MOTIONING TO PROCEED.... Going into today, Senate Democrats had lined up 58 votes in support of bringing health care reform to the floor for debate. Every Republican in the chamber hoped to kill the initiative before the discussion could even begin, and two center-right Southern Dems remained on the fence.

This afternoon, one of the two made the right call...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's hopes of pushing ahead with a sweeping health reform plan got a boost Saturday when Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said she will vote to start debate.

"My vote today to move forward on this important debate should in no way to be construed as ... an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end," she warned in comments on the Senate floor. "It is a vote to move forward.... But much more work needs to be done."

...and about two hours later, the other followed suit.

Senate Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas said Saturday she will support bringing the Senate health care reform bill to the floor for debate, giving Democrats the 60 votes they need to prevent a Republican filibuster.

"Although I don't agree with everything in this bill, I believe it is important to begin this debate," she said. "This issue is very complex. There is no easy fix," she said in making her announcement on the Senate floor, just hours before Saturday night's 8 p.m. procedural vote.

Barring any extraordinary surprises, there are now 60 votes to bring health care reform to the floor for a debate, at which point plenty of amendments will be considered. It's the first key procedural hurdle -- the vote is still scheduled for 8 p.m. -- and senators will begin the next phase of the process a week from Monday.

Pay particular attention to the talk about public option "triggers," which lingers despite opposition from the left and right. Brian Beutler reports this afternoon that Landrieu told reporters "she thinks Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will soon have to choose between a triggered public option and no health care bill. She also says Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) -- the third-ranking Democrat in the Senate one of its most fierce and vocal public option advocates -- has been tasked as a point man on the issue."

A variety of conversations have been underway this week, most of them surrounding Sen. Tom Carper (D) of Delaware, who's been working on various public-option compromises for months. Carper has been talking to Landrieu, Schumer, and even Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) about some kind of deal. Given the nature of the discussions, it's safe to assume the deal will include a public option provision that's even weaker than the one currently in the Senate plan.

With that in mind, we'll likely run into the same dilemma that's been apparent for quite a while -- keep the public option and the reform bill will likely die because center-right Dems won't accept it; compromise even more on the public option and the reform bill will likely die because center-left Dems won't accept it.

Expect plenty of arm-twisting, deal-making, needle-threading, and legal bribery in the near future*.

* updated

HOW STIMULATING.... Republican critics of the economic recovery efforts, when they're not taking credit for the money that's benefiting their state/district, take it as a given that the stimulus "failed." For the right, it's a foregone conclusion, hardly worth discussing anymore.

The New York Times reminds us today that "dispassionate analysts" agree that a fair look at the stimulus package shows that it may be "messy" but it's also "working."

The legislation, a variety of economists say, is helping an economy in free fall a year ago to grow again and shed fewer jobs than it otherwise would. Mr. Obama's promise to "save or create" about 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010 is roughly on track, though far more jobs are being saved than created, especially among states and cities using their money to avoid cutting teachers, police officers and other workers.

"It was worth doing -- it's made a difference," said Nigel Gault, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, a financial forecasting and analysis group based in Lexington, Mass.

Mr. Gault added: "I don't think it's right to look at it by saying, 'Well, the economy is still doing extremely badly, therefore the stimulus didn't work.' I'm afraid the answer is, yes, we did badly but we would have done even worse without the stimulus."

In interviews, a broad range of economists said the White House and Congress were right to structure the package as a mix of tax cuts and spending, rather than just tax cuts as Republicans prefer or just spending as many Democrats do. And it is fortuitous, many say, that the money gets doled out over two years -- longer for major construction -- considering the probable length of the "jobless recovery" under way as wary employers hold off on new hiring.

Obviously, a bigger investment would have meant a bigger return. The $787 billion package would have been more ambitious if the Senate operated on majority rule, and even White House economists have conceded that the stimulus bill should have been larger to accommodate the size of the hole in the economy. That aid to states had to be curtailed to bring on GOP votes continues to undermine the effectiveness of the strategy.

But on the whole, we're talking about a recovery package that saved us from a wholesale economic collapse. Conservative Republicans -- who've been wrong about every major economic challenge of the last generation -- who whine bitterly about the stimulus are, as is usually the case, misguided.

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody's Economy.com and an occasional adviser to lawmakers from both parties, added, "[T]he stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do -- it is contributing to ending the recession." Zandi added that without the recovery bill, the "G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent. And there are a little over 1.1 million more jobs out there as of October than would have been out there without the stimulus."

Left unsaid is what the economic consequences would have been if we'd listened to congressional Republicans -- 95% of whom voted for a truly insane five-year spending freeze at the height of the downturn.

Politically, however, the stimulus has proven problematic -- much of the public is convinced it didn't work, since the economy is still struggling. The more effort the White House invests in explaining reality, the better.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a push among conservative political activists on something called "imprecatory" prayers, which are basically appeals to God to hurt, or possibly kill, a specific target.

It's become an offensive political development, because a growing number of right-wing outlets are praying for something bad to happen to President Obama. Rabbi Brad Hirschfield had this report on BeliefNet this week. (thanks to reader K.P. for the heads-up)

Any time the citizens of a state, particularly a democracy, invoke their faith to pray for the demise of those they oppose politically, we should be concerned. When the call for such prayers becomes one of the most popular Google searches in the country, we should shake, especially those of us who believe in God, prayer and the Bible. Psalm 109, verse 8, went viral this morning in just that way.

Among the world's top Google searches today are phrases that contain the words "Psalms 109 8", and "Psalm 109 8 prayer for Obama". For those of you who may not know that particular verse, it reads "May his days be few, may another take over his position." And before anyone excuses this toxic use of scripture as nothing more than the wish that President Obama not be re-elected to a second term of office, the next verse in the psalm reads, "May his children be orphans and his wife a widow".

In fact, the entire chapter is about the prayer for death of an evil person. Not to mention that anyone who knows enough Bible to have thought about this verse in particular, surely knows the entire chapter and appreciates its message. Pretty scary stuff.

All this is especially upsetting in light of the last weeks' events at Fort Hood. Exactly how long is it going to take us to figure out the danger of linking faith claims and violent fantasies?

A few too many on the right have begun taking this very seriously, putting "Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8" -- prayers, in other words, for something awful to happen to the president -- onto t-shirts, bumper stickers, mugs, and even teddy bears. It's a bit of a dog whistle -- the typical person who sees it might think it's simply a prayer in support of the president, but a closer look makes the malicious intent clear.

Frank Schaeffer told Rachel Maddow this week that the right-wing activists embracing this lurid nonsense are dangerous, threatening, and "genuinely frightening."

The more people in faith communities speak out against this nauseating hatred, the better.

Also from the God Machine this week: A large group of evangelical, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox Christian leaders have teamed up to promote something called the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience." As the NYT reported, the signers of the document agree that "they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples."

The "Manhattan Declaration" is intended, at least in part, to signal the relevance of the religious right movement, and declare that those involved with the project will be unyielding on issues like gay marriage, abortion rights, and stem-cell research.

A friend of mine was on hand for the D.C. event unveiling the Declaration, and asked a good question: "The divorce rate is 50 percent. Earlier, Mr. [Chuck] Colson indicated that fatherlessness impacts the prison population. Is anyone here willing to state, for the record, that divorce is a bigger threat to the American family than same-sex marriage?"

The speakers didn't want to touch it. Imagine that.

OBAMA IN ASIA.... All week, administration officials have expressed a great deal of satisfaction with President Obama's trip to Asia. And all week, U.S. reporters have told the country that the trip has been unproductive and unsuccessful. It's probably worth taking a moment to note who's right.

For its part, the White House seems genuinely pleased. In the president's weekly address, Obama touted the importance of the trip, and explained why his efforts in Asia will pay dividends domestically. "I traveled to Asia to open a new era of American engagement," the president said, before pointing to progress on national security, climate change, human rights, trade, and economic development.

Likewise, U.S. Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, the former Republican governor of Utah, explained yesterday that there's been an important disconnect between U.S. media reports on the trip and reality. "I attended all those meetings that President Obama had with Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao," Huntsman said, referring to the Chinese president and premier. "I've got to say some of the reporting I saw afterward was off the mark. I saw sweeping comments about things that apparently weren't talked about, when they were discussed in great detail in the meetings."

James Fallows noted this morning:

Two colleagues with different perspectives -- from each other's, and sometimes from my own -- marvel at how badly the mainstream American press distorted the picture of what happened during Barack Obama's just-ended tour of Asia. [...]

We're all familiar with one "crisis of the press," the business collapse. This is a different kind of crisis, though it makes the business crisis worse: the distortion of reality by compressing every complex issue into the narrative of the DC-based "horse race."

Fallows quoted one journalist, with extensive experience covering foreign policy, saying, "Even through a veil of censorship and propaganda, the Chinese people managed a clearer view of Obama's visit than the U.S. media did."

But just think of how many fascinating reports there were this week on Obama bowing!

Please.

As far as I can tell, U.S. political reporters covering the trip looked at this as if it were a campaign. The notion that the president may have been laying the diplomatic groundwork for future progress was completely lost, and incremental progress was ignored.

This was an important week for the administration. It's a shame we don't have a media establishment equipped to report on it.

ALL HE IS SAYING, IS GIVE ESCALATION A CHANCE.... I'll take, "People whose opinions should no longer matter" for $100, Alex. (via Atrios)

US Senator John McCain predicted an allied win in Afghanistan in one year to 18 months if sufficient troops are sent, as the White House mulls sending tens of thousands of reinforcements. [...]

"I am absolutely convinced and totally confident that with sufficient resources we can turn the situation around," McCain told reporters at an international defense summit in easternmost Canada.

"I even am bold enough to predict that in a year to 18 months you will see success if the effort is sufficiently resourced and there is a commitment to get the job done before setting a date to leave the region," he said.

McCain didn't get around to explaining why his perspective on this should have any salience at all, which is a shame. I'd love to hear why anyone should take him seriously on the subject.

Keep in mind, as recently as a year ago, McCain rejected talk of sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan. He later changed his mind, and then changed it back. The seriousness with which McCain took U.S. policy in Afghanistan became clear when the senator endorsed the notorious "muddle through" strategy.

But of particular interest right now, it'll be great to hear McCain flesh out this position in more detail. In 12 to 18 months, he says, the U.S. will "see success" in Afghanistan, but only if an additional 40,000 troops are on the ground. But what does "success" mean? Gen. McChrystal has said largely the opposite -- that the mission may very well fail even with an escalation.

McCain has long loved bumper-sticker-style slogans as a substitute for actual thinking about foreign policy. But that's all the more reason to press further. What does "get the job done" mean? What can 108,000 soldiers do that 68,000 soldiers have not? If escalation is the key to success, why has McCain resisted troop increases in the past?

Inquiring minds want to know.

IF THEY'VE ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MINDS.... On Fox News yesterday, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) explained, in no uncertain terms, that "every single Republican" in the Senate "will oppose" health care reform. Kyl conceded that the reform bill may change before a final floor vote, but every Republican already realizes that the legislation "will only get worse."

Since it's his job to keep track of such things, Kyl's declaration is probably accurate. Indeed, it's not the least bit surprising -- the far-right Minority Whip has made similar declarations before.

But Kyl's affirmation led Sam Stein to raise a good point. If the entire Senate Republican caucus has already decided to oppose the bill, no matter what changes might be made, then why should anyone care that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants six weeks of debate?

...Kyl's prophecy of across-the-board opposition does seem to undercut that other GOP tactic. Why do Senate Republicans need six weeks to debate and consider the legislation if they're already determined to vote against it?

"We know it's been in Harry Reid's office for six weeks and the other 99 senators haven't seen it," McConnell told "Fox News Sunday" last week. "I think we ought to at least have as much time for the other 99 senators and all of the American people to take a look at this bill as Majority Leader Reid has had."

And why, for that matter, are Senate Republicans complaining about a limited three-day window to read the legislation if they have already come to a final verdict on its contents?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that GOP demands for six weeks of debate has very little to do with genuine interest in good-faith deliberations, and everything to do with pointless delay tactics. Call it a hunch.

Here's hoping Senate Democratic leaders ignore Republican pleas for more time to attack a bill the minority has already decided to oppose en masse.

AS IF STANDISH HASN'T SUFFERED ENOUGH.... Few communities have been as hard hit by the recession as Standish, Michigan. With an unemployment rate for nearly 25%, Standish's economy has been kept above water, barely, by the Standish Maximum Correctional Facility. The prison generates one-fourth of the revenue for the town's budget and is easily the largest employer.

In June, the state announced it would have to close Standish Max, and the struggling town realized things were poised to go from dreadful to abysmal. In August, however, there was a glimmer of hope -- the Obama administration was considering the prison as a location for Gitmo detainees. Most locals were thrilled at the prospect of a lifeline, and area politicians, from both parties, hoped desperately that Standish would be selected.

But then the right-wing politicians decided to intervene. Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R), who's inexplicably running for governor next year, decided he'd fight to prevent the White House from "bringing terrorists to Michigan." This week, Liz Cheney's new political operation kept the demagoguery going.

Cheney's group, Keep America Safe, has released a short documentary starring several residents of little Standish, Michigan, slamming the Obama administration over a proposal to transfer some Guantanamo detainees to the town's maximum security facility, one of several facilities being discussed.

The vid ... ominously warns that unnamed "politicians" want Gitmo detainees placed in their "small farm town," without saying who the politicians are or whether they're Federal or local. A resident says those politicians "aren't listening to us little people in Standish."

But Standish's City Manager tells us that local leaders and residents want the facility, and dismissed Cheney's efforts as "fearmongering."

Cheney is "certainly not representing the views of our community," the City Manager, Michael Moran, told our reporter, Amanda Erickson.

Standish's city council recently approved a resolution encouraging the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the prison. The vote was unanimous. It's almost as if local officials think they understand what their community needs better than Liz Cheney does. The nerve.

For more on this, Chris Bodenner had a terrific item on the Standish issue last month. It noted that, thanks to Republican efforts, the community will probably not be chosen by the administration. The community will suffer terribly, but Hoekstra will no doubt claim "victory" for taking away the struggling town's last hope.

HARDHEADED ON HARDBALL.... During last year's presidential campaign, MSNBC's Chris Matthews had some annoying habits. Particularly when it came to sizing up Barack Obama, the "Hardball" host repeatedly questioned whether the candidate was disconnected from regular ol' America.

For example, Obama ordered orange juice in a Pennsylvania diner, and Matthews complained ad nauseum -- real Americans order coffee at a diner, not o.j. When Obama demonstrated poor bowling skills, Matthews whined incessantly about Obama's alleged difficulties in making a "regular connection."

By April, Matthews argued on the air that Obama's appeal may be limited to "people who come from the African-American community and from the people who have college or advanced degrees," but not with "regular people." It was an observation that was offensive on multiple levels.

And yesterday, the MSNBC host re-embraced the talk that made "Hardball" largely unwatchable for most of the campaign. "President Obama has his chin out on just about every hot issue out there," Matthews told viewers, adding, "Health care. Terror trials. Job losses.... Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front-man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? And who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City, the media capital of the world, so they could tell their story?"

Remember, when conservatives attack MSNBC as in the tank for the administration, they count Matthews as a liberal partisan.

It's a challenge to respond to this nonsense quickly; Matthews said a lot of dumb things in a short period of time. But it's worth noting that Obama isn't "leading with his chin"; he's tackling the issues in front of him. That's what presidents do. Obama bowed to the Japanese emperor as a matter of protocol, and no one cares except the media establishment. Obama isn't "dithering" -- though it's good to know Chris Matthews is willing to read directly from Dick Cheney's script -- he's crafting a forward-thinking U.S. policy, which is what Bush/Cheney should have done a long time ago.

And Khalid Sheikh Mohammed isn't being invited to NYC for story-telling -- he'll be on trial for mass murder.

As for the general nonsense about "eggheads," anti-intellectualism, alas, remains alive and well.

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

* Still no word from Sens. Landrieu and Lincoln as to whether they'd rather kill health care reform than let the Senate debate the bill. Landrieu said she'd end the suspense in the morning.

* Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) gets a provision he was looking for: "Senate Democratic leaders have amended their newly released health reform bill to include a contentious provision allowing some workers to receive cash vouchers toward exchange coverage in lieu of enrolling in employer-based plans."

* It's encouraging to see Jim Comey and Jack Goldsmith, two top ranking officials from the Bush Justice Department, defend the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four accused co-conspirators in an NYC criminal court.

* The House passed the "Doc Fix" last night, on a 243 to 183 vote. House Republicans were for it before they were against it.

* A slap on the wrist: "The Senate ethics committee on Friday issued a sternly worded rebuke to Senator Roland Burris of Illinois, saying he had made misleading and inaccurate statements about the circumstances surrounding his appointment by disgraced Governor Rod Blagojevich. But it made no recommendation for punishment."

* Did Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) knowingly violate Senate ethics rules? Probably.

* The University of California probably didn't intend to be one of the most expensive in the country, and yet, here we are.

* Systemic change doesn't happen over night: "Narratives will always be with us, but it would be nice if they could at least be tenuously based on reality.... [T]he 'silver tongued orator' narrative has really been plucked out of nowhere. Yes, Obama is a good speaker, but there's zero evidence that his administration or his governing style is based on this in any significant way. Just the opposite, in fact. So knock it off, folks."

* Impeachment is still a possibility for South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R).

* I argued yesterday that it takes a lot of nerve for Karl Rove to criticize the White House for releasing bad news on Friday afternoons. Media Matters fleshes the point out in more detail.

* If Dick Armey goes around saying "read the bill," mantra like, he should probably take the time to read the bills he criticizing.

* Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), still not very bright.

* Stephen Colbert and David Letterman seem mildly concerned that President Obama is cooler than they are.

* And in Utah, state Sen. Chris Buttars (R), one of the nation's more notorious homophobic bigots, explained a little bit about his worldview this week. "I meet with the gays here and there," Buttars said. "They were in my house two weeks ago. I don't mind gays. But I don't want 'em stuffing it down my throat all the time."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

PLAYING A GAME WITH ELLIPSES.... Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), who is considered a vulnerable House incumbent next year, voted against health care reform two weeks ago. She'd been under fire from the National Republican Congressional Committee, and when push came to shove, Kosmas sided with the GOP on the bill.

Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell wrote a column recently about how Kosmas' vote didn't stop the Republican attacks.

Democrat Suzanne Kosmas may have irritated her liberal base when she voted against Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill. But she also backed the National Republican Congressional Committee into a corner ... at least she would have if the party hacks had any shame or integrity.

For months, the NRCC had been sending out releases, asking whether Kosmas had the courage to do the right thing (in its mind anyway) and stand up to "Pelosi's health-care takeover."

Well, she did. She voted against it.

This apparently confused the simpletons at the NRCC, who don't know how to do anything but gripe. So now, they are continuing to bash her on the topic, saying: OK, she may have done what they wanted -- but not for the reasons they wanted. So they still hate her.

Why anyone pays attention to these petulant partisans who couldn't care less about Central Florida issues is beyond me. In fact, I'm hearing from more and more Republicans -- including respected ones contemplating congressional campaigns -- that the NRCC's incessant whining makes the whole party look like amateur hour.

Jason Linkins, however, noted what the National Republican Campaign Committee did with the column, when the NRCC embraced it as their own. The Republicans' press release read:

Orlando Sentinel columnist Scott Maxwell notes that Rep. Suzanne Kosmas --far from covering her political bases with a 'NO' vote on Pelosi's healthcare bill -- continues to get hit from both sides:

"Democrat Suzanne Kosmas may have irritated her liberal base when she voted against Nancy Pelosi's health-care bill...[and Republicans] are continuing to bash her on the topic, saying: OK, she may have done what they wanted -- but not for the reasons they wanted."

Got that? Maxwell blasted Republicans for being "party hacks" and "simpletons," with no "shame or integrity," who engage in such "petulant" partisanship "incessant whining" that the "the whole party look like amateur hour." And the National Republican Congressional Committee nevertheless thought this column was good for them, and eliminated the pesky criticism with some creatively placed ellipses.

The moral of the story: don't trust NRCC press releases.

NORAH O'DONNELL'S REASONABLE QUESTION.... A clip made the rounds this week of MSNBC's Norah O'Donnell appearing live in Michigan, at a bookstore where Sarah Palin fans had lined up to get their copy of "Going Rogue" signed. The video seems to have become a little more interesting as the week went on.

If you haven't seen it, O'Donnell starts interviewing random folks waiting in line, eventually coming across a young woman with a t-shirt that slams the financial industry bailout from last year. O'Donnell asks the young woman, named Jackie, whether she realizes that Sarah Palin actually endorsed the bailout. "Where'd you hear that?" the Palin fan asked.

In the same exchange, asked specifically what she likes about the former governor, the fan said something about Palin's approach to the Constitution (the response was eerily reminiscent of an item in The Onion this week).

Now, I know this made for some easy mockery, but I'm inclined to cut the young woman a fair amount of slack. It's easy to get flustered during a national television interview, especially if you're not prepared. She's just 17, and anyone can appear foolish in such a situation.

But since the segment aired, conservative activists have lashed out at O'Donnell for asking Palin fans if they know anything substantive about Palin. Worse, Jackie personally decided to blast "the liberal media and their crafty schemes." She called O'Donnell a "buffoon" who asked "a gotcha question."

Nothing erases sympathy faster than cheap nonsense. Jackie wore an anti-bailout t-shirt to a Palin event, and got asked a question about Palin and the bailout. This is hardly the result of a "crafty scheme." It's not O'Donnell's fault the young woman has a limited understanding of her hero's record.

And that record is unambiguous. As Dave Weigel noted earlier, Palin really did endorse the bailout at the time, and did so again in "Going Rogue" (page 270).

It's hardly beyond the pale to ask Palin's anti-bailout supporters about this. So what's with all the whining?

TRENT FRANKS' SHORT MEMORY.... Six years ago this month, the floor of the U.S. House was the scene to one of the more embarrassing moments in the history of the institution. It was when the Republican majority brought Medicare Part D up for a vote.

GOP lawmakers saw Medicare's long-term finances as a problem, and decided to make matters worse with a new drug benefit. Every penny of the program -- which costs hundreds of billions of dollars -- was simply thrown onto the deficit, and Republicans were deliberately lied to about the cost (the Bush administration literally threatened officials who considered telling Congress the true price tag).

When the vote was scheduled, the bill was defeated -- so GOP leaders kept the vote open for hours, bribing members to change their minds. Humiliated, Republicans demanded that the C-SPAN cameras be turned off, so Americans couldn't watch the soul-crushing antics.

Bruce Bartlett reflects on this today, calling it "one of the most extraordinary events in congressional history." Of particular interest is Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona, one of just three Republicans who were convinced to switch their votes, from Nay to Aye.

Like all Republicans, [Franks] has vowed to fight [health care reform] with every ounce of strength he has, citing the increase in debt as his principal concern. "I would remind my Democratic colleagues that their children, and every generation thereafter, will bear the burden caused by this bill. They will be the ones asked to pay off the incredible debt," Franks declared on Nov. 7.

Just to be clear, the Medicare drug benefit was a pure giveaway with a gross cost greater than either the House or Senate health reform bills how being considered. Together the new bills would cost roughly $900 billion over the next 10 years, while Medicare Part D will cost $1 trillion.

Moreover, there is a critical distinction -- the drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit, whereas the health reform measures now being debated will be paid for with a combination of spending cuts and tax increases, adding nothing to the deficit over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Maybe Franks isn't the worst hypocrite I've ever come across in Washington, but he's got to be in the top 10 because he apparently thinks the unfunded drug benefit, which added $15.5 trillion (in present value terms) to our nation's indebtedness, according to Medicare's trustees, was worth sacrificing his integrity to enact into law. But legislation expanding health coverage to the uninsured -- which is deficit-neutral -- somehow or other adds an unacceptable debt burden to future generations. We truly live in a world only George Orwell could comprehend when our elected representatives so easily conflate one with the other.

It's easy to forget -- some of us would like to block the memories from our minds -- but the Republican majority in Congress from 2003 through 2006 was so comically awful, it made many reasonable observers question whether the American experiment was really a good idea. The vote on Part D was a genuine embarrassment to the institution.

With that in mind, seeing Franks whine now, after having switched his vote six years ago, is a reminder of the ridiculous amount of chutzpah some of these members have. Just shameless.

COBURN'S CRAVENNESS.... Sen. Tom Coburn, a right-wing Republican from Oklahoma, is apparently not above callous opportunism. He saw headlines about mammogram screening, headlines about a proposed tax on elective cosmetic surgery, and in his drive to kill health care reform, decided to combine some disparate talking points.

[Yesterday], Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, who is a physician and staunchly opposed to this legislation, suggested on the Senate floor that a woman would be taxed if she had breast reconstruction surgery following cancer.

"In this bill is a 5% tax on cosmetic surgery," Coburn said. "Just yesterday -- the day before yesterday, U.S. preventive task forces, services, recommended because it's not cost effective that women under 50 not get mammograms unless they have risk factors. Well, you tell that to the thousands of women who were diagnosed with breast cancer lat last -- last year under 50 with a mammogram. You tell them it's not cost effective. Also in this bill is a 5% tax on the breast reconstruction surgery after they had a mastectomy. They're going to tax having your breast rebuilt after your breast is taken off because it is elective plastic surgery. It is elective cosmetic surgery. We're going to have a tax on it because we've taxed elective cosmetic surgery. We're in trouble as a nation because we've taken our eye off the ball."

As Republican lies on health care go, this one's pretty despicable.

For one thing, Coburn doesn't understand what the Preventive Services Task Force said -- the mammogram recommendation had to do with research-based standards, not cost.

More important, though, the legislation's provision on a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery clearly excludes procedures for those with congenital abnormalities, disfiguring diseases, or traumatic injuries. Anyone requiring reconstructive surgery resulting from accidents or diseases would be exempt.

There is no "5% tax on the breast reconstruction surgery after they had a mastectomy." Coburn's making it up, hoping no one notices how offensive his lying really is.

Ruth Marcus asked the other day, "You have to wonder: Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?"

It's a question that will be coming up again and again.

CLOTURE WATCH.... Senate Democrats need 60 votes to bring health care reform to the floor for a debate. As of this morning, three Dems -- Ben Nelson (Neb.), Mary Landrieu (La.), and Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) -- had not yet committed to letting the Senate consider the legislation.

As of this afternoon, one of the three made the right call: Nelson will vote with the majority. In a statement, the conservative Democrat concluded:

"In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion -- needing 60 votes -- to end debate, and oppose the final bill.

"But I won't slam the doors of the Senate in the face of Nebraskans now. They want the health care system fixed. The Senate owes them a full and open debate to try to do so."

Nelson may, in other words, slam the doors of the Senate in the face of Nebraskans some other time, just not tomorrow night.

Landrieu hasn't made any official announcements, but she made some comments that suggest she's already looking ahead to the next stage of the debate. "I have leverage now, I'm using it to the best of my ability, I'm going to use it on the Senate floor," Landrieu said. If the senator doesn't think the bill is going to the Senate floor, she probably wouldn't say this.

Lincoln continues to be the most cryptic of the group. Earlier today, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters that Lincoln had told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) how she intends to vote. Lincoln's office quickly said that wasn't the case, and that the senator was still reviewing the bill.

Truth be told, especially after Nelson's statement, it's hard to imagine a lone Democratic senator siding with Republicans to block a debate on health care reform, effectively strangling reform in the crib. But when center-right Dems feel panicky, they become unpredictable.

THE DANGERS OF ILLITERACY.... OK, so most Americans have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to the deficit. How are they when it comes to understanding stimulus efforts? Arguably, on this, they're even worse.

Rasmussen has a new poll showing a 51% majority believes cancelling the economic recovery efforts would "create more jobs." Derek Thompson, flabbergasted, characterized these beliefs as "insane."

It's one thing to say that canceling the rest of the stimulus money would help our deficit. That's arguable, even if I think it's dead wrong, since the best way to help our deficit is to put people back to work when demand is nonexistent so that they (1) receive taxable income and (2) spend that taxable income on products to help other people's taxable income. [...]

The idea that canceling the stimulus would create more jobs implies that passing the stimulus has actually killed more jobs than it's created, which is bonkers. Let's say you don't want to consider infrastructure spending or green technology spending or a single job that might have been created in the private sector. If nothing else, the tens of billions we've sent to state budgets have, without question, saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, like teachers, that are supported by state taxes. It's just a very basic fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/31stimulus.html

So this is a crazy statistic, but I think it's important to ask why Americans think the stimulus is actually hurting job-creation.

It's a good question, and your guess is as good as mine. Chances are, it's not just one thing. Part of the confusion is likely the result of an electorate that doesn't quite understand the basics, and is therefore easily misled by the same people who got us in this mess. Part of it comes from a media that hasn't made much of an effort to explain the basics. And part of the problem has to be politicians -- one party believes Hoover was right about the Great Depression, and the other party is afraid to talk about how government spending and intervention prevented a wholesale economic collapse.

Regardless of the cause, the consequences of widespread confusion and ignorance can be, and may turn out to be, devastating. If most Americans believe government spending undermines job creation, and are convinced that short-term deficit reduction is more important than economic growth, they're more likely to vote for arsonists to put out the fire.

The surest way to make things even worse is to reward those who created the problem in the first place.

JUKEBOX JOHN PLAYS A NEW TUNE.... Sens. John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joe Lieberman -- a tri-partisan group -- have been crafting a climate change bill that can generate broad support in the Senate. All three are personal friends with Sen. John McCain, and all three would love to get the Arizona Republican's support on this issue that he's historically cared about.

So, how's that going?

"Their start has been horrendous," McCain said Thursday. "Obviously, they're going nowhere."

McCain has emerged as a vocal opponent of the climate bill -- a major reversal for the self-proclaimed maverick who once made defying his party on global warming a signature issue of his career.

Now the Arizona Republican is more likely to repeat GOP talking points on cap and trade than to help usher the bill through the thorny politics of the Senate.

McCain refers to the bill as "cap and tax," calls the climate legislation that passed the House in June "a 1,400-page monstrosity" and dismisses a cap-and-trade proposal included in the White House budget as "a government slush fund."

Former aides are mystified by what they see as a retreat on the issue, given McCain's long history of leadership on climate legislation.

No one should be mystified. John McCain's core beliefs don't appear to exist.

McCain co-sponsored climate-change legislation three in three separate Congresses during the Bush era, and endorsed cap and trade as a sound policy. In 2008, however, McCain decided to oppose the same ideas he'd already endorsed, and he's sticking with this far-right persona.

Asked for an explanation, McCain spokesperson Brooke Buchanan said, "This really hasn't been done in a bipartisan fashion."

I see. The climate bill is being pushed by a Dem (Kerry), a Republican (Graham), and an Independent (Lieberman), but the problem is that the effort is too partisan. Follow-up question for Brooke Buchanan: "Huh?"

Best of all, now that it looks like McCain will have to work even harder to impress the far-right GOP base, any hopes that he'll step up and show some leadership on this all but disappear.

Some in the media think the president is to blame for not having "reached out" to McCain "enough." As Atrios added, "Yes, obviously, it's Obama's fault that McCain's flip-flopping on issues. In the Village, nothing is ever McCain's fault."

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.

* Doug Hoffman has once again lost the congressional special election in New York's 23rd.

* Surprisingly enough, a new Rasmussen poll shows Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) struggling badly with his Republican supporters back home. In a hypothetical primary match-up against former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.), McCain's lead is just two points, 45% to 43%.

* There's no official word, but there are reports that Rudy Giuliani will not run for governor in New York next year. There are some rumors, however, that he's eyeing the Senate race, instead.

* If Giuliani does take on Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D) in New York, a new Marist poll suggests he'll start as the frontrunner. Gillibrand, who was appointed to the seat earlier this year, is still not universally known in the state.

* A new Zogby poll (telephone, not internet) shows Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) leading her top Republican challenger, state Sen. Gilbert Baker, by two points, 41% to 39%. If Lincoln supports the health care bill, Zogby shows her losing support.

* In California, a Rasmussen poll shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) below the 50% threshold, but nevertheless leading both of her Republican rivals by about 10 points each.

* Sen. Arlen Specter, still hoping to impress Democratic primary voters, told bloggers yesterday that he does not support a military escalation in Afghanistan.

* A new Research 2000 poll for Daily Kos in Florida continues to show a very competitive gubernatorial race. State Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) leads state CFO Alex Sink (D) by two, 35% to 33%.

* Speaking of Florida, Blue Dog Rep. Allen Boyd (D) is facing a primary challenge next year, and a new poll suggests state Senate Minority Leader Al Lawson may have the early edge over the incumbent.

* Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) was asked yesterday afternoon whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be president. He really didn't want to answer the question.

NO APPETITE FOR PROCEDURAL HURDLES.... It's not especially realistic to think voters will appreciate the nuances of congressional procedures. Words like "filibuster," "cloture," and "motion to proceed" are not well understood.

That said, when one breaks down the concepts for the public, voters' instincts tend to be pretty sound.

New polling in Nebraska, Louisiana and Arkansas commissioned by Health Care for America Now (HCAN), a liberal interest group pushing President Obama's plan, and obtained by [Chris Cillizza] shows huge majorities of voters in all three states favor the bill being debated on the floor.

Eighty-eight percent of likely 2010 Nebraska voters, 84 percent of likely Arkansas voters and 82 percent of likely voters in Louisiana told Democratic pollster John Anzalone that regardless of whether they supported the health care legislation, they believed it should get a full floor debate. (Those numbers include more than two-third support among Republican and independent voters.)

This is encouraging, and not particularly surprising. The poll described the motion to proceed, for example, and asked respondents, "In the Senate, before a bill can be voted on, there must be a vote to allow it to be debated. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the health insurance reform plan itself, do you believe that it should be debated on the floor of the Senate?"

Support was overwhelming in all three conservative "red" states -- 88% of Nebraskans, 82% of Louisianans, and 84% of Arkansans all agreed that health care reform should be debated. (It makes one wonder how voters in, say, Maine might feel if they knew that both of their "moderate" Republican senators are opposed to even letting the bill comes to the floor for a debate.)

The poll then asked about cloture: "Once a bill has been debated in the Senate, senators must then vote on whether to allow the bill itself to be voted on. Regardless of whether you support or oppose the health insurance reform plan, do you believe that senators should allow it to be voted on?"

The numbers weren't quite as strong, but again, support was largely one-sided -- 80% of Nebraskans, 77% of Louisianans, and 77% of Arkansans agreed that senators should let health care reform come up for a vote.

I suspect that for most typical Americans, this is a no-brainer. Should the Senate be allowed to debate health care reform on the floor? Should senators be allowed to vote yea or nay on the health bill? Of course they should.

There's been a behind-the-scenes debate in recent months about whether to separate policy votes from procedural votes. But a report like this one suggests the public already makes the distinction just fine.

It also suggests senators panicky about their standing back home should take comfort -- support cloture, let the bill come up for a vote, and then come down on whatever side you want. Their constituents already expect health care reform to come up for a vote, so there's no reason to side with Republicans in blocking one.

TAKE A BOW.... Fox News polls are notorious for asking nutty questions that mainstream outlets would be too embarrassed to consider, but the network's latest (pdf) survey only includes one oddity.

"When the president of the United States is traveling overseas, do you think it is appropriate for him to bow to a foreign leader if that is the country's custom or is it never appropriate for the president to bow to another leader?"

The results no doubt disappointed the network -- 67% of Fox News' respondents said customary presidential bows are fine. Even a majority of self-identified Republicans (53%) agreed that the gesture is appropriate.

And yet, despite the fact that the country doesn't seem to care, this was considered a pretty huge deal in media circles all week, generating items in the AP, Newsweek, the NYT, and of course, Fox News. (In fairness, some of those items were questioning the seriousness of the "story.")

As Greg Sargent noted, "It's another sign, if you needed one, of how far off to the right some contemporary conservative discourse has drifted. It's also a mark of how absurd it is that some traditional news orgs actually felt obliged to, er, bow to the pressure to cover this particular line of criticism."

HEATING UP IN THE SUNSHINE STATE.... In January, when it looked Florida Gov. Charlie Crist would face former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in a Republican Senate primary, a poll showed the governor with a commanding lead, 57% to 4%.

This week, a Research 2000 poll conducted for Daily Kos showed things a little more competitive. Crist now leads Rubio 47% to 37%. A 10-point lead may seem reasonably strong, but the trend should cause some panic on the governor's campaign -- Crist is fading fast and Rubio has excited the right-wing base. This poll is consistent with other recent data pointing in the same direction.

Markos Moulitsas explained:

These trendlines are bleak for Crist, and there's little chance of him surviving. Remember, Rubio hasn't spent a dime on media yet. This is all grassroots driven, and the teabaggers are engaged, angry, and looking for the next Scozzafava. Crist is in their crosshairs, and the governor has been flopping all over the place hoping to stem this growing tide against him, and failing. Note -- 50 percent of Republicans still don't know who Rubio is. The more he raises his name ID, the better he does.

Chris Cillizza added, "That Rubio has made up so much ground without spending any real money on voter contact -- television or radio ads, direct mail etc. -- should be very worrisome to Crist as it seems to suggest considerable softness in his numbers. In other words, the more Republicans look closely at Crist, the less they like what they see."

Markos also tested some hypothetical general election match-ups. If Crist manages to get the GOP nomination, he'll still easily defeat the likely Democratic candidate, Rep. Kendrick Meek. Of course, Crist's chances of winning the primary are growing increasingly remote. What if he runs as an independent against Rubio and Meek? The three-way contest is basically a toss-up.

But here's a twist -- if Crist becomes a Democrat, he's in a stronger position. It prompted Markos to conclude that Crist's "cleanest path to a Senate seat" is "switching parties and making an earnest transition on the issues."

For the record, there hasn't been so much as a hint from Crist about a willingness to switch. On the contrary, he's spent the last several weeks trying in vain to convince Florida Republicans that he's really more conservative than he seems (which, incidentally, is what Arlen Specter did before he realized it was a lost cause and became a Dem). For that matter, it's not at all clear if Florida Democrats would accept Crist with open arms.

But it's fun to ponder, I suppose.

Another angle to consider is what Florida Dems do with this changing landscape. When Crist announced he was running for the Senate, he was largely considered a shoo-in, and high-profile Dems who would have otherwise considered the race decided to take a pass. If Rubio seems likely to get the GOP nod, will the Democratic field grow with the changing circumstances?

Or are we dealing with a dynamic in which the best chance of a Democrat winning the race is for Crist to switch?

And if Crist can't win the primary, and doesn't want to become a Dem, does he really throw the state a curveball and decide he wants to be governor again after all?

WHEN THE MAJORITY IS MISGUIDED.... A new CNN poll shows more Americans shifting their blame for the Republican recession away from the Republicans. As recently as May, 53% said Republicans are "more responsible for the country's current economic problems," while 21% blamed Democrats. In the newly released poll, a 38% plurality holds the GOP responsible, while 27% point the finger at Democrats.

That is, to be sure, disappointing, given reality. But the trend suggests public patience is waning -- the electorate expects Democrats to fix the problems they inherited from Republicans faster.

But that's not the most frustrating aspect of the poll. This is:

"Which of the following comes closer to your view of the budget deficit -- the government should run a deficit if necessary when the country is in a recession and is at war, or the government should balance the budget even when the country is in a recession and is at war?"

Given the precarious state of the economy and widespread concerns about unemployment, common sense suggests concerns over the deficit should wane. But the poll found that a whopping 67% of respondents want the emphasis to be on deficit reduction, while 30% see the deficit as necessary under the circumstances. Those results are very similar to those from an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken a few weeks ago.

It's probably worth noting that the majority is hopelessly wrong. I'm not even sure if the majority fully understands what the deficit is, why it's large, what would be needed to make it smaller, and how it fits into the larger economic landscape. For many, it seems the "deficit" is just an amorphous concept that loosely means "bad economy."

Which is why it's important that policymakers not base policy decisions on illiteracy. Americans say they want a stronger job market and a better economic growth. They also say they want less spending, lower taxes, and an immediate focus on deficit reduction. The inherent contradictions are lost on far too many.

Matt Yglesias recently explained:

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.

THEY'RE NOT ABOVE LYING.... The Senate's health care reform plan is not without flaw. Indeed, the subsidy rates for low-income families remain a major point of concern.

But true to form, Republicans don't want to talk about the legislation's actual shortcomings; they prefer to make stuff up. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), for example, released an item yesterday insisting that the Senate plan "requires a monthly abortion fee."

Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) massive, 2,074-page bill would levy a new "abortion premium" fee on Americans in the government-run plan. [...]

What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run health plan.

Offering another helpful case study in how the Right Wing Machine works, Boehner's blisteringly stupid claim was quickly picked up and trumpeted by Drudge and Limbaugh. No doubt, many rank-and-file conservatives now think it's true.

The claim might be alarming, if it weren't so ridiculous. As Jeremy Schulman explained, "'Monthly abortion fee' implies there is some sort of extra charge assessed to consumers in order to pay for abortions. But this isn't the case. Rather, the bill sets up requirements by which insurance plans segregate their funds so that federal dollars don't pay for abortion coverage.... If you choose to purchase a plan that covers abortion, it's completely expected that a portion of your premium pays for abortion coverage. Saying that this creates some sort of additional 'abortion fee' is like saying that there's a 'monthly heart attack fee' because the plan covers heart attacks."

Jodi Jacobson went line by line, picking apart Boehner's vile attack.

The DNC, which jumped all over this, added in a statement, "With such clear evidence to the contrary, we'd like to believe that this is the last time we'll hear this scare-tactic from Boehner and the Party of No... but since all Republicans have to offer are more lies, we're not counting on it."

To borrow a phrase, "I have given up hope for a loyal opposition. I'd settle for a sane one."

SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE IN THE SENATE.... As of late yesterday, we have a reasonably strong sense of what to expect in the Senate with regards to the health care debate. We don't yet know how it's going to turn out, but at least the process seems clear.

In fact, the leadership struck a couple of deals yesterday that make the process pretty straightforward -- the chamber will debate the bill tomorrow, and then vote on the motion to proceed. If there are 60 votes, reform will proceed to another round of debate. If there aren't 60 votes, the entire initiative is in real trouble.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Thursday afternoon set the procedural wheels in motion for a crucial vote on a major health care reform bill Saturday night at 8 p.m. and scored a coup by apparently persuading Republicans to abandon their plans to have the entire 2,074-page bill read aloud on the Senate floor.

Speaking on the floor of the Senate on Thursday afternoon, Reid filed a motion to limit debate, or invoke cloture, on the motion to proceed to a House-passed tax bill that will serve as a shell for the $848 billion Senate health care measure that he unveiled Wednesday.

In doing so, Reid also asked for and received the consent of Republicans to avoid more votes this week as well as a threatened, lengthy reading of the Senate bill. Reid's move means the Senate will wrap up work Saturday and avoid coming into session next week.

Before yesterday's agreement, Republicans were going to force a full reading of every word of the bill, which would in turn lead to another procedural vote around 2 a.m. on Monday morning. Now, none of that will be necessary -- GOP senators will spend all day tomorrow trashing the idea of reforming the dysfunctional health care system, leading up to an 8 p.m. cloture vote. If the motion is approved, the chamber will break for Thanksgiving and return a week from Monday.

Why not hold the vote on the motion to proceed sooner? Because the leadership agreed to have the bill publicly available for 72 hours before the first vote, and Saturday night at 8 p.m. will be exactly 72 hours after the legislation (pdf) was posted online.

With the process question resolved, attention now shifts to assembling 60 votes. If Harry Reid didn't think he could corral the supermajority needed, he probably wouldn't have scheduled tomorrow night's vote. But as of now, it's still unclear if the necessary support is there.

A handful of on-the-fence Dems made clear that they would support the motion to proceed, including Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.). Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has signaled he's likely to vote with the majority tomorrow night, but it's not definite. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) was supposed to announce her intentions yesterday, but didn't. Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) hasn't said much of anything, and remains a point of concern.

And just to be clear, this isn't a vote on the bill; we're talking about a vote to begin a debate on the bill. It's still astounding to me that three Senate Democrats are reluctant to support a routine procedural measure that would simply allow the chamber to talk about health care reform, and consider changes to the bill.

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

* Pakistan: "A suicide bomber killed 16 people Thursday outside a courthouse in northwestern Pakistan, the latest attack in an onslaught by Islamist militants fighting back against an army offensive in the nearby Afghan border region. The bombing was the sixth in less than two weeks in and around Peshawar."

* Ugh: "A rising proportion of fixed-rate home loans made to people with good credit are sinking into foreclosure, adding to concerns about the strength of the economic recovery."

* Judge David Hamilton was confirmed today to the 7th Circuit. The final vote was 59 to 39. For reasons I'll never understand, 39 out of 40 Senate Republicans -- including Snowe and Collins -- voted against him.

* House Speaker Nancy Pelosi likes the Senate health care reform bill, and thinks its provision on abortion-funding restrictions works a lot better than the Stupak amendment.

* The White House's Nancy-Ann DeParle also prefers the Senate provision to the Stupak language.

* It's hard to believe how much college tuition rates are going up in California. It's going to price a lot of students right out of their schools.

* Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy to become Europe's new president.

* Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) pushed a measure yesterday to freeze credit card rates on existing balances through the holiday season. Senate Republicans quickly blocked it.

* It's painful to think about, but there are 17 counties in the United States in which the poverty rate for children is 50%.

* Steve Doocy, surprisingly bad at arithmetic.

* Charles Krauthammer understands domestic policy about as well as he understands foreign policy.

* Maybe Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) should read T.R. Reid's book again. I don't think he understood it the first time around.

* Good piece from Michael Crowley on President Obama's Asia trip: "[G]ive the man some more time."

* If conservatives disagree with the president, it's big news. If conservatives agree with the president, it's ignored. In terms what constitutes a newsworthy development, isn't that backwards?

* Just two weeks after getting caught using old footage to exaggerate right-wing crowd sizes, Fox News used old footage to exaggerate a right-wing crowd size. Today, the Republican network apologized, again.

* Rupert Murdoch gets the O'Reilly treatment.

* Nice summary of the Palin problem: "Yesterday I was thinking about how everything she says sounds like it's just plucked from the tea party talking points of the day, but ... they aren't just talking points, they're sort of bizarrely, syntactically mashed up talking points. I wonder what really goes on inside her head? Lots of politicians have mastered the art of speaking in talking points and never going off message, but mostly they at least try to sound like they know what they're talking about. Palin doesn't. She just spouts the sixth grade version of the talking points with an apparently total unawareness that she sounds like a child."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

BENDING THE PROVERBIAL CURVE.... For some conservatives, including some center-right Democrats, the very point of tackling health care reform is to get health care costs under control. Ezra Klein has a great item today, explaining how the Senate reform bill does just that.

If this piece of the bill was passed on its own, it would be the most important cost control bill ever considered by the United States Congress. But you could never have passed it on its own. You needed the coverage to make the grand bargain work. Republicans like to call this bill a trillion-dollar experiment to expand the health-care system, and in some ways, it is. But it's also a multitrillion-dollar experiment to cut costs in the health-care system, and it deserves credit for that, and support from fiscal conservatives. It's easy to talk about cutting costs, but this is the chance for people to actually do it.

The "grand bargain" is an important concept that often goes overlooked in the debate. For the left, which has been clamoring for health care reform for several generations now, the point of fixing the system is the moral outrage of allowing tens of millions of Americans to go without coverage. The uninsured are one serious illness away from bankruptcy, or one layoff away from family peril, and progressives have long demanded a remedy.

For the right, the principal reason to even entertain the possibility of reform is fiscal -- conservatives are worried about spiraling costs and massive deficits.

Which leads to the bargain. The left wants to expand coverage; the right wants to get costs under control. Neither side would be especially willing to entertain the other's goal, were it not for the satisfactory resolution of their main concern. Harry Reid's bill, warts and all, gets the bargain largely right.

Indeed, were our political landscape slightly saner, Republicans -- you know, the ones who've invested heavily in the notion of cutting costs and shrinking deficits -- would embrace this bill with both arms. For that to happen, they'd have to be serious about public policy, and willing to put national considerations above short-term political interests. I know, it's hard to type this with a straight face, too.

But that doesn't change the underlying truth. As Kevin Drum explained, the Senate bill is the most "ambitious" attempt to "rein in both Medicare costs, and healthcare costs generally, than anything ever done. Nothing else even comes close." He added that Reid's measure may be the "best prospects for healthcare cost control we've ever seen."

Postscript: And speaking of Ezra, he also has a good post sketching out the kinds of positive reform changes we could expect before 2014. The fairly long list includes all kinds of consumer protections for those of us with private coverage, include a ban on lifetime limits, a ban on annual caps, the elimination of rescissions, and coverage for preventive care and immunizations.

CONSISTENCY ISN'T THEIR STRONG POINT, CONT'D.... We talked yesterday about how Republicans haven't exactly been consistent when it comes to their deeply held beliefs on the perils of judicial filibusters. But their consistency on trials for terrorists is arguably more humiliating.

In 2002, the Bush Justice Department put Zacarias Moussaoui, an al Qaeda terrorist often referred to as the "20th 9/11 hijacker," on trial in a federal court near D.C. No one, at the time, said then-President Bush was putting American lives at risk or undermining U.S. national security interests with the trial. Despite the conservative apoplexy of the last week, the Moussaoui trial was simply considered appropriate and routine.

Greg Sargent reported today on a quote from George W. Bush in 2006, in which the then-president proclaimed that terrorists should be "tried in courts here in the United States."

At the time, Bush was waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the military commissions he had established to try alleged members of Al Qaeda. At the presser, he said the administration was waiting for the high court to determine the "proper venue" for trying suspected terrorists, and seemed to say U.S. courts were a valid venue if it came to it.

At a minimum, Bush clearly saw no problem with bringing suspected terrorists to the U.S. for trial -- something that the Obama administration is now doing, drawing widespread criticism on the right.

I haven't found any evidence of any conservatives criticizing Bush's position or his decision to try Moussaoui in a criminal court on American soil.

Likewise, let's not forget that Rudy Giuliani, one of the leading Republican attack dogs on President Obama, said he considered the Moussaoui trial a testament to the strength of our legal system and the American dedication to the "rule of law." Giuliani called the verdict "a symbol of American justice," and said the trial itself might improve America's standing internationally. After Moussaoui was convicted by a civilian jury, the former mayor boasted, "America won tonight."

Similarly, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, called a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial "indefensible," arguing that it would help terrorists. But when Bush brought Moussaoui to a criminal courtroom for a trial near the Pentagon, Sessions was satisfied with the administration's decision.

Is a little intellectual consistency too much to ask for? Don't answer that; it's a rhetorical question.

THE EXASPERATING 'CENTRISTS'.... Let's see. First, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he liked the Stupak amendment and would be "highly unlikely" to vote for health care reform unless it included the language, or something very close to it, in the final bill. Then, Nelson shifted gears, saying he misunderstood a reporter's questions the first time, and is satisfied with Senate Dems' restrictions on public funding of abortion.

Now, Nelson has moved back in the other direction again.

The language in the Senate healthcare reform bill designed to bar federal funds from paying for abortions is not good enough, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said Thursday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) modified the healthcare bills approved by two committees in order to address concerns from anti-abortion-rights senators that the bill would change current laws prohibiting taxpayer money from being spent on abortion while not alienating abortion-rights supporters.

Reid did not succeed, according to Nelson, a key centrist swing vote Reid needs to advance his healthcare bill at a crucial test vote set for Saturday.

"We have looked at the language," Nelson told The Hill. "That language is not language that I would prefer.... I think you need to have it eminently clear that no dollars that are federal tax dollars, directly or indirectly, are used to pay for abortions and it needs to be totally clear. [It's] not clear enough, I don't think."

But here's the kicker: Nelson may be playing a little game here. Reid's measure on abortion funding is the right way to go, and Nelson almost certainly knows it. So what's the problem? Nelson wants to kill the public option once and for all. In fact, Nelson said today, "If there's no public option, perhaps some of the [abortion] problem goes away."

The problem, then, isn't with the abortion-related language -- Nelson is just looking for leverage. The message to Reid, in effect, is, "You get rid of the public option and I'll accept your provisions on abortion."

Also note, Nelson said yesterday, "If you don't like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it?" Today, he said he's undecided on whether he would block his own opportunity to amend the bill.

And speaking of "centrists," Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is still threatening to kill health care reform if there's a public option -- and now thinks he can pull some other Dems with him.

Maybe now would be a good time to pause and note how unbelievably ridiculous these center-right senators are being. Harry Reid has offered them an affordable reform bill that doesn't cost too much, lowers the deficit, restricts funding of abortion, restricts aid to immigrants, and doesn't raise taxes on the middle class.

And the "centrists" are still complaining, suggesting they're not really willing to compromise on anything.

FOXX'S NOTION OF 'REVISIONIST HISTORY'.... On the House floor today, Rep. Virginia Foxx, a right-wing Republican from North Carolina, boasted of her party's alleged progressive history on civil rights.

"Just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bills back in the '60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle," said Fox. "They love to engage in revisionist history."

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), stunned, tried to set Foxx straight, pointing to the role of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations of the 1960s. "John Lewis, a member of this House, was beaten on the Edmund Pettus bridge to get that civil rights legislation passed," Cardoza reminded Foxx. "Tell John Lewis that he wasn't part of getting that legislation passed."

Matt Corley added, "To support the claim that Republicans were actually the architects of civil rights, conservatives often point out that a 'higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the civil-rights bill.' But this ignores the 'distinct split between Northern and Southern politicians' on the issue."

This comes up from time to time, and since some confused people like Virginia Foxx have trouble remembering the details, it's worth the occasional refresher.

The Democratic Party, in the first half of the 20th century, was home to competing constituencies -- southern whites with abhorrent views on race, and white progressives and African Americans in the north, who sought to advance the cause of civil rights. The party struggled, ultimately siding with an inclusive, liberal agenda.

As the party shifted, the Democratic mainstream embraced its new role. Republicans, meanwhile, also changed. In the wake of LBJ signing the Civil Rights Act, the Republican Party welcomed the racists who no longer felt comfortable in the Democratic Party. Indeed, in 1964, Republican presidential nominee Barry Goldwater boasted of his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and made it part of his platform. It was right around this time when figures like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond made the transition -- leaving the Democratic Party for the GOP.

In the ensuing years, Democrats embraced its role as the party of diversity, inclusion, and civil rights. Republicans became the party of the "Southern Strategy," opposition to affirmative action, campaigns based on race-baiting, vote-caging, discriminatory voter-ID laws, and politicians like Helms, Thurmond, Pat Buchanan, and Virginia Foxx.

THERE BAYH GOES AGAIN.... Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana wrote a column for CNN, explaining why he intends to vote against raising the debt ceiling, "unless Congress adopts a credible process to balance our books and eliminate the red ink."

Long-term deficits drive up interest rates for consumers, raise prices of goods and services, and weaken our country's financial competitiveness and security.

The bigger our deficits, the fewer resources we have to make critical investments in energy, education, health care and tax relief for small businesses and middle-class families.

The bigger our deficits, the more we must borrow from foreign creditors like China, allowing governments with competing interests to influence our economic and trade policies in ways that run counter to our national interest. [...]

Our unsustainable debt is neither a Democratic nor a Republican problem. It is rooted in the DNA of both political parties. Some in Congress like to spend more than we can afford, and some like to cut taxes more than we can afford. The easy path is simply to borrow until the credit markets will no longer allow it.

What Bayh wants is a congressional commission to recommend a deficit-reduction package, which lawmakers would be forced to vote on, up or down. Without the commission, Bayh is prepared to let the United States default on its loans and send the global economy into turmoil. It's an interesting little hostage situation Bayh has created for himself.

There are, however, some issues to consider. For example, it was none other than Evan Bayh who recently voted to "reform" the estate tax, cutting taxes for the extraordinarily rich, at a cost of $750 billion over the next decade. To pay for it, he recommended ... nothing. The costs would simply all be added to the deficit. Given this, I hope he'll forgive my skepticism about his credibility on the subject of fiscal responsibility.

For that matter, I know everyone is always supposed to believe at all times that "both sides are equally to blame," but Bayh's shorthand is lazy and wrong. Democratic policymakers cut the deficit and created a surplus. Republican policymakers were the single most fiscally irresponsible officials in American history. Yes, Dems are running high deficits now, but only because the alternative is a wholesale economic collapse. Skipping over this history is, at best, misleading.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the president's budget proposals already project deficit reductions, and health care reform would further bring significant reductions to the deficit.

But perhaps the biggest question I have for Bayh is: why wait? If the Indiana senator and his cohorts want to put together a deficit reduction strategy, why not put pen to paper and present a plan?

HOW DEEP DOES THE PARANOIA RUN?.... When Doug Hoffman announced his belief that there was an ACORN-led conspiracy to steal the recent congressional special election in New York's 23rd, the temptation was to assume the poor guy had gone mad. But Alex Koppelman notes a new poll that suggests Hoffman is only lending his voice to widespread, right-wing paranoia.

Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm, got lucky with the timing of its latest survey. That's because PPP asked respondents, "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?"

Fully 26 percent of respondents said they believe ACORN stole the election for Obama, compared to 62 percent who said they think he won it fair and square. 12 percent weren't sure.

The numbers were even more revealing when broken down along partisan lines. A majority of Republicans -- 52 percent -- think ACORN stole the presidency, while just 27 percent said they believe Obama's office is legitimately his.

Now, I haven't seen the details or methodology of this poll, but I'm a little skeptical about the results. OK, more than a little.

Barack Obama received nearly 70 million votes on Election Day, and picked up 365 electoral votes. One in four Americans -- and a majority of self-identified Republicans -- believes this was made possible due to the secret, carefully-executed, coordinated national efforts of a community group that can't recognize fake pimps?

I'm willing to believe there are a lot of very confused conservatives out there. I'm even willing to concede that much of the Republican Party necessarily questions the legitimacy of any election in which the GOP candidate loses. But this poll has to be wrong, doesn't it?

NO TIME TO REST ON (INCOMPLETE) LAURELS.... As things stand, the Senate will apparently tackle climate change in the spring. National Journal reports on some members who aren't in any hurry.

"After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said. "Climate fits that category."

Now, I don't want to sound unsympathetic. After eight years of failure, incompetence, mismanagement, and corruption, Congress' to-do list is pretty full -- including tackling issues that went neglected under Republican rule and putting out fires that began under Republican rule.

But this attitude of "one big thing is enough" fails to appreciate the scope of the challenges facing federal lawmakers, and the rare opportunity the Democratic majority has to put things right. I'm reminded of this recent column from Harold Meyerson, who noted that we're witnessing the third generational opportunity for progressive policy change of the last century.

The first time around, in 1933, Franklin Roosevelt and Congress had enacted the landmark legislation of the First Hundred Days -- depositor insurance, emergency relief, industrial stabilization, public employment (the Civilian Conservation Corps). The second time around, in 1965, Lyndon Johnson and Congress had created the Great Society, passing more than 80 bills, among them Medicare, the Voting Rights Act and federal aid to education, in six months.

And the third time around, before health care reform has even cleared the first procedural hurdle, there's a sense among some that other "really, really big things" will have to wait for some other time, maybe even some other Congress.

I wish it were that easy. Democrats were elected to clean up some unprecedented failures of historic magnitude, not tackle a few issues and call it a day.

There's less than a year left in this Congress, at which point the Democratic majority is very likely to shrink. In terms of "really, really big things" that need to get done, Congress should have a strategy to at least pass a jobs bill, a climate bill, and financial regulatory reform.

The more success it has, the more impressed the public will be, and the more motivated the base will be. Not incidentally, these bills carry enormous public policy significance, and this may be the last good shot policymakers have at tackling these issues for a long while.

Buck up, Sen. McCaskill, there's work to be done.

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.

* As absentee ballots get counted in New York's 23rd, it looks like Doug Hoffman is going to lose to Rep. Bill Owens (D-N.Y.), again.

* In a bizarre twist, Hoffman now claims there was a conspiracy among union members and ACORN to "sway the results" of the congressional special election. Even local Republican officials dismiss the accusations as "absolutely false."

* A new Rasmussen poll shows California Attorney General Jerry Brown (D) tied with Meg Whitman (R) in next year's gubernatorial campaign, 41% each. Brown leads the other Republican candidates in hypothetical match-ups by about 10 points.

* Speaking of California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) is apparently done with electoral politics. ''I have never labeled myself as a politician, so I am not going to run for anything else,'' Schwarzenegger said Tuesday.

* Former North Carolina Lt. Gov. Dennis Wicker (D) is the latest in a long line of Democrats to decide not to run against Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) next year.

* Republican National Committeeman Sean Mahoney had been rumored as a possible Senate candidate in New Hampshire, but he's decided not to join the crowded GOP primary. Barring any unexpected announcements, former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, former gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontagne, and businessman Bill Binnie will vie for Republican nod in the open-seat contest.

* Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter (D) remains coy about whether he'll take on incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) in a primary next year.

* Sarah Palin said she'd consider Glenn Beck as a running mate in 2012. I'm not sure if she was kidding.

* Dick Cheney, meanwhile, still isn't interested in running for anything in 2012.

MARCUS SETS GERSON STRAIGHT.... In his Washington Post column this week, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson makes some fairly predictable attacks against the Obama administration for, among other things, deciding to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in federal court.

Gerson labels Attorney General Eric Holder "the most destructive member" of the president's cabinet, before characterizing the looming trial as a "circus," in which "intelligence sources and methods" will be aired. The conservative columnist, who apparently no longer worries about his credibility or stature, insists that the attorney general rejects the idea of a "war with terrorists," and "seems determined to undermine" those who believe the war on terror should continue.

This kind of palaver has become tiresome and pointless, and it's tempting to just ignore it. But the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus did something unusual yesterday: she pushed back hard against one of her own colleagues. (thanks to D.D. for the tip)

First, on the merits of the decision to try Mohammed in federal court rather than through a military tribunal. Note to Mike: They have the presumption of innocence in tribunals, too. Unlike O.J.'s, federal trials, for better or worse, aren't televised, and federal judges are no Lance Ito. Any experienced federal judge can prevent Mohammed from using the trial as a soapbox, and, as Steven Simon points out in the New York Times, the better bet is that the propaganda bonanza would be to our advantage, not the jihadists'.

Federal law contains sufficient safeguards to protect sources and methods, and you can be sure that the Justice Department made a careful assessment that it could obtain a conviction without harmful disclosure. The risk of acquittal is negligible, although I think that word may be overstating things. More important, even if Mohammed were somehow acquitted, it's not as if he would saunter off to brunch in Tribeca. He'd no doubt be indicted and held on other charges, or preventively detained. [...]

Second, on Gerson's mind-reading derogation of Holder. To suggest that the attorney general makes difficult legal decisions on the basis of ideological predispositions is not only a slur; it ignores the many times Holder's decisions (using military commissions, invoking the state secrets privilege, denying habeas corpus relief to detainees in Afghanistan, to name just a few) have discomfited liberal allies. There is a distinction -- one Gerson and company choose to ignore -- between treating terrorism as solely a law enforcement problem and using the techniques of law enforcement as one of many routes to combat and punish terrorism.

Marcus concludes that Gerson's screed went "beyond the pale."

This may make for some awkward moments around the WaPo water cooler, but I'm glad to see it anyway. Gerson, among other Post columnists, writes cheap columns with baseless attacks against those who happen to be in a different political party. The more he's called out for his errors of fact and judgment by his own colleagues, the better.

ENOUGH TO MAKE AN ATTORNEY GENERAL LAUGH.... Attorney General Eric Holder talked to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, primarily about the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his alleged co-conspirators in federal court. It didn't go especially well -- Republicans on the panel didn't seem persuaded -- but Dahlia Lithwick highlighted the most troubling aspect of the Q&A.

Specifically, some GOP senators are concerned that some Justice Department officials, including the attorney general himself, may actually be terrorist sympathizers.

[Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa] demanded that Holder explain the presence in the solicitor general's office of Neal Katyal, who represented Osama Bin Laden's driver at the Supreme Court. Grassley used a smear from the New York Post (penned by the writer who ridiculously claimed Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh believed "Sharia law could apply to disputes in US courts") to demand that Holder account for Jennifer Daskal as counsel in its National Security Division, who allegedly wants terrorists to have more time to write poetry. Grassley demanded that Holder produce a list of DoJ appointees who have ever acted as lawyers for terror detainees.

Then Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., read from an editorial suggesting that the reason these detainee trials have been so long delayed is all the "leftist lawyers" who stalled the military commissions by challenging them in the courts. Kyl noted many of those lawyers -- including Holder -- work for the Justice Department despite the fact that Holder's firm, Covington & Burling, "volunteered its services to at least 18 of America's enemies in lawsuits they brought against the American people." Remember in 2006 when the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, Cully Stimson, had to resign his position at the Pentagon for urging U.S. corporations to boycott any law firm that defended terror suspects? Apparently those law firms are still un-American, and anyone associated with them should be barred from DoJ. (The subtext for much of this criticism, as Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., observed, is that all these lawyers are somehow in it for the money.)

Holder, quite literally, blurted "Hah" in response to this line of questioning, before patiently explaining to Republicans how misguided the argument is.

Lithwick concluded, "[W]hen you continue to hear that anyone who objects to Bush's detainee policies is unworthy to serve in government, or is part of some elaborate conspiracy to free terrorists, there is truly nothing left to do but laugh."

The appeal of McCarthyism lingers on.

THE ORIGINAL KING OF IRONY KEEPS HIS CROWN.... It's easier to stomach Karl Rove's political commentary if one thinks of him as some kind of performance artist.

Today, for example, Rove writes an entire column about the Obama White House releasing discouraging news on Friday afternoons.

Every modern White House has put out news on contentious issues late on Friday in the hope that doing so will bury it, or reduce the amount of critical scrutiny it would otherwise receive. What is unusual is the degree to which this White House has relied on this tactic.

I nearly fell out of my chair reading this. It was, after all, Karl Rove's signature move -- release bad news late on Friday afternoons, in the hopes it would generate less attention. Rove is going after the president's team for occasionally using the same media trick Rove personally perfected while helping run the White House.

What we are seeing with the White House's timing in releasing its decision on KSM and other terrorists is a presidency clinging to campaign tactics that aim to dominate the 24-hour-news cycle. The problem is that ploys that work in a campaign don't work nearly as well when you're in charge of the executive branch. Once in office, you have to live with the consequences of a policy decision.

Seriously? Karl Rove is lecturing the White House on appreciating the consequences of policy decisions? Did Rove ever have to deal with the repercussions of his own misconduct?

At least, however, the almost farcical column is in keeping with Rove's general m.o. Rove ran a White House that embraced a "permanent campaign," so he's accused the Obama team of embracing a "permanent campaign." Rove embraced the politics of fear, so he's accused Obama of embracing the politics of fear. Rove relied on "pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted " political events, so he's accused Obama of relying on "pre-packaged, organized, controlled, scripted" political events. Rove looked at every policy issue "from a political perspective," so he's accused Obama of looking at every policy issue "from a political perspective." Rove snubbed news outlets that he considered partisan, so he's accused Obama of snubbing snubbed news outlets that he considered partisan.

A lesser hack may find it difficult to launch political attacks that are ironic, hypocritical, and examples of projection, all at the same time, but Rove is a rare talent.

THE RENEWED FOCUS ON JOB CREATION.... The AP had a disconcerting report yesterday on the Dec. 3 "jobs summit" at the White House. As the AP put it, President Obama "says creating jobs isn't the goal of a coming White House forum on jobs and economic growth."

At first blush, that sounds pretty nutty. The White House is holding a forum on jobs and the goal isn't to create jobs? Why bother holding a summit, then?

In truth, NBC's Chuck Todd asked the president how a summit "is going to create a job." Obama explained that the economy is starting to grow, and businesses are starting to be profitable again, but job growth is lagging. "And so the goal of the job summit is to figure out, are there ways of us accelerating that hiring?" the president said. "And there are a whole range of ideas out there; we've examined a lot of them. But one of the benefits of convening this group is it gives us a chance to talk directly to small businesses and medium-sized businesses, the main drivers of employment, to find out what exactly is going on."

That's a far cry from reporting that the goal of the jobs summit isn't to create jobs.

On the Hill, meanwhile, we know the House is moving forward with its plans for a jobs bill. Today, Roll Call reports that two leading Senate Democrats are crafting a plan, too.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan (N.D.) have been quietly trying to write a jobs bill that the Senate can act on early next year, underscoring the renewed emphasis Congressional Democrats are putting on the economy as 2009 comes to a close. [...]

Dorgan said this week he hoped to have a bill through the Senate before the president's State of the Union address in late January and that he does not envision the health care debate tripping up that timeline.

"We're going to be working on the jobs issue even as the health care bill is on the floor," he said. "I don't think that is going to interfere with the effort to get a good jobs package."

Durbin said he and Dorgan teamed up to write the bill with the blessing of Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has been leading the Senate's push to enact a health care reform bill before Christmas.

Durbin acknowledged that Republicans are likely to complain that the Democratic majority shouldn't put health care above job creation. The Majority Whip said, however, that the caucus is "trying to make it clear that we can walk and chew gum" at the same time.

As for concerns that the Senate jobs bill may be at odds with a House version, Durbin added that he's working with Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), who's helping lead the House efforts.

As for paying for the initiative, Durbin is eyeing unused TARP money, while the House is also weighing the possibility of a transactions tax on Wall Street.

I have to say, it's encouraging to see Dems dig in quickly on this. A meaningful jobs bill is necessary -- the sooner the better -- and the majority seems to be responding well. It's likely that center-right Dems will figure out a way to undermine these efforts, but for now, there's some heartening momentum.

GIVING CENTRISTS VERY LITTLE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.... A Senate Democratic aide emailed me yesterday with some of the top-line numbers for the new health care bill: $848 billion over 10 years; $127 billion in deficit reduction in the first decade; $650 billion in deficit reduction in the second decade.

Literally, the very first thought that came to my mind was, "Well, that ought to shut the 'centrists' up."

While the wonks and assorted policy analysts pore over the legislation and CBO study, it's worth taking a moment to remember that center-right Democrats, who've been complaining about this initiative all year, have very little to complain about right now. Indeed, they should be thrilled -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has put together a reform package custom made to give the so-called "moderates" just about everything they said they wanted.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled his $848 billion health reform bill Wednesday to broad support from fellow Democrats -- and the move quickly turned up the pressure on the last few wavering moderates to support the plan, which includes a sizable chunk of deficit cutting. [...]

Democrats on Wednesday were clearly hoping that the deficit figures -- the biggest deficit reduction of any health bill to date, Reid's office noted -- would knock down one of the last remaining obstacles to winning the votes of key centrists, at least to go ahead with debate on the bill as early as this weekend.

At this point, they've run out of excuses. The center-right Democrats said they wanted a reform bill that didn't cost too much, lowered the deficit, restricted funding of abortion, restricted aid to immigrants who entered the United States illegally, and didn't raise taxes on the middle class.

Are Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, and Lieberman really going to refuse to take "yes" for an answer? After Reid crafted a bill to address practically of their concerns, are these center-right members of the caucus really going to endorse a Republican filibuster of this landmark legislation?

Yes, there's still a public option, and the conservative Dems don't like the idea of public-private competition. But a little perspective is helpful -- Reid's version of the public option is a compromise of a compromise of a compromise. States that don't want to give residents a choice won't have to, and according to the CBO, only about 3 million to 4 million American consumers will end up choosing the public plan.

In other words, the center-right Dems have to decide: is it worth killing the entire health care reform initiative -- which otherwise meets all of their concerns -- because about 1% of the population may voluntarily choose to enroll in a public plan.

The notion that conservative Dems would filibuster their reform package is ridiculous. The notion that conservative Dems wouldn't even allow a debate on this bill is insane.

THE REID BILL.... As promised, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) unveiled the Senate's health care reform bill late yesterday afternoon, presenting it first to an impressed Democratic caucus, and then to the media. As far as the politics of the rollout are concerned, Reid has to be thrilled.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid presented an $848 billion health-care overhaul package on Wednesday that would extend coverage to 31 million Americans and reform insurance practices while adding an array of tax increases, including a rise in payroll taxes for high earners.

Democratic leaders were jubilant.... The legislation received a positive response from across the Democratic spectrum. "This is the bill that we've been fighting for," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), a liberal who pressed Reid to revive the public option. Sen. Kent Conrad (N.D.), the budget chairman and a leading Democratic fiscal hawk, said after a briefing on the bill, "I was very impressed by what Senator Reid has done."

OK, so what's in it? Let's briefly review some of the key elements:

Cost and deficit reduction: The Senate bill carries a price tag of $848 billion over 10 years, well below the arbitrary White House limit of $900 billion and less than the House version. The CBO estimates that the legislation will cut the federal budget deficit by $130 billion in the first decade, and a hard-to-believe $650 billion in the second decade.

Timing of implementation: To make the bill more affordable, the effective date of the Senate reform package would be 2014, a year later than the House bill.

Financing: To pay for reform, Reid's plan would impose an excise tax on the so-called "Cadillac" plans (insurance packages worth more than $23,000). There would now also be a 5% tax on elective cosmetic surgery (which would exclude procedures on those with congenital abnormalities, disfiguring diseases, or traumatic injuries). Reid also proposes a 0.5% increase to the Medicare payroll tax for families earning more than $250,000.

Subsidies: Medicaid would be expanded to 133% of the poverty line, and subsidies would help those making up to 300% of the poverty line -- which is short of the 400% threshold that many progressive reform advocates had hoped for. Instead, Reid would impose regulations on insurers to cap expenses for those between 300% and 400% of the poverty line.

Coverage: The bill would extend coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans, bringing insurance to 94% of the population. About a third of those left out would be undocumented immigrants.

Public Option: As expected, Reid went with a national public-option plan, which states could pass laws to opt out of.

Abortion: Reid steered clear of the Stupak amendment language, but would separate abortions paid for through premiums and taxpayer subsidies. The provision is a little complicated, but to make a long story short, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) loves what Reid came up with, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is livid.

Mandates: There's an individual mandate, but the penalties are fairly weak. There is no formal employer mandate, but there are some modest fines imposed on larger employers who fail to cover their workers.

Anti-trust: Buckling to demands from Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), the Senate bill does not end anti-trust exemptions for the insurance industry.

For a caucus that's been at odds with itself for quite a while, Senate Dems left their meeting smiling. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said, "We're going to pass this legislation."

On the other side of the aisle, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) vowed, "It's going to be a holy war."

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

* The CBO has scored the Senate health care bill at $849 billion over 10 years. It will cut the federal budget deficit by $127 billion over the first decade, and as $650 billion in the second decade. The plan extends coverage to 31 million uninsured Americans, which would bring the overall total to 94% of the population.

* Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a surprise visit to Afghanistan earlier today, on the eve of Hamid Karzai's inauguration.

* Offered a very good deal, Iran nevertheless continues to be uncooperative.

* It looks like Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) will join his party on the motion to proceed on health care reform.

* HHS pushback: "Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Wednesday afternoon issued a strong statement intended to put distance between federal policy and an influential panel's recommendations that most women should start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40."

* President Obama expects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to be convicted and executed.

* Even after the economic crisis, exactly zero Senate Republicans are expected to support re-regulation of the financial industry.

* Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has finally dropped his hold on veterans' benefits bill.

* Wait, Somali pirates attacked the Maersk Alabama again?

* Democrats want to pass a law mandating paid sick leave for H1N1 sufferers. Business groups and their lobbyists are fighting the proposal.

* On a related note, a majority of Americans claim they don't want the H1N1 vaccine. I guess that'll mean more for the rest of us.

* Are there troops available for an escalation in Afghanistan?

* Professional courtesies be damned, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) intends to force the reading of the entire health care bill.

* The stimulus bill has helped millions of Americans avoid falling into poverty.

* Incremental progress on lessening suicides in the U.S. military.

* Zombies as potent metaphors.

* Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) today became the longest-serving member of Congress ever.

* Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) on Monday called Islam a "savage religion." He issued a qualified apology yesterday.

* Conservative lawmakers in Texas may have inadvertently made marriage illegal in the state. Oops.

* Dahlia Lithwick: "Opposition to the Obama administration's plan to try alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his confederates in a federal court in New York City is hardening into two camps. One is concerned that we may be unwittingly playing into the terrorists' hands. The other is incensed that we already have. What both camps share, besides a kind of unhinged logic and complete disregard for the legal process, is an obsessive fascination with the accused. The result is a broad willingness to sacrifice our commitment to legal principles in favor of the symbolic satisfaction of crushing the hopes and dreams of a motley group of criminals."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

EVIL EMPIRE, DEATH PANELS, AND CONSPICUOUS UNINTELLIGENCE.... I have deliberately steered clear of writing posts about Sarah Palin this week, in part because I don't think she's worth the obsessive media attention, and in part because I find myself struggling to care. I figure, plenty of other sites have this beat covered nicely, so I'll direct my attention elsewhere.

That said, I hope readers won't mind too much if I highlight one especially startling Palin comment, which is almost hard to believe.

The former half-term governor was asked by ABC News about her use of the phrase "death panels," which is generally considered one of the more ridiculous lies of the health care debate. In response, Palin told Barbara Walters that she wasn't being literal, and compared her choice of phrases to Reagan referring to the Soviet Union as the "evil empire."

"It's kind like what Reagan used to do, though, when he talked about, say, the 'evil empire.' You're never going to find the evil empire on a map of the world.

"And yet [Reagan] talked about that, in terms that people could understand -- kind of rationing down, not complicating the issue. But he, with the issue of the evil empire at the time, used those two words to get people to shake up, wake up, find out what's going on here. Now, had he been criticized and, and mocked, and, and condemned for ever using a term that wasn't actually there on a map, or in documents, we probably would never have succeeded in, in crushing the evil empire, and winning that."

Specifically on the notion of "death panels," Palin added that President Obama is "not lying" because "those two words will not be found in any of those thousands of pages of different variations of the health care bill," but she nevertheless thinks the president is being "disingenuous" because there will be "bureaucrats" who "will be able to call the shots, based on somebody's subjective judgment of productivity, of somebody's life, who will receive the health care that needs to be rationed, and who will not."

She added that it's "funny" to her that the White House rejected her insane argument, "and yet then, steps were taken to take the 'death panels' out."

This is among the stupidest things I've ever heard any politician say on any subject.

I hardly know where to start; none of this makes any sense. Palin thinks Reagan wasn't being literal about the "evil empire." That's wrong. The Soviet Union was the existential threat of the 20th century, and Reagan wasn't trying to "ration down" the rhetoric (whatever that means); he was being entirely literal.

Palin thinks use of the words "evil empire" made it possible to win the Cold War. That's insane. The Soviets collapsed because they ran a corrupt system based on a misguided ideology, not because of an American catchphrase.

She thinks this relates to her "death panel" nonsense because Reagan wasn't being literal (except he was), which is similar because she's also not being literal (except she is). Palin went on to explain that she really does think death panels are real (except they're not).

And to top it off, she thinks "death panels" were removed from the bill (except they weren't) because she was right (except that she wasn't).

I can think of plenty of politicians who are genuinely, unambiguously dumb. I've even met a few, and marveled at how they were able to attain any kind of political responsibilities, given their limited intellectual prowess. But I don't think I've ever seen a politician as conspicuously unintelligent as Sarah Palin gain national prominence. She represents the very worst American politics has to offer, and the embarrassment she brings to the political system is severe.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE STUPAK AMENDMENT.... To hear Rep. Burt Stapak (D-Mich.) and his allies tell it, his amendment on public funding of abortion is simply a continuation of the status quo. The measure, as they see it, is the equivalent of adding the Hyde Amendment, which has been on the books for more than three decades, to the health care reform bill.

Proponents of abortion rights have spent two weeks arguing otherwise. A new policy analysis bolsters their argument. Brian Beutler reports:

A new study by the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services adds some expert imprimatur to what many progressives have been saying all along: The Stupak amendment to the House health care bill--which will prevent millions of women from buying health insurance policies that cover abortion--is likely to have consequences that reach far beyond its supposedly intended scope.

The report concludes that "the treatment exclusions required under the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

Citing the findings, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said, "What the findings show are that women who want to purchase policies with their own money -- with their own premiums -- will not be able to buy insurance policies.... That's frankly the intention of the anti-choice movement now."

DeGette added that she's spoken directly to some of the Dems who voted for the Stupak measure two weeks ago, but who did not fully appreciate what the amendment was all about.

THE 'CENTRISTS' BLOCKING THE DOOR.... Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will, in about an hour, unveil his health care plan to the Democratic caucus. Soon after, Reid is expected to talk about his proposal with reporters.

But a select few received a sneak preview this afternoon.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, who have all expressed skepticism about the party's health care reform plan, were summoned to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office Wednesday to get a sneak peak at his health care bill.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said Wednesday the senator invited these three moderate Democrats into his office to give them the "particulars on the bill."

All have been withholding support on voting to start debate -- and the fact that Reid is giving the three their own special briefing, before the broader Democratic meeting at 5 pm Wednesday, is a signal of their power.

In case you're thinking that this list of center-right Dems is missing someone, keep in mind that Joe Lieberman has already said he'll vote for the motion to proceed -- putting Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln to the right of Lieberman.

And just to clarify further, Reid is wooing these three, not to vote for the bill, and not to cut off a Republican filibuster of the bill, but just to get their support to send the legislation to the floor for consideration. To that extent, this is almost ridiculous -- three Senate Democrats are seriously thinking about joining Republicans in blocking a debate on health care reform. Forget an up-or-down vote, Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln have to be pleaded with just to allow the Senate to talk about health care reform on the floor.

If it seems hard to imagine an actual Democratic senator going so far as to strangle health care reform in the crib, note that CNN's report added that Landrieu said "she is leaning toward a 'no' vote on the motion to proceed."

WITH NO MARGIN FOR ERROR.... Sen. Max Baucus (D) apparently had to travel home to Montana for a family emergency, which means there are now "only" 59 members of the Senate Democratic caucus on the Hill. As Ezra noted, this one family matter might delay the health care reform process just a little more.

Word was that Reid was hoping to vote to proceed on the bill on Saturday, but if Democrats don't have Baucus, that could leave them with 59 votes, rather than the 60 needed to break the filibuster. The question then becomes whether Snowe or Collins will vote for cloture, or whether the vote needs to be delayed.

At the outset, this isn't a terribly big deal, but it does show the chilling delicacy of the Democratic margin. If a single senator falls ill, or gets in a car accident, or is otherwise incapacitated, the vote count becomes wildly unbalanced, and health-care reform becomes imperiled.

It's almost farcical.

Remember, this isn't just about health care. Back in February, Congress needed to pass a stimulus bill to help rescue the economy. But with no margin for error, the Senate had to wait around for more than five hours because Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) was flying back to D.C. from his mother's funeral.

With a 60-vote majority, one would like to think the Senate would still be able to operate if a guy has to fly home for a family emergency. But that's not the case. If even one Democrat can't show up for a vote for any reason, the legislative process stops -- because majority-rule no longer exists in the chamber (and because GOP moderates have almost entirely disappeared).

There has to be a better way for a legislative branch to function.

ROHRABACHER'S PLEASANT SURPRISE.... Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) is not someone I'd consider a moderate. He's dismissed Abu Ghraib torture as being similar to "hazing pranks from some fraternity." He rejects evidence on climate change, and has argued that warming was caused by dinosaur flatulence.

But credit where credit is due -- Rohrabacher has taken some sensible positions of late.

[S]peaking on the House floor last night, Rohrabacher said that the president is right not make any "brash" decisions [on Afghanistan]: "President Obama will soon make a decision that will chart the course for America's involvement in Afghanistan for years to come. I personally am not upset that it has taken President Obama this long to determine his response to General McChrystal's request for an additional 35,000 U.S. combat troops to be sent to Afghanistan. This is a monumental decision [...]

"This is not the time for business as usual nor is it time for brash decision making. A decision to send U.S. troops to Afghanistan will cause money -- lots of it -- and it will cost lives."

Rohrabacher added that calls from the right for more combat units in Afghanistan would be "counterproductive and perhaps disastrous." The California Republican went on to condemn the Bush administration's efforts in the region: "The competence of the last administration in carrying out that war and building a peace was abysmal."

All of this comes just a month after Rohrabacher said his party's caucus is overly invested in "political games," adding, "The Republican leadership in the House right now is constantly trying to play a political game every day to try and get a headline, and I don't think that's going to take us anywhere."

Maybe it's the soft bigotry of low expectations, but when a House Republican says something sensible, it stands out as noteworthy.

Update: Atrios reminds me that Rohrabacher, while not insane on this one issue, has a colorful background on counter-terrorism. It's a good point. For that matter, an emailer also reminds me of Rohrabacher having been up to his ears in the Abramoff scandal.

SEMANTIC SILLINESS.... I suppose it's not too surprising, but it is depressing to be reminded of how stunted our political discourse really is. Greg Sargent had this disheartening-but-fascinating report.

On an RNC conference call with reporters just now, Rudy Giuliani called on the Obama administration to start using the words "war" and "terror" in the same sentence again.

First, he repeatedly praised Attorney General Eric Holder for his repeated use of the word "war" in his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee today, where he's being grilled over his decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in a New York court.

But then he charged that Holder's description of our standoff with global terrorism as a "war" wasn't good enough, and claimed that the administration's abandonment of the specific phrase "war on terror" was directly linked to the decision on where to try KSM and his co-conspirators.

Keep in mind, Giuliani, who has a child-like understanding of national security, isn't making a policy argument, per se. For the former mayor, the key here is rhetoric -- unless administration officials use the precise three-word phrase that Giuliani prefers, then the White House must necessarily be wrong.

"I do think that terminology is important," Giuliani said.

Apparently, so. The Attorney General told lawmakers this morning about the "war" the U.S. is fighting "against terrorism" and "a vicious enemy." According to the former mayor, Eric Holder's choice of words is inadequate, which leads the Justice Department to make bad decisions, which leads the Obama administration to undermine U.S. national security interests.

I know a wide variety of people, including most of the media establishment, take Giuliani seriously. I just don't understand why.

For what's it's worth, the Obama administration agreed early on that the "war on terror" phrase was lacking. That made sense; one can't wage a "war" against a tactic anyway. It also made strategic sense -- Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained the "war on terror" has "became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab."

By moving away from the phrase, the president and his team came into line with the thinking of Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who banned the use of the phrase "Global War on Terror" back in 2007. Even Donald Rumsfeld rejected the phrase back in 2006: "[I]t is not a 'war on terror.'" Did Giuliani host RNC conference calls to condemn Mullen's and Rumsfeld's choice of phrases?

It should be obvious, but the key here is the efficacy of the policy, not the semantics. And when it comes to counter-terrorism, Obama and his team have proven themselves quite effective at capturing, detaining, and occasionally killing terrorists. If Giuliani is unsatisfied with this, he'll have to do a far better job of explaining why.

DEBT.... It looks like the story of the day among conservative bloggers is this CBS News report on the size of the U.S. national debt.

It's another record-high for the U.S. National Debt which today topped the $12-trillion mark. Divided evenly among the U.S. population, it amounts to $38,974.34 for every man, woman and child.

Technically, the debt hit the new high yesterday, but it was posted on the Treasury Department website just after 3:00 p.m. ET today. The exact calculation of the debt is a 16-digit tongue-twister and red-ink tsunami: $12,031,299,186,290.07

This latest milestone in the ever-rising journey of the National Debt comes less than eight months after it hit $11 trillion for the first time. The latest high-point is not unexpected, considering the federal deficit for the just-ended 2009 fiscal year hit an all-time high at $1.42-trillion -- more than triple the previous year's record high.

It's more than a little odd to see Republicans rediscover their outrage about deficits, debt, and the burdens of future generations. It was, after all, George W. Bush who added $5 trillion to the debt, after inheriting a quarter-trillion-dollar surplus from the Clinton era, which generated exactly zero criticism from GOP members of Congress.

Indeed, the entire political dynamic of the debate is bizarre. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans supported two costly wars, and added every penny to the debt, becoming the first party in American history to finance military conflicts entirely on credit. These same GOP officials expanded Medicare and created No Child Left Behind, and made literally no effort to pay for either.

And after their policies helped create the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, making increased spending and deficits an absolute necessity, Republicans feel comfortable making demands about fiscal responsibility? Seriously?

John Cole added, "I would love to hear how the Republican plan for slashing the deficit and tackling the debt will work. I'm interested in how capital gains tax cuts, making the Bush cuts permanent, ending the 'death tax,' continuing the prescription drug plan while ignoring the rising costs of health care, permanent war in the Middle East and privatizing Social Security are going to bring our books back into the black. I'm all ears, guys."

We all are. Republicans believe they have the credibility needed to address the same budget mess they created. I'd actually love to hear more about this -- if they were handed the reins of government immediately, and could do as they please, how would they improve the long-term budget picture?

Tax increases are, they say, out of the question. Cuts to the defense budget, apparently, are also off the table. If this year's health care debate is any indication, Republicans would also steer clear of any kind of Medicare cuts. The GOP could, I suppose, try to eliminate Social Security altogether, but I don't think they'd try (and if they did, their efforts wouldn't go far).

The Republican response is likely to point to some vague "spending cuts," that excludes the biggest areas of the budget. But let's not forget that in June, the White House asked GOP lawmakers to come up with some recommended budget cuts. The Republican caucus came up with a "bold" plan that would cut federal spending by about $5 billion a year for five years -- far less than the White House plan to reduce spending.

But it's not too late. Republican policymakers turned a massive surplus into a massive deficit, but they claim they now take fiscal discipline seriously. I'm delighted. They should take this opportunity to put a plan where their rhetoric is.

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.

* In Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist (R) has taken a pounding for weeks from his Senate primary rival, former state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R). National Journal reports that Crist is now poised to start punching back. The governor's campaign manager said Rubio "has had five to six months of the ability to go around and say whatever he'd like, and that's now changing."

* A new survey (pdf) from Public Policy Polling shows a very competitive Senate contest in Missouri, one of next year's most closely watched races. The poll shows Rep. Roy Blunt (R) with a large lead over his primary opponent, but Blunt currently trails Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan by the narrowest of margins, 43% to 42%.

* New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (D) has not officially launched a gubernatorial campaign yet, but he and his team have reportedly begun looking at possible running mates. On the list is New York City Comptroller Bill Thompson, who recently looked quite strong in a narrow defeat against NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

* Virginia Gov. and DNC Chairman Tim Kaine spent some time this week talking about Creigh Deeds (D) getting trounced in this year's gubernatorial race. Kaine believes Deeds would have fared far better if he'd motivated the Democratic base and stuck closer to President Obama.

* Next year's gubernatorial race in Kansas may be an open-seat contest, but Sen. Sam Brownback (R) looks so strong, he's spent the last several months running unopposed. Tom Wiggans (D), a Kansas business leader, announced yesterday that he'll take on Brownback. It will be Wiggans' first attempt at elected office, and he will likely face no opposition for the Democratic nomination.

* Don't be too surprised if former HHS Secretary and Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) runs against Sen. Russ Feingold (D) next year in Wisconsin.

* In Connecticut, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon's (R) Senate campaign continues to struggle in being taken seriously. A former employee is now blasting McMahon for, among other things, failing to provide health care and pensions for her wrestlers.

GOHMERT GOES THERE.... Among members of Congress, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) has long stood out as a man a few fries short of a Happy Meal. Two weeks ago, he argued that health care reform proponents are trying to kill off senior citizens before they warn young people about the evils of the Democratic agenda. A few weeks before that, Gohmert argued that expanding hate crimes protections would lead to a legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality. He then compared those who disagree with him to Nazis.

And while Gohmert's name is not quite as familiar as Steve King's and Michele Bachmann's when it comes to the House Stark Raving Mad Caucus, he's clearly making a play for notoriety.

....Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas suggested yesterday that Democrats may actually want another terrorist attack because rebuilding the city would create jobs.

"You've got subways, tunnels, bridges all subject to terrorism. And unless they're trying to create a new jobs bill by allowing terrorism back in New York then this is insane. And even that would be insane."

Last night, Gohmert said that "it is extremely helpful to have a community organizer in the White House because you'll need lots of community organization in order to adequately evacuate massive areas of the most densely populated area in America."

This is the same Gohmert who appeared on a radical radio show in July to argue that the government may try to control what Americans eat and where we can live. He's also endorsed the "Birther" legislation.

In May, Gohmert told his colleagues, "We are going to borrow more money from the Chinese to possibly give them money back to create habitats for wild dogs and cats that are rare. There is no assurance that if we did that we wouldn't end up with moo goo dog pan or moo goo cat pan."

The guy has "future member of the House Republican leadership" written all over him.

ILLINOIS REPUBLICAN LAMENTS 'IDIOTS'.... The prospect of transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay to a maximum-security prison in Thomson, Illinois, generated an interesting response from a Republican state lawmaker who represents a neighboring area.

Representative Jim Sacia of the state's 89th District accused Republicans in Washington -- including Senate candidate, Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill) -- of risking thousands of local jobs in their demagoguery of the detainee issue.

"My thinking on this is extremely positive," Sacia told the Huffington Post. "If we lose this opportunity. All I can think of is we literally are idiots. I mean that sincerely."

"I understand I'm on different pages of music with others in my party. First of all this should not be a partisan issue in anyway. If President Obama brings the detainees on U.S. soil and we sit here with a brand new state-of-the-art, max security prison, sitting vacant for the last eight years, and pass on an opportunity to sell it to the federal government, which we would fill it with 1,500 regular prisoners and 800 detainees, what is the problem? The building was designed to do that.

"The only reason we have rhetoric now is because of the closing of Gitmo," Sacia concluded. "It makes no sense at all. This is a tremendous opportunity and we would be idiots to waste it."

As Sacia, a former law enforcement official, sees it, the proposal could bring thousands of jobs to an area that has "suffered unbelievable economic hardship."

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), meanwhile, is taking a different tack. Kirk, hoping to generate support for his 2010 Senate campaign, is grandstanding on the issue, arguing without evidence that locked up terrorist suspects would endanger Illinois residents.

In other words, as far as Jim Sacia is concerned, Mark Kirk is the "idiot" who wants to waste the economic opportunity.

The congressman's cheap tactics may end up costing him support and credibility. The Chicago Sun-Times editorialized this week, "Kirk's scare talk might do him wonders with the GOP base, but it won't convince a single terrorist that this nation has a backbone."

GETTING THE BALL ROLLING AGAIN.... When the House of Representatives passed health care reform two weeks ago, it was heralded as a landmark achievement and sent a loud signal that this once-in-a-generation opportunity really was coming together. All eyes immediately turned to the Senate.

Where the momentum quickly came to a halt. We've had two weeks of a reform bill in limbo, waiting for the CBO, putting out fires, and generally just sitting around waiting for progress.

Today, the Senate leadership intends to get the ball rolling again.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will unveil and discuss his health care bill to Democrats at a special 5 pm caucus meeting tonight, sources say. Reid hopes to brief the caucus before the bill is publicly unveiled, and that could happen late tonight. A CBO analysis of that legislation is expected somewhat earlier in the day, and despite some last minute road bumps, Reid is reportedly very pleased with the numbers he's seeing.

Reid may give the public 72 hours to review the bill before holding a cloture vote on a motion to proceed this weekend, though he may call for that vote slightly earlier.

Everything I'm hearing is entirely consistent with this. As I understand it, Reid has personally seen the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office, and is very pleased with the results. He'll talk to the Democratic caucus about the CBO score at the 5 p.m. (ET) meeting, and some top-line numbers will likely be available, though the full CBO report may not be publicly released until tomorrow.

After the meeting with Senate Dems, Reid will likely host some kind of event on the Hill, talking up the bill and the CBO score. (Depending on the length of the caucus meeting, Reid may or may not wrap up in time for the evening newscasts.)

The White House's efforts are also picking up. Vice President Biden will be on the Hill today, meeting with Reid and working on a whip strategy. Tom Daschle and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will reportedly be part of Biden's lobbying efforts among Senate Democrats.

The first procedural vote -- a motion to proceed, which will effectively begin the formal debate -- is by no means an easy one. Every Republican is expected to filibuster the vote -- they not only oppose reform, they oppose debating reform -- meaning that every member of the Democratic caucus will have to at least be willing to take this initial step.

That vote may come as early as Friday, though Saturday is probably more likely.

CONSISTENCY ISN'T THEIR STRONG POINT.... When President Obama nominated Judge Hamilton for the 7th Circuit seven months ago, Obama did so specifically because Hamilton has a record of moderation. The nomination was intended to send a signal that the process of filling judicial vacancies need not be contentious. "We would like to put the history of the confirmation wars behind us," one White House aide said back in March.

That didn't happen. The very same Republican senators who insisted that judicial filibusters are an affront to our constitutional traditions yesterday launched a filibuster of the Hamilton nomination. Dana Milbank's piece on this is worth reading.

In their quest to thwart President Obama, Republicans do not fear the hobgoblin of consistency.

For much of this decade, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, now the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, led the fight against Democratic filibusters of George W. Bush's judicial nominees. He decried Democrats' "unprecedented, obstructive tactics." To have Bush nominees "opposed on a partisan filibuster, it is really wrong," he added. He demanded they get "an up-and-down vote." He praised Republican leaders because they "opposed judicial filibusters" and have "been consistent on this issue even when it was not to their political benefit to do so."

So now a Democratic president is in the White House and he has nominated his first appellate judicial nominee, U.S. District Judge David Hamilton. And what did Sessions do? He went to the floor and led a filibuster.

Sessions rationalized his inconsistency by saying he doesn't "agree" with Judge Hamilton's "judicial philosophy."

He had plenty of company. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in 2005 that judicial filibusters are a distortion of the Senate's "advise and consent" responsibilities, but that didn't stop him from joining Sessions' filibuster yesterday. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said in 2005 that judicial filibusters have no place in the Senate, but he voted with Sessions, too. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in 2005 that judicial filibusters are likely to "destroy" the federal judiciary "over time," but he also joined his GOP colleagues.

In the end, 70 senators, including 10 Republicans, voted for cloture. Just 29 supported the filibuster, and most of them demanded the exact opposite when Bush was in office.

Now, I suspect the charge from the right will be that the hypocrisy cuts both ways -- Republicans are turning their backs on their collective Bush-era outrage, but Senate Dems, the argument goes, are also contradicting their previous positions.

Milbank, to his credit, notes the qualitative difference: "Democrats were not in the same league of hypocrisy, because they weren't opposing Republicans' right to filibuster."

Right. For the GOP, filibusters of Bush's nominees were literally unconstitutional, and an affront to our system of government. Now, these same Republicans think the same tactic is fine. The two haven't switched sides -- Dems haven't said judicial filibusters tear at the fabric of democracy, they simply said it's a dumb idea.

MOMENTUM ON THE HILL FOR A JOBS BILL.... House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said he expects the House to pass what he called a "jobs bill" before Christmas.

He indicated that the legislation might include money for public jobs, which many liberals have advocated; tax credits to employers for new hires, an Obama campaign proposal that was shelved early this year amid concern that businesses might game their payrolls; and additional spending for infrastructure and road projects.

"All the economic analysts have indicated that it is going to be very difficult" to reduce the jobless rate, he said, "but we are hopeful to make progress on that."

For those who remain out of work in the coming year, he indicated the measure also would extend emergency federal unemployment and health benefits.

It may be tempting to think any lawmaker with a pulse would jump at the chance to support a jobs bill, given the larger economic climate. With double-digit unemployment, who in their right mind would reject a federal effort to create jobs?

The usual suspects, actually. Let's not forget, in January and February, with the economy on the brink of a collapse, the overwhelming majority of Republicans preferred a truly insane five-year spending freeze to a stimulus effort. The handful of moderate Republicans who were willing to entertain the idea demanded that the recovery initiative be smaller than it needed to be.

And now that a jobs bill is back on the table, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) argues, "How will 'spend, spend, spend' get the American economy back on track?" I sometimes get the impression Eric Cantor is easily confused.

Roll Call reports that Blue Dogs are split on the idea, and most of the caucus' leadership is opposed. Blue Dog Co-Chairman Baron Hill (D-Ind.) said he would "probably not" support the effort, and Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) said a jobs bill is probably unnecessary because the economy is improving anyway.

In the upper chamber, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) sounded skeptical about the idea, unless it's done through the pending transportation spending bill. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said she's reluctant to spend more, but said a jobs bill may be worthwhile if it's "very targeted." Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R) both signaled reluctance, while Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the idea of a jobs bill is an "insult." Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said of a renewed congressional effort to create jobs, "I don't think that would be a good idea."

This isn't going to be easy.

A STRONGER SENATE VOTE ON DETAINEES.... Five months ago, the Senate voted to deny funding to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The vote was 90 to 6 -- most Democrats said they were waiting for a better plan from the Obama administration.

Yesterday, a related vote went much better.

The Senate on Tuesday rejected an attempt to bar using funds from a defense spending bill to build or modify prisons in the United States to hold detainees from Guantanamo Bay, a move that suggested congressional Democrats may be lining up behind President Obama's vision for closing the military prison.

The Senate vote, largely along party lines, came days after the administration announced plans to bring five alleged terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, to New York for trial. The GOP-backed measure was attached to a $134 billion plan that funded programs for veterans and military construction. The overall bill was passed unanimously.

The measure, championed by right-wing Sen. James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma, garnered three votes from the Democratic caucus: Sens. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.).

In a statement, VoteVets.org chairman and Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz called out the amendment's sponsor: "Nearly 200 terrorists were tried and convicted in U.S. courts, most notably Zacharias Moussavi who was brought to the U.S. by President George W. Bush. All the while, Senator Inhofe was quiet. Playing politics with security like this is a disgrace."

On a related note, David Kurtz posted an item from a reader yesterday that resonated with me: "Let me get this straight: we kept KSM and his buddies in Gitmo for eight years, no trial, no process, under harsh conditions including torture -- and now that we're finally giving them a trial in civilian court, NOW Al-Qaeda wants to retaliate? NOW they're going to kidnap the mayor's daughter and demand that KSM be released? It doesn't even make sense on its own terms."

Quite right. The standard Republican rhetoric suggests terrorists are necessary magnets for more terrorists -- where one goes, others follow. If there's a terrorist on trial in NYC, terrorists will go to NYC. If there's a terrorist locked up for life in Illinois, terrorists will flock to Illinois. As Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.) put it the other day, he fears "al Qaeda would follow al Qaeda."

So, there's the follow-up question: if the Republican reasoning is correct, shouldn't the area around Gitmo be the single most dangerous place on earth? Or put another way, if there mere presence of terrorists invites violence, shouldn't al Qaeda have launched countless attacks against Gitmo at some point in recent years?

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

* The shift from unipolar power? "President Barack Obama's first visit to China underscored a shifting balance of power: two giants moving closer to being equals."

* As of a few minutes ago, the Republican filibuster of Judge David Hamilton was defeated, 70 to 29. The vote makes Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) look pretty bad.

* No word, as of this minute, from the CBO on the Senate health care bill. The plan, for now, is for the leadership to unveil the bill tomorrow, with the first vote by this weekend.

* White House isn't happy about the approval of settlement expansion in Jerusalem. From a press statement: "We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee's decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes. Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties."

* Tackling financial fraud: "The Obama administration has formed a new task force to target financial fraud -- replacing an earlier corporate fraud task force. Attorney General Eric Holder says the new group will have a broader scope -- and incorporate state investigators as well as federal agencies -- to investigate and prosecute financial crimes that worsened the market collapse."

* Pakistan thinks it's making real progress against the Taliban. The Obama administration isn't quite as confident.

* It looks like Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner may want to explain these efforts from last year at the New York Fed.

* Let's just say Rep. David Obey (D-Wis.) isn't impressed with the database work associated with tracking stimulus spending.

* The public seems comfortable with a surcharge on the rich to pay for health care reform.

* So, if I'm reading the new CNN poll correctly, Americans are comfortable with trials against terrorists suspect, and they're comfortable with these trials on American soil. But if they're in civilian courts, as compared to military tribunals, the public balks. How much does the electorate really appreciate the legal nuances here?

* C Street House loses its tax-exempt status. Good move.

* The DCCC slams Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.) following his insane references to NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's kids.

* Depressing, but not unexpected: "Uninsured patients with traumatic injuries, such as car crashes, falls and gunshot wounds, were almost twice as likely to die in the hospital as similarly injured patients with health insurance, according to a troubling new study."

* The inspirational story of Tererai Trent.

* John McCain loves the AARP. John McCain hates the AARP. Even now, Jukebox John keeps changing his tune.

* And while I continue to steer clear of actual, stand-alone posts on Sarah Palin, it's probably worth noting that her book appears to be a work of fiction. Not true at all. Just totally wrong about reality.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

REPEAL IN '13? NOT GONNA HAPPEN.... From time to time, congressional Republicans will concede that health care reform, in one form or another, is likely to become law sometime soon. They'll usually follow it up, however, by assuring the GOP base that Republicans will work to repeal the reform package just as soon as they're in the majority again -- whenever that might be.

National Journal's Ron Brownstein notes in his latest piece that we're likely to hear even more of this.

Some senior House Republicans have already pledged to repeal any health care bill if they regain the majority. And many GOP challengers in 2010 will surely echo them. But with Obama holding a veto pen, Republicans probably couldn't mount a real threat unless they won the White House in 2012. One top adviser to a possible 2012 GOP presidential contender says that, given the GOP base's hostility to the reform plan and independents' unease, it is likely that "most potential [Republican] candidates will argue for wholesale replacement with their own version of health care reform."

There are some good pieces on this from Matt, Brendan, and Ezra, but I'd just add that I'm not especially worried about the prospects of repeal. Indeed, for all the GOP bluster, I find it hard to believe even the most wild-eyed Republican seriously believes repeal is a possibility.

For one thing, if anyone thinks the year-long effort to pass reform was difficult, just imagine trying to un-pass it. Are Republicans going to craft a new health care plan that can pass the House, get 60 votes in the Senate, and gain approval from some other, future president? They shouldn't count on it.

For another, any Republican "replacement" health care plan would invariably want to curtail efforts to cover the uninsured -- which is exactly why it's a political impossibility. There will be precious few politicians willing to proudly proclaim to tens of millions of Americans in 2012, "Know that health coverage you're about to get for you and your family? I'm about to take it away."

It's why conservatives have spent the year fighting, lying, and screaming -- they know how limited their options will be going forward. Republicans might be able to gut a public option, undermine consumer protections, or make it harder on middle-class families to afford coverage, but those efforts would be difficult, and bring their own political penalties.

Once this bill is done, changes will be incremental and a major overhaul will be all but impossible anytime soon.

SHIFTING BACK TO THE OTHER REFORM FIGHT.... For about two weeks, much of the fight surrounding health care reform has been about abortion. Now that we have a sense of where that dispute is headed, it's a good time to get back to the other health care reform fight.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, met on Monday night with a group of liberal Senate Democrats who urged Mr. Reid not to back down from his decision to put a government-run insurance plan, or public option, in the major health care legislation that he is working to finalize.

Mr. Reid has said that he would include a public plan in the bill with a provision for states to opt out if they do not want to offer it. But Mr. Reid is still short at least 3 of the 60 votes he needs on a motion to bring the health care bill up for debate.

An aide to Mr. Reid said that the majority leader remained committed to retaining the public plan as he worked to secure the final votes.

The meeting was held at the request of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) of Ohio, one of the Senate's more forceful advocates of the public option. The point, apparently, was to remind the leadership that reform advocates have already compromised quite a bit to get to this point, and they're not especially inclined to compromise even more, especially since a clear majority of the Senate is fully on board with the existing Democratic plan.

"We figure on the public option there has been a lot of compromise already," Brown said. "People who oppose the public option, you know, the overwhelming number of Republicans -- maybe all of them -- and the couple or three Democrats, will have their chance on the floor to do amendments."

Brown also emphasized the record of progressive compromises: "A large number of people in this country including many, many doctors wanted Medicare for all. That didn't happen. Then we wanted a strong public option tied to Medicare rates. Then we wanted a public option building the Medicare network. That didn't happen. Now we are saying public option coming out of the HELP Committee. And now we're saying public option with the state opt-out. Where was the compromise coming from their side?"

The problem, of course, is that having "only" 56 votes in the Senate isn't enough, at least according to the twisted version of the legislative process currently guiding the chamber. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told MSNBC last night that the caucus is "working on it," but they're "struggling."

One possible avenue going forward: "[S]imply leaving the ball in the moderates' court." It's an approach that tells Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, and Lieberman that the weight of history rests on their willingness to break a Republican filibuster and let the Senate vote on health care.

THE ENDURING KNOW-NOTHING STRAIN.... Washington Times editor Wesley Pruden trashed President Obama in his column today, which wouldn't ordinarily be especially interesting. The right-wing writer, however, touched on a specific kind of attack that illustrates a larger trend.

In this case, Pruden is all worked up because the president bowed before the Japanese Emperor. Pruden believes Obama doesn't understand "American history" because "the essence of America is that all men stand equal and are entitled to look even a king, maybe particularly a king, straight in the eye."

That's nice rhetoric, which would be more compelling were it not for the various photos of Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, and H.W. Bush bowing before foreign leaders during their respective tenures. I've looked for related columns of Pruden trashing these Republican presidents for forgetting "the essence of America," but can't seem to find any.

But the key to the column is the wrap-up:

...Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy '60s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to "hope" for "change." It's no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of "the 57 states" is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

This is obviously some pretty offensive nonsense from a shameless hack, but it also speaks to a Know-Nothing strain that lingers in American politics.

Nativism was more common during last year's campaign. Columnist Kathleen Parker, for example, wrote a piece in May 2008 on questions of candidates and "full-bloodedness." She wrote, "It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.... We love to boast that we are a nation of immigrants. But there's a different sense of America among those who trace their bloodlines back through generations of sacrifice.... Full-blooded Americans get this."

The skepticism was, of course, directed at Barack Obama, which is odd when one thinks about it -- his grandfather fought in Patton's Army, and Obama himself is apparently a distant cousin of Dick Cheney. How his "roots" have been deemed inadequate is a mystery.

Unless, of course, you're a conservative who think the president's father doesn't count because he was African; his mother doesn't count because she married a man from "the Third World"; and his birthplace doesn't count because it's a non-contiguous state. It's what makes Pruden comfortable openly mocking the president's "blood impulse" -- as if the president is only technically American, in a way that we shouldn't respect.

It's a shame such reminders are necessary in the 21st century, but I'd like to note that America isn't a country club or fraternity reserved for the white, wealthy elite. Obama's story is a uniquely American story. Some of us take pride in such things. The notion that we must judge citizens based on a right-wing understanding of "natural instincts" or "heritage" -- more generations = more American -- is an idea that offends everything our country stands for.

STUPAK'S TOUGH TALK.... The last we heard from Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), he was making a variety of bold threats about killing health care reform unless his expansive anti-abortion measure is included in the final bill. This morning, Stupak showed up on "Fox & Friends" for a little more chest-thumping.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) pledged this morning to defeat healthcare reform if his abortion amendment is taken out, saying 10 to 20 pro-life Democrats would vote against a bill with weaker language.

"They're not going to take it out," Stupak said on Fox and Friends, referring to Senate Democrats. "If they do, health care will not move forward."

Responding to White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod's contention that the Stupak measure goes too far and would have to be "adjusted," the Michigan lawmaker responded, "We won fair and square.... [T]hat is why Mr. Axelrod is not a legislator, he doesn't really know what he is talking about."

Exactly who doesn't know what he's talking about is open to some debate.

Here's what we know at this point. First, Stupak had claimed that he representing a voting bloc of 40 votes, but as of this morning, he believes his faction is made up of "at least 10 to 15 to 20" House Dems who oppose abortion rights. For Speaker Pelosi and the House leadership, making up the loss of 40 votes is impossible to overcome. A 10-vote bloc represents a serious problem -- it would require some Dems who voted against the bill to change their minds -- but not an insurmountable hurdle.

Second, Stupak's amendment appears to have no shot at all in the Senate. It would need 60 votes, and it probably doesn't even have 50. The one conservative Dem who seemed the most supportive of the measure has since reversed course.

And third, Stupak can talk tough on "Fox & Friends," and the show's audience no doubt appreciates it, but he may not be able to back up the bravado. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), co-chair of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, argued this morning that when push comes to shove, Stupak won't be able to kill reform over this one issue.

THE NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION.... A new CNN poll shows 46% of Americans support the health care reform proposal pending in Congress, while 49% are against it. The numbers are nearly identical to the new Washington Post/ABC News poll, which found 48% support, 49% opposition.

But there's an underlying problem with the question -- nearly all of these polls fail to tell us why Americans like or dislike the proposal. It's similar to poll questions asking whether the public approves of President Obama's handling of the issue, and seeing the number drop below 50%. Is that because Americans want him to compromise more or less? Is he fighting too hard or not hard enough for a public option? Is he going to fast or too slow? The number is inherently ambiguous.

To its credit, the CNN poll went a little further than most on this point.

Americans are split over the health care bill which narrowly passed the House of Representatives earlier this month, according to a new national poll -- and the survey suggests the opposition to the legislation isn't coming only from the right. [...]

"Roughly one in three Americans opposes the House bill because it is too liberal, but one in 10 oppose the bill because it is not liberal enough," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "That may indicate that a majority opposes the details in the bill, but also that a majority may approve of the overall approach taken by House Democrats and President Obama."

As a result, despite the division over the House bill, a majority of Americans would like to see the Senate take up the legislation.

Most of the time, it seems as if the conventional wisdom assumes critics of the reform plan are necessarily on the right. But the CNN poll helps prove otherwise -- 46% support the reform bill, and another 10% would like it if it were more liberal.

Republicans tend to look at these evenly-split polls on health care and assume opponents of the bill are with the GOP. That's clearly not the case.

The same poll, by the way, shows President Obama's approval rating holding steady at 55%, and Democrats leading Republicans on the generic-ballot test by seven points.

HOW THE GAME USED TO BE PLAYED.... Medicare's chief actuary, Richard Foster, has caused congressional Democrats a few headaches with a report on health care reform. Ezra Klein had an interesting item this morning, reminding us of the last time Foster wrote a report congressional leaders didn't like.

In 2003, when Republicans were forging ahead on the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, Foster wrote an analysis suggesting that the bill would cost $534 billion over the first 10 years -- quite a bit more than the $394 billion estimate by the Congressional Budget Office. He handed his report over to the White House, the OMB and the Department of Health and Human Services. And that's where it died.

As we learned later, Tom Scully, the Bush-appointed head of CMS, told Foster that he'd lose his job if he released that report. Despite believing the demand was "inappropriate" and "unethical," Foster, after consulting with an HHS lawyer who told him that Scully could indeed make good on his threat, buried the report.

Say what you will about the Democrats this year, but compared with the Medicare Part D process (remember the shenanigans of the House vote that literally led ethics investigations against Tom DeLay?), health-care reform has been a model of good government.

I remember the scandal well. In fact, if anything, Ezra may be underselling what transpired.

During the congressional debate over Medicare Part D, Foster prepared a cost estimate. Administration officials specifically told the actuary that his findings were unhelpful -- Scully was warned specifically not to share the truth with Congress. "The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe," Foster was told at the time.

Independent analyses, including one from the Congressional Research Service, said the Bush administration's threats and efforts to deliberately hide information from lawmakers may have been literally criminal.

Why didn't this become a bigger story? In large part because congressional Republicans, in the majority at the time, decided not to pursue it. As months went by, other Bush-related scandals emerged, and the coordinated effort to mislead Congress faded.

Five years later, I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if the Obama administration deliberately hid discouraging information about health care reform from Congress, and threatened government officials in order to keep inconvenient information from public view.

Hell, when HHS told Humana to stop using taxpayer money to mislead the public about health care reform, Republicans labeled it a "gag order" and began blocking literally every health-related nominee sent to the Senate for confirmation. If they want to talk about "gag orders," it's a discussion Democrats should welcome.

For all the hyperventilating this year from the right about alleged abuses of power, it's fun to take a stroll down memory lane once in a while.

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.

* At the urging of Fox News' Glenn Beck, Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug Hoffman "un-conceded" the race in New York's 23rd. Two weeks ago, Hoffman apparently lost the race, but some spreadsheet errors have since narrowed the margin of his defeat.

* For what it's worth, it still seems exceedingly unlikely that Hoffman will overcome the vote deficit.

* In Iowa, a new Des Moines Register poll offers awful news for Gov. Chet Culver (D), who's seeking re-election next year. The incumbent's approval rating is down to 40%, and in a hypothetical match-up against former Gov. Terry Branstad (R), Culver now trails by 24 points, 57% to 33%.

* Speaking of Iowa, the same poll shows Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) with a big lead over Democrat Roxanne Conlin, 57% to 30%. Conlin last sought statewide office 27 years ago, and many Iowans don't remember her -- Conlin's name I.D. is only 62%. Grassley, however, did not win over voters during his antics during the health care debate, and only 39% of Iowans approve of his handling of the issue.

* In Kansas, there's a heated gubernatorial Senate primary between two Republican members of the U.S. House, Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt. At this point, Moran appears to be pulling away.

* Alexi Giannoulias' (D) Senate campaign in Illinois continues to pick up steam, earning a big endorsement yesterday from Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.).

* If former Sen. Norm Coleman (R) runs for governor next year, a new Rasmussen poll shows he'll be the frontrunner for the GOP nomination. It would be Coleman's second run for the job -- he lost to Jesse Ventura in 1998.

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... During the floor debate over health care reform, Rep. John Shadegg (R) of Arizona generated a little attention for himself by bringing a 7-month-old baby to the podium, and pretending to speak on her behalf.

Last night's speech wasn't nearly as adorable. Shadegg spoke from the House floor to rail against a criminal trial for alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City. In particular, the far-right Arizonan was incensed that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) believes, "It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered."

As Matt Finkelstein reported, Shadegg doesn't see it quite the same way. "I saw the Mayor of New York said today, 'We're tough. We can do it,'" the Republican congressman said. "Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk -- some innocent clerk of the court -- whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister?"

As a matter of decency, Shadegg's little tantrum was vile and unnecessary. If Shadegg has a policy argument to make, fine. But openly speculating on the House floor about imaginary kidnappings of the mayor's daughter is loathsome, even by the standards of congressional Republicans.

And while I'm hesitant to offer any kind of substantive response to such transparent nonsense, I can't help but wonder, where has John Shadegg been? Why didn't he pop off like this during any of the other criminal trials against the hundreds of terrorists who've been put through the federal justice system? If this right-wing lawmaker seriously believes court proceedings lead foreign terrorists to kidnap children on American soil, why has Shadegg remained entirely silent on the point over the last couple of decades?

FILIBUSTER FOLLY.... The to-do list itself is almost overwhelming. After eight years of Republican failure, incompetence, mismanagement, and corruption, Democratic leaders on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue were tasked by the electorate to rescue the economy, resolve two costly wars, improve the struggling job market, address a crushing debt, and fix health care, energy policy, immigration, a housing crisis, a collapsing U.S. auto industry, and the Gitmo mess.

And just to make things really interesting, those same Democratic leaders were told they had to meet a new procedural standard that no governing party in the United States has ever had to overcome: a 60-vote minimum in the Senate on everything.

The New America Foundation's Michael A. Cohen explains today that it's this one obstructionist tactic -- filibusters and the threat of filibusters -- that has stunted policymakers' ability to function.

Reforming the way Washington operates is hardly the sexiest of topics, but from a policy and even a political perspective, there are few more important issues on which Democrats should be focusing their energy. Quite simply, the filibuster has become the single tool that is undercutting everything Obama and the Democrats were elected to achieve.

Both parties have historically used the filibuster, but its overuse by modern Republicans stands at outrageous proportions.... In effect, majority rule in the Senate has been supplanted by undemocratic, supermajority rule. The filibuster has become a tool to block not just bad legislation but all legislation; it has become so endemic that it is now an institutionalized way of doing business, casting its shadow over everything the Senate does.

To be sure, with a 60-member Senate Democratic caucus, this should, in theory, be an obstacle that can be cleared. But note that this year hasn't been a consistent 60 -- it was 58 until Specter switched. It was 59 until Franken was seated. It was functionally 58 in the midst of Kennedy's and Byrd's illnesses. It was 59 after Kennedy's death.

It's 60 now, but there are still 58 actual Democrats -- one of the caucus members is Joe Lieberman, whose loyalty is limited to his own ego. Even with 60, it only takes one center-right Dem to defeat any bill.

The point, of course, is that 60 shouldn't be the necessary minimum anyway. If a majority of the House, a majority of the Senate, and the president all agree on a piece of legislation, it should pass. Congress should operate on majority rule.

I like items like Cohen's, not just because it's well written and important, but because it's part of a larger effort to finally get this issue on the table and on the minds of the political world. As his piece noted, what's needed here is "political will" to address the dysfunctional process that "represents the single greatest threat to the Democratic Party's progressive agenda and its political future."

AN ODD WAY TO SHOW 'LEADERSHIP'.... It's almost tragic to see what a guy has to do to seek the Republican presidential nomination these days.

In the era of tea-party conservatives, [Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R)] is calculatedly veering to the right. Speaking to the Economist in St. Paul, he recently explained that the Earth might be warming but that it is unclear "to what extent that is the result of natural causes."

Pawlenty obviously knows better. We know he knows better because he has a lengthy, public record on environmental issues that bears no resemblance to his new positions. Lee Fang has a terrific timeline, which makes clear that "over the course of the last three years, Pawlenty has gone from an outspoken proponent of clean energy to a Glenn Beck pandering climate change denier." In late 2006, Pawlenty not only sought to reduce carbon emissions, he even promoted a regional cap-and-trade program. In late 2007, he declared climate change "one of the most important [issues] of our time."

That was then. Now Pawlenty opposes his own cap-and-trade plan and claims to question the basics of global warming.

Is winning a primary more important than losing one's self-respect?

Pawlenty was inclined to stay out of the special election in New York's 23rd, right up until right-wing bloggers demanded he intervene. He backed the Conservative Party candidate soon after. Pawlenty engaged in grandstanding against ACORN funding that doesn't exist. He validated "death panel" nonsense. He's even dabbled in radical Tenther ideas.

Pawlenty, in other words, still hasn't sought treatment for his Romney-itis. Remember Romney? He was the relatively moderate Republican governor of a reliably "blue" state, who could present himself, with a straight face, as a pragmatic, sane policymaker. That is, until he wanted to be president, and decided to experience some kind of ideological metamorphosis -- sane, moderate pragmatism wouldn't win over the Republican base, so that persona would have to be cast aside. It was painful to watch, and ultimately ineffective.

But that hasn't stopped Pawlenty from trying the identical strategy.

The base demands fealty. Tim Pawlenty hopes to prove to them what a great "leader" he'll be by following their commands and abandoning his own record in the hopes of impressing them.

GOP STILL FAILING TO CAPITALIZE.... Plenty to chew on in the new WaPo/ABC poll.

As the Senate prepares to take up legislation aimed at overhauling the nation's health-care system, President Obama and the Democrats are still struggling to win the battle for public opinion. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Americans deeply divided over the proposals under consideration and majorities predicting higher costs ahead.

But Republican opponents have done little better in rallying the public opposition to kill the reform effort. Americans continue to support key elements of the legislation, including a mandate that employers provide health insurance to their workers and access to a government-sponsored insurance plan for those people without insurance.

Looking through the internals, there are some interesting angles to keep an eye on.

* Reform: Asked for their "overall" impressions of the health care debate, 48% support the reform plan, 49% oppose it. That's a pretty even split, though it's worth noting that 48% support is the highest it's been in several months -- there's a clear division, but it's not getting worse for reform advocates.

* Reform specifics: While the public is evenly divided on the larger bill, a 53% majority still supports a public option; a 66% majority supports an employer mandate; and a 56% majority supports subsidized health plans that cover abortion procedures, so long as there's a division between premiums and taxpayer money.

* President Obama: The president's level of support is showing some durability, despite the difficult times. His job approval rating is 56%, one point lower than October, but two points higher than September. His personal favorable rating is even higher, at 61%.

* Republican Party: The GOP is still failing badly to capitalize on the changing landscape. When respondents were asked who they trust to handle the nation's challenges, Republicans trailed Democrats by 16 points, 47% to 31%. The margin is similar when it came to GOP vs. the president on issues like the economy and health care. Just as important, Democrats enjoy a 10-point lead on which party "better represents your own personal values," and a 15-point on which party is "more concerned with the needs of people like you."

* Party of No: Respondents were asked, "Do you think leaders of the Republican Party are mainly presenting alternatives to Obama's proposals, or mainly criticizing Obama's proposals without presenting alternatives?" A 61% majority said the GOP is just criticizing.

A 'SIGNIFICANT' JOBS PACKAGE?.... For the last several months, it seemed there was no political appetite for additional federal investment to help the economy. The recovery bill approved in February had helped prevent an economic calamity, but Democratic leaders feared the public would recoil if they took on another effort.

Those attitudes seem to be changing quickly. Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) signaled to his caucus that he's eyeing a new job-creation bill. A few days later, President Obama announced plans for a jobs summit at the White House in December.

And Roll Call reports today that leaders from both chamber are "gathering ideas and building momentum for what could be a significant new jobs package" early in the new year.

[R]esistance among Members to a significant new economic package appears to be fading.... [T]he continued uptick of the unemployment rate -- now at 10.2 percent -- has renewed the once-taboo idea of another stimulus.

"While Members are definitely concerned about spending, there also is a recognition that unemployment is over 10 percent, and Members want to be able to say they are doing something on unemployment and jobs," one House leadership aide said. [...]

One idea that continues to get talked about is a $500 billion transportation reauthorization bill, which is up for renewal anyway and would produce tangible projects and jobs that are easy for voters to see and lawmakers to tout.

The same article noted that congressional Republicans will continue to push for "several hundred billion in tax cuts," paid for through spending cuts. Since this is insane, congressional Democrats have shown no interest in the idea.

The political angles to this are pretty obvious. Republicans will insist that federal investment in the economy is always a bad idea, and argue that the stimulus package was a "failure," all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. A jobs bill will be labeled "Stimulus II" (or "Stimulus III," if you count Bush's failed efforts in early 2008), in the hopes of creating a public backlash.

But there's an equally obvious flipside: the public backlash against extended, rising unemployment rates is much more problematic than Republicans, Fox News, and talk radio whining incessantly about investing in the economy.

As for the timeline, most of the reports point to a "early 2010" timeframe, but the House -- which is left to wait for the Senate to work on health care and energy policy, which the lower chamber have already passed -- may act even sooner. Indeed, there's at least one report suggesting House Democrats may pass a jobs bill "by Christmas."

NELSON SIGNALS FLEXIBILITY ON ABORTION RESTRICTIONS.... Almost immediately after the House approved health care reform with the Stupak amendment on abortion, attention turned to the Senate. Given that such expansive restrictions would not be part of the bill that's sent to the floor, and the fact that there wouldn't be 60 votes to add it to the legislation, the Stupak language wasn't going anywhere.

The problem, though, was Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the most conservative Democrat in the chamber. Nelson, who opposes abortion rights, was apparently "pleased" with the Stupak amendment, and was reportedly "highly unlikely" to vote for reform unless it includes language to "clearly prohibit federal dollars from going to abortion."

Nelson's opposition would become a difficult hurdle to clear. Democrats couldn't add the Stupak amendment without losing pro-choice votes, but if Democrats didn't add the Stupak language, Nelson could help kill the entire effort.

Fortunately, late yesterday, Nelson seemed to come around.

[Nelson] now says he would be satisfied with the less restrictive language approved by the Senate Finance Committee.

Nelson's position is apt to help Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who is trying to cobble together a health care bill -- which is full of policy mine fields such as abortion -- without losing the support of any Democrats, many of whom support abortion rights, while others, like Nelson, do not.

At issue is whether federal money that is used to subsidize health insurance premiums can be separated from private funds to pay for abortions. In the Senate language, that would be allowed. In the House language, it would not.

Nelson said his position has been consistent, but said he misunderstood a reporter's question on the issue last week.

Now, you'll notice that CNN's report didn't include any direct quotes -- only paraphrases. With that in mind, it's probably best to be optimistic, but not overly so until Nelson makes a firm commitment.

But if the CNN report is accurate, it's very good news. If the Senate Democrats' leading pro-life members -- including Harry Reid, Bob Casey, and Ben Nelson -- all agree that existing restrictions on abortion funding are adequate, and that the Stupak language is unnecessary, then it seems far more likely that the abortion fight will not derail the reform effort in the Senate.

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

* President Obama talks up human rights in China. Nice move.

* Good news: retail sales looked encouraging in October. Bad news: Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke believes the recovery will be weak, with lingering unemployment and tight credit.

* IAEA worries about Iran: "The United Nations' nuclear watchdog is concerned that Iran's belated revelation of a new uranium enrichment site may mean it is hiding further nuclear activity, an agency report said on Monday."

* Stunning: "The number of Americans who lack dependable access to adequate food shot up last year to 49 million, the largest number since the government has been keeping track, according to a federal report released Monday that shows particularly steep increases in food scarcity among families with children." Blue Girl has more.

* GM reported a $1.2 billion quarterly loss, which, oddly enough, was good considered good news. Even harder to believe is the fact that GM is now saying it's prepared to pay off federal loans ahead of schedule.

* The U.S. Postal Service implemented a strategy of $10 billion in cost-cutting measures. It still lost $3.8 billion in the 2009 fiscal year.

* After having opposed judicial filibusters for the last eight years, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) announced today he will filibuster Judge David Hamilton's appeals court nomination.

* Figures: "Even as drug makers promise to support Washington's health care overhaul by shaving $8 billion a year off the nation's drug costs after the legislation takes effect, the industry has been raising its prices at the fastest rate in years."

* That's a lot improper payments: "The government paid more than $47 billion in questionable Medicare claims including medical treatment showing little relation to a patient's condition, wasting taxpayer money at a rate nearly three times that of the previous year."

* What's with that new report from the Center on Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)? Igor Volsky had a good item on this.

* There are still some people (see Ignatius, David) worried about inflation. Please ignore them.

* Late last week, former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) was sentenced to 13 years in prison.

* Nice piece from Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) on the inanity of much of the health care debate. (thanks to reader T.D. for the heads-up)

* The perils of being a poor ivy leaguer.

* John McCain now hates the AARP.

* I was very disappointed to see that Anonymous Liberal is taking an extended break from blogging. He's long been one of my favorites.

* I'm going out of my way not to write posts about Sarah Palin today, but it's worth noting that a wide variety of claims from her book have already been thoroughly debunked.

* And finally, the right-wing Tea Party event in southern Virginia, where participants were planning to burn Democratic lawmakers in effigy, is off. "We had to cancel it," an organizer said. "The property owner won't allow us to do it. The media attention was something that he didn't want."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

READJUSTING EXPECTATIONS FOR COPENHAGEN.... Several months ago, there was an ambitious vision of what might happen in combating climate change this year. Congress would act on the White House's calls for a cap-and-trade bill, and administration officials would then go to Copenhagen in December to negotiate a new international agreement.

Neither, we now know, is going to happen. President Obama, at an appearance in Singapore over the weekend, conceded that a comprehensive, international deal is simply out of reach this year. The White House will, however, continue to push for incremental progress, including a more modest interim agreement at Copenhagen this year, and a commitment to renew the next stage of efforts next year.

So, it's a dejecting setback? Not necessarily. Expectations for Copenhagen had already been scaled back considerably, and Joe Romm went so far as to suggest the shift might actually be a positive development.

The new plan for Copenhagen makes the prospects for a successful international deal far more likely -- and at the same time increases the chance for Senate passage of the bipartisan climate and clean energy bill that Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Kerry (D-MA) and Sen Lieberman (I-CT) are negotiating with the White House. [...]

Indeed, had leaders gone into Copenhagen without this recognition of the obvious and let the whole effort collapse under the weight of unrealistic expectations, that would have been all-but-fatal to the domestic bipartisan climate bill.

Now it will be obvious when the Senate takes up the bill up in the winter that the rest of the world is prepared to act -- that every major country in the world has come to the table with serious targets and/or serious commitments to change their greenhouse gas emissions trajectories. Every country but ours, that is.

The few key swing Senators will understand that they are the only ones who stand in the way of strong US leadership in the vital job-creating clean energy industries and stand in the way of this crucial opportunity the world now has to preserve a livable climate through an international deal. Their role in history will be defined by this one vote. And, yes, I do think that matters to people like Dick Lugar (R-IN) and perhaps even John McCain (R-AZ).

I'm not quite as confident as Romm when it comes to pressure on GOP lawmakers. As Brad Plumer put it, "It'll also be interesting to see if a semi-agreement in Copenhagen puts any pressure on lawmakers here in the United States to pass a climate bill. If it's clear that every other country in the world is prepared to take serious steps to cut emissions, and that the U.S. Senate is the major hold-up, does that weigh on individual senators at all? I'm sort of skeptical."

As am I. Republicans seem entirely unfazed when told, "There's a health care crisis, and the entire country is waiting for you to be responsible and do your duty." These same lawmakers will soon be told, "There's a climate crisis, and the entire world is waiting for you to take your obligations seriously." Will they find this compelling? I suppose time will tell.

That said, by moving towards a two-step process, the White House will have some additional time to work on a Senate that seems increasingly unable to meet the challenges of the day.

GOD, COUNTRY, AND PTSD.... Tara McKelvey has a fascinating item in Boston Review on diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder among veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of particular interest was an anecdote from Paul Sullivan, an analyst in the VA's Veterans Benefits Administration.

Sullivan was working as an analyst at the Veterans Benefits Administration in Washington in early 2005 when he was called to a meeting with a top political appointee at the VA, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Michael McLendon. McLendon, an intensely focused man in a neatly pressed suit, kept a Bible on his desk at the office. Sullivan explained to McLendon and the other attendees that the rise in benefits claims the VA was noticing was caused partly by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were suffering from PTSD. "That's too many," McLendon said, then hit his hand on the table. "They are too young" to be filing claims, and they are doing it "too soon." He hit the table again. The claims, he said, are "costing us too much money," and if the veterans "believed in God and country . . . they would not come home with PTSD." At that point, he slammed his palm against the table a final time, making a loud smack. Everyone in the room fell silent.

"I was a little bit surprised," Sullivan said, recalling the incident. "In that one comment, he appeared to be a religious fundamentalist." For Sullivan, McLendon's remarks reflected the views of many political appointees in the VA and revealed what was behind their efforts to reduce costs by restricting claims. The backlog of claims was immense, and veterans, often suffering extreme psychological stress, had to wait an average of five months for decisions on their requests.

McLendon denied the incident took place, but nevertheless told McKelvey that he believes PTSD is "a made-up term," which has "taken on a life of its own." She added that McLendon, in talking about the issue, "pounded the table with the side of his hand more than ten times, hitting it so hard that the wooden surface shook."

As Atrios put it, "It's like the job recruitment process [in the Bush administration] involved advertising for 'the worst people ever born in the history of the universe.'"

It's disheartening to think that the Bush administration put some of these people in key positions of authority and responsibility in the first place.

THE CONSEQUENCES OF OPPOSING REFORM.... The conventional wisdom last week was that Democratic lawmakers from competitive districts/states would be faced with a difficult challenge: how would they explain their vote in support of health care reform?

The political establishment largely overlooked the obvious inverse -- Americans have been waiting for health care reform for a long time, and there are some Republican lawmakers who'll struggle to explain their opposition to the bill.

Take Rep. Mike Castle (R) of Delaware, for example.

This is one of the more surprising polls I've seen recently: Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, son of the vice president, is leading Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) in a hypothetical 2010 U.S. Senate matchup. The Susquehanna Polling & Research survey has Biden beating Castle by five points. When they polled this race in April, Castle led by 21 points. (This poll was conducted from November 10 to November 15.)

What's responsible for the Biden surge? He's grabbed the lead in vote-rich New Castle County, built up a 41-point lead among Democratic voters, and moved to only 5 points behind Castle among independents. According to the pollster, the shift "may be a result of negative publicity [Castle] received in the state after casting a 'no' vote for President Obama's health care reform bill in the U.S. Congress."

Delaware is fairly "blue" state, but Castle has cultivated, over the course of decades, a reputation as a reasonable moderate. He's never really faced a serious electoral threat, and when he announced his intention to run for the Senate, Castle began the race as the clear frontrunner.

But House Republicans are expected to toe the party line, and Castle has stuck with the GOP, even on odious measures like the Stupak amendment (Castle has always been pro-choice, and surely knows better). It's apparently costing him quite a bit of support.

I don't want to make too much of this. It's only one poll, and it's possible additional data will point in a more ambiguous direction. But if the poll is right, it offers an important counterweight to the notion that support for health care reform is necessarily an electoral loser, and opposition is automatically a ticket to victory.

HARKIN'S EXPECTATIONS ON THE REFORM CALENDAR.... Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, talked to Bill Press today about how the debate over health care reform is likely to unfold over the next several weeks. Even with an aggressive push, Harkin still doesn't expect a bill to be signed into law before January.

The Iowa Democrat said he expects the Congressional Budget Office to release its report tomorrow, at which point the leadership intends to bring the reform bill to the floor. He added, however, that the process of amending the legislation may not begin until after the Thanksgiving break.

Harkin also expects some petty obstructionist tactics from Senate Republicans, but has reportedly talked to Senate leaders about Democratic responses.

Harkin said Democrats expect Republicans will try to stall the debate by asking for the entire bill to be read on the Senate floor. If that happens, Harkin said, the majority party is likely to use a procedural maneuver to keep the Senate in session this weekend.

"If the Republicans want to stay here this Saturday and Sunday to read the bill, then let them stay here," Harkin said, adding that Democrats would hold a "live quorum," where the sergeant at arms requests the presence of all absent senators.

"I'll tell you, we're going to do something like that," Harkin said. "We are planning to do something that would require Republicans to be there 24 hours a day, and if they leave the floor, we'll ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading, and that'll be the end of it."

That seems more than fair. If Republicans are going to try obstructionist tactics, the least Democrats can do is make it difficult for them.

Regardless, Harkin also outlined a calendar that included working every weekend in December, and long days (and nights) through the weekdays.

At this point, the backstop isn't the end of the calendar year -- it's the State of the Union address in mid-January. It stands to reason most Democratic lawmakers do not want a situation in which President Obama stands in the well and has to explain to the nation why health care reform has not yet passed.

THE GOP CIVIL WAR -- CALIFORNIA EDITION.... In New York's 23rd, Dede Scozzafava enjoyed the support of the Republican establishment, but the base preferred Doug Hoffman. In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter enjoyed the support of the Republican establishment, but the base preferred Jim Toomey. In Florida, Charlie Crist enjoys the support of the Republican establishment, but the base prefers Marco Rubio.

And in California, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina the U.S. Senate candidate with the strong support of GOP leaders. But she'll face state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore in a Republican primary. For the right-wing activists that dominate Republican politics, it's an easy call.

As Dave Weigel reported today, DeVore is the one who "talks bluntly about fascism and even about Barack Obama's birth records."

From the conservative activist's perspective, DeVore's an ideal candidate. After writing a war novel, "China Attacks," in 2000, DeVore became a frequent reviewer at Amazon.com. His take-outs on action novels and political texts reveal more about his political thinking than most candidates would be comfortable divulging. On a Tom Clancy novel about the threat posed by Japan Devore wrote: "Replace "Japan" with "China" and the thesis holds together rather well in 2005." On Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism": "Roosevelt's New Deal had much in common with Mussolini's fascism." [...]

[A]sked what he thought of Brown's ideas, DeVore didn't take the chance to denounce "birther" rumors or the movement itself-which has been heavily active in California.

"The president is doing himself no favors by spending millions of dollars to block the release of documents surrounding his birth certificate," said DeVore.

A Birther who gave "Liberal Fascism" five stars and who compares the New Deal to Mussolini's fascism? Running statewide in California -- where Obama won with 61% of the vote? What's not to like?

For the record, while nearly all of the party's top leaders have rallied behind Fiorina, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) has endorsed DeVore, citing his "willingness to stand up against his own party leaders."

In other words, as far as DeMint's concerned, DeVore is to the right of the already-conservative Republican Party, which makes him perfect.

The Republican primary is June 8, 2010. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) is no doubt looking forward to it.

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC VOTE.... A year ago, according to exit polls, President Obama won 53% of the Catholic vote, seven points stronger than John Kerry's total from 2004. A Politico item suggests the debate over health care reform in general, and the Stupak amendment in particular, may push Roman Catholic voters into the Republican camp.

By teeing up a public battle over abortion in the health care bill now before the Senate, congressional Democrats could be risking more than just the fate of the legislation.

Hanging in the balance are millions of Catholic swing voters who moved decisively to the Democrats in 2008 and who could shift away just as readily in 2010. [...]

[Democratic] gains will be at risk if a polarizing abortion fight takes place in the Senate.

I'm really not sure why. It's an inconvenient detail for many involved, but in the United States, pro-choice Catholics outnumber pro-life Catholics. Adherents are no doubt well aware of the church's unyielding position on the issue, but it hasn't much of an effect on how rank-and-file, self-identified Catholics feel about reproductive rights for American women.

Indeed, last year, there were plenty of attempts to go after the Obama campaign on this very issue. It obviously didn't make a difference.

I'm not altogether sure what the point of the Politico article even is. There's a possibility that a debate over premiums vs. subsidies that might indirectly subsidize abortions will push Catholic voters away from Democrats? I guess it's possible, but it's at least equally possible that this debate won't have any meaningful impact at all.

'UNPRECEDENTED,' EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHER TIMES.... Joe Scarborough argued this morning that it's "unprecedented" for the U.S. to try foreign terror suspects in our federal judicial system. That might be true, if it weren't for all the other foreign terror suspects that have been tried, convinced, and imprisoned through our federal judicial system.

Bush administration used federal justice system to bring several foreign terrorism suspects to justice. During the George W. Bush administration, several foreign terrorists were brought to justice through the federal justice system, including 9-11 conspirator Zacarious Moussaoui, "Shoe bomber" Richard Reid and East African embassy bombing perpetrators Wahid el-Hage, Mohammed Sadiq Odeh, Mohammed Rashed al-Owhali, and Khalfan Khamis Mohammed.

Clinton administration also used federal justice system to bring foreign terror suspects to justice. During the Clinton administration, 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and "urban terrorism" plotters Sheik Oma Abdel Rahman and others were brought to justice through the federal justice system.

There are already 216 international terrorists in U.S. prisons. A May 29 Slate.com article reported that according to data from the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, "federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists. Some of these miscreants have been locked up here since the early 1990s. None of them has escaped. At the most secure prisons, nobody has ever escaped."

Now, maybe Scarborough doesn't know anything about this subject. Maybe he forgot all the examples that prove how wrong he is. Maybe he just doesn't care.

But given the apoplexy, you'd think the KSM trial was something extraordinary. Indeed, it's no doubt what prompted Scarborough to assume it's "unprecedented." After all, with so many conservatives freaking out, it stands to reason the Obama administration is breaking all the rules. In reality, that's absurd -- the trial is actually routine.

It's also a reminder of how weak the right's complaining has been the last several days. If there's a strong case that terror trials are a bad idea, conservatives seem unable to make it.

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.

* Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) had promised to leave the Senate this year to focus on her gubernatorial campaign in Texas. Over the weekend, Hutchison shifted gears, explaining that she would not step down until the GOP primary in March.

* To the disappointment of the DSCC, Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-N.C.) is not running for the Senate next year against incumbent Sen. Richard Burr (R). Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D) is currently the leading Dem in the race.

* Following a push from the White House, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (D) is running for governor in Wisconsin next year.

* Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) has a new, minute-long ad up in Nevada, touting his position as "America's most powerful senator."

* New York Gov. David Paterson (D) continues to look like a candidate seeking another term next year, but a new Siena poll shows him trailing state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo in a hypothetical primary match-up by a whopping 59 points, 75% to 16%.

* Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) still isn't popular -- a new Washington Post/ABC News poll found that a majority of Americans wouldn't even consider voting for her if she ran for president, and 60% said Palin isn't qualified to be president.

* Is Rudy Giuliani (R) going to run for governor? He's taking the idea "into consideration."

* Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, however, is not running for governor, and wants to see the scuttlebutt end.

* And in 2012 news, right-wing activist Liz Cheney suggested her father, Dick Cheney, might consider a presidential campaign in three years. She may have been kidding; it's hard to tell.

CRIST'S CROSS TO BEAR.... Earlier this year, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), like other governors from both parties from coast to coast, accepted federal stimulus funds to shore up a budget in crisis. Unlike most Republican governors, however, Crist endorsed the effort to rescue the economy, which was headed for a depression. It's now putting his political future at risk.

To be sure, Crist hasn't helped himself with blatant inconsistencies about his position. For that matter, right-wing Republicans are nearly as upset about Crist's public appearance with President Obama in February as the policy position.

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum has an interesting piece on the political dynamic in Florida between Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, who's challenging Crist in a GOP Senate primary next year.

[I]f every governor accepted stimulus dollars, few states were as hard hit by the 2008 economic crisis as Florida. State revenues collapsed by 11.5 percent between 2008 and 2009. Constitutionally obliged to balance the budget, Crist raised fees and cigarette taxes -- and still faced a huge budget gap. [...]

Constitutionally obliged to balance his budget, Crist welcomed President Obama's offer of federal stimulus dollars, and campaigned hard for passage of the emergency measure.

The final Obama plan granted Florida more than $15 billion over three years. That money averted radical cuts to schools and Medicaid. It saved the state from furloughing employees and raising taxes even higher. It has paid for emergency employment on roads and water projects. It has extended unemployment benefits for 700,000 Floridians and put an extra $25 per week in their relief packets.

Rubio, true to form, has trashed the recovery effort that saved the economy from collapse, and blasted his Republican governor for endorsing it. Asked what he would have done if governor, Rubio said he would have refused federal aid for his struggling state, and would have preferred to cut $6 billion out of the $65 billion state budget.

Asked where this $6 billion in savings would have come from, Rubio said, "I don't have the budget in front of me."

It's the kind of seriousness of thought and analytical depth we've come to expect from all of the right's leading darlings.

The point of the piece by Frum -- who is a conservative, by the way -- is that Rubio's shallow, reflexive response too often represents the norm on the right. Conservatives find it easy to take cheap shots at ideas that work, but struggle to craft actual solutions or solve actual problems.

"Are vague bromides about big government anything like an adequate response to the worst economic crisis experienced by any American under age 80?" Frum asked, adding, "If all we conservatives have to offer is oppositionism, then opposition is the job we'll be assigned to fill."

I like to think that last point is true, though I'm far from sure -- there's a sizable group of voters who may simply not care if Republicans have nothing to offer but knee-jerk opposition to sound policies. If they expect to maintain their role as the governing party, Dems are going to have to deliver, not count on the GOP's pathetic approach to public policy pushing voters away.

LEADING CONSERVATIVES: 'THE SCAREMONGERING ABOUT THESE ISSUES SHOULD STOP'.... After months of debate, it appears officials are close to selecting a domestic facility for relocating detainees from Guantanamo Bay. From a purely political perspective, what's especially interesting about this is the endorsements the idea has received.

The facility in question is a near-empty prison in rural Illinois, in a town called Thomson. The federal government is reportedly eyeing the facility as "a leading option" to resolve the Gitmo issue.

Local residents, in desperate need of an economic boost, like the idea. So does Illinois' governor and senior senator. And oddly enough, some prominent conservative leaders are on board, too.

Republicans in Congress are gearing up to fight a new White House effort to relocate detainees at Guantanamo Bay to a prison facility in Illinois. But on Sunday, a group of highly respected conservative figures lent their support to the transfer, calling it necessary to "preserve national security" while simultaneously avoiding "sweeping and radical departures from an American constitutional tradition."

In a joint statement prepared by the Constitution Project, David Keene, founder of American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and former representative and presidential candidate Bob Barr say moving suspected terrorists to the Thomson, Illinois prison facility, "makes good sense." Taxpayers, they note, have already invested $145 million in the facility, which has been "little used." And the surrounding community, they add, could benefit from increased employment once the prison becomes filled.

"The scaremongering about these issues should stop," they add, noting that there is "absolutely no reason to fear that prisoners will escape or be released into their communities."

This is not to say the plan won't still face resistance. Republican Illinois Reps. Donald Manzullo and Mark Kirk have already voiced their strong opposition to the idea, for a variety of painfully inane reasons. My personal favorite from Kirk: Chicago would become "ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots." (Kirk's Senate campaign has turned him into something of an embarrassment.)

That said, the combination of support from the administration, Dick Durbin, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D), local residents, and conservative leaders like Keene and Norquist makes the plan appear more likely to come together.

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, CREATING ITS OWN REALITY.... The U.S. Chamber of Commerce hasn't had an especially good year. Its denials of global warming have been embarrassing; the group has lost some high-profile corporate members; its membership numbers have been exposed as exaggerated.

Now that the Chamber has been caught trying to finance a phony study on health care reform, the organization's credibility is poised to reach new lows.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an assortment of national business groups opposed to President Obama's health-care reform effort are collecting money to finance an economic study that could be used to portray the legislation as a job killer and threat to the nation's economy, according to an e-mail solicitation from a top Chamber official.

The e-mail, written by the Chamber's senior health policy manager and obtained by The Washington Post, proposes spending $50,000 to hire a "respected economist" to study the impact of health-care legislation, which is expected to come to the Senate floor this week, would have on jobs and the economy.

Now, I know what you're thinking. "Maybe," you'll be tempted to argue, "the Chamber and its allies simply wanted to do a legitimate economic study. How do we know the report would be rigged to bolster a preconceived anti-reform narrative?"

The answer, of course, is that the Chamber's memo already points to the agreed-upon conclusion of the economic review that does not yet exist. From its email: "The economist will then circulate a sign-on letter to hundreds of other economists saying that the bill will kill jobs and hurt the economy. We will then be able to use this open letter to produce advertisements, and as a powerful lobbying and grass-roots document."

The Chamber's James Gelfand, who wrote the memo, said the proposal for the trumped-up economic study was "suggested by our Congressional allies." It was unclear as to who those "allies" are, but I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that congressional Republicans asked the Chamber of Commerce to help kill health care reform with this spurious study.

It's not exactly a plan that screams "credible, independent analysis."

If this seems vaguely familiar, it was only a month ago that a dubious study by America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) was released, in the hopes of derailing the health care reform effort. It wasn't long before it was exposed as something of a political sham.

White House Deputy Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said the email is "proof positive that the opponents of health reform will not let the facts get in the way of their efforts to defend to the status quo that has been so profitable for the insurance companies."

The AHIP fiasco inspired reform proponents to redouble their efforts against the conservative anti-reform scam. With any luck, the Chamber's mess will do the same.

THE VOTE ON HAMILTON.... The schedule may change, but it seems likely that Judge David Hamilton, President Obama's nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, will come up for a vote this week. It's even more likely that Hamilton will have more than 60 votes for confirmation.

The question is whether far-right Republicans filibuster anyway. A group of 24 conservative leaders, led in part by former Reagan-era Attorney General Edwin Meese, have demanded GOP senators try to block a vote. Even if it fails, they argue, the obstructionist tactics will "send a signal." (What that "signal" represents remains unclear.)

The conservative activists have proven to be so far gone they've positioned Manuel Miranda to act as the voice of reason.

Manuel Miranda, a former Senate GOP leadership aide and chairman of Third Branch Conference, a coalition of conservative leaders that has taken an active role in several high-profile debates of judicial nominees, has questioned the push to block Hamilton.

"Respectfully, I disagree with this rally to 'vote no on the cloture' for this or any nominee that one would expect a Democratic president to nominate, if the sole purpose is to block or 'stop,' and not merely and genuinely to prolong a debate," Miranda wrote in an e-mail to fellow conservatives.

Miranda's group was formerly known as the National Committee to End the Judicial Filibuster. He was one of scores of conservative leaders who sent a letter in 2005 to Senate GOP leaders demanding they abolish the filibuster of judicial nominees.

Miranda is, of course, best known for stealing over 4,000 memos and documents related to judicial nominees from Democratic computer servers in 2004. Asked to explain his actions, Miranda once famously said, "You have no ethical duty to your opposition."

And now, even he thinks Obama's judicial nominees deserve a debate and a vote.

DR. NO'S DISREGARD FOR WOUNDED VETS.... A Senate measure to help wounded veterans is on the verge of passing, and that's clearly a positive development. There's just one problem.

The urgently needed legislation consolidates more than a dozen improvements in veterans' health care -- most notably a new assistance program for family members who wind up providing lifelong home nursing to severely disabled veterans. These vital caregivers -- who sacrifice careers and put huge strains on their own mental health -- assume an obligation "that ultimately belongs to the government," Senator Daniel Akaka, the bill's chief sponsor, properly notes.

The measure also expands benefits for women veterans who suffered sexual trauma on duty, extends veterans' care in rural areas, tightens quality control at V.A. hospitals, and ensures that catastrophically disabled veterans will not be charged for emergency services in community hospitals.

Sounds great, right? Senators seemed to think so -- it sailed through committee with unanimous support. But it's currently stuck, because right-wing Sen. Tom Coburn (R) of Oklahoma refuses to let it advance. As he sees it, the five-year, $3.7 billion price tag for the veterans' program is too high a price unless is offset by budget cuts elsewhere.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) noted the strange standards Coburn applies to these spending bill -- Coburn doesn't care about paying for the war itself, but he balks when it comes to caring for the vets when they come home. "Where was he when we were spending a trillion dollars on the war in Iraq?" Reid asked. "That wasn't paid for. I didn't hear him stopping the bill from going forward at that time. I think he should become more logical and understand we have people who are suffering."

Or as the NYT editorial put it this morning, "Sheer embarrassment should drive the senator into retreat as he trifles with veterans' needs and burnishes his petty role as Dr. No."

I'm also reminded of something House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said just a year ago, "[T]here is a clear distinction between saying you support the troops and backing up those claims with genuine action."

A variety of veterans' groups have organized an effort to urge Coburn to let the Senate vote on the benefits bill. VoteVets.org has posted an online petition on the effort.

MCCONNELL EMBRACES DITHERING ON REFORM.... About a month ago, Roll Call reported that the Senate Republican caucus, unable to kill health care reform on their own, "have implemented a comprehensive political strategy to delay, define and derail."

And now we're getting a sense of what that strategy is going to look like.

If there was any doubt that Senate Republicans are eager to drag their heels when it comes to health care reform, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) removed it on Sunday.

The Kentucky Republican, during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," demanded that the Senate take, at the very least, six weeks to deliberate legislation once it is sent to the floor for amendments.

"There will be a lot of amendments over a lot of weeks. The Senate is not the House, you saw in the House there was three votes and it was over in one day," McConnell warned. "This will be on the floor for quite a long time."

The goal, McConnell added, would be to "delay the process so we fully understand what's in the bill." Given the willful ignorance of the minority, there's no reason to think the minority caucus will ever "fully understand" the policy.

Nevertheless, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is almost desperate to expedite the process and finish work on the reform bill before year's end, McConnell is outlining a parliamentary strategy to make a swift, efficient process nearly impossible.

McConnell rationalized his obstructionism by pointing to public opinion polls: "The American people are overwhelmingly telling us, 'Don't pass it.' It'll be up to whether the Democratic majority wants to listen to the American people or whether they want to pass this anyway, just to basically ignore the opinion of the American population."

A majority of Americans supports a public option. A majority of Americans elected President Obama and handed him a huge electoral mandate. A majority of Americans gave Democrats their largest House and Senate majorities in a generation.

Since when does Mitch McConnell give a damn about "the opinion of the American population"?

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... Mitt Romney insists President Obama "can't make up his mind on Afghanistan." The White House's David Axelrod responded earlier on CNN:

"The president has had hours and hours and hours of meetings with his military commanders, with his national security team, to run through every aspect of this, in order to get it right. And we've seen in the past what happens when we don't do that; when we don't do the necessary preparations. And he is determined to get Afghanistan right. It is something that Secretary Gates supports. It is something that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff supports; General McChrystal has been supportive of this process.

"You know, I know that Governor Romney has never had responsibility for any decision akin to this, so he just may not be familiar with all that it entails. But I think the American people are being well served by a process that is assiduous and in which every aspect of this is considered. Because, after all, lives of American servicemen are involved here. An enormous investment on the part of the American people, we ought to get it right."

I think it's wise to contrast this with Bush-era decision making. We tried an approach in which the Commander in Chief made reckless decisions without sufficient planning, and then allowed failing policies to continue -- literally for years -- without meaningful strategic reviews.

Now, we're giving due diligence a shot. Dick Cheney, David Broder, and Mitt Romney are tapping their collective watches. The president cares more about success than their impatience.

RUDY REVELS IN NEW-FOUND RELEVANCE.... Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who left office nearly a decade ago and has no political responsibilities since, was all over the news this morning. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is headed to NYC, and for much of the media, even now, 9/11 = Giuliani.

Here's Giuliani's basic pitch, as he put it to ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

"Our federal system has an enormously protracted process that's going to go on forever. It grants more benefits than a military tribunal will grant. There's always the possibility of acquittal, change of venue... It creates an extra risk that isn't necessary for New York. Now, New York can handle it, there is no question about it, but why add an additional risk when you don't have to do that?

"I'm troubled by the symbolism of it. It seems to me that the Obama administration is getting away from the fact that we're at war with these terrorists. They no longer use the term 'war on terror.' They have been very slow to react to the whole situation with Major Hasan, which was clearly a terrorist act in the name of Islamic terrorism. It would seem to me that this is the worst symbol to send, that this is a civilian matter."

There are some interesting layers to this, so let's unpack it.

First, Giuliani criticizes the federal criminal justice system. That's an odd choice of political strategies -- not only is Giuliani himself a former federal prosecutor, but this same "federal system" that he's dismissive of has proven itself quite effective in trying, convicting, and imprisoning all kinds of terrorists over the last couple of decades.

Second, Giuliani is worried about acquittals. That's not going to happen.

Third, Giuliani went on and on about the "risk" posed by a trial, but he neglected to identify what this "risk" is. I'm genuinely curious -- what does he think will happen? Terrorists might target NYC? Not to put too fine a point on it, but terrorists have already targeted NYC. The city has held other trials for other terrorists, without incident. By Giuliani's reasoning, there should no legal proceedings against terrorists anywhere, because they might be magnets for attacks. In other words, Giuliani thinks we should let fear dictate our justice system. Fortunately, that's just not how the United States operates.

Fourth, Giuliani shifts gears away from actual problems with putting KSM on trial, and complains about "symbolism." That's backwards -- what can have more symbolic value than the United States showing the world the strength of our values and the integrity of our rule of law?

Fifth, Giuliani's convinced that White House is moving away from "war with these terrorists." It's possible that the former mayor doesn't keep up on current events, so here's a quick refresher for him: under Obama's watch, U.S. forces have 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.

Giuliani thinks Obama is "getting away from" counter-terrorism? In reality, President Obama is playing by the rules and having great success in counter-terrorism. The administration isn't relying on torture, and is nevertheless stopping, catching, and killing the bad guys -- all while improving the United States' standing in the world and reclaiming America's role as a global leader.

Giuliani thinks that's a record worthy of criticism. Giuliani doesn't know what he's talking about.

THE FUTURE OF THE STUPAK AMENDMENT, CONT'D.... Earlier in the week, President Obama signaled that the Stupak amendment will have to be changed. He told ABC News' Jake Tapper that "there there needs to be some more work before we get to the point where we're not changing the status quo."

The point being, the Stupak measure would change the status quo.

This morning, David Axelrod expressed a very similar sentiment.

Axelrod also addressed the House health care bill's Stupak amendment, which would prevent federal subsidies for abortions. Axelrod said that the president doesn't believe health care reform "should change the status quo" and that "this shouldn't be a debate about abortion" -- while also acknowledging that "the bill Congress passed does change the status quo."

This, fortunately, also comes on the heels of Sen. Bob Casey's (D-Pa.) encouraging remarks on the Stupak measure. Casey, a leading pro-life Democrat, said he believes "health care reform should not be used to change longstanding policies regarding federal financing of abortion which has been in place since 1976."

And then, there's the problematic members. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the most conservative Democrat in the chamber, said through a spokesperson this week that he was "pleased" with the Stupak amendment, and is "highly unlikely" to vote for reform unless it includes language to "clearly prohibit federal dollars from going to abortion."

This morning, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), another center-right Dem, said the Senate's reform bill will die unless it restricts public funding of abortion. "What is clear is at the end of the day, for this bill to be successful, that there cannot be taxpayer funding of abortion," Conrad said. He added, "It was clear in the House. It'll be clear in the Senate."

Now, if you read the quotes carefully, neither Nelson nor Conrad specifically said the exact Stupak amendment has to be in the Senate bill. They want restrictions, and the leadership intends to offer some. At this point, it seems highly unlikely that the Stupak measure will be added to the Senate bill -- there's no way there are 60 votes for it -- and the insiders I've talked to expect a thread-the-needle compromise to come together before a floor vote.

Who hates that compromise most -- and how many votes they can pull together to oppose the eventual bill -- remains to be seen.

THE MISSING GOP BILL.... House Democrats have a health care reform package, and Senate Democrats will have their own reform proposal. House Republicans unveiled their health plan a couple of weeks ago, which of course leaves Senate Republicans.

The House GOP plan was more anticipated, based in large part on the fact that party leaders "guaranteed" its release. Senate Republicans never made any pretense -- their goal has always been to attack the plan on the table, not offer a credible alternative of their own.

The Senate GOP caucus will, however, apparently at least throw a few ideas into the mix, even if it's not in the form of an coherent, comprehensive policy.

Senate Republicans cannot say what exactly the budgetary impact of their health alternatives would be, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) said this weekend. [...]

The New Hampshire Republican said that GOP alternatives, which they'll offer as amendments to Democrats' health legislation, "don't cost money."

It stands to reason, then, that either Republicans have come up with magical proposals, or they intend to ignore the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack coverage.

Gregg went on to say that his party won't get analyses from the Congressional Budget Office because "we don't know how to score them under CBO rules." He added that Republicans "know from experience" that their ideas would "produce more effectively delivered cost service."

Right. Because if there's one thing Republicans have "experience" with, it's improving health care delivery efficiently and cost effectively.

Remind me, has that ever happened?

In the larger context, though, it's a reminder of a question we may be hearing more of in the coming weeks. If House Dems, House Republicans, and Senate Dems were all able to put together health care plans, and present them publicly, why are Senate Republicans sitting this one out? Why not unveil a proposal, and let Americans compare the strengths and weaknesses of the competing approaches?

PULLING THE STRINGS.... Nothing inspires confidence in Congress more than having lawmakers almost literally reading the script prepared for them by lobbyists.

In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world's largest biotechnology companies.

E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points -- 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

Now, don't necessarily expect tomorrow's "Daily Show" to have a segment featuring dozens of lawmakers repeating the identical lobbyist-written words over and over again. That's not quite how this worked.

The Congressional Record includes the transcript of what lawmakers said on the House floor, but members are also able to submit written statements that "revise and extend" their remarks. It's here where lawmakers submitted Genentech's preferred statements for the record. As Karen Tumulty noted, it lets the "lobbyists' paymasters" know that "they are getting good return on their investment."

What's noteworthy here is that it's "unusual for so many revisions and extensions to match up word for word. It is even more unusual to find clear evidence that the statements originated with lobbyists."

Note to congressional offices: if you're going to copy and paste someone else's homework, make more of an effort to pretend otherwise.

Asked about the statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech told the NYT's Robert Pear, "This happens all the time."

That's hardly a reassuring statement about the norms of the institution.

TAKING A BOW.... As part of his Asian trip, President Obama met today with Japanese Emperor Akihito. In keeping with Japanese custom and diplomatic protocol, the president bowed.

If you're thinking this was an inconsequential moment, especially as compared to the significance of the trip itself, you're underestimating the right's propensity to embrace nonsense.

The president's gesture was the story of the day on far-right blogs yesterday, led in large part by the LA Times' Andrew Malcolm, who made the unfortunate transition to blogging after working as Laura Bush's press secretary. Drudge & Co. soon followed.

Now, I won't pretend to be an expert on diplomatic protocol when meeting foreign leaders, but I am aware of the fact that in Japan, a bow is fairly routine, customary greeting. Obama bowing in Japan upon being introduced to Akihito seems no more interesting than Bush kissing and holding hands with Saudi King Abdullah. Presidents tend to be respectful to foreign leaders, especially during overseas visits. It's not exactly tantrum-worthy.

Indeed, LG&M found a variety of photographs of then-President Eisenhower in full-on, head-down bows towards Pope John XXIII and Charles De Gaulle. It didn't seem to undermine American prestige on the international stage, and it certainly didn't signal American subservience towards the Vatican or the French.

The Obama administration dismissed the story.

A senior administration official said President Barack Obama was simply observing protocol when he bowed to Japanese Emperor Akihito and Empress Michiko upon arriving at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo on Saturday.

"I think that those who try to politicize those things are just way, way, way off base," the official said. "He observes protocol. But I don't think anybody who was in Japan -- who saw his speech and the reaction to it, certainly those who witnesses his bilateral meetings there -- would say anything other than that he enhanced both the position and the status of the U.S., relative to Japan. It was a good, positive visit at an important time, because there's a lot going on in Japan."

Better conservatives, please.

BRODER ON SPEED OVER ACCURACY.... I checked the byline a couple of times this morning, to make sure the column that was ostensibly written by David Broder wasn't, in fact, written by Charles Krauthammer. Regrettably, the so-called Dean of the D.C. Media Establishment actually wrote this.

The more President Obama examines our options in Afghanistan, the less he likes the choices he sees. But, as the old saying goes, to govern is to choose -- and he has stretched the internal debate to the breaking point.

It is evident from the length of this deliberative process and from the flood of leaks that have emerged from Kabul and Washington that the perfect course of action does not exist. Given that reality, the urgent necessity is to make a decision -- whether or not it is right.

"Whether or not it is right." The Commander in Chief, in other words, should put expediency over merit. Speed is preferable to accuracy. It's only the longest military conflict in American history, with the future of U.S. foreign policy on the line -- the president should worry less about due diligence and thoughtful analysis, and worry more about picking a course, even if it's wrong. Other than the loss of American servicemen and women, untold billions of dollars, and undermining U.S. interests in a critical region, what's the worst that can happen?

What a crock.

I realize there's been a painful decline in the quality of Broder's analysis in recent years, but this column is a mess. He's effectively calling for President Obama to act and think more like President Bush -- make decisions first, and think through the consequences and implications second.

Worse, Broder goes so far as to castigate the administration for "all this dithering" -- using Dick Cheney's preferred choice of words.

The premise of the piece is that a decision is needed immediately. Where did this arbitrary deadline come from? Broder doesn't say; he just warns of the Taliban "coming back in Afghanistan," as if the Taliban hasn't already reclaimed much of the country.

Thinking back, I don't recall Broder ever showing this kind of Afghanistan-related antagonism towards the Bush administration -- which was, not incidentally, the team that allowed Afghanistan to deteriorate, watched as hard-earned gains slipped away, and never bothered to craft a strategy for the future of U.S. policy in the country.

Indeed, reading today's Broder piece I get the distinct impression that the columnist had lunch with John McCain at some point this week, and then rushed back to his desk to jot down the senator's criticism. That's a shame. Given the reality, Broder was facing an editorial deadline, and he decided the urgent necessity was to write a column -- whether or not it was right.

BLOOD AND TREASURE.... There's no shortage of questions about how best to proceed in Afghanistan. By now, most of them are entirely familiar: would an escalation improve security? Can the Karzai government be relied upon? Is there an exit strategy? How many more U.S. casualties are we prepared to tolerate?

But there's another element to the debate that's generally overlooked, but which may come into play: can we really afford to keep the longest conflict in American history going?

While President Obama's decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.

The latest internal government estimates place the cost of adding 40,000 American troops and sharply expanding the Afghan security forces, as favored by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and allied commander in Afghanistan, at $40 billion to $54 billion a year, the officials said.

Even if fewer troops are sent, or their mission is modified, the rough formula used by the White House, of about $1 million per soldier a year, appears almost constant.

Budget estimates suggest we're poised to begin seeing tens of billions of dollars in savings as a result of withdrawal from Iraq. Escalating the conflict in Afghanistan would, of course, eat up those savings and then some.

There tends to be an unspoken rule in our political discourse: the most aggressive voices on cutting spending, lowering the deficit, and trying to get the budget under control are the same voices who believe spending on defense, national security, and wars don't count. Indeed, a wide variety of conservative Republicans complained bitterly earlier this year when the Obama administration raised defense spending, but not as much as the GOP hoped (they labeled the increase a "cut").

The problem, of course, is that Pentagon spending is a huge portion of the federal budget, and wars are extremely expensive. For those policymakers intent on cutting spending, this would seem like an obvious area for savings -- except they're arguing the exact opposite, and no one presses them on how they propose we pay for it.

The NYT added, "Others said some Republicans could find it hard to justify a yes vote on troops after criticizing Mr. Obama for his spending."

I doubt it will be too difficult -- consistency isn't their strong point.

FROM GITMO TO THOMSON?.... There's a near-empty prison in rural Illinois, in a town called Thomson. The federal government is reportedly eyeing the facility as "a leading option" to house suspected terrorists from Guantanamo Bay

Locals seem to think it's a good idea...

News that the federal government seems interested in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the Thomson Correctional Center was greeted warmly in this small, rural farm town along the Iowa border.

After holding out hope that the sprawling $145 million prison might improve the economic conditions in this remote area of the state, residents say any prisoners would be a welcomed sight.

...but a couple of Illinois Republican congressman have embraced the usual nonsense.

[Rep. Donald Manzullo (R-Ill.)] acknowledged "extraordinary unemployment" in northwestern Illinois--he put the rate at 17 percent -- but added: "The issue is: 'Are you going to exchange the promise of jobs for national security?' National security trumps everything. That's the safety of the people.

The lawmaker, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he was concerned that "al-Qaida would follow al-Qaida" to northwestern Illinois if Thomson became the prison to replace Guantanamo Bay, which he believes is perfectly adequate. [...]

House Republican Mark Kirk of Northbrook, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, is circulating a sharply worded letter among the state's congressional delegation and state officials, urging the White House not to transfer suspected terrorists to the prison.

"If your administration brings al-Qaida terrorists to Illinois, our state and the Chicago metropolitan area will become ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots, recruitment and radicalization," Kirk, a five-term congressman, wrote in the letter to President Barack Obama.

This is sheer idiocy. Maybe Manzullo and Kirk know better and want to create a panic for political reasons; or maybe they're just cluelessly popping off. Either way, there's really no excuse for federal lawmakers to be this wrong.

It's hard not to wonder if these guys are even listening to themselves. Locking up terrorists is bad for security? Federal prisons are "ground zero for Jihadist terrorist plots"? It's like listening to children.

Let's try to put this in a way that even Reps. Manzullo and Kirk could understand: the United States has already tried and convicted literally hundreds of terrorists. They're held in federal detention on American soil. The prisons have not become magnets for terrorism; there have been no escapes; there have been no attempted escapes; and there have been no efforts at breaking anyone out of any of the facilities. It's not an academic exercise -- it's reality.

[T]he apocalyptic rhetoric rarely addresses this: Thirty-three international terrorists, many with ties to al-Qaeda, reside in a single federal prison in Florence, Colo., with little public notice.

According to data provided by Traci L. Billingsley, spokeswoman for the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, "federal facilities on American soil currently house 216 international terrorists and 139 domestic terrorists. Some of these miscreants have been locked up here since the early 1990s. None of them has escaped."

A certain amount of political cowardice is to expected, but Manzullo and Kirk are just embarrassing themselves.

SUCCESS BEGETS SUCCESS.... Approval ratings for Congress have slowly deteriorated over the course of the year, but a new Gallup poll shows opinions of the legislative branch turning upwards, if only a little.

The poll found, "Americans express slightly greater approval of Congress this month after last month's decline. The current 26% rating is up from 21% in October but down from 31% in August and September."

To be sure, a 26% approval rating is downright horrible, and there's no reason for anyone to celebrate a five-point uptick. The point, however, is that Congress' support went up after getting something done.

"The results are from a Gallup poll conducted Nov. 5-8, as the U.S. House of Representatives labored through the weekend on healthcare reform, ultimately passing a $1 trillion bill intended to expand coverage to millions more Americans," the analysis explained.

There are multiple dynamics involved in the public's attitudes towards Congress, but it's worth remembering that getting something done can do wonders for perceptions. If legislators want their branch of government to be more popular, it can, you know, do more legislating. If there's a perception of ineptitude, the best way to overcome this is to be more effective at passing bills.

Also note the partisan breakdown. Congress' numbers have fallen since March, in large part because self-identified Democrats have been less than pleased with the Democratic Congress. As the House passed health care, however, Democrats' approval of the institution climbed from 36% to 47%. (Even rank-and-file Republicans were more impressed, going from 9% to 17%.)

The more Congress gets done, the better its numbers will be.

BLINDED BY FEAR AND REACTIONARY PARTISANSHIP.... When one cuts through the nonsense and poll-tested soundbites, the right's opposition to fair trials comes down to fear -- fear that our principles are aren't worth honoring, fear that our rule of law is somehow flawed, fear that radical thugs have acquired supernatural powers. It's just blinding, irrational fear.

But in the larger context, as Glenn Greenwald explained, there's an insulting pretext to conservatives' criticism.

[T]he Right's reaction to yesterday's announcement -- we're too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country -- is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists." It's the same fear they've been spewing for years. As always, the Right's tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers. Indeed, it's hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

It's only America's Right that is too scared of the Terrorists -- or which exploits the fears of their followers -- to insist that no regular trials can be held and that "the safety and security of the American people" mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials. As usual, it's the weakest and most frightened among us who rely on the most flamboyant, theatrical displays of "strength" and "courage" to hide what they really are. Then again, this is the same political movement whose "leaders" -- people like John Cornyn and Pat Roberts -- cowardly insisted that we must ignore the Constitution in order to stay alive: the exact antithesis of the core value on which the nation was founded. Given that, it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets.

I'm also struck by the remarks of Jim Riches, whose son, a New York firefighter, died on 9/11. "Let them come to New York," said Riches, himself a retired deputy chief with the NYFD. "Let them get on trial. Let's do it the right way, for all the world to see what they're like. Let's go. It's been too long. Let's get some justice."

That this is even considered controversial is a dispiriting setback.

There is, of course, the ongoing debate to consider -- do conservatives believe their own rhetoric? It's occasionally difficult to tell. One could probably make a compelling argument that the same far-right voices throwing tantrums yesterday at the thought of fair trials know full well that the American system of justice is well equipped for legal proceedings like these. They're whining incessantly, the argument goes, because they hate the president. Yesterday had nothing to do with national security policy and everything to do with reactionary partisanship.

Alas, it's a scarier prospect, but it seems just as likely that the right accepts these attacks as true, and has rationalized their irrational fears as legitimate.

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is discussion on Capitol Hill about the role of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in using its political influence to shape the health care bill to their liking. At least one progressive lawmaker is crying foul.

The inclusion of a restrictive abortion clause in the House health care bill, and the Catholic Church's involvement in its passage, has legislators and others debating the extent to which religious organizations can appropriately delve into politics. [...]

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, wrote an op-ed in Politico on Monday saying the IRS should pay closer attention to the Conference's involvement in efforts to influence legislation, given its tax-exempt status.

"The role the bishops played in the pushing the Stupak amendment, which unfairly restricts access for low-income women to insurance coverage for abortions, was more than mere advocacy," Woolsey wrote. "They seemed to dictate the finer points of the amendment, and managed to bully members of Congress to vote for added restrictions on a perfectly legal surgical procedure."

In her piece, Woolsey added, "Who elected [the USCCB] to Congress? ... [Their] political effort was subsidized by taxpayers, since the Council enjoys tax-exempt status."

For the record, it seems highly unlikely that the Bishops will face IRS scrutiny over its lobbying efforts on health care -- federal tax law prohibits houses of worship from intervening in elections, but working on issues is permitted.

Also from The God Machine this week:

* Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals before his humiliating downfall, is still trying to work on a comeback. Haggard, perhaps best known for his extended extra-marital affair with a male prostitute, believes he's been "cured" of his homosexuality and ready to lead a flock again. "America loves a scandal, but they love a comeback even more," Haggard said.

* South Carolina's state legislature approved a Christian-themed license plate last year, featuring a cross in front of a stained-glass window, accompanied by the words "I Believe." This week, a federal court found the plates "clearly unconstitutional," and chastised state officials for having "embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation."

* This week, Vatican's Pontifical Academy of Sciences is holding its first major conference on astrobiology, "The new science that seeks to find life elsewhere in the cosmos and to understand how it began on Earth..... [T]he unlikely gathering of prominent scientists and religious leaders shows that some of the most tradition-bound faiths are seriously contemplating the possibility that life exists in myriad forms beyond this planet. Astrobiology has arrived, and religious and social institutions -- even the Vatican -- are taking note."

THE ONGOING IMPORTANCE OF THE FRANKEN AMENDMENT.... About a month ago, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) proposed an important amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill. Inspired the harrowing violence Jamie Leigh Jones suffered in 2005 while working for Halliburton/KBR in Iraq, Franken pushed a measure to withhold defense contracts from companies that "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

Franken's measure passed, 68 to 30. But the fact that 30 white, male, Senate Republicans -- 75% of the entire GOP Senate caucus -- voted against the amendment continues to be a subject of political significance. (via Amanda Terkel)

Angry letters denouncing Republican senators have appeared in newspapers from Tennessee to Idaho. Unflattering videos of senators trying to explain their votes have gone viral on the Internet, including one of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) swatting away a hand-held video camera held by a liberal blogger questioning his vote against the amendment.

And Democratic strategists are salivating at the prospects of using the vote against the eight GOP senators who voted against the amendment and are up for reelection in 2010.

"I think anyone who voted against that has some tough explaining to do," New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, told POLITICO. "And I think particularly some incumbents already in a challenged position -- it can be very detrimental to them because women voters are going to look at that and wonder, 'Does this senator stand on my side?'" [...]

Privately, GOP sources acknowledge that they failed to anticipate the political consequences of a "no" vote on the amendment. And several aides said that Republicans are engaged in an internal blame game about why they agreed to a roll-call vote on the measure, rather than a simple voice vote that would have allowed the opposing senators to duck criticism.

BarbinMD added, "Seriously? They voted against an amendment that was prompted by the brutal gang-rape of a young woman by her co-workers while she was working for a company under contract for the United States government, after which she was locked in a shipping container without food or water, threatened if she left to seek medical treatment, and was then prevented from bringing criminal charges against her assailants. And they failed to anticipate the political consequences?"

RUDY FEELS RELEVANT AGAIN.... Following up on an earlier item, there is one disappointing downside to the Justice Department's decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in federal court. It has nothing to do with national security or the rule of law, and everything to do with Rudy Giuliani pretending to know what he's talking about.

It's as predictable as the sunrise -- if there's a news story that relates to 9/11, Giuliani takes up residence in television green rooms. That Giuliani's 9/11 record is a rather painful and humiliating embarrassment is largely, if not entirely, overlooked.

But now that KSM is headed for a New York courtroom, Giuliani is everywhere again. Tomorrow, Americans will find him on ABC, CNN, and Fox News. Why? Because a few too many network producers are lazy and prefer to maintain the fiction that the former mayor has something worthwhile to say.

Watching Giuliani on Fox News yesterday, Josh Marshall noted, "[I]t's amazing the utter contempt this man has for the American justice system." That's plainly true -- Giuliani issued a statement yesterday with tired cliches ("a pre-9/11 mentality") and banal canards (the administration is "unable to identify and properly define its enemies"). The same statement added, "This is the same mistake we made with the 1993 terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center. We treated them like domestic criminals, when in fact they were terrorists."

Alex Koppelman explained the gall it took for this clown to make such a statement.

First of all, Giuliani himself celebrated the plotters' conviction in criminal court back in 1994, saying the verdict "demonstrates that New Yorkers won't meet violence with violence, but with a far greater weapon -- the law."

Moreover, as mayor, Giuliani was in a unique position to learn from the 1993 bombing and prepare his city for the next terrorist attack. He failed on both counts, with the most obvious evidence of his failure coming in the decision about where to place the city's emergency command center: He ultimately chose the World Trade Center, which had been bombed only a few years earlier. Giuliani has since tried to put the blame for this on his emergency management director, Jerome Hauer, but Hauer had fought for a site in Brooklyn before caving in to his boss.

Last year, the New York Times revealed a memo prepared by the New York Police Department that revealed the NYPD's strenuous objections to the choice. They had good reason to be concerned: On 9/11, the command center was useless, and -- despite what Giuliani says now -- it took hours for him to find a spot that could serve as a backup, Hauer's previous requests to build a secondary facility having been turned down.

If recent history and common sense had a more relevant role in our public discourse, Giuliani would be a laughingstock. Instead, the media enables him, perpetuating myths news outlets were responsible for creating in the first place.

A RATHER OBVIOUS DECISION.... The big political story of the day yesterday was the Justice Department's decision to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others connected to the 9/11 attacks in federal court in New York -- and the apoplexy this decision generated among conservatives. Twenty four hours later, I'm still not clear on why the right is having such a breakdown.

The NYT had a good editorial on this today, calling yesterday's announcement from the attorney general a "bold and principled step," which "promises to finally provide justice for the victims of 9/11."

Mr. Holder said those prisoners would be prosecuted in federal court in Manhattan. It was an enormous victory for the rule of law, a major milestone in Mr. Obama's efforts to close the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and an important departure from Mr. Bush's disregard for American courts and their proven ability to competently handle high-profile terror cases. If he and Vice President Dick Cheney had shown more faith in the laws and the Constitution, the alleged mass murderers would have faced justice much earlier.

Republican lawmakers and the self-promoting independent senator from Connecticut, Joseph Lieberman, pounced on the chance to appear on television. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they said military tribunals are a more secure and appropriate venue for trying terrorism suspects. Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a former judge who should have more regard for the law, offered the absurd claim that Mr. Obama was treating the 9/11 conspirators as "common criminals."

There is nothing common about them -- or Mr. Holder's decision. Putting the five defendants on public trial a few blocks from the site of the former World Trade Center is entirely fitting. Experience shows that federal courts are capable of handling high-profile terrorism trials without comprising legitimate secrets, national security or the rule of law.

That last point seemed to go largely unnoticed yesterday: we've done this before. KSM and his cohorts are, by all appearances, monsters. But the American system of justice is not only strong enough to deal with monsters, it's done so many, many times.

Or, put another way, why are we even having this conversation? When we got Zacarias Moussaoui, we charged him, tried him, convicted him, and locked him up for the remainder of his miserable life. Republicans and Fox News personalities didn't whine like children; it was simply a process that followed the rule of law.

The same is true of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, Richard Reid, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, Jose Padilla, Ali Saleh al-Marri, John Walker Lindh, and Masoud Khan. The U.S. justice system has tried, convicted, and imprisoned hundreds of terrorists. Not one has ever escaped; not one has ever tried to escape.

And more to the point, when each was subjected to the criminal justice system, Republicans and their allies never complained. When they were sent to supermax facilities on American soil, no one whined about it or tried to scare the public.

It's hard not to get the impression that conservatives are throwing a tantrum based on nothing more than the hopes that Americans won't notice how foolish and cowardly they appear.

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

* President Obama, off to a good start in Asia.

* We thought we might see a CBO score on the Senate health care bill today. No such luck.

* A "significant" amount of water on the moon. Cool.

* NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg supports the Obama administration's decision to try terrorists in a New York court. Bloomberg believes it's "fitting" to have their trial near Ground Zero.

* Interesting move: "Federal prosecutors on Thursday moved to seize several U.S. assets allegedly controlled by entities linked to the government of Iran, including a mosque and Islamic school in Potomac, Maryland in Prince William County and a Manhattan skyscraper. Prosecutors described an intricate web of ties allegedly connecting the properties to an Iranian bank that has been identified as a key financier of Tehran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs and possibly acts of terrorism."

* A surprisingly candid report from Goldman Sachs on killing health care reform to maximize shareholder profits.

* John Solomon, out at the Washington Times.

* Immigration reform in 2010? It's possible.

* Coathangers for Dems who voted for the Stupak amendment.

* On a related note, constitutional questions surrounding Stupak's provision? (thanks to M.R.)

* Apparently, Sarah Palin has a new book coming out. Some of her more notable claims are already being dunked by other Republicans.

* Fred Kaplan on Afghanistan: "It's not how many troops to send; it's what those troops will do."

* Politicizing the end of the ffel program.

* Melody Barnes, the head of President Obama's Domestic Policy Council, recently told students at Boston College Law School that she supports gay marriage. There was some talk the White House didn't want a video of Barnes' comments released, but White House officials have told the school that it can post and publicize the remarks.

* And finally, here's an outside-the-box idea: Palin and Rod Blagojevich co-hosting a talk show: "They could call it 'The Hockey Mom and the Hair.'"

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

GOOD FOR BUSINESS.... The Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of major U.S. companies, released an interesting report yesterday, explaining that improvements to the health care system would be good for business. Reform advocates, not surprisingly, were delighted.

If we're going to be intellectually honest about the report, it's worth remembering that the Business Roundtable's conclusions fell far short of an endorsement of Democratic efforts. Indeed, it specifically rejected the idea of a public option, which reform advocates obviously want. The report also disapproves of the excise tax as a financing option.

That said, the business leaders highlighted the ways in which reform can help businesses currently getting slammed by increased health care costs, and are glad to see that policymakers are doing something about it. The White House wasted no time in touting the group's conclusion, and President Obama said in a statement that the report "underscores what experts and businesspeople have told us all along -- comprehensive health insurance reform is one of the most important investments we can make in American competitiveness."

Today, the DNC even released a new video, heralding the Business Roundtable's report.

And almost as important, Republicans aren't happy.

Tension between Republicans and the nation's top CEOs over healthcare reform escalated this week when the executives released a report praising aspects of President Barack Obama's top initiative.

Republicans in Congress and some of their business allies in Washington are fuming over a new report commissioned by the Business Roundtable (BRT), an organization that represents more than 50 of the nation's biggest corporations.

The report claims that parts of the Democratic legislation could cut healthcare costs substantially.

GOP officials have been angry with the Business Roundtable for not fighting the White House agenda more aggressively, and now the business leaders are, directly or indirectly, helping health care reform efforts. Republicans may not like it, but these executives want to do what's good for business, and they realize Democratic plans can make a positive difference.

And in the larger context, it's just that much more difficult to characterize reform as some kind of "radical" attack on free enterprise when the AMA, AARP, and Business Roundtable all think the plan is a good idea.

ONE TRACK MIND.... The departure of White House Counsel Gregory Craig has been rumored for months, but it became official today. Craig stepped down after 10 months on the job, and will be replaced by Robert Bauer, a Democratic lawyer who's represented President Obama for years. The announcement was, as the NYT noted, "timed to take place the same day the Justice Department disclosed that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City."

But that's not what Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) believes. No, the "official" version isn't quite compelling enough for the King-man. He thinks he knows the real reason, and it's all about ... ready for this? ... ACORN.

Newly appointed White House counsel Bob Bauer is "perfectly positioned to be tasked with erasing the tracks between Obama and ACORN," one Republican lawmaker charged Friday.

The lawyer's hiring, announced this morning shortly after Greg Craig officially resigned the post, was also an attempt by the White House to deflect any fallout that may arise from an ACORN investigation currently underway in Louisiana, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) added in a statement.

"Bob Bauer has a public record of defending Barack Obama's relationship with ACORN," the congressman told supporters. "Bauer's hiring appears to be a tactical maneuver to strategically defend the White House exactly one week after Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell raided ACORN's national headquarters in New Orleans and seized paper records and computer hard drives that may lead to the White House."

There just has to be a prescription medication available to help King with his troubles.

As Tony Romm reported, the allegations don't stand up well to scrutiny. Bauer worked for the Obama campaign last year, and when Republicans launched trumped up allegations against ACORN, Bauer suggested there may have been cooperation between the McCain/Palin campaign and Bush's Justice Department. That's scandalous because, well, King says so. Needless to say, the right-wing Iowan's disturbed conspiracy theory doesn't make a lick of sense.

As Dave Weigel added, "King's attack here is almost surprisingly irresponsible. Almost."

What's more, Eric Kleefeld noted that King's latest derangement "comes a few days after another King press release in which he alleged that the resignation of White House communications director Anita Dunn -- Bauer's wife -- was connected to the aforementioned investigation against ACORN in Louisiana. So King previously seemed to be implying that Dunn was leaving in a hurry because of an ACORN scandal -- and now says that Bauer is coming in because of the same ACORN matter."

I imagine there are quite a few good folks in Iowa's 5th congressional district. It's a genuine shame King embarrasses them on a daily basis.

THE STUPID, IT BURNS (LITERALLY).... Over the summer, right-wing activists hung Democratic Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) in effigy outside his district office. It was a key signal of what's to come -- the far-right Tea Party crowd's tactics go a little further than the usual political protests we're accustomed to in contemporary American politics.

How much further? A report from southern Virginia highlights this weekend's planned activities in Danville. (via Blue Virginia)

In a move sure to spark controversy, the Danville TEA Party will close their "Fired Up for Freedom" rally by burning Rep. Tom Perriello and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in effigy in response to the passage of landmark healthcare legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The event is being held Saturday at 5:30 p.m. in Blairs, VA at the corner of U.S. 29 and E. Witt Rd. and is open to the public.

Danville TEA Party Chairman Nigel Coleman said, "We were outraged to find that Tom Perriello had voted in favor of this bill. I was with dozens of 5th District voters in his office two days before the vote and we pleaded with him to stand with us against the Pelosi plan.... At this point we feel we have no representation in Congress."

For the record, Periello has met with Teabaggers, and tried to explain his policy approaches to them. They didn't seem interested in good-faith dialog.

And now, these same conservatives are literally planning to set fire to representations of their congressman and the House Speaker.

There's something deeply wrong with these folks.

Update: Josh Marshall adds, "I'm so old I can remember when ritualized symbolic execution of public officials wasn't cool."

PRESIDENT GINGRICH ON 'MTP'.... So, I was perusing the guest lists for the Sunday morning shows, wondering which channel would feature John McCain. (For the record, he hasn't been booked for any of the shows -- yet.) The line-up for "Meet the Press" stood out.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be on, which certainly makes sense, given her recent traveling. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will be on, which also makes sense, given new education proposals unveiled this week.

And then, there are the other two guests.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), and civil rights leader Rev. Al Sharpton have been touring the country -- visiting classrooms and talking with students -- to highlight education issues and rally support for their proposed education reforms. We'll join them on the road this week, then sit down with them Sunday morning for a live interview to discuss their plans to improve the quality of education in this country.

Seriously? Do the producers just not like us?

I have no idea why Gingrich and Sharpton -- the original odd couple -- are in a position to talk about education reform. The Secretary of Education? Sure. These two? Not so much.

This will, by the way, be Newt Gingrich's fourth appearance on "Meet the Press" this year. The guy was run out of Congress by members of his own party more than a decade ago; he's held no positions of influence or authority since; but he's been a featured guest on "Meet the Press" every other month this year since March.

Sigh.

KEEPING THE ABORTION-RELATED HEAT ON THE RNC.... Ben Smith reports this afternoon that RedState's Leon H. Wolf wants heads to roll at the Republican National Committee for having a health care policy -- for 18 years -- that covered abortion services.

For thirty years, we have fought tooth and nail to prevent our tax money from being used to pay for abortions. Turns out, we were apparently doing it through donating to the political party that was ostensibly on our side. This betrayal is so fundamental to the majority of people who donate to the RNC that it's almost unspeakable. I have no doubt that many of the staffers there will miss the point, so allow me to make it clearly: you have caused every person who donated to support your livelihood to become involved in what they perceive to be a grave moral evil.

The RNC's defense thus far seems to be excusable negligence; blaming it on some (surely departed) staffer who checked a box almost 20 years ago, and whoops, we weren't careful enough. So sorry. It won't happen again.

Not good enough. Not even close. [...]

In order for the RNC to regain the trust of their donors, they must disclose the names of all people involved in any way of the selection of their health care plan. And those people must be summarily fired. No severance packages, no golden parachutes; fired. For cause.

No pro-lifer in good conscience can give them a dime until this happens.

But here's the part RedState misses: the RNC's "problem" isn't really a thing of the past. This anger misses the point of what's happened here.

As we talked about this morning, all the RNC has done here is opt out of abortion coverage for RNC employees. RedState wants an explanation of how this went unnoticed for 18 years.

But more important is the underlying logic. The new-and-improved RNC policy will insure its employees through Cigna, and Cigna will still pay for abortions, just not for RNC employees. In other words, RNC premiums will go to the company, and the company will then use its pool of money to pay for abortions. That's the "fix" RNC Chairman Michael Steele scrambled to make.

RedState and the Republican National Committee support the Stupak amendment, and according to its reasoning, the RNC will still be indirectly subsidizing abortions with its premiums. Leon H. Wolf wants an explanation for the previous mistake, without realizing that very little has actually changed here.

Either the RNC agrees with this assessment or it rejects the reasoning behind the Stupak measure. It's one or the other.

HOLDER TO TRY KSM, BOEHNER WHINES.... As expected, Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that he will try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in an NYC courtroom, and intends to pursue the death penalty against the suspected terrorist mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks.

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), predictably, is blasting the move because ... well, just because.

"The Obama Administration's irresponsible decision to prosecute the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks in New York City puts the interests of liberal special interest groups before the safety and security of the American people. The possibility that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and his co-conspirators could be found 'not guilty' due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause."

Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.) added that a trial "a few blocks from the World Trade Center site" necessarily puts the United States "at greater risk."

Keep in mind, this bizarre nonsense came by way of written statements. The comments weren't made off the cuff, before they could really think about what they were saying -- these were carefully crafted sentiments, which just happen to be ridiculous.

Greg Sargent added, "The larger point is that Republicans are already seizing on the Obama administration's decision to revive memories of 9/11 in order to give fresh urgency to GOP criticism of current terrorism policies. The amount of time that has passed since 9/11 had caused terrorism to fall dramatically on the list of voter concerns, mak