as of today, Lieberman would rather let reform die than give some Americans in some states a choice between a public and a private insurance plan.

And fourth, pressuring Lieberman remains complicated. He's not up for re-election until 2012, and he can't face a primary since he's not a Democrat. Lieberman will face heat from progressive activists, but that's never seemed to bother him before. Will the caucus consider serious consequences for Lieberman's betrayal (i.e., loss of committee chairmanship)? Time will tell.

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

BEWARE OF BLIND PARAPHRASES..... It seemed as if the relevant players were finally on the same page. After widespread discussion of tactical differences between the White House and the Democratic Senate leadership, as of yesterday, everyone was marching to the same beat.

That is, until this morning, when NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd stirred things up again.

According to Todd, the White House is telling Reid, "You're the vote counter, but don't come crying to us when you need that last vote. That said, I've also been told, OK right now it's this 'opt-out,' the compromise could end up being the 'opt-in' and maybe this is what Reid was doing here -- going with the 'opt-out' so the 'opt-in' was the compromise rather than the trigger being the compromise." [...]

[T]his is in direct contradiction to a). the White House's official statement of support for what Reid's doing, and b). Reid's insistence that he's doing what he thinks is right, and what can pass in the Senate.

New, unwelcome drama? Probably not. A couple of hours later, Todd told Greg Sargent that the White House hasn't actually said this to Reid, and that his on-air remarks have been "twisted." Todd said, "It was 'as if' they were sending that message.... Everything gets too literal."

It's a sensitive time in policy negotiations, and observers are on high alert. Reports like Todd's can have meaningful implications. Instead of expecting viewers to know the difference between messages the White House "literally" delivered to Senate leadership and messages they kinda sorta obliquely delivered to Senate leadership, perhaps journalists should be more careful in characterizing what's happening behind the scenes.

What's more, it's a reminder that blind paraphrases on television should be taken with a grain of salt. A couple of weeks ago, John Harwood reported that an "advisor" to the White House trashed "the Internet left fringe." Top White House officials went on the record to reject the report, and Harwood later qualified his remarks a bit.

We can apparently take much of the on-air commentary and blind paraphrases seriously, or we can realize the reporting isn't "too literal."

—Steve Benen 1:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

MEANINGLESS RESOLUTIONS FOR ME, NOT FOR THEE.... Congress routinely takes up symbolic resolutions that aren't especially significant. It's generally not worth raising a fuss over.

But this morning, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) decided to not only complain about today's resolutions, but to argue that they're evidence of Democratic negligence.

"These are your hard-earned tax dollars at work: with millions of Americans looking for jobs and the nation's unemployment rate nearing 10 percent, the U.S. House of Representatives today will take up a grand total of four non-controversial 'suspension' bills. Four," Boehner's statement read. He added, "It's unacceptable for Congress to take it easy at a time when out-of-work families struggling to make ends meet are asking 'where are the jobs?'"

You tell 'em, John. And while you're telling 'em, you may want to let your caucus know about your concerns.

Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) today introduced -- along with 75 other Republicans -- a resolution to officially commemorate the 9/12 taxpayer march on Washington. Other sponsors of H.R. 870 include Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa.), and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the party's whip.

The odds of passage -- which would demand that Democrats endorse bill language about "skyrocketing deficits, taxpayer-funded bailouts, pork-barrel projects, burdensome taxes, unaccountable policy czars, command-and-control energy policy, and a government takeover of health care" -- seem slim.

The right's resolution is intended to express "gratitude and appreciation to the individuals and families who participated in the Taxpayer March on Washington on September 12, 2009." It includes a head count "as high as 1,700,000 marchers," which by most measures is a ridiculous exaggeration.

So, these are your hard-earned tax dollars at work. With the economy struggling, more than six dozen House Republicans want to spend time on a resolution honoring 70,000 right-wing activists who showed up for some lobbyist-sponsored, Fox News-organized protest.

I can only assume that Boehner considers this "unacceptable."

—Steve Benen 1:10 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

MILBANK'S SPIN ON REID'S ANNOUNCEMENT.... When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced yesterday that the chamber is moving forward on a health care reform package that includes a public option, reform advocates were impressed. The Washington Post's Dana Milbank wasn't.

In his column today, Milbank makes the case that Reid did little more than cave to the demands of "formidable ... liberal interest groups."

Reid, facing a difficult reelection contest next year at home in Nevada, will need such groups to bring Democrats to the polls if he is to survive. [...]

Of course, everybody knew that Reid didn't have the votes. That's why he was standing there alone, a Gang of One. As Democratic aides described it, the moment had less to do with health-care policy than with Nevada politics -- and one vulnerable senator's justifiable fear of liberal anger. Now, if the public option unexpectedly survives in the Senate, Reid keeps his hero status on the left. If it fails, he at least gets credit for trying. By the Nobel committee's revised standards, his aspirations might even earn him the prizes in medicine and economics.

It just wouldn't have been the same if Milbank couldn't take a gratuitous shot at the president's Nobel Peace Prize.

Obviously, Milbank is entitled to his opinion. If he thinks Reid agreed to a public option compromise -- a public plan with a state opt-out -- primarily to make MoveOn.org happy, Milbank is welcome to the make the case.

But it's not exactly a persuasive pitch, and Milbank doesn't bolster his assertions with much of anything.

Reid had to reconcile two committee bills -- one with a public option, one without. To merge the two, the Majority Leader went with a compromise that enjoys the backing of most of his caucus and most of the country.

Milbank sees Reid as caving to liberal groups who don't care that, as he sees it, the measure doesn't have 60 votes. I see a Majority Leader going with a proposal that Reid, the White House, most congressional Democrats, and most Americans have already embraced. And incidentally, it happens to be "good public policy."

In fairness, I believe progressive activists definitely played a role in getting the Senate's reform bill to where it is. Indeed, I don't think there's anything especially wrong with Democratic leaders shaping a public policy plan in a way that meets the expectations of the voters who elected them.

But Milbank makes it sound as if the Majority Leader yelled "How high?" because "liberal interest groups" told him to jump. And that's just not what's happened.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

TUESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* Polling in New Jersey's gubernatorial campaign remains volatile. While a poll released yesterday showed Gov. Jon Corzine (D) up by nine, new surveys from Rasmussen and Public Policy Polling show Chris Christie (R) with narrow leads.

* Corzine conceded yesterday that if he had it to do over again, he would have re-worded his "threw his weight around" ad.

* In related news, with Republicans turning their guns on independent candidate Chris Daggett in New Jersey, Daggett's negative ratings have gone up sharply lately.

* In New York's 23rd, actor/politician Fred Thompson (R) has thrown his support to Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman. So has Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R).

* President Obama was in Miami last night, where he raised $1.5 million for Democratic House and Senate candidates.

* In Wisconsin, Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton (D) announced yesterday that she is not running in next year's open gubernatorial race. The decision makes it more likely that Milwaukee Mayor Thomas Barrett will be the Democratic frontrunner, though he has not yet announced his plans.

* In Massachusetts, a Rasmussen poll shows Gov. Deval Patrick (D) with weak re-election numbers, but he nevertheless leads in a three-way contest. The poll has the incumbent ahead with 34% support, followed by Christy Mihos (R) and Tim Cahill (I) with 23% each.

* And in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's campaign is taking voter targeting efforts to new heights (or depths, depending on one's perspective).

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (4)

PART OF A MOVEMENT, NOT A DISTRICT.... Next week's special election in New York's 23rd continues to be a fascinating three-way fight between moderate Democrat Bill Owens, a moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava, and far-right Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman. The most notable development, of course, is the deep schism that's developed among Republican establishment types (Gingrich, Boehner) who support the GOP nominee, and right-wing leaders (Palin, Beck, Santorum) who don't,

But while this fight continues to play out among activists, leaders, lawmakers, and media personalities, Hoffman has neglected one minor point: learning what's going on in the district he intends to represent.

The Conservative Party candidate stopped by the Watertown Daily Times the other day for a meeting with the paper's editorial board. Not surprisingly, the editors wanted to talk about local transportation projects and the district's economy. Hoffman, who was chaperoned for some reason by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R) of Texas, was woefully unprepared for easy questions.

A flustered and ill-at-ease Mr. Hoffman objected to the heated questioning, saying he should have been provided a list of questions he might be asked. He was, if he had taken the time to read the Thursday morning Times editorial raising the very same questions.

Coming to Mr. Hoffman's defense, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, who accompanied the candidate on a campaign swing, dismissed regional concerns as "parochial" issues that would not determine the outcome of the election. On the contrary, it is just such parochial issues that we expect our representative to understand and be knowledgeable about, if he wants to be our voice in Washington.

Hoffman could have simply picked up that day's newspaper, and read about the interests of the editorial board before chatting with them. But he couldn't be bothered -- his campaign isn't about New York's 23rd; it's about the soul of the national Republican Party and the future of conservative politics.

He can't be bothered with "parochial" concerns such as what's actually important to district residents' daily lives; Hoffman has a movement to worry about.

I'm guessing Hoffman hasn't heard the expressions, "All politics is local"? When a candiate in up-state New York needs a Texan to tell a local newspaper not to care so much about issues important to up-state New York, there's a problem.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

THE OBAMA REFERENDUM WILL HAVE TO WAIT.... Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) argued the other day that of all the various races this year, the Virginia gubernatorial contest will be a "referendum" on the Obama presidency.

Actual Virginians don't seem to agree.

Republican Robert F. McDonnell carries a double-digit lead over Democrat R. Creigh Deeds in the final week of the campaign for Virginia governor, according to a new Washington Post poll. [...]

Seven in 10 Virginia voters say their views of President Obama, who is scheduled to campaign Tuesday with Deeds in Norfolk, will not be a factor in their choice for governor. The rest are about evenly divided between those who say their vote will be motivated by their desire to express support for the president and those who want to voice opposition to him, suggesting that Obama might not be a decisive figure in the contest and that the race is not the early referendum on the Obama presidency many have suggested it would be.

Overall, the president's approval rating in Virginia -- a state he won last year with 52% of the vote -- is 54%. Among just registered voters, it's 57%.

And yet, Virginians in the poll prefer McDonnell to Deeds, 55% to 44%.

Assuming McDonnell hangs on to win -- a scenario that now seems likely -- Republicans will no doubt try to characterize the victory as a repudiation of the White House. But given Obama's approval rating in the state, the argument isn't exactly compelling.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

THE LONG-SOUGHT, STILL-ELUSIVE GOP ALTERNATIVE.... When pressed on why Democrats are moving forward with a health care reform plan, while Republicans haven't offered a proposal of their own, GOP leaders will routinely say there are a handful of Republican-backed bills. It's a fairly shallow cop-out -- none of the various GOP plans have been embraced by the caucus and/or its leadership.

Nevertheless, Republicans did promise, not too terribly long ago, that the caucus would offer an alternative reform plan. It would prove that the GOP is not only steering clear of the "Party of No" label, but also that the minority was serious about governing. Voters would have an opportunity to see two clear approaches to the issue -- one from each party -- and could evaluate which side offered the better solutions.

That commitment came 132 days ago. Republicans are still debating the point.

Some House Republicans are growing frustrated that their leaders have not yet introduced a healthcare reform alternative.

For months, the message from House GOP leaders on a healthcare bill has been similar to ads for yet-to-be-released movies: Coming soon.

According to several GOP lawmakers, the leadership is split over how to proceed in terms of unveiling an alternative to the final Democratic bill that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) intends to unveil as soon as this week.

I suspect part of the problem is that Republicans have noticed that health care reform is ... what's the word ... tricky. Can GOP lawmakers come up with a proposal that covers the insured, offers consumer protections insurers don't like, doesn't raise taxes, lowers the deficit, and ensures exactly zero government intervention in the free market? It seems unlikely.

And yet, way back on June 17, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), the point man on the alternative GOP plan, publicly proclaimed, "I guarantee you we will provide you with a bill."

It's a "guarantee" Republicans are struggling to follow through on.

To be sure, I don't necessarily blame Republicans for refusing to unveil an alternative health care plan. Producing a GOP reform proposal would not only give Democrats a target, it would offer people a chance to compare the two approaches. In a side-by-side match-up, it's hardly a stretch to think the Dems' plan would be better. Much better.

So, the conundrum continues. Do Republicans keep their word, unveil a bad bill, and give Dems a giant bull's eye, or do they break their word and embrace the "Party of No" label?

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

KRISTOL CLEAR.... The Washington Post's Bill Kristol has some advice for his Republican allies. As he sees it, the key to electoral success in the near future is ... you'll never guess ... being more conservative.

The GOP is going to be pretty unapologetically conservative. There aren't going to be a lot of moderate Republican victories in intra-party skirmishes. And -- with the caveat that the political world can, of course, change quickly -- there will be a conservative Republican presidential nominee in 2012. [...]

The center of gravity, I suspect, will instead lie with individuals such as Palin and Huckabee and Gingrich, media personalities like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and activists at town halls and tea parties. Some will lament this -- but over the past year, as those voices have dominated, conservatism has done pretty well in the body politic, and Republicans have narrowed the gap with Democrats in test ballots.

And to think, Time magazine and the New York Times let a brilliant political visionary like Kristol go. It's hard to imagine.

To support his argument, Kristol relies on a Gallup poll released yesterday showing a 40% plurality of Americans consider themselves "conservative." That, the columnist insists, is proof that Republicans need to move even further to the right going forward.

But there's more than one way to look at the data. As Mori Dinauer explained, "This is as good a time as any to remind ourselves that when you let poll respondents self-select labels, those labels immediately lose precision as a way of defining political beliefs. It's also worth noting that the data presented, going back to 1992, hasn't actually changed all that much in those 17 years."

It seems more interesting to note that, as Republicans have moved further and further to the right this year, their national support has deteriorated. Last week's Washington Post/ABC News poll found that only 19% of the public has confidence that congressional Republicans can make the right decisions for the country's future, and only 20% self-identify as Republican voters -- the lowest single number in Post-ABC polls since 1983.

Also last week, a CNN poll found the Republican Party's favorable rating at lowest level in 11 years.

Kristol seems to think the key to turning this around is for the GOP to go from the far-right to the even-further-right. Given his track record for prognostications -- Kristol was confident McCain (173 electoral votes) would defeat Obama (365 electoral votes) last year -- I suspect Democrats hope Republicans take his advice.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

SNOWE'S DISAPPOINTMENT.... When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that he was moving forward on health care reform with a bill featuring a public option, Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-Maine) role as the most important person in the known universe was quickly diminished. One approach insisted Reid push a "triggered" public option in order to keep Snowe on board. That's not the approach the Majority Leader chose.

Not surprisingly, Maine's senior senator was not pleased. Snowe's statement yesterday afternoon read:

"I am deeply disappointed with the Majority Leader's decision to include a public option as the focus of the legislation. I still believe that a fallback, safety net plan, to be triggered and available immediately in states where insurance companies fail to offer plans that meet the standards of affordability, could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus in the Senate."

Brian Beutler sees glimmers of hope in this: "How explicit a statement is that, though? I could be over-parsing here, but it sounds to me as if she's leaving a door pretty wide open to supporting this bill down the line. Note, she doesn't say she's withdrawing her support."

Perhaps, but I suspect Snowe's "deep disappointment" is her way of distancing herself from the bill. Indeed, just four days before Reid's announcement, Snowe said, "I'm against a public option." Asked if she'd join a GOP filibuster on this, Snowe said, "Yes, it would be difficult" to support letting the bill come to the floor for a vote.

In other words, I suspect the key question is no longer, "How do we keep Olympia Snowe happy?" Rather, it's, "How do we convince Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu to let the Senate vote on health care reform?"

As for Snowe's argument that the trigger "could have been the road toward achieving a broader bipartisan consensus," I think there's ample evidence to the contrary. For one thing, several leading Democrats -- Pelosi, Rockefeller, et al -- really hate the idea. For another, leading Republicans hate the idea, too. Snowe may have missed it, but just a few weeks ago, Susan Collins, Snowe's moderate Maine colleague, was asked whether she could support a trigger as a compromise. "No," Collins said. "The problem with triggers is that is just delays the public option," and she rejects public-private competition.

Around the same time, the official Republican weekly address told the public, "These so-called healthcare reform bills have different names: a public option, a co-op, a trigger. Make no mistake, these are all gateways to government-run healthcare."

The trigger measure was never the course to "broader bipartisan consensus" -- it was a way to possibly get one GOP vote.

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

WHEN PROGRESSIVES MAKE PROGRESS.... It's probably safe to say that, at countless times over the last several months, Democratic leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue desperately wanted progressive activists to pipe down. The fight over health care reform has been extremely tricky, and the majority continues to run into overwhelming opposition from conservatives. All the while, the Democratic base kept making demands, mobilizing support, coordinating with like-minded lawmakers, and fighting for every inch of reform real estate.

There's still a sizable chasm between where we are now and the finish line, but it's worth taking a moment to acknowledge that the relative strength of the Senate reform plan is, at least in part, due to the tireless work of progressive activists and their allies on the Hill.

Democratic leaders were forced to include a national public health insurance option as part of health care reform by progressive Democratic senators who refused to support anything less, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Monday. [...]

For many years, it's been centrist and conservative-leaning senators who have been scoring legislative victories by digging in their heels, so this represented a quite dramatic turnabout. It is difficult to remember the last time that progressives won a legislative victory by laying down firm demands and sticking to them. In the House, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has found its feet, too, and is locked in a final battle with conservative Democrats over the shape of a public option.

When I was in high school, I knew a coach who used to talk all the time about which team "wanted it more." A game features all kinds of intangibles, and factors outside players' control, but in certain, close contests, it can come down to who wants it more.

And over the last several weeks, as the reform debate took a series of twists and turns, progressives made it clear exactly who wanted it more.

That said, it's hardly a done deal. As hard as reformers have worked of late, now it gets interesting. Indeed, one of the reasons the left was able to show it wanted it more was because the other team had started to assume the public option was dead and not worth worrying about. As the Senate bill heads to the floor, all of that changes.

But for now, progressives deserve some credit for getting us to where we are now.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

MONDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* The twin car bombs in Baghdad yesterday were simply devastating. "Unlike the carnage unleashed by attacks in crowded mosques, restaurants and markets, aimed at igniting sectarian strife, these blasts appeared to rely on a distinctly political logic."

* As of this afternoon, the bomb blasts had killed as many 155 people, with more than 500 wounded and an unknown number still missing.

* Two helicopter crashes in Afghanistan today killed at least 14 Americans.

* President Obama spoke to a military audience in Jacksonville, Fla., today, defending his Afghanistan timetable. He said he would not "rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm's way.... I won't risk your lives unless it is absolutely necessary. And if it is necessary, we will back you up to the hilt."

* Saturday, President Obama declared H1N1 flu a national emergency, which in turn "clears the way for his health chief to give hospitals wider leeway in how they handle a possible surge of new patients."

* There are too many institutions that are too big to fail. Policymakers are poised to consider solutions to the problem.

* Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), a strong supporter of a public option, is satisfied with the opt-out compromise.

* On a related note, A.L. has an interesting item about the larger political implications of the opt-out approach.

* The newspaper industry is in very, very deep trouble.

* CNN should not be slipping into fourth place in primetime among the cable news networks.

* Forcing women to pay higher health care premiums than men, based on nothing but gender, is crazy.

* First they came for the multibillion-dollar media companies...

* Why, oh why, can't Dawn Johnsen's nomination to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel come up for a vote?

* If government-run health care is such a tragic mistake, these 55 Republicans should stop taking advantage of Medicare immediately.

* Before the controversy over Treasury "snubbing" Fox News goes away completely, Fox News is contesting the administration's version of events, and the White House is pushing back against the pushback.

* Fred Hiatt doesn't like the public option. Peter Orszag isn't impressed with Hiatt's argument. Neither is publius.

* Malkin takes cheap shots at the Axelrod family. Classy.

* Roland Burris should probably brush up on some governmental details before the next Senate hearing.

* Jane Hall, associate professor in the School of Communication at American University, felt compelled to leave Fox News after 11 years as a contributor in part because of Glenn Beck's insanity.

* Guess how much the Republican National Committee's silly new website cost. A whopping $1.4 million -- five times more the DNC's redesigned site. I'm afraid the RNC didn't get its money's worth.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

SENATE REFORM BILL EARNS PLAUDITS.... Now that a Senate health care bill is on the move, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's announcement is causing quite the predictable stir. Since his press conference ended about an hour ago, there have been some noteworthy reactions.

The White House, for example, was reportedly cool to the Reid approach. Soon after Reid's announcement, however, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued this statement:

"The President congratulates Senator Reid and Chairmen Baucus and Dodd for their hard work on health insurance reform. Thanks to their efforts, we're closer than we've ever been to solving this decades-old problem. And while much work remains, the President is pleased that at the progress that Congress has made. He's also pleased that the Senate has decided to include a public option for health coverage, in this case with an allowance for states to opt out. As he said to Congress and the nation in September, he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition."

Two of the five sentences in that paragraph express support for a public option. I think the White House is trying to tell us something.

Perhaps more interesting was the reaction from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), who has been a public option detractor.

"It is time to make our system work better for patients and providers, for small business owners and for our economy. It is time for health care reform. For more than a year, we've been working to meet the goals of reducing the growth of health care costs, improving quality and efficiency and expanding coverage. There are a tremendous number of complicated issues that go into reform and the public option is certainly one of them. I included a public option in the health reform blueprint I released nearly one year ago, and continue to support any provision, including a public option, that will ensure choice and competition and get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate. Success should be our threshold and I am going to fight hard for the 60 votes we need to meet that goal this year."

What's fascinating about this is that Baucus was reportedly fighting tooth and nail to keep the public option out of the merged bill. This statement suggests he's on board with Reid's bill, and almost seems to be trying to take some credit for it.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who's done as much heavy-lifting on the public option as anyone in the Senate, was one of the first to issue a statement, and he seems delighted.

"Leader Reid has always been a strong supporter of a public option that could help keep the insurers honest, and today he showed just how deep his commitment is. The public option has new life because as Americans have learned more about it, they have come to see it is the best way to reduce costs and increase competition in the health insurance industry. This form of public option is not exactly what either liberals or moderates would want. But a public plan based on a level playing field, with an opt-out for states, is the best compromise that has the potential of getting 60 votes in the Senate."

Richard Kirsch, the national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, also sees today's announcement as encouraging.

"We applaud Majority Leader Reid's leadership in making sure the Senate bill includes a public health insurance option to lower costs and inject much-needed competition into the health insurance marketplace. We appreciate his recognizing a public health insurance option is key to achieving meaningful reform, protecting consumers, and keeping insurers honest.

"As we move forward, it is essential that Senate legislation addresses all of our key concerns including making sure health care is truly affordable, ensuring employer responsibility, generating revenue through fair financing rather than taxing higher-cost plans, and implementing a strong public health insurance option.

"We now call on all Senators to stand with leadership and vote to begin debate on the floor. We are closer now than ever before to achieving a true guarantee of good, affordable health care for all. With 47 million people uninsured, tens of millions underinsured, and businesses and families throughout the country struggling with rising costs, there can be no excuse for blocking a full and fair Senate debate on health care reform."

As for reform opponents, the National Republican Senatorial Committee issued an odd statement calling Reid a "partisan bully." I'm not altogether sure what that means, or why Reid would be called that, but the NRSC is mysterious. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell added that the "American public clearly does not like, and doesn't support" the Democratic effort.

—Steve Benen 4:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

REID MOVES FORWARD ON PUBLIC OPTION.... As expected, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hosted a brief press conference this afternoon and announced that there will, in fact, be a public option in the Senate health care bill, though it will give states the opportunity to opt-out of the plan. His prepared statement read:

"The last two weeks have been a great opportunity to work with the White House, Senators Baucus and Dodd, and members of our Caucus on this critical issue of reforming our health insurance system.

"We have had productive, meaningful discussions about how to craft the strongest bill that can gain the 60 votes necessary to move forward in the Senate.

"I feel good about progress we have made within our caucus and with the White House, and we are all optimistic about reform because of the unprecedented momentum that exists.

"I am well aware that the issue of the public option has been a source of great discussion in recent weeks. I have always been a strong supporter of the public option.

"While the public option is not a silver bullet, I believe it is an important way to ensure competition and to level the playing field for patients.

"As we've gone through this process, I've concluded, with the support of the White House and Senators Baucus and Dodd, that the best way forward is to include a public option with an opt-out provision for states.

"Under this concept, states will be able to determine whether the public option works well for them and will have the ability to opt-out.

"I believe that a public option can achieve the goal of bringing meaningful reform to our broken system. It will protect consumers, keep insurers honest and ensure competition and that's why we intend to include it on the bill that will be submitted to the Senate for consideration.

"We have spent countless hours over the last few days in consultation with Senators who have shown a genuine desire to see reform succeed, and I believe there is strong consensus to move forward in this direction.

"Today's developments bring us another step closer to achieving our goal of passing a bill this year that lowers costs, preserves choice, creates competition and improves quality of care."

Reid noted that Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) may not support a bill with a public option, but he hopes she'll "come back" to the fold on the final bill.

He went on to say that it is this bill that will be sent to the Congressional Budget Office for scoring, and while there's been ample speculation about a bill with a p.o. trigger, Reid won't get a CBO score on that approach.

At this point, leadership staffers are now expected to "huddle with Democratic Senate aides to explain" exactly what the merged bill will offer. "The question-and-answer session will allow staffers to get a clear sense of what is in the bill, and particularly detail the way the public option opt-out will work. Our source said this will help on-the-fence senators start making up their mind."

—Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

MEDICARE'S 'CHAMPIONS'?.... About a month ago, the Washington Post reported, "After years of trying to cut Medicare spending, Republican lawmakers have emerged as champions of the program, accusing Democrats of trying to steal from the elderly to cover the cost of health reform."

Of course, the idea that congressional Republicans could be Medicare's "champions" has always been a little silly, but the notion gets a little more ridiculous all the time.

On Wednesday, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced his own health care reform plan. Broun, one of the most vocal and persistent critics of comprehensive health care reform, calls his legislation the "only true free-market reform alternative." And free-market it is. While most of his legislation mirrors other Republican proposals, Broun's plan for Medicare seems rather revolutionary. He wants to completely get rid of Medicare and replace it with vouchers....

Presumably, seniors would then use their vouchers in the private insurance market. Unfortunately, since nothing in Broun's OPTION Act deals with the issue of preexisting conditions, insurance companies would deny seniors, who are more likely to have a chronic health problem, left and right.

And as Zaid Jilani explained, "While Medicare is facing future budgetary problems, privatization isn't the solution. Medicare Advantage, the Medicare plan under which the administration of the program is farmed out to private insurance companies, has more than five times the administrative costs of the traditional public Medicare plan."

It's worth noting that while the RNC and congressional Republican leaders have feigned outrage about Democratic efforts to find cost savings in Medicare, no GOP officials in Washington have denounced or distanced themselves from Paul Broun's privatization plan.

(Note to Hill reporters: ask John Boehner at his next presser, "A leading House Republican last week called for privatizing Medicare. Will you and other party leaders support his effort?")

Most Republican lawmakers opposed the creation of Medicare; GOP lawmakers pushed for Medicare cuts in the '80s and '90s; and last year, the McCain/Palin platform called for significant cuts to the popular program. This year, many prominent GOP lawmakers have argued that Medicare is unconstitutional, and three-fourths of the House Republican caucus voted in April to privatize Medicare out of existence.

It's probably safe to drop this "emerged as champions of the program" talk.

—Steve Benen 3:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

LINCOLN HEDGES ON REFORM'S FUTURE.... It seems likely that the two most problematic votes in the Senate Democratic caucus on health care reform will be Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas. Nelson weighed in yesterday, telling CNN he's not "excited about" the public option with the state opt-out compromise, adding that he's made "no promise" to the leadership on cloture.

Today, Lincoln is also hedging.

The key is to ask moderate Dems whether they're willing to vote Yes on the initial, procedural vote, which requires 60 to bring the legislation to the floor. I asked Lincoln spokesperson Katie Laning Niebaum if Lincoln had indicated to Reid whether she'd vote Yes on cloture.

"Senator Lincoln has not committed her vote to anyone," Niebaum emailed, adding that "she will have to see the legislative language and cost first and will evaluate it based on its impact on Arkansans."

Now's probably a good time to note that center-right Democrats -- in particular, Nelson, Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu -- will be under considerable pressure. To be sure, much of it will come from the right and insurance companies, both of which would likely consider these conservative Dems allies.

But there's another element here that these three will no doubt be aware of. Americans have been talking about health care reform for nearly a century. It's the holy grail of Democratic politics. In a couple of months, the House will have approved a bill for the first time ever, and the political world will be waiting with bated breath for the Senate. The legislation will have more than enough votes to pass, but it will be up to a handful of center-right Democrats to decide whether the bill can come up for a vote or not.

That's a heavy historical weight, which Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu may not fully appreciate just yet. Harry Reid will offer them a bill that's a compromise of a compromise. It will have passed the House, and the president will be waiting for it with open arms. It will be a vote decades in the making, giving policymakers a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

All Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu will have to do is let the Senate vote. That's all -- just give the bill a chance to pass or fail. They can vote against it, of course, but they just have to open the door.

Will they really kill the entire effort? We'll see.

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

WAITING ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS.... About five weeks ago, the House passed an extension of unemployment insurance. It wasn't especially close -- the chamber passed the bill 331 to 83, giving the measure a strong bipartisan majority.

Given the difficult economic conditions, the House vote, White House support, and the public's expectations, it stood to reason that the Senate would act quickly. Indeed, Senate Dems ensured that the benefits extension would be paid for, so conservatives couldn't complain that the bill would increase the deficit.

But Senate Republicans have other ideas. Mike Lillis reports:

Not only do GOP leaders want to alter the way the bill is funded, but they're insisting that a handful of politically charged amendments also get consideration, including provisions to de-fund ACORN and keep illegal immigrants out of the workplace. Since the start of the deadlock, more than 125,000 Americans have lost their unemployment insurance benefits.

The stalemate has frustrated Democratic leaders, who twice this month have attempted to pass the extension, only to be rebuffed by Republicans on the Senate floor. It's also left a growing number of jobless Americans and their advocates indignant that lawmakers would make political hay out of their misfortunes in the middle of the worst employment crisis in a generation.

"Unemployed workers across the country are devastated and dismayed by the failure of the U.S. Senate to extend their lifeline," Christine Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project, said in a statement. "It's shameful and callous."

Those adjectives seem to come up quite a bit when it comes to Senate Republicans, don't they?

Of particular interest, some of the GOP amendments would increase the deficit. Democrats approve of some of the ideas -- such as extending the tax credit for first-time homebuyers -- but are trying not to add to the deficit. Republicans, again, don't care, and are pushing popular amendments in the hopes Dems will vote against them.

Senate Democrats are expected to try again tomorrow, hoping to break the impasse. Here's hoping they're successful -- as Lillis noted, "The delay has consequences. Each day the Senate idles, another 7,000 Americans lose their unemployment insurance benefits, according to figures released by the National Employment Law Project this month. By year's end, the group estimates, roughly 1.3 million people will have exhausted their benefits unless Congress steps in."

—Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

'TEN FOR '10'.... One of the more common criticisms of congressional Republicans is that they have no real policy agenda and offer nothing in the way of constructive ideas. The criticism reinforces the notion that the GOP is the "party of no," and it has the added benefit of being true.

CQ's Alan Ota reports today that the House Republican caucus, hoping to nationalize next year's midterm elections, is putting together a platform of sorts, which has been "informally dubbed 'Ten for '10 '." It's intended to mirror the style of the Democrats' "Six for '06" platform.

While GOP leaders would not discuss the specifics of the emerging agenda, they said it will make the case that Republicans are better suited to revive the nation's economy. [...]

Tom Price of Georgia, chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, said members of the conference are coming up with recommended policy planks that would provide voters "a commitment to accomplish certain ends."

Among proposals floated so far by members: a ban on spending unused funds from this year's economic stimulus law (PL 111-5), tougher earmark disclosure requirements and an "all of the above" climate change plan that would expand offshore oil drilling.

It's hard to be too critical of the ideas thus far; they're only proposals that have been "floated," and there will apparently be 10 measures, not three.

But at this point, I think "Ten for '10" may not be such a great idea. Two of three ideas that are apparently on the table are just holdovers from the McCain campaign. The third, scrapping the economic recovery package, may have some political juice -- most of the public probably doesn't realize the stimulus' role in prevent a wholesale economic collapse -- but it only offers Democrats another opportunity to remind voters that the recovery package was only necessary because Republican policies help bring the global economy to its knees.

And beyond these three, I'm not sure where else Republicans intend to go? They want to privatize Social Security and Medicare, but those aren't exactly electoral winners. They hate gays and abortion, but these are hardly issues that will help "rebrand" the GOP.

I tend to hope the House caucus does pursue a "Ten for '10" initiative, if for no other reason, because I honestly have no idea what congressional Republicans want to do with the levers of power except undermine the Obama presidency.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

MONDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* It seems very hard to believe, but a new Suffolk University poll shows Gov. Jon Corzine (D) leading the New Jersey gubernatorial race by nine points over Republican Chris Christie, 42% to 33%. No other poll shows Corzine with anything like that kind of lead.

* On a related note, with just eight days left before voters head to the polls, Corzine is blanketing the airwaves with four new television ads, one of which prominently features President Obama.

* If newspaper endorsements were a deciding factor, Creigh Deeds' (D) gubernatorial campaign in Virginia would be in great shape. After having already earned an endorsement from the Washington Post, Deeds also got the nod over the weekend from the editorial boards of the Virginian Pilot and the Roanoke Times, two of the state's largest papers.

* Despite far-right activists flocking to Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman in New York's 23rd, the National Republican Congressional Committee says it remains committed to GOP nominee Dede Scozzafava.

* The primary isn't until December, but in the Senate special election in Massachusetts, the Boston Globe reports that state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) has positioned herself as a strong frontrunner.

* In Iowa, Christie Vilsack has decided not to take on Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) next year, disappointing some leading Democrats who thought she'd make a very credible candidate. However, Roxanne Conlin, an attorney who ran an unsuccessful gubernatorial campaign in Iowa in 1982, says she is "more likely than not" to take on Grassley in 2010.

* She's been running for months, but former New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) formally launched her Senate campaign over the weekend.

* And disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) is once again toying with the idea of running for president. He made similar noises in advance of the 1996, 2000, and 2008 presidential campaigns, which is why this probably isn't worth taking seriously.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (7)

TROUBLE RECOGNIZING SATIRE.... Conservative activist Hugh Hewitt published an item over the weekend from Lee Habeeb, which I'm fairly certain was intended to be a joke. The piece ran on Saturday, Oct. 24, and pointed to an event that "occurred" on Wednesday, Oct. 28. (via Karen Tumulty)

More bad news for Fox News ..... sort of.

Oct. 28, 2009 12:43 PM. This just in from Speaker of the House Pelosi. In an interview with MSNBC's Keith Olberman [sic] last night, Nancy Pelosi announced that she would move to bring a vote to the floor of The House of Representatives as early as next week to ban Fox from covering Congress. "That Fox regularly grants access to Republican Congressman to spread their lies and propaganda on their airwaves is a violation of the public trust, and their continued desire to challenge such well documented facts as Global Warming, and the efficacy of single payer health insurance, proves that they are simply doing the work of the special interests. They should thus be stripped of their journalistic access in the halls of Congress," argued Pelosi.

As Tumulty noted, the first clue that an item might be satire is "when it mentions dates that are in the future."

And yet, you might be surprised at the number of blogs that ran with this as a legitimate story. Then again, if you're familiar with far-right blogs, maybe you wouldn't be surprised.

All of this, of course, comes on the heels of Michael Ledeen and Rush Limbaugh falling for a satirical blog post claiming to show portions of a college thesis Barack Obama didn't write. Both eventually backpedalled when they realized they'd fallen for a joke.

Add "difficulty recognizing satire" to the list of conservative troubles.

Update: Jamison Foser reports that Glenn Beck fell for it, too.

—Steve Benen 11:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

UNPRECEDENTED OBSTRUCTIONISM.... In the Clinton era, Senate Republicans blocked a lot of the White House's judicial nominations. In the Bush era, Senate Democrats blocked votes on some would-be judges, too. But as Doug Kendall explains today, we've never seen anything quite like the new levels of Republican obstructionism.

It seems clear that Senate Republicans are prepared to take the partisan war over the courts into uncharted territory -- delaying up-or-down votes on the Senate floor for even the most qualified and uncontroversial of the president's judicial nominees.... Over the past several decades, senators in both parties have used an escalating set of procedural tactics to block confirmations, particularly near the end of an out-going president's term in office. To date, however, the tit-for-tat game has played out within a fairly narrow category of nominees who are deemed controversial. While there has never been an agreed-upon definition of what that means -- it's an eye-of-the-beholder type of thing -- there has consistently been a large category of nominees that are not considered controversial.

Despite all this, Senate Republicans still won't give Obama's judges a vote. The three Obama judges confirmed to the lower courts -- Gerald Lynch from New York and Jeffrey Viken from South Dakota in addition to Lange -- each spent weeks pending on the Senate floor and endured a confirmation process that lasted more than three months. Two additional nominees, Andre Davis of Maryland and David Hamilton of Indiana, cleared the Senate judiciary committee way back on June 4 -- 144 days ago. Yet their floor votes are still pending.

Davis and Hamilton have spent longer in this particular form of limbo than any Bush nominee confirmed from 2007-08.

Kendall describes this as "unprecedented and dangerous." It not only leaves vacancies on the bench, clogging the federal courts, but it also discourages qualified, uncontroversial jurists from even accepting nominations in the first place, knowing that the Republican minority won't give them a fair shake. Prospective judges realize that they can have a skeleton-free closet and plenty of support to be confirmed, but can wait indefinitely for a vote, simply because the GOP feels like it.

And it's not just judicial nominees. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, pointing to the difficulties of responding to the global flu pandemic, recently noted that the Senate isn't allowed to vote on a surgeon general, because Republicans refuse to let Regina Benjamin's nomination come to the floor. "We are facing a major pandemic, we have a well-qualified candidate for surgeon general, she's been through the committee process. We just need a vote in the Senate," Sebeilus said late last week. "Please give us a surgeon general."

Benjamin was unanimously approved by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Oct. 7, but the Senate minority has decided to block all HHS nominees, flu pandemic or no flu pandemic.

People for the American Way reported last week that between 1949 and 2009 -- spanning 11 presidents -- there were 24 nominees on which cloture was forced. In the first nine months of Obama's first year in office, there have been five, meaning Senate Republicans on track to force more cloture votes on more Obama nominees than practically every modern president combined.

And that doesn't include the secret and not-so-secret holds.

The Senate isn't supposed to be this dysfunctional.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

A CAREFULLY SELECTED 'REFERENDUM'.... On "Meet the Press" yesterday, host David Gregory asked Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) a rather loaded question: "As you look at these races, governor's races in New Jersey and Virginia, where the Democrats are in considerable trouble, what will it say about the Obama presidency, these results from these elections?" Cornyn replied:

"Well, I think the Virginia governor's race particularly is going to be referendum on the policies that the American people have seen coming out of Washington these days."

This isn't altogether surprising rhetoric, but it is rather amusing. With a wide variety of elections in 2009, Cornyn has picked the one race Republicans are likely to win and decided that's the one that counts as a "referendum."

It wasn't too terribly long ago when GOP leaders said the special election New York's 20th congressional district would be a "referendum" on the Obama administration and congressional Democrats. When Scott Murphy won in March, Republicans decided it wasn't really a "referendum" after all.

There was a special election in Illinois's 5th congressional district in April, but a Democrat won so it couldn't be a "referendum." There was a special election in California's 32nd congressional district in July, Dems won that one, too, so it doesn't count as "referendum" either.

Next week, there will be a gubernatorial race in New Jersey, a gubernatorial race in Virginia, a mayoral race in NYC, and congressional special elections in California's 10th and New York's 23rd. In just about every instance, the races will be decided largely by state and local concerns.

But for John Cornyn, only one of all of these contests -- the one where his favored candidate looks like a strong bet -- will signal public dissatisfaction with what Americans "have seen coming out of Washington these days." The other races won't offer any significant insights into anything.

Good to know.

—Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

THE HOLDOUT(S).... CNN reported late yesterday what has been widely suspected for nearly a week: "Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is poised to proceed with plans to introduce a Senate health care bill with a public health insurance option that would allow states to opt out." A final decision is expected today.

And watching the Sunday morning shows, it was hard to miss the sense among leading Democrats that this might just come together. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) of Missouri described herself as "pretty optimistic" and said Reid's intended plan will likely get done "this year." Sen. Russ Feingold (D) of Wisconsin said he is "frankly getting excited that we may have some momentum for something very positive." Sen. Chuck Schumer (D) of New York said on "Meet the Press" that the leadership is "close" to 60 votes -- though, it should be noted, that would be 60 votes for cloture, not the legislation itself.

How close is "close"? Probably about a vote or two shy of the threshold. At this point, Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, the caucus' most conservative member, may be the most serious impediment to reform. CNN's John King asked Nelson whether he's committed to the Democratic leadership that he'll let health care reform come up for an up-or-down vote. Nelson replied:

"I've made no promise. I can't decide about the procedural vote until I see the underlying bill. It would be, I think, reckless to say I'll support the procedure without knowing what the underlying bill consists of. And it's not put together yet. It's a draft -- it will be a draft bill sometime next week, submitted the Congressional Budget Office for the review of the cost."

In other words, Nelson is certainly considering the possibility of siding with Republicans and denying the Senate a chance to vote on the bill.

Asked about possible compromises, Nelson added, "Well, I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out of a robust, as they call it, robust government-run insurance plan. I'll take a look at the one where states could opt in if they make the decision themselves."

Not exactly a vote of confidence for the likely Democratic plan.

I don't doubt that the reports about Dems being close to 60 are true, but no one should doubt the fact that getting from, say, 58 to 60 will be exceedingly difficult given the conservative Democratic holdouts. Based on what I'm hearing, the two biggest hurdles on cloture are likely to be Nelson and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas. Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... ABC News' "This Week" invited Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham onto the show yesterday, probably with the expectation that she'd say silly, right-wing things. To that extent, she didn't disappoint.

Ingraham argued that "a lot of people are saying" that the Obama administration is more "impassioned about" Fox News than "other threats to the United States, whether economic threats or real threats, Islamic jihadists."

Ingraham didn't say who these "people" are who are "saying" this, but apparently, there are "a lot" of them. (When right-wing media personalities appear on mainstream outlets, they do this quite a bit -- they don't want to say crazy things on their own behalf, so they attribute nonsensical ideas to vague and undefined groups of "a lot of people," who do not appear to exist in reality.)

Even Stephanopoulos seemed incredulous about the observation, saying, "You don't believe that they've been softer on Islamic jihadists than they have on Fox News. Come on." Ingraham, dropping the pretense of passing along the thoughts of "a lot of people," insisted she hasn't seen White House officials "talk about other real threats in the same coordinated and sophisticated way as they're going after" Fox News.

John Podesta responded that Ingraham might be right "when the drones start flying over Fox News."

The entire "debate," such that it is, has become annoyingly silly. A few White House officials have said that Fox News is partisan outlet that shouldn't be considered a legitimate source of independent journalism. The assessment happens to demonstrably true. On the other hand, the administration has killed Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan and Baitullah Mehsud, while taking suspected terrorists Najibullah Zazi, Talib Islam, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi into custody before they could launched potential attacks.

To compare the White House's interest in Fox News vs. national security threats is insane. There's no equivalence between a few instances of mild-but-accurate criticism of a propaganda outlet and massive counter-terrorism operations around the world.

Of course, as is often the case, the problem is not just that Laura Ingraham believes strange things and makes ridiculous observations; the problem is that ABC News thought she deserved a national outlet to share these strange beliefs with ABC's television audience.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (46)

WHITE HOUSE 'COMPLETELY SUPPORTS' REID'S EFFORTS.... The main story on health care reform over the last few days is that the White House and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid aren't quite on the same page. Reid, by all accounts, is prepared to move forward with a reform bill that includes a public option and a state opt-out compromise. President Obama, according to several reports, is skeptical that this bill will generate the necessary support, and sees a "trigger" approach as the path of least resistance.

Last night, Deputy White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer posted an item intended to knock down talk about differences between the leaders. It reads in its entirety:

A rumor is making the rounds that the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option. Those rumors are absolutely false.

In his September 9th address to Congress, President Obama made clear that he supports the public option because it has the potential to play an essential role in holding insurance companies accountable through choice and competition. That continues to be the President's position.

Senator Reid and his leadership team are now working to get the most effective bill possible approved by the Senate. President Obama completely supports their efforts and has full confidence they will succeed and continue the unprecedented progress that is being made in both the House and Senate.

It's a noteworthy statement for a couple of reasons. Pfeiffer notes, for example, that the president not only continues to support a public option -- with no mention of triggers -- but "completely supports" Reid's efforts. Given the talk that the White House had shown minimal enthusiasm for Reid's purported plan, this on-the-record endorsement is helpful.

I also found it interesting that the statement became necessary at all. Since late Friday, there was a growing sense among reform advocates on the Hill and off that the White House needed to signal a) its ongoing support for a public option; and b) its backing for Reid's strategy. The Pfeiffer statement suggests strongly that the White House is well aware of the consternation and willing to make its intentions clear.

What's more, a senior administration official told Jonathan Cohn yesterday, "We will be 100 percent behind whichever direction Reid decides to go.... Reid hasn't asked for help. He is polling his caucus to make a decision on the opt out or the trigger. Whichever way he chooses, president Obama will help make the sale publicly and privately."

Good.

A reader emailed me yesterday asking, "Am I missing something here? I really do not understand what is driving the White House to be so reluctant about the public option." I don't think it's a substantive reluctance -- this doesn't seem to be a case in which the president actually prefers a trigger to the public option with the opt-out. It's entirely about pragmatism and vote-counting -- the White House isn't at all convinced the votes will be there for the better bill when push comes to shove.

That said, as of yesterday, the president's team seems to be offering unequivocal support for Reid's preferred approach, which will no doubt be welcome news on the Hill.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

WHY PULLING THE 'TRIGGER' IS A BAD IDEA.... Bloomberg's Al Hunt told George Stephanopoulos that the trigger measure in health care reform may be "the compromise everyone has to rally around."

Maybe, maybe not. We've talked before about the problems with this idea, but since the measure is lingering around, and may even generate more votes than any other approach, it's probably worth re-stating the policy issues here. Jacob Hacker, who helped craft the idea of the public option in the first place, explained the other day why the trigger is the wrong way to go.

A workable trigger would, at a minimum, need to achieve three goals: (1) establish a reasonable and measurable standard for private plan performance that sets out clear affordability and cost-containment goals for a specifically defined package of benefits, (2) assess this standard in a timely fashion with information available to policymakers after reform legislation passes, and (3) if this standard were met, quickly create a public health insurance plan that would effectively remedy the situation.

The modifier "quickly" in the third goal is crucial: Runaway health costs are a grave and growing threat to federal and state budgets and to the health security of workers, their families, and their employers. Waiting longer than absolutely necessary for affordable coverage is certain to cause great harm. Indeed, it might actually compound the current crisis. Without an imminent threat of public plan competition, private insurers are likely to raise premiums in anticipation of the implementation of reform -- as suggested by AHIP's recent prediction of big premium increases if reform passes. Delaying a public plan may also jeopardize the cause of reform itself, because requiring Americans to buy unaffordable coverage has the potential to provoke a political backlash. (Polls show that Americans are more supportive of a mandate when they know they will have the choice of a public plan.)

In short, we cannot wait for a public plan -- and one of the biggest problems with a trigger is that it virtually guarantees we will have to.

The whole idea of a trigger hasn't gained any real traction in recent months, in part because it has so few fans. Republicans hate it -- they oppose any competition for private insurers, even if it's put off for some future standard -- and Democrats are at least skeptical about it, for all the reasons Hacker explained.

What's more, Ezra explained the other day, "One of the reasons I assumed Olympia Snowe's trigger proposal was dead was, well, it looked dead. It was just lying there, unmoving. There were no meetings between Snowe and Schumer, or Snowe and Rockefeller, to try and craft a stronger trigger that would be acceptable to more liberal members. There were no modified proposals coming out of Snowe's office, or statements from her spokespeople indicating a willingness to entertain changes. The White House kicked around some ideas internally, but none of them, so far as I or my sources know (or at least will confirm), ever saw the light of day, or even a dark room on the Hill."

And yet, the idea still lingers, because Snowe still likes it.

Now, the talk over the last couple of days is that President Obama may actually prefer the trigger to the public option with the opt-out compromise. That may be true, but there's reason for some skepticism. As we talked about yesterday, the issue here may be an entirely pragmatic one for the White House: Obama thinks a) center-right Dems won't vote for reform without Snowe; b) Snowe won't vote for reform without a trigger; so c) a trigger, while not ideal, will at least get a bill to his desk. The president is reportedly skeptical about whether a 60-vote Snowe-less majority is possible for the opt-out P.O. -- not on policy grounds, but as a matter of legislative strategy -- despite Harry Reid's confidence that it will come together.

But as long as the competing strategies continue to play out, the inconvenient truth is, the trigger is almost certainly the wrong answer to the right question.

—Steve Benen 11:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

DELAYS FOR DELAYS' SAKE.... In July, after considerable debate and discussion, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said health care reform advocates were going far too fast. The process, she said, had to be slowed down considerably.

She said the same thing in August. And September. As we approach November, and reform seems to be gathering some momentum, Snowe keeps going for the brakes.

Centrist Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) suggested that Congress may not vote on healthcare legislation before lawmakers leave Washington for Christmas.

Democratic leaders are pushing to complete healthcare reform legislation before year's end but key issues in the legislation have yet to be hashed out, such as the inclusion of a controversial public health insurance option.

Democrats have courted Snowe for her support on the bill. She could become a crucial vote should Senate Democrats fail to attract the 60 votes necessary on their side to invoke cloture.

"Well, Christmas might be too soon," Snowe told Bloomberg's Al Hunt in an interview that will air throughout the weekend.

Now, Snowe hasn't quite gotten around to explaining why the end of the calendar year may be "too soon." Instead, she's urged policymakers to give reform the "thought it needs and requires." Snowe added, "[T]hat's why I've tried to slow the process down."

That's pretty vague, to the point that it doesn't seem to actually mean anything. Indeed, Snowe has no idea what's going to happen between now and the end of the December -- none of us do -- but she's still convinced, no matter how much progress has been made and how strong the support, that "Christmas might be too soon." Why? She just does.

Delays for delays' sake aren't exactly a recipe for serious policymaking. Congress and the White House have been debating health care reform for the better part of the year. It was debated last year during the presidential campaign. It was debated the year before during the presidential primaries. It was debated at length during the Clinton reform effort, which followed previous debates during previous presidents' efforts.

America has been debating health care reform, off and on, since the days of Harry Truman. Olympia Snowe can demand more delays, and for all I know, given her influence right now, she'll get them. But health care reform, by most reasonable measures, has already received the "thought it needs and requires." It's time for responsible policymakers to start making decisions, not putting them off until some arbitrary point in the new year.

Dragging this out for the sake of dragging this out seems wildly unnecessary, and more than a little counter-productive.

—Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

FEELING DOBBS-RELATED EMBARRASSMENT.... It's a fine line CNN is trying to walk. On the one hand, it pays Lou Dobbs handsomely to host a nightly news program, which Dobbs uses as a platform to denounce Hispanic communities. On the other, CNN wants to present itself as concerned about those same communities.

Instead of being simply a draw for Hispanic viewers, CNN's four-hour documentary, "Latino in America," turned into a political rallying cry for activist groups who are calling on the cable news channel to fire Lou Dobbs, a veteran anchor with well-known views on immigration.

An array of minorities held small protests in New York and other cities on Wednesday, the first night of CNN's presentation. They are trying to highlight what they say are years of lies about immigration by Mr. Dobbs, who anchors the 7 p.m. hour on CNN.

CNN, a unit of Time Warner, has not commented on the protests or covered them on its news programs. One of the activists featured in the documentary said she tried to raise what she called Mr. Dobbs's "hatred" on one of the channel's news programs Wednesday, but her remarks were cut from the interview.

Now, if you've ever done a pre-recorded television interview, you know it can be a little frustrating -- you'll answer all kinds of questions, and the discussion will last quite a while, but when it airs, you're lucky to get 10 seconds of airtime. Naturally, those interviewed for "Latino in America" found that very little of what they actually said ended up on CNN.

But in this case, there's a little more to it.

Isabel Garcia, a civil rights lawyer who was featured in "Latino in America" and organized an anti-Dobbs protest in Tucson on Wednesday, said that CNN edited her comments about the anchor out of an interview.

She had expected a 15-minute conversation about immigration opposite Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz., and a staunch supporter in immigration enforcement, on the prime-time program "Anderson Cooper 360." During the taped interview Wednesday, she said she made several unprompted comments about Mr. Dobbs.

She said she called Mr. Arpaio and Mr. Dobbs "the two most dangerous men to our communities," and said that "because of them, our communities are being terrorized in a real way." She also asserted that CNN was "promoting lies and hate about our community" by broadcasting Mr. Dobbs's program. The comments were not included when the interview was shown Wednesday night.

"They heavily deleted what I did get to say," she said.

The crux of what Garcia had to say specifically dealt with a CNN host, so CNN decided those comments had to be left on the cutting room floor. The network that's had to cover for Dobbs' tendencies before continues to feel at least some embarrassment.

Matt Yglesias' suggestion is a good one: "[I]f CNN wants to stand by Dobbs then, fine, they should stand by Dobbs. But if they want to stand by Dobbs then they should stand by Dobbs and feature him prominently in their four-hour 'Latino in America' documentary. After all, from what you can see watching the network day-to-day the executives at CNN think Dobbs has a credible and important perspective on this issue. Instead, they just kind of want to sweep the crazy uncle under the rug for the purposes of a big special, and then trot him back out again when everything's back to normal."

It's an unsustainable relationship.

—Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

WILL PUTS ON LEATHER JACKET, DONS SKIS, EYES SHARK.... When my friend Mustang Bobby emailed yesterday to tell me George Will had written an entire column praising Rep. Michele Bachmann, I thought he was kidding. Will may be conservative, but he considers himself something of an intellectual and serious thinker. Bachmann is a right-wing clown, practically a parody of herself, who doesn't even pretend to take policy matters seriously.

George Will may be getting increasingly lazy and cantankerous, but even he wouldn't put his reputation on the line with a laudatory Bachmann column.

I stand corrected.

Will notes early on that, last October, Bachmann told a national television audience that she wants a neo-McCarthyist witch hunt, calling for an investigation into the un-American views of members of Congress. Soon after, she lied about it. In his column, Will blamed Chris Matthews for the outburst.

Will seemed especially impressed with one of Bachmann's stunts in June.

Some of her supposed excesses are, however, not merely defensible, they are admirable. For example, her June 9 statement on the House floor in which she spoke of "gangster government" has been viewed on the Internet about 2 million times. She noted that, during the federal takeover of General Motors, a Democratic senator and one of her Democratic House colleagues each successfully intervened with GM to save a constituent's dealership from forced closure.

If editors took a closer look at Will's columns before they were published, they might have noticed that Bachmann's "gangster government" accusations were proven baseless within two days of her remarks. Will sees this as an example of Bachmann's "admirable" work, in which her allegations were proven "accurate." In Grown-Up Land, this was actually an example of Bachmann coming up with a strange conspiracy theory involving the Obama administration, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D), and a Republican GM dealer -- who'd contributed thousands of dollars to Michele Bachmann.

And as for the fact that her remarks have been watched 2 million times online, M.B. reminds Will, "Hint: just because a video gets viewed 2 million times doesn't make it proof of intelligent discourse, and it's not always because they agree with her."

But in the bigger picture, that George Will feels compelled to devote a column in praise of Bachmann suggests Will is a truly hopeless case. She's the type of unhinged right-wing lawmaker Will should be condemning, not encouraging. We are, after all, talking about a lawmaker who thinks FDR passed "Hoot-Smalley" and caused the Depression. She thinks a bipartisan national service bill will lead to "re-education camps." She doesn't know what a global reserve currency is, so she keeps rating about "one-world currency." She thinks the U.S. Census may lead to "internment camps." She recently labeled school medical clinics as "sex clinics" (twice). She also recently urged her supporters to slit their wrists.

Michele Bachmann, in other words, is mad as a hatter. If George Will hasn't noticed this, he should probably get out of the political commentary business.

—Steve Benen 8:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (42)

SMALL BUSINESS WITH A BIG PROBLEM.... It's almost as if insurers are trying to make the case for a public option more compelling.

As Congress nears votes on legislation that would overhaul the health care system, many small businesses say they are facing the steepest rise in insurance premiums they have seen in recent years.

Insurance brokers and benefits consultants say their small business clients are seeing premiums go up an average of about 15 percent for the coming year -- double the rate of last year's increases. That would mean an annual premium that was $4,500 per employee in 2008 and $4,800 this year would rise to $5,500 in 2010.

The higher premiums at least partly reflect the inexorable rise of medical costs, which is forcing Medicare to raise premiums, too. Health insurance bills are also rising for big employers, but because they have more negotiating clout, their increases are generally not as steep.

Higher medical costs aside, some experts say they think the insurance industry, under pressure from Wall Street, is raising premiums to get ahead of any legislative changes that might reduce their profits.

And while insurers are making things worse for small businesses, health care reform advocates are offering an alternative. As President Obama explained in his weekly address yesterday, "[O]ur health reform plan will allow small businesses to buy insurance for their employees through an insurance exchange, which may offer better coverage at lower costs -- and we'll provide tax credits for those that choose to do so."

One of the standard GOP talking points against reform insists that changing the system would punish small businesses. We already know that's wrong, but it's worth re-emphasizing the fact that it's the broken status quo that's crushing small businesses and entrepreneurship.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF CLIMATE ACTION.... Matt Cooper raises a good point.

There are protests all over the world today in support of reversing climate change. Sponsored by the organization 350, named after the parts per million of carbon dioxide. Scientists believe that's the limit for heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We're past that now and some scientists, as the New York Times notes today, think that's probably too ambitious a goal. The whole idea began with Bill McKibben, the environmental writer. Will these protests get teabagger-style coverage? Probably not. A good fight over crowd estimates always helps and so does having a television network devoted to revving up your cause.

Quite right. The International Day of Climate Action, unlike "Tea Parties," have a specific goal, coupled with a coherent, important message. The result is the most widespread day of environmental action -- featuring 5,200 events in 181 countries -- ever.

Given the severity of the climate crisis, and the scope of today's global events, here's hoping policymakers take note of the activists with worthwhile goals in need of attention and action.

—Steve Benen 5:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

EYEING CLOTURE.... Given the stakes and the margins, every little signal seems to matter.

[Harry] Reid's efforts got a boost Friday when two key Senate moderates signaled that that they were not inclined to block him.

"I conveyed to Leader Reid that a number of moderates still were extremely concerned about a government-run, taxpayer-funded, national public plan," Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said in a statement after meeting with Reid. "However, I am encouraged that the conversations taking place over the past week among Senators who back different versions of a public option could potentially lead to a compromise. I believe this compromise should happen sooner, rather than later, so we can get to work on other critical aspects of heath care reform."

An aide to Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) said that, while the senator does not favor a public option with a state exemption, he would not vote to filibuster the bill. This would put Reid closer to the 60-vote threshold.

Landrieu's ongoing confusion over what a public option is notwithstanding, these signals are encouraging. Up until fairly recently -- as in, a few days ago -- Landrieu and Lieberman were two of the senators who were most likely to side with Republicans on blocking consideration of the bill. Now, Landrieu is feeling "encouraged" about a compromise, and Lieberman is unlikely to side with GOP obstructionism.

This follows Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) recent observation: "I don't think you'll see me or any other Democrats" support a Republican filibuster.

I'm actually starting to feel optimistic. Of course, I'd feel better still if Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, and Kent Conrad would express similar sentiments.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

PELOSI SATISFIED WITH OPT-OUT COMPROMISE.... There's some momentum in the Senate for a health care reform bill with a public option and opt-out compromise. In the House, leaders are still eyeing a robust public option. Any chance we're headed for a showdown between the chambers on the kind of public option to make it to the final bill?

Probably not.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said Friday that states might be able to "opt out" of any nationwide government insurance plan, a compromise that she suggested could unify congressional Democrats and enable President Obama to sign a healthcare overhaul bill later this year.

Pelosi remains a leading champion of the "public option," which would establish a federal health insurance program that would give consumers who don't get coverage through their employer an alternative to plans offered by commercial insurers. But she told reporters at the Capitol that she did not "think there's much problem" with the opt-out alternative, which had sparked interest among moderate Democrats in the Senate.

Specifically, asked about the opt-out measure, the House Speaker told reporters, "I don't think there's much problem with that." House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) added, "All they're debating is whether or not to allow states to opt out of it, but you'll still have the same public option."

Both prefer the robust public option, of course, but like some other progressive reform leaders -- Jay Rockefeller, Howard Dean, even Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) -- they've come to see the opt-out compromise as tolerable.

Part of this is important because it signals some key common ground between the chambers, which may eventually matter a great deal. But I'm especially interested in how it might affect negotiations regarding Olympia Snowe's "trigger" idea.

By most accounts, Harry Reid is close to lining up the necessary support for the opt-out measure, but let's not forget, Reid is also counting votes for a trigger, and probably has even more votes for that approach. It's why the White House is hedging -- it wants a bill and it has more confidence in the one that has more votes. The Senate leadership, as of last night, was still "considering" the various alternatives, and it seems many, if not all, of the Democratic senators willing to vote for the opt-out could just as easily vote for the trigger if it's the bill that comes to the floor.

It's why I wonder if the House approach may end up tipping the scales a bit. Pelosi doesn't have 218 votes for a robust public option, at least not yet, but she can almost certainly line up more than enough support for the opt-out, and her remarks yesterday suggest she'd be satisfied with this outcome. But if the Senate moves from the opt-out to the trigger, there's a problem -- it's a bridge too far for more than a few House progressives.

In effect, the Speaker's office has a compelling message to Reid and Obama: "I can pass the opt-out, but not the trigger, so let's go with the former*, lock down 60 votes in the Senate, and get this thing done."

* fixed

—Steve Benen 11:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a column from Catholic League President Bill Donohue, published by the WashingtonPost.com's "On Faith" website, an influential and widely-read faith-based site. (via TS)

While Donohue has a well-deserved reputation for publishing angry, unhinged screeds against those who disagree with him, this particular tirade stood out -- in secular and spiritual communities -- in large part because it's the kind of wild-eyed rant major news publications tend to avoid. It's hard to know what to excerpt from the 800-word tirade, but to summarize, Donohue believes gays and atheists are desperate to destroy western civilization and modern Christianity.

Sexual libertines, from the Marquis de Sade to radical gay activists, have sought to pervert society by acting out on their own perversions. What motivates them most of all is a pathological hatred of Christianity. They know, deep down, that what they are doing is wrong, and they shudder at the dreaded words, "Thou Shalt Not." But they continue with their death-style anyway....

Catholics were once the mainstay of the Democratic Party; now the gay activists are in charge. Indeed, practicing Catholics are no longer welcome in leadership roles in the Party....

The culture war is up for grabs. The good news is that religious conservatives continue to breed like rabbits, while secular saboteurs have shut down: they're too busy walking their dogs, going to bathhouses and aborting their kids. Time, it seems, is on the side of the angels.

It's vile and it's ridiculous. Donohue's accusations don't even make any sense -- if "practicing Catholics are no longer welcome in leadership roles in the Party," how did Nancy Pelosi become Speaker and Ted Kennedy become the heart of the party?

But putting aside reason and reality, the question many asked this week is what on earth the Post was thinking publishing Donohue's enraged invective. Alex Koppelman noted, "The idea of printing a controversial piece, even one that insults as many people as this did, is a fine one. But there's simply no way anyone can say that what Donohue wrote here added to the discourse. There were no facts, no arguments, nothing new -- just a long string of insults."

In many faith communities, there are concerns that major traditional news outlets fail to appreciate news related to religion, and only care about matters of faith when some high-profile lunatic/personality, known for his/her religiosity, says something insane. It's why so many shook their heads in disgust when "On Faith" found Donohue's madness worthy of publication.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* The New York branch of the Center for Inquiry is poised to launch an ad campaign in New York City subway stations, raising awareness about atheism. Last night, Fox News Sean Hannity started attacking the ads.

* The Roman Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Del., has been hit with so many lawsuits related to sexual abuse by members of the clergy that it had to file for bankruptcy.

* Not sure what to make of this: "In a move expected to cause confusion within Anglican and Catholic parishes alike, the Vatican on Tuesday announced it would make it easier for Anglicans uncomfortable with the Church of England's acceptance of women priests and openly gay bishops to join the Catholic Church. A new canonical entity will allow Anglicans 'to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony,' Cardinal William Levada, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said at a news conference here on Tuesday."

* Scholars will be poring through this data for a while: "On Friday, the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago released what it described as 'the most comprehensive analysis to date of global religious trends.' Anyone studying its 9,000-word analysis and perusing 330 additional pages of references and tables will be quickly disabused of the idea that the currents of religious belief and practice are flowing in one or two or even a half-dozen clear directions." For what it's worth, the United States remains among the most religious for industrial nations, though U.S. religiosity has slipped in recent years.

—Steve Benen 11:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

LAND TRIPLES DOWN.... Following up on a story I've been following, Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, doesn't seem to recognize the wisdom of quitting when behind.

Land initially raised a few eyebrows when he condemned health care reform in unusually offensive terms. "What they are attempting to do in healthcare, particularly in treating the elderly, is not something like what the Nazis did. It is precisely what the Nazis did," Land said. In the same remarks, Land compared Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to Josef Mengele.

Asked to defend his comments, he refused to walk them back. Specifically on likening Emanuel to Nazis, Land insisted "the analogy is apt and I stand by it."

After the Anti-Defamation League expressed some concerns, Land didn't apologize for the substance of his remarks, but he at least showed some regret: "It was never my intention to equate the Obama administration's healthcare reform proposals with anything related to the Holocaust.... Given the pain and suffering of so many Jewish and other victims of the Nazi regime, I will certainly seek to exercise far more care in my use of language in future discussions of the issues at stake in the healthcare debate."

So, problem solved, right? Wrong. Reader J.C. flagged this story in which Land completed the 360-degree turn.

One week after apologizing for comparing Democratic leaders to the Nazis, [Land] has reneged on his promise to stop using such comparisons.... Land "still believes there are connections to be made between some underlying philosophies held by the Germans and others in the first half of the 20th century, and certain elements under discussion in the health care reform debate today." Land argued that the philosophies of some of those pushing health-care reform "bear a lethal similarity in their attitudes toward the elderly and the terminally ill and could ultimately lead to the kinds of things the Nazis did." Land also attacked those who were attempting "to remove the Third Reich as a subject of discussion when it comes to the healthcare debate."

Three things to keep in mind. First, Land's promise about avoiding Nazi references seems to have lasted one whole week. Second, to argue that health care reform bears a "lethal similarity" to Nazi tactics is obviously crazy.

And third, Land is concerned that people might want to "remove the Third Reich as a subject of discussion when it comes to the healthcare debate"? Well, sure. They want to remove the subject as part of the debate because it's completely insane.

Land's rhetoric is despicable enough, but to express regret to the ADL, and then triple down on a disgusting comparison a week later is just humiliating.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

THANK YOU, AHIP.... The front page of the Washington Post tells readers, "Prognosis improves for public insurance; Momentum shift is dramatic." It seems like "dramatic" is the right word, given that the public option seemed like quite a long-shot up until quite recently.

And what's behind the "momentum shift"? It seems, this week, a key turning point was Wednesday's meeting between Reid, Baucus, Dodd, and White House officials, when the leadership reportedly decided to go ahead and pursue a public option.

But let's not overlook the role of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). The insurance lobby published a deceptive report on health care premiums two weeks ago, and the WaPo report today suggests it quickly changed the policy landscape.

Reid's original inclination was to leave the public option out of a final bill he is writing from measures passed by the finance and health committees. But his liberal colleagues began urging him two weeks ago to reconsider, after insurance industry forecasts that premiums would rise sharply under the Finance Committee bill, which lacked a public option. The report had the effect of prodding Democrats to look for better ways to control costs, and the public option -- strongly opposed by the insurance industry -- reemerged as a possible solution.

Because a government-run plan would be dedicated to holding down costs and would lack a profit motive, congressional budget analysts predict that it could reduce the cost of expanding coverage to people who don't have it by as much as $100 billion over the next decade.

Thank you, AHIP, for rescuing the public option.

—Steve Benen 10:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

THE WHITE HOUSE SHOULD TAKE 'YES' FOR AN ANSWER.... Nearly everyone watching the debate over health care reform was taken aback late yesterday, puzzled by the purported White House strategy on the public option.

By all indications, Harry Reid has done some impressive heavy-lifting this week, and is this close to locking up 60 votes for a public option with a state opt-out compromise. When Reid relayed the good news to the White House, the president, according a TPM report, not only wasn't thrilled, he began pushing back in the other direction, expressing skepticism about the compromise measure that's generating momentum and touting Olympia Snowe's "trigger" idea, which isn't nearly as good as the opt-out.

So, what's going on? Ezra Klein had a very helpful item yesterday afternoon.

On Thursday night, Reid went over to the White House for a talk with the president. The conversation centered on Reid's desire to put Schumer's national opt-out plan into the base bill. White House officials were not necessarily pleased, and they made that known. Everyone agrees that they didn't embrace Reid's new strategy. Everyone agrees that the White House wants Snowe on the bill, feels the trigger offers a safer endgame, and isn't convinced by Reid's math.

But whether officials expressed a clear preference for the trigger, or were just worried about the potential for 60 votes, is less clear. One staffer briefed on the conversation says "the White House basically told us, 'We hope you guys know what you're doing.'"

Now, it's worth noting the White House has tried to knock down the TPM report. Dan Pfeiffer, a top White House aide on health care policy, told Marc Ambinder, "The report is false."

We'll know more as this unfolds further; right now, there are enough players with enough competing strategies that it's hard to know exactly who wants what and why, and with what timeframe in mind.

That said, I think Jonathan Cohn gets this just right: "The White House wants a public option but it wants a bill even more. It remains convinced that keeping Snowe on board is the surest way to get that. And Snowe wants a trigger. The administration understands that the politics of the public option have shifted, so they are listening to discussion of alternatives. But they're asking a lot of tough questions of those proposing these alternatives. And they're not rushing to change their gameplan."

And as much as I hope the White House seizes the best available opportunity, I understand why the president and his team are hesitant here. The goal line is in sight, and they just want to cross it. Indeed, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the White House's fears about getting a bill done. If the choice were between a) a good health care bill with a triggered public option; and b) watching the entire reform initiative die, it would be entirely reasonable for the president and his team to cling to what some have begun calling the "Snowe trigger."

But therein lies the point: that's not the choice here. By all accounts, Reid is on the verge of delivering the right bill with the right number of votes. Obama may not be sure that Reid can get and keep 60 votes -- it's what "We hope you guys know what you're doing" is all about -- and the skepticism is fair. But with a little help from the White House, the goal is well within reach.

Mr. President, take "yes" for an answer.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

RIGHT FALLS FOR 'THESIS' HOAX.... Right-wing pundit Michael Ledeen published an item this week on Barack Obama's "college thesis," which Obama allegedly wrote as a student at Columbia 25 years ago. Leeden cited some website, which ran a piece in August.

The paper was called "Aristocracy Reborn," and in the first ten pages (which were all that reporter Joe Klein -- who wrote about it for Time -- was permitted to see), the young Obama wrote:

"... the Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy."

That's quite an indictment, even for an Ivy League undergraduate.... Maybe instead of fuming about words that Rush Limbaugh never uttered, the paladins of the free press might ask the president about words that he did write.

Yesterday, Rush Limbaugh picked up on Leeden's report, blasting Obama for the alleged paper.

The first sign of trouble was when Joe Klein noted that he's never seen or written about Obama's college thesis, and has "no idea where this report comes from."

The second sign of trouble was when one stopped to notice that Obama didn't write a senior thesis (though he did write a thesis-length paper on Soviet nuclear disarmament).

The third sign of trouble was when one clicked on the link that Leeden provided as support and found the word "satire."

Yes, Leeden and Limbaugh got all worked up, trashing the president for a paper he didn't write in college 25 years ago, relying on a satirical blog post. And for real entertainment value, notice what Leeden and Limbaugh did when they realized they'd fallen for a dumb joke -- they blamed Obama anyway.

Leeden conceded he was wrong and apologized, but added, "It worked because it's plausible." Limbaugh said the text he touted was fake, but it didn't matter because, "I know Obama thinks it." Yep, even when they're wrong, it's only because the president makes it easy for them to be confused.

Remember, the Washington Post and New York Times are committed to paying much closer attention to what's generating buzz among far-right talk-show hosts and bloggers. Here's hoping the dailies noticed the Leeden/Limbaugh journalistic breakthrough.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (33)

THE MEDIA SCANDAL THAT WASN'T.... There was something about this story that just didn't seem right. To hear Fox News tell it, Kenneth Feinberg, the Treasury Department's special pay master, was set to do a round of interviews on Tuesday. Obama administration officials excluded Fox News from the press pool, the story goes, prompting the major networks to revolt and rally behind Fox News.

The network cranked up the indignation machine yesterday, and worked overtime to characterize Fox News as a poor victim of heavy-handed White House abuse. And at first blush, it might seem like the Republican network has a point -- trying to exclude Fox News from a press pool at Treasury does seem excessive.

There's one key problem with the story: it didn't happen the way Fox News said it happened.

Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night.

Simple as that, we're told, and the networks don't want to be seen as heroes for Fox.

"There was no plot to exclude Fox News, and they had the same interview that their competitors did," a Treasury spokesperson added. "Much ado about absolutely nothing."

CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid, who was recently seen lobbying from the press briefing room for Ronald Reagan to get a Nobel Peace Prize, told his national television audience that the White House "crossed the line" by trying to exclude Fox.

Except, that didn't happen. "This White House has demonstrated our willingness to exclude Fox News from newsmaking interviews, but yesterday we did not," said White House spokesman Josh Earnest. He added, "The president and other high ranking officials and people like Ken Feinberg have done interviews with Fox in the past and will do them in the future."

Fox News surely knows that this "controversy" is not what it appears to be, but the network pushed it anyway, hoping to score some cheap points and desperate to position itself as a victim. I can only assume that the relevant details will soon be ignored, and going forward, this "deliberate snub" will be used as an example of a White House gone too far.