THE PARTIES ARE SUPPOSED TO DISAGREE.... I've never held House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in high regard. But I couldn't agree more with something he said this morning.

Despite White House overtures for congressional Republicans to work with Democrats, the top GOP official in the House said Sunday that such opportunities are limited.

"There aren't that many places where we can come together," House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio said on the NBC program "Meet the Press."

Republicans were elected to stand by their principles, and those principles are different than the "leftist proposals" offered by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats, Boehner said. [...]

"Leadership is about standing on your principles and opposing those policies that we believe are bad for the country," Boehner said.

What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing (except the part about President Obama pushing "leftist proposals," which is a silly assessment).

While I didn't see the exchange, if this report is accurate, Boehner argued that Republicans intend to push their ideas, and oppose the policies they find offensive. The goal for congressional Republicans isn't to find "common ground" or "bipartisan solutions" with those they completely disagree with; their goal is to fight for what they believe in, opposing the majority's agenda.

The remarks should make it pretty clear that Republicans have no interest in working with Democrats on finding solutions to pressing policy challenges. But here's the thing that so often gets lost in the discourse: Republicans are the minority party, which means it's their job to oppose the majority's agenda.

"There aren't that many places where [the two parties] can come together"? Well, no, of course not. Democrats and Republicans perceive reality in entirely different ways, and advocate for wildly different solutions to various problems (they don't even agree on which problems exist).

But if Boehner's right about this -- and I believe he is -- then why in the world is it incumbent on the Democratic majority to work with Republicans to find "bipartisan" answers to every question? If Boehner has no intention of "coming together" with Dems in the middle -- a reasonable, albeit rigid, position -- why must the political establishment maintain the fiction that the governing majority is doing something awful unless they bring the discredited minority on board with every proposal?

Ron Brownstein noted recently:

We are operating in what amounts to a parliamentary system without majority rule, a formula for futility.

In some respects, it's even worse than that. In nearly all modern democracies, parties that win elections get a shot -- they're able to do what they want to do, putting their party platform to work. If the policies are effective and voters are satisfied, the parties are rewarded. If not, they're punished.

The job of the minority party (or minority parities) in modern democracies is not to stop the majority from governing. Indeed, the very idea is practically absurd. Rather, minority parties consider it their job to criticize the majority, tell the electorate how they'd be doing things better, and hope voters agree when the next election rolls around.

But we're dealing with expectations and procedural tools in the U.S. that are inherently foolish. We can elect one party to lead, and then give the minority party the ability to stop the majority from leading. Worse, the political establishment tells voters -- and the public agrees -- that the majority is doing something intrinsically wrong if they advance policies that the minority disagrees with.

Boehner left no doubt this morning that he and his party don't want to work with Democrats on shaping legislation. That's fine. But with that in mind, can we let go of the ridiculous notion that Democrats are on the wrong track unless Boehner likes their ideas? And more importantly, can we abandon the absurd procedures that allow a small minority party to prevent the legislative process from functioning?

—Steve Benen 11:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (49)

STRANGEST HEADLINE OF THE DAY.... ABC News sent out an item this morning with this headline: "Steele Rules Out 2012 White House Run." I thought, "This couldn't possibly mean what I think it means."

But it did. ABC News actually asked Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele if he might run for president -- of the United States -- in a few years. He's apparently not interested.

"Come on, don't ask me that," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said when presented with the inevitable question about his 2012 intentions and if his political aspirations included running for the White House next time around. [...]

"In all honest-to-good seriousness, that is such silly Washington talk. It's just not even on my mind," Steele said about a possible presidential run.

Well, no, of course it's not on his mind. It shouldn't be -- Steele has failed in practically every endeavor he's attempted in his adult life. Talk of ousting him from his current job has been common for months, and most Republicans desperately hope he'll just stop talking altogether.

So why on earth is baseless speculation about a presidential campaign "the inevitable question"? Is anyone, anywhere, seriously thinking that a comically-inept RNC chair, whose entire record of government service is limited to one term as a lieutenant governor, is presidential material?

—Steve Benen 10:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (34)

A CONTRARIAN DEFENSE OF THE 111TH CONGRESS.... The conventional wisdom on the current Congress seems pretty compelling. This is a Congress facing incredible challenges, and is struggling to rise to the occasion.

It's a perception I've largely bought into. When I think about what would be possible if legislation could be approved by majority rule in the House and Senate -- the way the legislative branch was designed to function, and the way it operated for nearly 200 years -- it's hard not to feel bitter disappointment.

The American Enterprise Institute's Norman Ornstein challenges these perceptions in a surprisingly compelling Washington Post op-ed today, describing this Congress as being on "a path to become one of the most productive since the Great Society 89th Congress in 1965-66."

Of particular interest was Ornstein's description of the scope of the stimulus package.

The productivity began with the stimulus package, which was far more than an injection of $787 billion in government spending to jump-start the ailing economy. More than one-third of it -- $288 billion -- came in the form of tax cuts, making it one of the largest tax cuts in history, with sizable credits for energy conservation and renewable-energy production as well as home-buying and college tuition. The stimulus also promised $19 billion for the critical policy arena of health-information technology, and more than $1 billion to advance research on the effectiveness of health-care treatments.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has leveraged some of the stimulus money to encourage wide-ranging reform in school districts across the country. There were also massive investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access.

Any Congress that passed all these items separately would be considered enormously productive. Instead, this Congress did it in one bill.

And while the economic recovery package was the most important legislative accomplishment of the last year, Ornstein also highlights successful bills on expanding children's health insurance, providing stiff oversight of the TARP funds, regulating tobacco, the largest land conservation law in nearly two decades, a credit card holders' bill of rights, and defense procurement reform.

And the House, meanwhile, has approved a historic cap-and-trade bill, sweeping financial regulatory changes, a jobs bill, and health care reform -- and maybe some of these might manage to work their way through a dysfunctional Senate.

Democratic leaders, Ornstein, argues, "deserve great credit for these achievements."

I wouldn't want the governing majority to rest on its laurels -- for the love of God, pass health care reform -- but Ornstein's overview of the first year of the 111th Congress paints a pretty compelling picture. Dems who feel the need to be defensive may want to read it, share it, and push its conclusions.

—Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

PAINFULLY, TANTALIZINGLY CLOSE.... It seems like a long time ago, but it was just a few weeks ago when House, Senate, and administration negotiators huddled in marathon negotiating sessions to put the finishing touches on a health care bill that was poised to become law before the State of the Union address.

According to Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, and Labor Committee, policymakers had actually completed their work. A deal, he said, had been reached and the long-sought goal was poised to be reached ... right up until Massachusetts happened.

Harkin (D-Iowa), who attended healthcare talks at the White House, said negotiators were on the cusp of bringing a bill back for final votes in the Senate and House.

Harkin said "we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn't get it back." He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15.

Harkin made clear that negotiators had reached a final deal on the entire bill, not just the excise plans, which had been reported the previous day, Jan. 14.

Harkin said the deal covered the prescription-drug "donut hole," the level of federal insurance subsidies, national insurance exchanges and federal Medicaid assistance to states.

At face value, this is certainly painful to hear. Knowing how many millions of Americans have been counting on this legislation, recognizing how long the country has waited for reform, and then learning that a final deal was in place makes the last two weeks all the more gut-wrenching.

The most important policy breakthrough in a generation was at hand -- right up until Ted Kennedy's constituents chose to put his life's work in severe jeopardy.

But if Harkin's account is accurate, his version of events suggests getting another final deal in place now shouldn't be that difficult. After all, if the structure of a compromise was in place two weeks ago, that provides a pretty solid foundation for House-Senate talks now.

They just need to muster the courage and political will to walk through an open door.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

ACCOUNTABILITY AND CREDIBILITY STILL MATTER.... Clive Crook had an item the other day, in response to President Obama's State of the Union address, which raised a point that comes up from time to time.

True, that massive deficit is largely due to the Bush tax cuts -- only part of which, however, Obama intends to reverse. The tax cuts Obama intends to retain belong to him, and so does the corresponding part of the deficit. But the point is: who cares? ... What does it matter who caused the problem? Obama's job is to solve it.

I remember reading something similar a while back from The Moderate Voice:

Now, I'm just an average non-economist, but here's how I see this: It does not matter who did what in the past.... And, of course, it's much easier to point and blame than fix problems. [emphasis in the original]

I can see why this may have a certain, surface-level appeal for some people. Never mind what happened before; let's just focus on problem-solving in the present and future. To look backwards, point fingers, and assign blame doesn't get us anywhere.

But this approach is misguided in important ways. As regular readers may recall, one of my favorite scenes in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" is when John Cleese's Sir Lancelot storms a castle, sword in hand, slaughtering most of a wedding party to save a damsel in distress. The castle owner, anxious to curry favor with Lancelot, encourages the survivors of the attack to let bygones be bygones. The castle owner tells his guests, "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed whom...."

In contemporary politics, conservatives are the castle owner, urging us not to bicker and argue about which party's rule was nearly catastrophic for the United States. As Clive Crook put it, "Who cares? ... What does it matter who caused the problem?"

Except, of course, "who did what in the past" matters very much. It's not about "finger-pointing"; it's about credibility. It's about understanding that those who are responsible for creating a mess deserve to be held accountable for their failures. It's about voters appreciating whose ideas work, whose ideas fail, and making electoral decisions accordingly.

It's about realizing who deserves to be taken seriously and who doesn't.

Andrew Sullivan had a good piece on this the other day.

Let me try to explain: it matters who caused the problem and why because if we do not understand the causes we cannot fix the problem and it matters because any adult judgment of a politician's first year that does not take into account the inheritance he was bequeathed is impossible.

It matters because the most important fact in American politics is the worst presidency in modern times that preceded Obama.

Two failed, unwinnable wars that continue to destroy lives and cripple our finances, a massive splurge in entitlement and discretionary spending, a huge increase in defense spending and massive tax cuts: this we now have to forget? This context should be removed from the picture?

It matters too because the very people who gave us this mess are now adamantly refusing to do anything to get us out of it, and pledge to return to exactly the same policies that got us there in the first place: more tax cuts, more war, more entitlement spending, more debt, no health insurance reform, no action on climate change. Clive acts as if there were some viable alternative out there. There isn't.

We have to begin to realize that accountability and credibility still matter.

—Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

YET ANOTHER GROUP JOINS THE PARTY.... About a year before the 2008 election, many leading conservatives decided that what Republicans really needed were a plethora of organizations like MoveOn.org. So, groups were formed en masse. Freedom's Watch, the Coalition for a Conservative Majority, The Vanguard, Victory Caucus, some odd Gingrich outfit, FreedomWorks, Reagan 21, Move America Forward, and a revitalized Citizens For The Republic all got to work.

They failed rather spectacularly. None of these groups had any significant impact on the elections, and nearly all have since disappeared.

In 2009, many leading conservatives decided that what Republicans still needed were a plethora of organizations. As Dave Weigel noted last May, groups like the Center for Republican Renewal, Renewing American Leadership, Resurgent Republic, and the National Council for a New America (the so-called "rebranding" initiative), among others, all hoped to help Republicans thrive. As 2010 gets underway, few of these names will sound familiar even to the most well-informed political observers, and some of the groups have already disbanded.

But the drive to create new groups continues.

At least half a dozen leaders of the Republican Party have joined forces to create a new political group with the goal of organizing grass-roots support and raising funds ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to people familiar with the effort.

The organizational details of the group, expected to be called the American Action Network, are still being worked out, but it is expected to contain both a 501(c)3 and a 501(c)4 component. In simpler terms, a 501(c)3 can advocate on policy matters while a 501(c)4 is an election arm.

Republican leaders expected to be affiliated with the group include former Minnesota Sen. Norm Coleman, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Bush adviser Karl Rove, Republican strategist Ed Gillespie, and Republican donor Fred Malek.

Some of these exact same GOP heavy-hitters were supposed to help shape the "re-branding" campaign last year, before it fell apart. How will the American Action Network succeed where the National Council for a New America failed? Who knows -- it's still very much unclear what these guys want to do, what they're going to do, and why anyone should care.

But I continue to question the model itself. Organizing grass-roots support makes sense; organizing grass-roots support from the top-down -- led by Bush, Rove, and Gillespie -- makes far less sense.

—Steve Benen 10:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

SNOWE ACKNOWLEDGES HEALTH CARE TALKS.... There were reports this week that some Senate Democrats had once again decided to reach out to Maine's Republican senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, about health care reform. Yesterday, Snowe acknowledged some talks had, in fact, already occurred.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Friday that she has been in conversation with Democrats and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about a way forward on health care reform.

"I have talked with several of my Democratic colleagues, including the chairman of the Finance Committee, just sorting through these issues, and the process, and what will unfold," Snowe told Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Friday afternoon. "Hopefully, [Democrats] will take measure of what needs to happen now, build some support, those things can happen so that it's not [so] breathtakingly expansive that [it] creates consternation by the American people at a time will can ill-afford intrinsic costs."

As a substantive matter, this is, at best, incomplete. Snowe didn't even want health care reform to get a vote in the Senate because it's "expansive"? This is a new concern -- she had been complaining about the slow process not being slow enough -- and without some additional details, it's not at all clear what Snowe would prefer in terms of expansiveness.

But it's worth noting that the final bill out of the Senate Finance Committee was pretty similar to the final bill considered on the Senate floor -- and Snowe voted with Democrats to support the measure in committee. A few months later, she voted to (1) block the Senate from have a floor debate on health care reform; (2) characterize health care reform as "unconstitutional"; and (3) prevent the Senate from voting up or down on the legislation itself.

And now Senate Dems are hoping to negotiate with her again? Maybe they know something I don't, but I feel like I've seen this production before, and it always ends with Lucy pulling the ball away and Charlie Brown falling on his ass.

In the larger context, though, the fact that Snowe and Baucus (among others) have even talked at all suggests senators are keeping a wide variety of options open. I'm not sure that's a good thing, necessarily, but it's preferable to letting health care reform die altogether.

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

MCCAIN ADVISER TOUTS STIMULUS.... It's impossible to characterize economist Mark Zandi as some kind of liberal partisan -- he was an adviser to the McCain/Palin campaign in 2008.

With that in mind, it should carry a little more weight than usual when he credits Democratic recovery efforts with creating strong economic growth. Here was Zandi yesterday:

"I think stimulus was key to the 4th quarter. It was really critical to business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. And also, it was very critical to housing and residential investment because of the housing tax credit. And the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus. So the stimulus was very, very important in the 4th quarter." [emphasis added]

This isn't exactly new. Last November, Zandi was saying the same thing, arguing that "the stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do -- it is contributing to ending the recession." He added, "In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P. would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent."

Maybe someone ought to let Tim Pawlenty know.

—Steve Benen 9:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (8)

WILLING TO TAKE THE RISK.... Congressional Republicans decided quite a while ago to reject compromise at all costs and block the Democratic majority from governing. Sam Stein reported yesterday that some in the GOP are starting to second guess the strategy.

Some senior Republican strategists and party veterans are beginning to fret that the party's refusal to work with President Obama, even when he crosses onto their own philosophical turf, could ultimately erode some of the political gains they've made this past year.

Over the past two weeks, Republicans in Congress have united in nearly unanimous opposition to a series of ideologically conservative policy suggestions, starting with a commission to reduce the deficit, a pay-go provision that would limit new expenditures, and a spending freeze on non-military programs.

Opposition has usually been based on specific policy concerns or complaints that the measures aren't going far enough. But the message being sent is that the GOP's sole mission is presidential destruction.

Now, some in the party are beginning to worry.

Well, sort of. Stein's piece is solid, but it quotes former lawmakers and GOP strategists, not sitting Republican lawmakers. It's one thing for party officials just outside the decision-making center to raise concerns; it's something else when someone with actual power and direct influence shares those concerns.

And at this point, Republicans realize that they're taking obstructionism to levels unprecedented in American history, and they realize that the public may disapprove, but they're willing to take the risk.

Indeed, this week should have made this abundantly clear -- Republican obstructionism has reached the level at which they oppose ideas they support.

I'm delighted that some in the GOP are "beginning to worry" about the reflexive, knee-jerk opposition to literally everything Democrats consider, but I'm at a loss as to how the majority is supposed to work constructively with a minority that would rather destroy the political process than approve its own proposals.

—Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

PENCE ON THE GOP'S APPROACH TO COMPROMISE.... House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) appeared on "Hardball" yesterday, and Chris Matthews asked a reasonable question in response to Pence's stated willingness to "compromise" with the White House. "What compromise would you say 'yes' to on health care? What compromise? Tell me the package; give me the main details."

The exact wording of Pence's initial reply was, "Well, look, you know, I was, uh, yeah, yeah, look, uh." He went on to say (twice) that he was pleased to see the president express support for allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines.

In other words, Pence's idea of compromising with Democrats is highlighting a provision that's already been in the Democratic health care plan for months.

Indeed, if Pence, one of Congress' dimmest bulbs, was paying attention to the substantive details, the president actually explained pretty well how the Democratic proposal incorporates the GOP idea in a way that actually works.

It's the difference between ideas that sound good and ideas that work well. Republicans focus on the former; Democrats actually think about the latter.

For Pence, the idea sounds simple: just let consumers pick policies from across state lines. But there's no real analysis behind the bumper-sticker approach to problem-solving.

Chris Matthews didn't know enough about the issue to engage Pence, but Matt Yglesias explained why this is more difficult than it sounds: "Right now, health insurance is regulated at the state level. That means that if you want to sell insurance in California, you need to develop an insurance policy that's compliant with California's insurance regulations. It might be a better idea to instead regulate health insurance at the federal level, and say that if you want to sell insurance in the United States of America you need to develop an insurance policy that's complaint with America's insurance regulations.

"Pence's proposal, however, is that one revenue-hungry state should cut a deal with insurers -- move your headquarters' to Sioux Falls (or just bribe enough state legislators) and we'll let your lobbyists write whatever lax regulations you like. Then next thing you know everyone is 'allowed' to buy this unregulated South Dakota health insurance and no other kind of insurance policies are available. This is what's been done with the credit card industry and it's the model that Pence wants to extent to health insurance."

It's why President Obama and congressional Democrats have approved the concept of buying across state lines, but have mandated minimum standards to prevent the so-called "race to the bottom" problem Mike Pence doesn't acknowledge.

—Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

KSM TO SKIP NYC.... In November, when the Justice Department announced it would try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others connected to the 9/11 attacks in federal court in New York, far-right voices were apoplectic, but New Yorkers seemed largely unfazed. NYC didn't buy into the notion that a trial was something to fear -- the city has hosted terrorist trials before -- and Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced his support for the administration's decision.

In recent weeks, that changed. And as support evaporated, the Justice Department re-thought its plans.

The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere.

"I think I can acknowledge the obvious," an administration official said. "We're considering other options."

The reversal on whether to try the alleged 9/11 terrorists blocks from the former World Trade Center site seemed to come suddenly this week, after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg abandoned his strong support for the plan and said the cost and disruption would be too great.

It's worth noting that the shift appears unrelated to Republican hysteria -- remember the laughable "sketch artist" argument? -- and the Cheneys' oh-my-god-we're-all-going-to-die fear-mongering. Rather, New Yorkers began to appreciate the logistical hassles, and concluded the expenses and inconveniences weren't worth it.

More recently, in a series of presentations to business leaders, local elected officials and community representatives of Chinatown, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly laid out his plan for securing the trial: blanketing a swath of Lower Manhattan with police checkpoints, vehicle searches, rooftop snipers and canine patrols.

"They were not received well," said one city official.

New Yorkers aren't terrified; they're busy. They don't mind hosting a trial; they mind shutting down large swaths of lower Manhattan and shouldering an expensive burden.

Nevertheless, I think the general trend is deeply unfortunate. The American system of justice is strong enough to deal with monsters like KSM and his cohorts, and it's done so many, many times, but we're approaching a legal, political, and logistical dynamic that makes trials that used to be routine very difficult.

For years, this wasn't an issue at all. When we got Zacarias Moussaoui, we charged him, tried him in a courtroom not far from the Pentagon, convicted him, and locked him up for the remainder of his miserable life. No one threw a tantrum or fretted over logistics.

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 in recent years. Not one has ever escaped; not one has ever tried to escape, and not one had a problematic trial.

It appears those days of a straightforward process are gone.

—Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

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

* Sending FEMA trailers to Haiti may not be the best idea.

* Karzai appears to support these talks: "Members of the Taliban leadership met with a United Nations official earlier this month to discuss the possibility of entering into face-to-face peace talks with the Afghan government, American and United Nations officials said Friday."

* A reversal appears imminent: "The Obama administration appears to have abandoned plans to put Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and four co-conspirators on trial in Lower Manhattan, according to administration sources."

* Scott Roeder, guilty.

* Right-wing activist James O'Keefe comments for the first time since his arrest on his extremely odd Louisiana scheme.

* Dahlia Lithwick asks an excellent question: "Why is KBR so afraid of letting Jamie Leigh Jones have her day in court?"

* Colleges appear to be warming up to the idea of direct lending.

* Despite the dwindling line-up for the Tea Party convention a week from tomorrow, former half-term Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is still scheduled to deliver the keynote.

* Timothy Jost reminds us just how awful the House Republican health care plan really was.

* With the benefit of hindsight, House Republicans aren't so sure letting cameras in for today's Q&A with the president was a good idea.

* Fox News, in its latest bid to become a parody of itself, offered some truly ridiculous coverage of Obama's appearance with the GOP caucus.

* Many thanks to reader I.P. for registering PassTheDamnBill.com and having it redirect to a certain blogger's health care strategy memo.

* And finally, if you only watch one thing today, watch the president in Baltimore. If you're willing to watch two things today, also watch this absolutely brilliant clip of Charlie Brooker explaining "How To Report The News."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

CLOSING THE RHETORIC/REALITY GAP.... Perhaps the most noteworthy portion of today's event in Baltimore, during the Q&A between President Obama and House Republicans, came during an exchange on health care reform.

The president explained that the "component parts" of the Democratic reform plan are "pretty similar to what Howard Baker, Bob Dole and Tom Daschle proposed at the beginning of this debate last year." Obama reminded GOP lawmakers that they may or may not agree with those three, but by any measure, "that's not a radical bunch."

He added, "But if you were to listen to the debate, and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you'd think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot. That's how you guys presented it.... I know you guys disagree, but if you look at the facts of this bill, most independent observers would say this it's similar to what many Republicans proposed to Bill Clinton when he was doing his debate on health care.

"So all I'm saying is we've got to close the gap a little bit between the rhetoric and the reality."

Hear, hear. The biggest irony of the entire health care debate is that Republicans had a complete meltdown -- and may have very well killed the best chance America has ever had to reform a dysfunctional system -- over an entirely moderate bill. Whether they actually believe their own nonsense is unclear, but Republicans managed to convince most of the country that the reform plan is a wildly-liberal, freedom-killing government takeover of one-sixth of the economy. It's tempting to think no one could possibly so dumb as to believe this, but it is, right now, the majority viewpoint in the United States.

But that's precisely why the president's comments were so important -- Americans probably should learn the truth about this at some point. The Democratic plan is exactly the kind of proposal that should have generated bipartisan support -- it cuts costs, lowers the deficit, and adds wildly popular consumer protections, while bringing coverage to tens of millions who need it. It includes provisions long-favored by Republicans and policy wonks of both parties.

Indeed, as I noted the other day, if you were to have assembled a bipartisan group of wonks a couple of years ago, and asked them to put together a comprehensive plan that incorporates ideas and long-sought goals from both parties, they would have crafted a plan that looks an awful lot like the current Democratic plan. That's just reality.

That the GOP considers this centrist proposal "a Bolshevik plot" only helps reinforce how fundamentally unserious they are about public policy.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (21)

DON'T DELAY.... When something important is due, and it's not coming together there are different kinds of delays. Some are worthwhile, some aren't.

If, for example, I'm writing an article and get stuck, maybe I'll step away for an hour, clear my head, and come back to it with a fresh perspective. I won't miss my deadline, but the break may be constructive. This is an example of a brief, helpful delay.

When it comes to health care reform, many Democratic policymakers are suggesting that putting the issue on the backburner for a little while is the same thing -- they're not quitting, but they're tackling a few other things right now. They'll get back to health care, they assure us, with a clear head and fresh perspective.

But this approach is fraught with problems serious enough to make health care reform impossible. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, for example, is talking about a delay that's anything but brief and helpful. Dems, he said, can get back to healthcare, after tackling a jobs bill, deficit reduction, and Wall Street reform first.

Ezra Klein notes that these other issues will take months. "The longer this takes, the less likely it is to happen," he said. "And Emanuel just said that the administration's preference is to let it take longer. If I were a doctor, I'd downgrade health care's prognosis considerably atop this evidence." Jon Chait agrees.

Jonathan Cohn has a good piece about the larger context, and suggests that Emanuel might be floating a trial balloon -- which should get shot down.

Emanuel's qualms about strategic over-reach on health care are among Washington's worst kept secrets. It's always possible he was freelancing. But it's hard to imagine that, in a sit-down interview like this, Emanuel would toss out an idea like this without at least implicit approval from above.

Of course, the official White House line is that they're not easing up at all. Obama's public rhetoric backs that up and, privately, several officials say the same thing. The word from Capitol Hill is that leadership is making progress -- a lot of progress -- on crafting a new compromise between the two chambers.

But getting nervous Democrats in both houses to sign off on that compromise will be tough. A muddled message from the White House, whatever its backstory or intent, only makes that harder.

By the way, the point of trial balloons is to see whether they get shot down. So it might behoove liberals who want health care reform to make clear that lengthy delay is not acceptable. For a few days earlier this week, members of Congress were reportedly getting calls from constituents, urging them to "pass the bill." More of those calls might be helpful.

Maybe it's time for another list. There are at least five good reasons to make every effort to wrap up health care over the next few weeks.

1. The debate has run its course, and no one, anywhere, seriously wants to have this debate continue all over again in the spring and summer. Months of negotiations and machinations will only breed additional frustrations.

2. The basic facts won't change. Policymakers have been at this for a year, and know what they have to do. Negotiations went reasonably well this week, but there's no need for months of talks.

3. Nervous lawmakers get even more overcome by anxiety when a difficult election season gets closer. Some members who are prepared to vote for health care reform in February may feel differently in June.

4. The reconciliation instructions in last year's budget are due to expire with passage of the next budget.

5. Giving opponents of reform more time to undermine public support and trash necessary legislation hasn't worked up until now; it's unlikely to be effective while policymakers push the process into the spring (or later). What's more, given the insurance industry's money, those trying to kill reform have limitless resources, while supporters have already spent their budgets.

Time is of the essence. Pass the damn bill.

—Steve Benen 3:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

THE 'CASH-AND-TRASH' STRATEGY.... At this afternoon's event in Baltimore, there was quite a bit of discussion about the stimulus and economic recovery efforts. Not surprisingly, Republicans weren't happy with the initiative, and President Obama presented a spirited defense.

Of particular interest, though, was the president reminding the stimulus' GOP detractors of a point they'd prefer to overlook: "[A] lot of you have gone to ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against. I say all this not to re-litigate the past, but it's simply to state, the component parts of the recovery act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do."

So true.

Congressional Republicans will make opposition to President Barack Obama's 2009 stimulus plan a centerpiece of their 2010 campaign.

They're plying reporters with polls raising doubts about the stimulus, demanding that Democrats say whether they still support the stimulus and declaring, as Minority Whip Eric Cantor did on the "Today" show Wednesday, that "the stimulus hasn't worked."

There's just one catch: According to a tally kept by the White House, at least 65 congressional Republicans have touted the stimulus dollars that have flowed into their own states.

It's being called the "cash-and-trash strategy" -- Republicans hate the stimulus package and "trash" it at every available opportunity, but love the stimulus package and grab the "cash" when it comes to creating jobs in their own states/districts. It's been going on for a year now, but with 65 congressional Republicans making the list, it's getting pretty embarrassing.

The point isn't just to highlight GOP hypocrisy, though that is entertaining. The more important point is that, whether detractors like it or not, the recovery effort prevented a depression, generated economic growth, and created jobs -- even in districts represented by Republicans. The more proponents remind voters about this -- yesterday's HSR event in Tampa was a very good idea -- the better.

—Steve Benen 3:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

MUST SEE TV.... As promised, President Obama appeared this afternoon at the House Republican caucus' retreat in Baltimore, delivering a short speech, followed by some fascinating Q&A. If you missed it -- the appearance was aired live on C-SPAN -- you'll really want to watch it when the video is posted online. It was simply fascinating.

During his speech, Obama went over themes from his State of the Union address this past Wednesday. At once, he simultaneously said that Democrats and Republicans can find common ground on issues such as a spending freeze and tax credits for small business, but he also went after the GOP for voting against the stimulus bill while attending ribbon-cuttings for projects in their districts, challenged them to work together on important issues, and called upon them to support his proposed fees on the bailed-out financial sector.

Then came the really interesting part. Obama began taking questions from Republican members of Congress, a sight that isn't normally seen on television in American politics.

There were some similarities to the British Parliamentary tradition of Prime Minister's Question Time -- minus the cheering and booing -- with a sense of political jousting between an incumbent president and the opposition, who for their part pitched one tough question after another.

I'm reasonably certain I've never seen anything like it. GOP House members were fairly respectful of the president, but pressed him on a variety of policy matters. The president didn't just respond effectively, he delivered a rather powerful, masterful performance.

It was like watching a town-hall forum where all of the questions were confrontational, but Obama nevertheless just ran circles around these guys. I can only assume caucus members, by the end of the Q&A, asked themselves, "Whose bright idea was it to invite the president and let him embarrass us on national television?"

Note, however, that this wasn't just about political theater -- it was an important back-and-forth between the president and his most forceful political detractors. They were bringing up routine far-right talking points that, most of the time, simply get repeated in the media unanswered. But in Baltimore, the president didn't just respond to the nonsense, he effectively debunked it.

Republicans thought they were throwing their toughest pitches, and Obama -- with no notes, no teleprompter, and no foreknowledge -- just kept knocking 'em out of the park.

It's easy to forget sometimes just how knowledgeable and thoughtful Obama can be on matters of substance. I don't imagine the House Republican caucus will forget anytime soon -- if the president is going to use their invitation to score big victories, he probably won't be invited back next year.

Nevertheless, the White House should schedule more of these. A lot more of these.

Update: Marc Ambinder noted, "Accepting the invitation to speak at the House GOP retreat may turn out to be the smartest decision the White House has made in months....I have not seen a better and perhaps more productive political discussion in this country in...a long time."

Second Update: Here's the video.

Third Update: And here's the transcript.

Fourth Update: The C-SPAN server appears to be having some trouble. Here's the video of the Q&A portion, from MSNBC:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

—Steve Benen 2:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

HATCH THREATENS 'WAR'.... Oh, for crying out loud.

GOP Senator Orrin Hatch is now warning that if Dems pass health care reform via reconciliation it will lead to permanent "war" between the two parties -- even though he voted for more than a half dozen GOP bills passed through the process known as ... reconciliation.

Specifically, Hatch, who's been around long enough to know better, said using the reconciliation process to make modifications to a health care bill would be "one of the worst grabs for power in the history of the country," and would create "outright war."

Greg Sargent ran a list of eight major pieces of legislation from the last decade that Hatch personally voted for, all of which were passed through reconciliation, and none of which prompted "outright war" between parties or lawmakers.

Maybe someone should encourage Hatch to read this report from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, on the use of reconciliation by Republicans. I spoke to a top House aide this morning who told me Speaker Pelosi literally read from the CBPP document during the last caucus meeting.

Hatch's threats are a rather pathetic joke. If he's still capable of shame, now would be a good time for some.

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

THE MEGAPHONE GAP.... We talked earlier about a frustrating dynamic -- Republicans use obstructionist tactics to prevent the Democratic majority from governing, and the Dem majority doesn't raise much of a fuss. Kevin Drum followed up on this by raising an important point.

But take a step back: how are Democrats supposed to effectively raise a fuss? Republicans can do it easily: they just start bleating, and within a few hours their complaints are splashed across Drudge, repeated on a 24/7 loop on Fox News, the topic of email barrages from conservative interest groups, and the subject du jour of every talk radio show in the country. At that point the rest of the media picks up on the story because "people are talking about it." It's making waves. Which is true: it really is making waves because this kind of attention gets the conservative base genuinely outraged. And if something is getting lots of attention, then that by itself makes it a legitimate story regardless of its intrinsic merit.

But what megaphone do Democrats have? Virtually none. If they start complaining, some blogs will pick it up. Maybe Maddow and Olberman will talk about it. And that's it. There's no noise machine. And so there's nothing to force the rest of the media to bother with it unless they decide the underlying story itself is important.

That's entirely right. It may seem absurd, but Democrats can control the White House, House, and Senate, but it's Republicans who have the edge on the megaphone gap.

My first instinct was to note that the president has the most powerful megaphone of all -- the White House bully pulpit is still unrivaled -- but there's a qualitative difference. The president isn't a talk-show host and the White House isn't a cable network. Obama can try to help put an issue on the national radar, but there is no liberal noise machine to keep it there or make it persuasive to the electorate.

Indeed, there's even a qualitative difference in the kind of voice progressives provide. When Republicans want to push a talking point, they can rely on allies who are, for lack of a better word, hacks. Fox News isn't just conservative, it's Republican. Limbaugh, Drudge, et al care about helping their party, not just their ideology.

In contrast, President Obama and Democratic lawmakers may find a sympathetic ear among progressive bloggers and MSNBC's prime-time hosts, but notice the distinction -- Olbermann, Maddow, and bloggers are just as likely to criticize Dems as they are to praise them.

I'm not sure what to do about this, but the larger point occurred to me after a recent conversation with a Senate staffer. I raised the point that Republicans would simply not tolerate Democratic obstructionism on this scale, and asked why his boss isn't screaming bloody murder. He responded by sending me several instances in which his senator had complained about filibusters in remarks on the Senate floor.

Those speeches, however, no matter how persuasive, were easily ignored. In fact, every Democratic senator could give similar speeches, raising similar complaints, every day for the rest of the year, and they'd all be easily ignored.

But without a comparable noise machine, Dems seem to have limited options when it comes to expressing their outrage.

—Steve Benen 12:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)

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.

* Indiana Rep. Steve Buyer (R) this morning became the 15th House Republican to announce his retirement this term. The decision was likely motivated by serious ethics allegations surrounding Buyer, which he has struggled to explain. Given the district's history, it's expected to remain in GOP hands.

* It appears that the Republican National Committee's "purity resolution" will be scuttled, in favor of a compromise that would "require candidates to commit to a series of conservative positions."

* Ten months before the midterms, it appears Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is pretty safe. A new Rasmussen poll shows him leading Roxanne Conlin (D), a candidate Dems have been touting, by 28 points.

* In North Carolina, Sen. Richard Burr (R) still looks vulnerable, but a new Rasmussen poll nevertheless shows him with double-digit leads over his top Democratic challengers.

* Republicans in Connecticut have been struggling to find a top-tier gubernatorial candidate for this year's race, but it appears former Rep. Chris Shays (R), who narrowly lost re-election in 2008, is interested. One small problem: Shays no longer lives in Connecticut.

* It's still extremely unlikely, but speculation continues about whether Florida Gov. Charlie Crist might switch parties and run for the Senate as a Democrat. As a procedural matter, he would have until April 30, at the latest, to make up his mind.

* Arizona Dems hope Sen. John McCain and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth undermine each other so badly in their primary fight that Rodney Glassman, a Tucson councilman and Air Force JAG Reserve officer, has a shot at winning in November.

* And if former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) really does run for the Senate in New York, he's going to have a tough time living down his record of far-right rhetoric on immigration.

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

HOW TO ACCOMMODATE AN UNINFORMED ELECTORATE.... If you're reading this blog, you're almost certainly well versed on the basics. You're well aware of the fact, for example, that Republicans have opposed health care reform en masse and that overcoming constant filibusters poses an almost insurmountable challenge.

But you're far more informed than the typical person. And there are consequences associated with an uninformed electorate.

The public has consistently expressed strong interest in the health care debate, but relatively few Americans can correctly answer two key questions related to the Senate's consideration of health care legislation.

In the latest installment of the Pew Research Center's News IQ Quiz, just 32% know that the Senate passed its version of the legislation without a single Republican vote. And, in what proved to be the most difficult question on the quiz, only about a quarter (26%) knows that it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster in the Senate and force a vote on a bill.

This obviously poses a serious political problem. Americans don't really know what's in the Democratic health care reform proposal, but just as important, the vast majority of Americans don't know what it takes to overcome a filibuster.

It creates a situation in which the public sees a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, and doesn't understand why more isn't getting done.

Democratic strategists and officials occasionally think Republicans will be punished for their unprecedented, reflexive obstructionism. But it's worth remembering that most of the public doesn't really follow this stuff. They don't know about the constant filibusters -- they may not know what a filibuster even is -- and generally don't care about procedural matters.

In other words, Republicans have embraced one simple tactic -- the single most important weapon in the GOP arsenal -- and used it to prevent the governing party from functioning. And Americans aren't really aware of that.

Ezra noted the repercussions.

It's a depressing poll, and for the White House, it should be a troubling one. Their argument essentially relies on a fairly deep level of procedural knowledge and interest. Enough, at least, to understand that the amount of governing the majority can do is dependent on how much governing the minority lets them do. It's not an easy argument to make, and it's even harder if the White House does not plan to make an issue out of its premises.

At the very least, that poll suggests that there will be little political sympathy for an unsuccessful Democratic majority. Republicans may be responsible if health-care reform fails, but Democrats will bear the blame.

It's a clever trick, isn't it? Voters give Democrats power, Republicans prevent Democrats from using the power, and the public, unaware of the details, gets annoyed and asks, "Why can't Dems get anything done? Aren't they in the majority?"

Greg Sargent added this morning, "Some will respond that it's only mathematically impossible [for the majority to govern] if Dems accept the filibuster as an inevitable fact of life, rather than something that might be campaigned against and changed."

—Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (47)

SCREAM BLOODY MURDER.... It's worthwhile to recognize a frustrating political dynamic. It's even more worthwhile to try to do something about it.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) on Thursday admitted the "general feeling on the Democratic side" was that Republicans have so far been able to cast controversial protest votes and stall important legislation "with impunity."

He consequently seemed to suggest Republicans' behavior in Congress over the past year as hypocritical, as Democrats could never vote against important legislation and emerge unscathed.

"Some of the votes [Republicans] cast -- we would be on trial for treason if we had voted against defense appropriations in the midst of a war," he told reporters on his way to the Senate chamber. Durbin was referring to GOP members who tried to block the defense bill out of concern that a hate crimes bill was attached to it.

"They did it with impunity," Durbin lamented.

Durbin's right; they did. Every reckless, irresponsible, hypocritical, dangerous, and incoherent step Republicans take, they do so "with impunity."

They do so because they're pretty confident that Democrats won't effectively raise a fuss, the media won't care, and the public won't know. And they're right.

Let's look at this in a different light by imagining a hypothetical. Let's say Democrats ran the government for several years, and ran the country into a ditch. Disgusted, voters elected a Republican president with a huge mandate, gave Republicans the biggest House majority either party has had in 20 years, and the biggest Senate majority either party has had in 30 years.

Then imagine that, despite the overwhelming edge, Democrats decided -- during times of foreign and domestic crises -- that they simply would not allow the GOP majority to govern. Dems ignored the election results and reflexively opposed literally every bill, initiative, and nominee of any consequence, blocking anything and everything.

In this hypothetical, despite two wars, Democrats rejected funding for the troops. Despite a terrorist plot, Democrats rejected the qualified nominee to head the TSA. Despite an economic crisis, Democrats rejected economic recovery efforts, a jobs bill, and nominees to fill key Treasury Department posts.

Now, in this hypothetical, what do you suppose the political climate would look like? Would the huge Republican majority simply wring its hands? Would GOP officials decide it's time to try "bipartisan" governing? Would Republicans shrink from pursing their policy agenda?

Or would every single day be another opportunity for Republicans to be apoplectic about Democratic obstructionism? How many marches on Washington would Fox News organize, demanding that Democrats allow the governing majority to function?

Put simply, I'd like Democratic leaders to think about what Republicans would do if the situations were completely reversed. Then they should do that.

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)

STRONGEST ECONOMIC GROWTH IN SIX YEARS.... From Fall 2008 through Summer 2009, the nation's gross domestic product retreated. The four consecutive negative quarters was the longest since the government began keeping track six decades ago.

In the fourth quarter of 2009 -- from October to December -- the U.S. economy saw its best performance in a long while. There are, however, some caveats to the good news.

The United States economy grew at its fastest pace in over six years at the end of 2009, but a sluggish job market is still souring economists on the sustainability of the recovery.

Gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, well above analysts' expectations. It had grown at an annualized rate of 2.2 percent in the previous quarter.

After struggling for so long, a 5.7% rate looks like an economy that's finally roaring back to life. The AP added that the growth is "the strongest evidence to date that the worst recession since the 1930s ended last year."

That's the good news. The bad news is that the 5.7% number, while obviously heartening, may be a little misleading. Expect to hear a lot about something called an "inventory bounce."

Many economists ... warn against reading too much into a jump in GDP figures for the last three months of 2009. Ed Yardeni, president of Yardeni Research, said that even if there were no change in final sales of goods, the GDP figures would show a 4 percent increase simply because businesses that were emptying their warehouses a year ago are now buying enough goods to keep stockpiles steady.

Still, the 5.7% quarter exceeded several estimates. And with that, here's another home-made chart, showing GDP numbers by quarter since the recession began in late 2007.

* Update: Christina Romer, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, added, that the "inventory bounce, though likely to be transitory, is a normal part of healthy recoveries. As firms' confidence in the future increases, their desire to run down inventories wanes. This change in behavior is often a powerful force for growth early in a recovery."

—Steve Benen 9:20 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

PAYGO.... In case we needed additional evidence that bipartisanship is pretty much impossible, we got some yesterday.

The Senate took a vote on extending the federal debt ceiling -- without which the United States would go into default. All 40 Republicans voted no.

The Senate took a vote on requiring Congress not to pass legislation that it can't pay for. All 40 Republicans voted no.

The Senate took a final vote on passing the overall plan. Thirty-nine Republicans voted no. The 40th, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), skipped the vote.

The paygo vote was especially ridiculous. The idea is to "impose a requirement that key parts of the budget must be paid for with spending cuts or tax increases to prevent the federal deficit from increasing." It's known as the pay-as-you-go approach, or "paygo" -- if policymakers are going to increase spending or cut taxes, they have to figure out a way to pay for it at the time.

A similar rule was in place during the Clinton era, when the deficit was eliminated altogether. Republicans -- you know, the ones who claim to have the high ground on fiscal responsibility -- scrapped paygo in 2002. Soon after, GOP policymakers stopped trying to pay for their policies, and Republicans quickly added $5 trillion to the national debt, and left a $1.4 trillion deficit for Democrats to clean up.

As part of the effort to address the GOP's mess, Democrats have embraced paygo as a matter of common sense. President Obama, in his State of the Union address, urged Congress this week to "restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."

Just a few years ago, a handful of Senate Republicans -- Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, and John McCain -- argued that paygo should be brought back. They were unsuccessful in persuading their Republican colleagues at the time, and yesterday, they voted with their Republican colleagues to reject the idea that they'd already embraced.

And that, in a nutshell, is why the notion of bipartisanship with a failed and discredited minority is so hard to take seriously. GOP lawmakers are so reflexive in saying "no" to everything, they end up opposing ideas they support, and at that point, reason has no meaning.

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

HEALTH CARE REFORM LIVES -- MAYBE.... It can get a little confusing. Over the course of a few hours, political observers can find one report suggesting health care reform proponents may have "new reason to hope," followed soon after by another report arguing that "the grim reaper is starting to hover uncomfortably close by." One key Democratic senator suggests reform may be a lost cause, followed soon after by another key Democratic senator suggesting reform really will come together in the end.

And that's just since 3 p.m. yesterday.

Let's try to clear things up. Last week, in the immediate aftermath of the Massachusetts special election, health care reform barely had a pulse, and many Democrats were simply prepared to throw in the towel. This week, very few Dems are thinking along those lines -- on the contrary, the relevant players are nearly unanimous, publicly and privately, in their intention to succeed ... eventually.

But by all appearances, they're a little stuck, and there are no realistic hopes of getting this done quickly.

Democratic leaders in Congress voiced resolute optimism on Thursday that they would adopt major health care legislation this year, and they said that doing so was a crucial element of President Obama's broader agenda to create jobs, revive the economy and reduce federal budget deficits.

But legislative leaders conceded that they did not have an immediate strategy for advancing a health care measure and described their time frame as open-ended.

"We're going to do health care reform this year," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters. "The question is, at this stage, procedurally, how do we get where we need to go."

Sens. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairmen of the HELP and Finance committees, also sounded reasonably optimistic, with Baucus telling reporters reform is "going to be done before spring, summer." Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) added that the shift in emphasis is not a "cause for alarm."

We also heard a fair amount from the White House yesterday, with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel telling the NYT that Democratic policymakers would move on other economic issues -- including a jobs bill and Wall Street reform -- before returning to health care. "The good news is, nobody is saying 'Drop it.' Everybody is saying, 'Take the time to figure out how to get this done,''' Emanuel said. "Not doing it is not part of this conversation.''

David Axelrod added that it would be "a great political mistake to walk away" from health care reform, and that the president expects lawmakers to "go back at it soon."

So, a week after all hope appeared lost, key officials are at least saying good things, and have at least been talking about making progress, but they're nevertheless prepared to put reform on the backburner -- for an undetermined length of time. As much as it's heartening to know the commitment to success is still there, the delays may very well allow reform to die by neglect.

As we talked about yesterday, my biggest fear isn't that reform will come down to a life-or-death moment, where it either succeeds or fails. What's more likely is that this once-in-a-generation opportunity will simply fade away -- winter talks will be put on the backburner so policymakers can work on other things, which will lead to spring and a series of votes on those other issues. Spring will turn to summer, which is when leaders start telling reform proponents, "Well, we wanted to do something, but members don't want to vote on controversial issues so soon before the midterm elections."

Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

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

* The Senate confirmed Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term today, following a 70 to 30. The margin may seem lopsided, but it was the closest-ever vote for a Fed chairman's confirmation.

* Iraq: "A key al-Qaida in Iraq figure involved in smuggling hundreds of suicide bombers across the border from Syria has been killed in a raid in northern Iraq, the U.S. military said Thursday."

* Ford: "Ford Motor Co posted its first full-year profit since 2005 on Thursday and said it expects to stay profitable in 2010 despite a still fragile economy and a debt heavy balance sheet."

* Still awful: "New claims for unemployment insurance dropped to 470,000 for the week ended Jan. 23, from 478,000 the previous week. The four-week moving average, which aims to smooth volatility in the data, rose by 9,500 to 456,250."

* Tehran: "Iran hanged two men convicted in the wake of the unrest that erupted after last year's disputed election, as a top opposition figure predicted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be ousted before the end of his term."

* Federal debt limit: "The Senate agreed Thursday to raise the legal limit on government borrowing to a record $14.3 trillion, a total that would permit the Treasury Department to cover the nation's bills through the end of this year."

* 48 million Americans tuned in to watch President Obama's State of the Union address. That's the most-watched SOTU since 2003, and it's good news for the White House.

* There's apparently some real tensions right now between the White House and the Supreme Court.

* I'm still having trouble figuring out exactly what right-wing activist James O'Keefe hoped to accomplish with regard to Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) phones.

* Right-wing Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) believes O'Keefe getting caught committing alleged crimes may be part of a liberal conspiracy. Or something. King is disturbed and it's hard to know what he's trying to say.

* In the meantime, O'Keefe has been ordered to move in with his parents. The future of conservative media, indeed.

* Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) wants to cut federal spending. But if you ask for details, he throws a bit of a tantrum.

* Fred Kaplan makes a very compelling argument that if we're looking to cut the budget, the Pentagon shouldn't be excluded.

* Weapons for professors?

* Bill O'Reilly likes the idea of the CIA kidnapping Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and possibly torturing the House Speaker.

* Saying goodbye to two legends, J.D. Salinger and Howard Zinn.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

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

QUOTE OF THE DAY.... If being obsessed with the status of health care reform is wrong, I don't want to be right.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters today that President Obama's remarks in support of reform in the State of the Union were "helpful" in moving the process forward, but added that discussions with the Senate are ongoing. On a discouraging note, the Speaker made it seem as if the differences with the Senate are considerable and hard to overcome: "I would not call them minor tweaks because that would imply there's something there that we could accept, except for some minor tweaks. No, it's more serious than that."

That's the bad news. The good news is, Pelosi reiterated just how committed she is to making reform a reality:

"You go through the gate. If the gate's closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we'll pole-vault in. If that doesn't work, we'll parachute in. But we're going to get health care reform passed for the American people."

Compare Pelosi's strength and determination with Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-La.) whining today, and it's pretty clear who's truly serious about taking advantage of his once-in-a-generation opportunity.

As for Pelosi's counterpart in the other chamber, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) scheduled a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Max Baucus (D-Mont.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) -- all key players in the Senate reform effort -- to discuss how best to proceed on the issue.

The fact that they're having this conversation is at least mildly encouraging -- at Tuesday's caucus meeting, health care reform didn't come up at all.

—Steve Benen 4:55 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

MOVING FORWARD ON DADT REPEAL.... There were rumors that President Obama would address "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the State of the Union address last night, and fortunately, the scuttlebutt was true.

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are," Obama said. "It's the right thing to do." When the president made the remark, cameras showed Defense Secretary Robert Gates standing and applauding, along with many Democratic lawmakers.

Marc Ambinder reports today that the president's directive wasn't just rhetoric -- the administration is already moving forward with a plan to implement the new policy.

Before President Obama announced last night that he would work with Congress and the Pentagon to end the military's ban on service by gays and lesbians, the White House consulted Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to sign off on the language he planned to use, administration officials said. They did. "The Pentagon is with us," the official said.

And Geoff Morell, Gates's spokesman, e-mails me to say that "The Department leadership is actively working on an implementation plan and will have more to say about it next week." So -- Obama's pledge to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell was more than words -- he's instructed the military to get it done as soon as Congress repeals the law.

The plan, as far as I can tell, is still to complete the change through an amendment to the Defense budget, not through a free-standing bill -- the same way policymakers approved expanded hate-crime protections last year.

What kind of opposition can we expect? It's probably too soon to say. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) issued a statement demanding that DADT stay in place, though, oddly enough, his statement didn't even try to explain why the policy is a good idea.

Nevertheless, nothing worthwhile ever comes easily, at least not in contemporary politics. Kevin Drum noted today, "Right now this seems like a very winnable fight, but that's because the pushback hasn't really started yet. But once Fox gets going, and op-eds get written, and the locker room tittering takes off, and FreedomWorks starts running TV ads, and Focus on the Family blankets their mailing list with dire fundraising letters, and disgruntled military brass start leaking -- well, that's a whole different ballgame."

That's probably right, though I'd note that the right really hated the hate-crimes expansion -- believe me, I'm on Dobson's mailing list -- and the opposition barely registered. I agree that there will be considerable pushback, but with backing from the White House and the Pentagon, I think the smart money is on DADT finally getting repealed by the spring.

Post Script: The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a key hearing on DADT on Tuesday. It's the first step in making this happen.

—Steve Benen 4:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (16)

NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT.... I've spent an inordinate amount of time lately trying to ascertain/understand/guess what happens next on health care reform. Over the last week or so, there have been some encouraging signs and discouraging signs, but at this point, there are really only two things that are perfectly clear: (1) the relevant players really do seem to want to get this done; and (2) they haven't the foggiest idea when or how.

Last night, President Obama defended the Democratic reform plan during the State of the Union, and urged lawmakers not to give up. At an event in Tampa today, the president repeated a similar sentiment:

"[W]e will not stop fighting for a health care system that works for the American people, not just for the insurance industry. We won't stop.

"We want a system where you can't be denied care if you have a pre-existing condition. You can't get thrown off your insurance right at the time when you get seriously ill.

"We want a system where small businesses can get insurance at a price they can afford. Nobody pays more than small businesses and individuals who are self-employed in the insurance market, because they've got no leverage. We want to change that by allowing them to be able to set up a pool.

"We want to make sure that people who don't have coverage can find an affordable choice in a competitive marketplace.

"We want a system in which seniors don't have these huge gaps in their Medicare prescription drug coverage. And where Medicare itself is on a sounder financial footing.

'Those are the things that we're fighting for. And I'm not going to stop on this, because it's the right thing to do."

Sounds great. So, what's next? No one knows.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters today, "We're going to do health care reform this year. The question at this stage is procedurally how do we need to get where we need to go." Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) added that Democrats are "thinking about it and how to move on it." What does that tell us? Not much.

Conservative members of the Senate caucus still aren't helping. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said reform is "on life support," and she's "hoping that in the next week or two" the president will give lawmakers marching orders.

My biggest fear isn't that reform will come down to a life-or-death moment, where it either succeeds or fails. What's more likely is that this once-in-a-generation opportunity will simply fade away -- winter talks will be put on the backburner so policymakers can work on other things, which will lead to spring and a series of votes on those other issues. Spring will turn to summer, which is when leaders start telling reform proponents, "Well, we wanted to do something, but members don't want to vote on controversial issues so soon before the midterm elections."

If this is going to succeed, the way to make it happen is to get it done very soon. As a practical matter, that means working out a plan, literally, over the next week or two. The longer it takes, the more likely failure becomes. And if it fails, the consequences -- for the country, the economy, the Democratic Party, the Obama presidency -- would surely be severe.

Also, I've been pushing the line pretty hard that congressional Democrats can/should realize what needs to be done, and not rely excessively on the White House to deliver marching orders. I still believe that, but it's also becoming clearer to me that expecting Congress to make these realizations is probably unrealistic -- the House and Senate are at odds, they don't seem to be getting anywhere, and without some presidential hand-holding, a way forward will likely never materialize.

The fate of reform, in other words, shouldn't necessarily fall on the president's shoulders, but it may anyway.

—Steve Benen 3:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

TEA PARTY CONVENTION CONTINUES TO UNRAVEL.... A week from Saturday, a right-wing outfit Tea Party Nation will host the first-ever National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn. It's becoming less and less clear whether attendees will have any leaders on hand to follow.

Over the last week or so, three far-right co-sponsors of the event -- the National Precinct Alliance, the American Liberty Alliance, and American Majority -- all pulled out.

Today, the event suffered a more serious blow, losing two right-wing House Republicans from the guest list.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has become the latest to pull out of a scheduled speaking gig at the controversial National Tea Party Convention next year.

Like Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) earlier today, Bachmann's office cited concerns about the event's financial arrangements. Some Tea Partiers have accused the convention's organizer, Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation, of seeking to profit from the confab.

The announcements bring the total of sitting lawmakers speaking at the event to zero.

Former half-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is still scheduled to be the keynote speaker -- and pick up a reported $100,000 check -- but the confused former V.P. nominee is under pressure to drop out, too.

Of course, with the guest list shrinking, it's also possible that attendees will decide that the event isn't worth the trip, making this apparent fiasco that much more embarrassing.

In fairness, I should emphasize that the unraveling of the Tea Party Convention doesn't necessarily reflect an unraveling of the larger right-wing "movement" -- this has more to do with one poorly-planned debacle than the relative strength of the collection of unhinged activists.

Still, the convention was intended to be a key strategizing moment for the upcoming elections, and at this point, it seems to be imploding.

—Steve Benen 2:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

EVAN BAYH'S MORAL WRONGS.... The solution to the health care reform debate seems pretty obvious -- the House approves the Senate bill; the Senate agrees to improvements through reconciliation. One of the obstacles, of course, is the group of center-right Democrats who not only don't want to return to the issue, but are staunchly opposed to using reconciliation.

It's worth fully appreciating, though, why reconciliation is considered so distasteful. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) explained that the procedure should be avoided because it may bother Republicans. And if Republicans are bothered, they may not work with Democrats on bipartisan solutions. Seriously, that's the argument.

"There would be some real consequences from that for the legislative agenda for the rest of the year," Bayh told me last night, "the other things the president called for: cooperation on education, financial reform, a whole host of other things."

Bayh says he sees a real prospect for bipartisanship on those issues, but that Republicans will walk away if Democrats play hardball on health care.

"The problem with reconciliation is that it runs a real risk...of poisoning the well on progress on some of these areas," Bayh said.

This is so hopelessly misguided, it's hard to know where to start. I'd remind Bayh, for example, that reconciliation has been used plenty of times in recent years, and the institution and its members survived just fine. I'd also ask why on earth Bayh think Democrats giving up on their signature domestic policy initiative would suddenly make Republicans -- who've run a scorched-earth campaign since Day One -- open to bipartisan compromise on a whole host of issues.

But let's put all of that aside and characterize this in a way that too often goes overlooked. Bayh isn't just wrong about the legislative process; he's wrong about morality.

Getting reform done isn't just about passing some bill; it's about helping millions of Americans suffering under the current system. As anyone even passively familiar with the debate surely knows, the tens of millions of Americans with no coverage are struggling with a burden unseen in other major democracies. Thousands more join the ranks of the uninsured every day. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because they have no insurance. Hundreds of thousands of others fall into medical bankruptcy -- and most of these medical bankruptcies involve people who have insurance, but whose coverage proves inadequate.

Bayh's argument, quite literally, is that those suffering under a dysfunctional status quo will just have to continue to suffer, because the legitimate legislative procedure needed to help them might annoy Republicans.

Helping those who are suffering isn't as high a priority as maybe getting some GOP help on a few issues?

It might take a little principled courage and compassion to help get reform finished. But Bayh would have us believe the millions counting on reform becoming law should just wait -- indefinitely.

How anyone could perceive this as anything but morally outrageous is a mystery to me. I want Evan Bayh to go to Indianapolis this weekend and meet with a family that lost their coverage because someone lost their job, or maybe a family that can't get coverage because someone has a pre-existing condition, or maybe a family going into bankruptcy because one of its members had the audacity to get sick. He should explain to them that they'll have to go without because he's worried that Republicans might be unhappy if Dems use a legislative procedure that Republicans have already used plenty of times.

Go ahead and ask them, Evan, if they think that's a reasonable way to go.

—Steve Benen 1:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (31)

THE POLITICS OF THE ALOHA STATE.... The Republican National Committee, for the first time, is holding a winter meeting at a sunny resort in Waikiki, Hawaii. RNC Chairman Michael Steele personally selected the locale.

I don't much care, but the political implications have become rather amusing.

The choice of venue is, not surprisingly, drawing a little bit of ribbing from Democrats, groaning from some Republicans (it is a very long 4,000 miles from, say, Washington D.C), and reminders of the political significance of this state, in the form of the "Obama's Oahu" maps on sale that provide a guide to all things Obama on this island, where the president grew up.

Mr. Steele, in an interview, leapt to defend the decision the moment the question was raised.

"It's been disappointing to me to hear people treat the 50th state of the Union as if it was some foreign land," he said, as he sat in the lounge of the Rainbow Tower, the smell of pineapple in the air and the breaking surf at his back.

Right. Who would make such a silly claim about Hawaii being "foreign"? Well, Republican campaign strategists, for one.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) also wasn't thrilled with Steele's chosen destination: "[D]o I want voters to think that Republicans do nothing but go to beach resorts in January? No."

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

STOP GIVING RUDY THE CLOWN AIRTIME.... The problem with news outlets constantly turning to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani for "political analysis" is three-fold. First, he's an irrelevant figure with predictable observations. Second, he says things that are clearly false. And third, he hasn't the foggiest idea what he's talking about, but he keeps getting invited back.

Take this morning, for example. Giuliani appeared on CNN and Fox News to attack the State of the Union, and made a variety of ridiculous claims. According to the former mayor, President Obama (1) "ignored national security" during the speech; (2) "didn't talk about the Christmas almost-bomber"; and (3) didn't use the word "Islamic terrorism."

In Grown-Up Land, these claims aren't just misleading, they're obvious lies.

First, the president didn't "ignore national security." Giuliani claims to have actually watched the speech, but if that's true, he would have noticed Obama talking about our "renewed focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation," the administration having "disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives," new security measures, and the success the U.S. has had capturing or killing terrorists. The president talked about the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, "taking the fight to al Qaeda," isolating North Korea, and the "growing consequences" Iran may face.

Second, Giuliani believes the president "didn't talk about the Christmas almost-bomber," but Obama clearly said, "We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence."

Third, as for Giuliani's obsession with word choice -- "Islamic terrorism" is two words, by the way, not one -- the president used the words "terrorist" (twice), "terrorism," "war" (seven times), "al Qaeda" (twice), and "national security" (three times).

And how much pushback did Giuliani receive this morning while making these bogus claims? None.

Remember, just a couple of weeks ago, Giuliani claimed, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama." This was blisteringly stupid, but it hasn't affected his appearances.

And therein lies the point. I don't really blame Giuliani for routinely lying on television; he's just a hack doing what comes naturally. I do blame news outlets for rewarding his dishonesty with more scrutiny-free appearances.

Americans want to know more about national security. It's up to producers, editors, and other journalists to provide forums to those who will help the public better understand the world around them. Repeatedly giving Giuliani a microphone does a disservice to the nation.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

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.

* The "purity test" to be considered by the Republican National Committee looks to be in trouble. Yesterday, RNC Chairman Michael Steele announced his formal opposition and state party chairs voted unanimously to kill the proposal.

* It appears that Rep. John Boozman (R) will soon announce his retirement from the House to run against Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) in Arkansas this year. A formal decision is expected by the weekend.

* In Illinois, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) leading Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in this year's U.S. Senate race, 42% to 34%. In hypothetical match-ups, Kirk fares better against the other Democratic candidates. Both parties will host primary contests next week.

* A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows former Rep. Tom Campbell (R) trailing Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) by just four points, 45% to 41%.

* Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) hasn't moved any closer to running for the Senate against incumbent Sen. Russ Feingold (D), but Rasmussen shows Thompson leading if he runs.

* And White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is still annoyed by the recent results in Massachusetts, telling CBS News' Katie Couric yesterday, "I don't want to re-litigate this, but there is no doubt in my mind we could have won that race."

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

BISHOPS DON'T WANT TO SEE REFORM DIE.... I suppose it can't hurt.

Theology can make for confusing politics, especially in partisan Washington.

Just a few weeks ago the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops was threatening to oppose the proposed health care overhaul because it could expand health insurance coverage of abortion.

Now that the legislation appears to be near death, the bishops are on the other side. They have sent a letter urging Congress to keep it alive.

Well, sort of. The Bishops' letter is online (pdf), and while they "strongly urge" lawmakers to "come together and recommit themselves to enacting genuine health care reform," and lament the fact that the debate "seems to have lost its central moral focus and policy priority," the USCCB sketches out a vision for what reform ought to look like.

* Ensures access to quality, affordable, life-giving health care for all;

* Retains longstanding requirements that federal funds not be used for elective abortions or plans that include them, and effectively protects conscience rights; and,

* Protects the access to health care that immigrants currently have and removes current barriers to access.

The Bishops' position hasn't changed at all, but recognizing the human suffering that will result from health care reform's demise, the USCCB insists, "Now is not the time to abandon this task."

They want, in other words, policymakers to keep trying to find a solution that would make the USCCB happy.

Since the alternative is watching the Bishops trying to kill reform, I suppose this is preferable.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

AT LEAST HE WAS BETTER THAN JINDAL.... Giving the official response to the State of the Union -- any president's State of the Union -- tends to be the kiss of death for any political figure of note. Given the recent history, I'm generally surprised when anyone even accepts the gig.

Virginia's newly elected governor, Bob McDonnell, made a good decision to offer his response in a better setting -- he spoke from the floor of the Virginia House of Delegates -- though as a friend of mine joked last night, following on the heels of State of the Union, McDonnell more or less came across as the president of a much smaller country.

As for the content, I've been trying to think of something noteworthy to write, but the speech was rather boilerplate. All McDonnell had to do was avoid embarrassing himself the way Bobby Jindal did last year, and I'm confident the Virginian cleared this very low bar.

In terms of substance, McDonnell was pretty conventional. We learned, for example, that when the government takes money out of the economy, it helps create jobs. That doesn't make any sense, but this was the official GOP response, where facts are irrelevant.

But more than anything else, McDonnell's comments on health care stood out.

"All Americans agree, we need a health care system that is affordable, accessible, and high quality. But most Americans do not want to turn over the best medical care system in the world to the federal government.

"Republicans in Congress have offered legislation to reform healthcare, without shifting Medicaid costs to the states, without cutting Medicare, and without raising your taxes.

"We will do that by implementing common sense reforms, like letting families and businesses buy health insurance policies across state lines, and ending frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals that drive up the cost of your healthcare.

"And our solutions aren't thousand-page bills that no one has fully read, after being crafted behind closed doors with special interests."

A few quick things to keep in mind. First, the U.S. system isn't the "best in the world." That's just silly.

Second, the Democratic plan does not turn over medical care to the federal government. McDonnell probably should have looked into this before giving the speech.

Third, the Republican health care plan was a fairly transparent joke. It was an embarrassment to the GOP, not a plan to brag about.

And fourth, while the Republican proposal wasn't a 1,000-page bill "crafted behind closed doors with special interests," it was, in reality, a 700-page bill crafted behind closed doors with special interests.

Media Matters did some additional fact-checking, but on the whole, the address was largely forgettable. Given the history, though, it was largely a pass/fail test, so McDonnell should probably be pleased.

—Steve Benen 10:50 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (44)

ANOTHER EDITION FOR MATTHEWS'S 'GREATEST HITS'.... There was some memorable rhetoric in President Obama's State of the Union address, but one of the more notable remarks of the night came after the speech on MSNBC.

Chris Matthews, reflecting on what he'd seen, based his analysis on race. "I was trying to think about who he was tonight. It's interesting; he is post-racial, by all appearances. I forgot he was black tonight for an hour," the host of "Hardball" said. "He's gone a long way to become a leader of this country and past so much history in just a year or two. I mean it's something we don't even think about. I was watching and I said, wait a minute, he's an African-American guy in front of a bunch of other white people and there he is, president of the United States, and we've completely forgotten that tonight -- completely forgotten it."

Talking later to Rachel Maddow, Matthews tried to clarify matters, saying he was explaining an "epiphany" he had while watching the address, touting the president's ability to provide national leadership that gets Americans "beyond these divisions."

I want to give Matthews the benefit of the doubt, and I'm trying to understand his observation. After watching it a couple of times, I think Matthews is effectively trying to say how nice it is that the color of the president's skin is no longer relevant when evaluating his performance in office.

But it's hard not to notice that Matthews stepped on his own observation in a strikingly clumsy way. He's impressed by how irrelevant race is in evaluating Obama ... which leads him to immediately talk about race in evaluating Obama.

It's also troubling because of Matthews' history when it comes to his preoccupation with issues related to racial identity. During the 2008 campaign, for example, 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.

He's going to have to do a lot better than this.

—Steve Benen 10:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

EARLY POLLS SHOW POSITIVE SOTU REACTION.... Gauging public reactions to the State of the Union is more than a little tricky at this point. For one thing, it's only been 12 hours. For another, the audience isn't especially broad -- those who tune into a presidential speech like this one are more likely to be open to what he has to say.

But with those caveats in mind, the initial results suggest President Obama's speech was well received. CBS News, for example, published these results over night.

Of the randomly selected 522 speech viewers questioned by CBS, 83 percent said they approved of the proposals the President made. Just 17 percent disapproved -- typical of the high support a president generally receives among those who choose to watch the State of the Union. [...]

Six in 10 of those asked said they thought Mr. Obama conveyed a clear plan for creating jobs, and seven in 10 said his plans for the economy will help ordinary Americans. Another seven in 10 said President Obama has the same priorities for the country as they have.

The same individuals were interviewed both before and after Wednesday's State of the Union, and after the speech, 70 percent said Mr. Obama shares their priorities for the country, up from 57 percent before the speech.

Indeed, among those polled before and after, there were big jumps in support for the president on everything from jobs to health care to U.S. policy in Afghanistan.

CNN also released a poll last night, reflecting widespread support -- 48% had a very positive reaction to the speech, 30% had a somewhat positive response, and 21% had a negative response. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland added, "All in all, Obama had a definite affect on his audience."

And Mark Blumenthal noted that Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg's Democracy Corps conducted a "dial group" (focus group with dials) in Las Vegas, and found a "very positive response," most notably on "bank reform and wall street and special interests."

On the issue of whether he puts Wall Street ahead of the middle class, it was a 50 point shift on people saying that [doesn't describe him] well. There was a 40-point shift...on fighting special interests. On banking reform, on support, it was a 38 point shift in favor of that. And that's clearly, far and away the place where he showed the greatest strength and clarity.

These immediate reactions can shift, but it seems like the kind of positive response the White House can build on.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

GETTING HEALTH CARE BACK ON TRACK?.... Everyone in, near, or around the debate over the future of health care reform watched very closely last night, waiting for signals in President Obama's State of the Union address about the road ahead. Given some of the remarks from lawmakers earlier in the week, the fate of reform would be heavily influenced by what the president had to say.

So, did the president single-handedly save the struggling initiative with one section of one speech? Probably not, but that would be unrealistic anyway. Obama did, however, give reform a much-needed boost, and with some meaningful follow-up, the measure may yet succeed.

There's been some debate over the last 12 hours about whether the president did enough. It's not an unreasonable question -- the speech did not give lawmakers "marching orders," did not set a deadline for passage, and did not lay out a specific strategy for what to do next. But I'm not sure that's what the State of the Union is for, exactly.

Obama instead chose to "clear a few things up" about why reform is necessary, and why the Democratic plan has merit. (If he weren't still trying to get the proposal through, he wouldn't have bothered presenting a defense of it.) Indeed, there was a fairly detailed recitation of some of the key, easy-to-understand benefits of the bill that's so close to passage, and an explanation of why things will get worse if reform fails.

He wrapped up the point by urging passage.

"I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber.

"So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it.

"Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. Let's get it done."

Soon after, in a related reminder, the president told Democratic lawmakers, "I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills."

Now, I've seen some suggest that by inviting others to present "a better approach," Obama was signaling his willingness to accept a watered-down bill. I actually thought it was the opposite. He set the goal posts in place -- lower premiums, deficit reduction, coverage for the uninsured, strengthening Medicare, strong consumer protections -- knowing full well that reform's critics can't present a plan that will meet these tests.

And what about the reactions? Brian Beutler talked to several Democratic lawmakers who said the president's remarks helped, but the House is still looking to the Senate to act, and vice versa. Jonathan Cohn added, "I canvassed about ten key sources on Capitol Hill, focusing on the members, staff, and advocates most committed to passing reform. Every one (literally) seemed relatively pleased and some seemed very pleased, even without the step-by-step instructions.... Obama gave reform advocates the support, and cover, they needed."

So, health care reform lives, at least for now. The White House is going to have to do more in the coming days to keep the effort on track, and pressure on Congress from the public will have to continue, but at a minimum, the State of the Union kept hope alive.

—Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

WHY IT WORKED.... I've been trying to put my finger on why I liked President Obama's State of the Union address so much. The content and delivery were strong, but that's to be expected. I think my very positive reaction has to do with the larger context and the pre-speech expectations.

Given the public's palpable frustrations and the struggles the nation endured in 2009, there was a sense that the president would have to be vaguely apologetic during the address. He'd have to explain himself, acknowledge mistakes, and lay a new course for the year ahead. The pundits' use of words like "reboot" and "scaled back" were ubiquitous going into the speech.

The president, though, decided not to follow the conventional script. When he was supposed to be meek, he showed confidence. When expected to be contrite, Obama seemed proud. When Republicans sought deference, the president responded with strength. Indeed, while the GOP believes electoral winds are at their backs, Obama didn't mind teasing, confronting, challenging, and even mocking them in a good-natured way.

The fear that the president might shrink from the moment was backwards -- Obama stepped up and seemed larger than ever.

There was an inherent challenge that falls on any president leading during hard times: conveying to the public that policies are working, and that things are getting/will get better, without appearing ignorant of their pain. I thought Obama threaded the needle extremely well -- highlighting not just the economic hardships, but the "deficit of trust" and the pettiness that contributes to American cynicism.

Also note, Democrats have appeared on the verge of a meltdown since Massachusetts's special election. The president not only leads the executive branch, but is also the head of the party, and made it clear to his compatriots last night that they're going to have take a deep breath and get back to work.

"To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills."

Good advice. The underlying message of the night was that the president needs Democrats to follow his lead. Given the strength of the speech, it was an appeal that seems likely to work.

But perhaps the part of the speech that resonated most with me was the president's call to aim high.

"I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.

"Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.

"But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren."

It was as assertive as it was persuasive. If he can translate this vision and leadership style into a concrete action, 2010 will be far stronger than 2009.

—Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

SOTU OPEN THREAD.... I'll have more on President Obama's State of the Union speech in the morning, and I'm usually awful at guessing how "everyone else" responds to speeches like these, but my first thought after it ended was, "Oh, right, this is why I voted for the guy."

We've been here before -- Obama gets in a jam, so a big speech is needed to set things right. It happened at Iowa's JJ dinner; it happened with the speech on race in Philadelphia; etc. I'm not convinced the presidency was veering off in the wrong direction, but if anything should help bring some renewed confidence to the White House, this State of the Union address should do the trick. There were high expectations, and Obama delivered.

And with that, let's open the floor to some discussion. What'd you think?

—Steve Benen 10:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (84)

SOTU LIVE-BLOGGING.... Rumor has it that Live-Tweeting has replaced Live-Blogging as That Which Bloggers Are Supposed To Do. But where's the fun in that? State of the Union thoughts in 140 characters? Pshaw.

The motorcade arrived on the Hill a few minutes ago, and President Obama will be heading into the House chamber in about 10 minutes. Here it goes....

[full live-blogging after the jump]

9:01: It's a minute after nine and the SOTU hasn't begun. I can only assume an RNC press release attacking the president for being "tardy, too" is on the way.

9:07: I find it interesting to think those folks camped out all day just to get those prime seats along the walkway. They even had a picnic this afternoon.

9:12: "Again, we are tested." Ain't that the truth.

9:15: Still no applause lines. Somber tone.

9:16: Making clear he gets it: "Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They are tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness."

9:17: "I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight."

9:18: "Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit."

9:19: Yep, everyone really hates that bailout.

9:20: Notice that no one on the GOP stodd for this: "If these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need."

9:21: I think Obama wants us to understand something about cutting taxes.

9:23: Damn straight: stimulus works.

9:24: "Jobs must be our number one focus in 2010, and that is why I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight."

9:26: It's going to be tough to oppose this one: "I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat."

9:28: High-speed rail rocks.

9:29: Straight out of the '08 stump speech: "It's time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs in the United States of America."

9:30: There's that theme again: New Foundation.

9:31: Good questions: "How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?"

9:32: More of this, please: "China's not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting. These nations aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well I do not accept second-place for the United States of America."

9:33: Financial reform comes first on the list.

9:34: Veto threat!

9:35: Sounds like Obama is on board with an all-of-above approach to energy policy.

9:37: Wait, there's "overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change"?

9:37: Thomas Friedman is smiling: "The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation."

9:39: Wonder why GOP applauded a lot less for this one: "Realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules."

9:40: "In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education."

9:41: This should be such a no-brainer: "To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants."

9:42: "Because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college."

9:43: "It is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform."

9:44: "And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics." Cute.

9:45: Defense of the plan. Doesn't sound scary, does it?

9:46: HCR reduces the deficit? Why, that's a great idea!

9:47: "I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber."

9:48: This plan works. If you can do better, let's hear it.

9:50: Thanks, Bush, for screwing us all over.

9:52: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years." No applause from either side.

9:53: There's that deficit commission idea the president likes.

9:55: "That's how budgeting works." Not in the prepared text -- needling GOP.

9:56: Dear Republicans, we tried it your way. It failed. "It's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense."

9:57: "We face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -- deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years."

9:58: Trashing a Supreme Court ruling in front of the justices. Awkward.

9:59: Earmark reform.

10:00: "Every day is Election Day."

10:01: Senate reform: "Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants should not be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual Senators."

10:02: Dear Dems, don't "run for the hills." Good advice.

10:03: Now we're talking: "If the Republican leadership is going to insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions."

10:04: Dear Cheneys, "Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and the world."

10:05: He probably should have said this twice: "In the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008."

10:07: "This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home."

10:08: Real investment in taking care of returning troops and their families.

10:09: JFK and Reagan have the same approach on ridding the world of nukes.

10:10: Iran will "face growing consequences."

10:11: "As we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild."

10:12: "For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity."

10:13: Damn straight: "My Administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination."

10:14: About damn time: "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do."

10:16: President Grown-Up: "Each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates into silly arguments, and big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away. No wonder there's so much cynicism out there."

10:18: Can I get a witness? "The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren."

10:20: "We don't quit. I don't quit. Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more."

—Steve Benen 8:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (64)

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

* Signs of life in Haiti? "As the United Nations dispatched thousands of earthquake survivors to clean the streets in a growing cash-for-work program, this devastated capital showed increasing signs of stirring back to life on Wednesday as Haitians restarted factory assembly lines, visited their barbers, sought replacement cell phones and even picked up their dry cleaning."

* New counter-terrorism efforts, approved by President Obama directly, in Yemen: "U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people, among them six of 15 top leaders of a regional al-Qaeda affiliate, according to senior administration officials."

* There was a CNBC report earlier that said Pelosi has 218 votes to pass the Senate health care bill. That report was wrong. Democratic leaders are, however, increasingly vocal about their commitment to getting something done.

* The reform problem is, however, nearly as complicated procedurally as it is politically.

* John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism advisor, isn't impressed with Joe Lieberman's Fort Hood concerns.

* Kabul: "The Afghan government is set to unveil an ambitious, far-reaching plan to persuade the Taliban's foot soldiers to abandon their fight and to offer an opening for the movement's leaders to return to politics in the country they once ruled."

* President Obama continues to work with Russia on START talks.

* Two months ago, NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I) was fine with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed being tried in New York. Now, Bloomberg is no longer pleased. (It seems to have more to do with the mayor's office looking for some additional federal funds, and less to do with the usual GOP fear-mongering.)

* Former CIA operative John Kiriakou has argued publicly that he has first-hand evidence on the efficacy of torture, and has been widely cited over the years by conservatives. It turns out, Kiriakou didn't know what he was talking about.

* The DCCC's new "State of the Union 'Fact Check Fox' Team" seems like a worthwhile endeavor.

* The new iPad looks pretty darn cool.

* The White House says its "budget freeze" won't hurt higher education.

* There's no easy way to say this, but Center for Military Readiness' Elaine Donnelly appears to be stark raving mad.

* When right-wing activist James O'Keefe was trying to destroy ACORN, Fox News thought he was extremely important. Now that O'Keefe is a suspected criminal, Fox News doesn't want to talk about him anymore.

* On a related note, what did Andrew Breitbart know about O'Keefe's activities and when did he know it?

* Mugshot: "James O'Keefe, the face of 'conservative journalism.'"

I'll be back in a few hours for some State of the Union live-blogging, but for now, consider this an open thread.

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

PAWLENTY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT A 'CREDIBLE ECONOMIST' IS.... Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty's (R) hopes of undermining confidence in the economic recovery package are predictable -- he is, after all, planning to run against President Obama in 2012. It's his citation on Fox News today that irked me.

"I think most credible economists say it's not working," Pawlenty said.

Funny, I can't think of a credible economist who doubts it's working.

[W]ith roughly a quarter of the stimulus money out the door after nine months, the accumulation of hard data and real-life experience has allowed more dispassionate analysts to reach a consensus that the stimulus package, messy as it is, is working. [...]

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.

Among "credible economists," we seem awfully close to complete unanimity that the Democrats' recovery effort rescued the economy from collapse, created jobs, and generated economic growth that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Among the experts, this isn't even worth debating anymore -- it's simply an obvious truth that the stimulus was effective. (It would have been more effective had it been more ambitious, but "moderate" Republicans insisted that the package be smaller.)

Even the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank that which enjoyed very close ties to the Bush White House, said that without the stimulus, the economy would not have grown at all in 2009. We've seen related reports over, and over, and over again. Any serious person who's looked at reality has to conclude that Pawlenty's vision for addressing the economic crisis would have made things worse, not better.

Which is why the politics of the economic debate can be so exasperating. To reiterate a point from a month ago, the Republicans' track record of uninterrupted failure is rather astounding.

The GOP said the stimulus package would fail to create jobs. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the recovery efforts would fail to generate economic growth. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the stimulus "failed." We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the government should cancel unspent recovery funds. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said tax cuts are more effective at stimulating the economy than government spending. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

Tim Pawlenty simply has no idea what he's talking about. His understanding isn't just backwards, it's dangerously confused.

—Steve Benen 4:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

BEST BEHAVIOR.... It's a symptom of our toxic political environment that, for the first time, there are several media reports today questioning whether congressional Republicans will be able to behave themselves during the State of the Union. This used to be one of those civil niceties we took for granted, back when Republicans were grown-ups.

We've been assured, however, that GOP heckles and catcalls are unlikely.

House GOP leaders are urging fellow Republicans to control their tempers and avoid any repeat performances of Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst at tonight's State of the Union speech.

House Republican leaders warned rank and file Republican members in a private meeting this morning to show the President "respect" during tonight's speech, two sources familiar with the meeting tell me.

House GOP leader John Boehner, minority whip Eric Cantor, and leading House conservative Mike Pence all stood up and delivered that message to the closed-door House GOP caucus meeting today.

There were no cameras on hand for the private meeting, but a certain "Saturday Night Live" skit keeps coming to mind.

As for Wilson, whose disrespectful outburst conduct made him a right-wing celebrity, the South Carolinian promises to behave himself. "That was a one-time incident," Wilson said. "I will continue, through my agreement with the White House, to discuss issues civilly."

But not too civilly -- Wilson is now apparently something of a "Birther," and still regrets that the birth-certificate "issue"' wasn't raised more during the presidential campaign.

—Steve Benen 3:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (17)

BEN NELSON SHARES DOUBLE-CROSS PLAN.... As the Senate was poised to approve its health care reform bill, there was a problem -- proponents had 59 votes. Sen. Ben Nelson (D), the chamber's most conservative Democrat, was the lone holdout, and his generally incoherent demands about indirect abortion funding very nearly killed the legislation. (He also demanded a little something known as the "Cornhusker Kickback," which proved to be problematic.)

In time, a compromise was struck. It was far from ideal, but it allowed the bill to advance. Nelson said at the time that if the House tried to mess with his deal on abortion financing, he'd block final passage.

Igor Volsky reports, however, that Nelson now claims he had a secret plan, and was prepared to oppose his own compromise.

[Y]esterday, in an interview with LifeSiteNews.com Nelson said that he agreed to the compromise to "get" the final bill into conference and planned to use his leverage as the 60th vote, to insert his original [Stupak-like] amendment into in the final conference report.

"[O]nce it went to conference, as part of the conference, there was still another 60 vote threshold, and that is when I would have insisted... for my last 60th vote, it has to have [Stupak-like language]," Nelson said.

Let's unpack this a bit. As Nelson describes it now, he struck a deal with his allies, but assures us that he was deliberately negotiating in bad faith. As Nelson now wants us to believe, he struck a deal and voted for it, but had every intention of going back on his word and betraying his party.

That's Nelson's defense.

It's also almost certainly a lie. Nelson is trying to bolster his reputation with conservative opponents of abortion rights, and figures this is the best way to do it. And since a final bill isn't going back to the Senate anyway, he can make the claim with impunity.

But that doesn't make it credible. If Nelson had a problem with his own compromise, he would have pushed for changes in the midst of the White House negotiations two weeks ago. Instead, Nelson never said a word. He's probably just hoping that abortion-rights opponents fall for his tall tale here.

Whether they believe him or not, I hope this comes to Harry Reid's attention: Nelson just admitted publicly that his word is no good and that he lies to the Senate leadership during negotiations. It's a detail the Majority Leader may want to keep in mind in the future.

—Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

OBAMA WON'T ABANDON REFORM.... We won't know exactly what President Obama has to say on the subject until tonight -- from what I hear, the speech is still being tweaked -- but it looks like the White House isn't going to abandon health care reform.

In a conference call today with Congressional staff, the White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, said that President Obama will reiterate his commitment to a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's health care system in his State of the Union speech on Wednesday night.

Mr. Pfeiffer said that the president will share "additional details" but that the thrust of his message will be that he remains as resolute and committed to revamping the health care system as he was when he gave a speech to a joint session of Congress in early September.

Politico quoted a White House aide saying the president's "commitment to addressing this challenge in a comprehensive way is as strong today as it was when he stood in the same spot in September to address the nation on health care."

Greg Sargent, who had a similar report, added, "As for how strongly Obama will signal is preferred way forward on reform, the devil will obviously be in the 'additional details' he offers. But if his speech does in fact reaffirm his commitment to comprehensive reform as strongly as his September speech did, that could reassure a lot of people."

Quite right. These reports suggest President Obama intends to do the right thing tonight. He probably won't get too deep into the weeds on legislative procedure, but he is apparently poised take a stand in support of comprehensive reform. That's undoubtedly a good thing.

There is just one angle, though, that gives me pause -- I hope "comprehensive" means what I think it means. If you ask some of those advocating a watered-down, scaled-back half-measure if their plan constitutes "comprehensive" reform, they'll say, "It's close enough." They're mistaken.

Post Script: Paul Glastris, the Monthly's editor in chief, will be on NPR's "Talk of the Nation" in a few minutes, talking about this and other issues related to the State of the Union. (Paul served as President Clinton's chief speechwriter, and offers a great perspective on this.)

When I talked to Paul earlier, he told me the line he'd like to hear the president say tonight: "Health care reform is the Super Bowl of issues, we're on the one yard line, and the other team has walked off the field. Let's pick up the ball and walk across the goal line."

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

THEM AGAIN?.... I remember Despair Inc. had a demotivational poster a while back that read, "Quitters Never Win, Winners Never Quit -- But Those Who Never Win and Never Quit Are Idiots."

The poster came to mind after reading this.

Centrist Democratic senators have circumvented party leadership to approach Maine GOP Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins about reviving healthcare talks.

Democrats such as Sens. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), Bill Nelson (Fla.) and Max Baucus (Mont.) have approached Snowe within the past week to discuss her potential support for various healthcare proposals. [...]

Snowe said Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance panel, approached her in the past week to get her general thinking on reviving healthcare reform.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (Conn.), an Independent who caucuses with Democrats, has had several general discussions with Collins, who said she would consider supporting a scaled-down version of healthcare reform.

For crying out loud. I can appreciate persistence as much as the next blogger, but c'mon.

Snowe and Collins were, I'll concede, the only two Republicans who at least pretended to care about passing a health care reform bill. In committee, Snowe even backed a Democratic bill. In the ensuing weeks, the White House practically begged them to play a constructive role in shaping the final bill.

But in the face of party pressure, both balked. Worse, they both voted on a measure to declare health care reform unconstitutional -- they both knew better, making this awfully cheap -- and when asked why she opposed the Democratic bill, Snowe couldn't explain her position.

And now some Dems are reaching out to them again? How many more times does Charlie Brown need to fall on his ass before he realizes that Lucy is going to pull away the ball?

There's a far better alternative, which would help more Americans in need and provide the nation with a stronger financial footing: the House passes the Senate bill, the Senate approves changes through reconciliation. They're this close to delivering on the promise of reform, following a century of efforts.

There's no reason for policymakers to look backwards and seek support from those who chose not to play a constructive role, especially when there's a better, more obvious way to go.

—Steve Benen 1:15 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (29)

WAITING FOR 'MARCHING ORDERS'.... At this point, there's some appetite among House Dems to pass the Senate health care bill, then make changes through reconciliation. There's also some appetite among Senate to give the House what it needs to get this done.

But both chambers are waiting for "legislative marching orders" from the White House. And no one has the foggiest idea what President Obama or his team want, are prepared to fight for, or will present tonight in the State of the Union.

There's been no clear message on the way forward for health-care reform. No clear articulation of preferences. No public leadership to speak of. The administration is taking temperatures rather than twisting arms. The White House press team is blasting out speeches where the president says he'll never stop fighting on health care but pointedly refuses to throw a punch. The president is giving interviews where he seems to endorse paring the bill back and also seems to argue against doing anything of the kind. The daily message has run from banks to freezes, and early leaks suggest that tonight's speech will focus on education.

According to multiple sources, there's an easy answer for the confusion: The White House is confused. Some in the president's inner circle, including Rahm Emanuel, want the bill pared back. Something is better than nothing, they say, and if Congress doesn't have the votes for the full bill, the White House can't be left fighting a losing battle. Others argue that the White House's refusal to lead is a self-fulfilling prophecy, killing a bill that's comprehensive enough to work and close enough to pass while pinning hopes to an unknown compromise bill that probably won't work and almost certainly won't get the liberal Democrats or moderate Republicans necessary for passage.

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't worried. Recent signals from the White House (see here and here) lead me to believe the West Wing's instincts on this are wrong. Officials seem to think the "consensus" approach -- House passes Senate bill, Senate agrees to changes -- just won't have the necessary support and therefore isn't worth investing the time, energy, and capital needed to make it happen.

I genuinely believe that a full-throated, unapologetic defense of the health care proposal in the SOTU would boost its prospects enormously. But I have a hunch the president doesn't genuinely believe that at all, and sees no upside to sticking his neck out even more. If I had to bet money, I'd say the president will keep it vague tonight, endorsing "health care reform" generically, but coming up short of bold leadership on the issue.

But there's one angle here that often goes overlooked and bears repeating: lawmakers don't necessarily need "legislative marching orders" from the White House.

Congress is its own branch, with its own leaders. It's in members' interests -- and the public's interests, and the economy's interests -- to get this done. Congress should realize what needs to be done -- whether it gets instructions from the White House or not.

—Steve Benen 12:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

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 Pennsylvania, a Franklin & Marshall poll shows former right-wing Rep. Pat Toomey (R) looking surprisingly strong in this year's Senate race, leading incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, 45% to 31%. In the Democratic primary, Specter leads Rep. Joe Sestak, though most voters remain undecided.

* A Rasmussen poll in Delaware shows Rep. Mike Castle (R) with a huge lead in this year's Senate race, topping New Castle County Executive Chris Coons (D) by nearly 30 points. Coons nevertheless appears to be gearing up for the race.

* In Florida's gubernatorial race, state Attorney General Bill McCollum (R) now leads state CFO Alex Sink (D) by 10 in the latest Quinnipiac poll, 51% to 41%.

* Speaking of Florida, Gov. Charlie Crist (R) appears to have ruled out an independent Senate bid this year.

* Former right-wing Rep. J.D. Hayworth, who is taking on Sen. John McCain in a Republican primary in Arizona this year, is apparently a "Birther."

* In Illinois, the latest survey from Public Policy Polling shows state Comptroller Dan Hynes (D) taking the lead (pdf) in his primary challenge against incumbent Gov. Pat Quinn (D), 41% to 40%.

* Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) shot down retirement rumors today, and said he will seek re-election.

* And in Pennsylvania, Republicans have successfully recruited former U.S. Attorney Tom Marino (R) to run against Rep. Chris Carney (D-Pa.).

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

CAP-AND-TRADE'S BLEAK FUTURE.... The fate of health care reform is, of course, unclear. How about the climate bill? The NYT reports today that advocates are "turning their sights to a more modest package of climate and energy measures that they believe has a better chance of clearing Congress this year."

Their preferred approach, a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions of climate-changing gases, already faced a difficult road in a bruised and divided Senate. Its prospects grew dimmer after the special election in Massachusetts last week was won by Scott Brown, a Republican who repudiated the federal cap-and-trade proposal in his campaign.

Republicans, industry executives and some Democrats have already written cap and trade's obituary, at least for this year. And even some of the system's most ardent supporters now say they must scale back their ambitions and focus on job-creating energy projects and energy efficiency measures if they are to have any hope of dealing with climate change in this Congress.

"Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is trying to fashion a bipartisan package of climate and energy measures.

Graham, who said cap-and-trade is "dead," is working with Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) on an energy/climate bill that ostensibly offers a little something for everyone.

For its part, the White House seems to approve of the Kerry/Graham/Lieberman approach, and is willing to support drilling and expanded nuclear plants in exchange for "some form of cap on emissions."

Expect to hear more about this in the State of the Union tonight.

—Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

THE INCENTIVE FOR DEMS TO HELP THE WHITE HOUSE.... The latest NBC News/WSJ poll covers some familiar ground, but has a few interesting tidbits.

President Obama's approval rating is up a little to 50%, health care reform still isn't popular, and while both parties were tied in the last generic ballot question, Dems now enjoy a narrow lead.

But the two key takeaways from the poll are that Americans are in a deeply sour mood...

Only 28 percent believe the federal government is "working well" or even works "okay," versus seven in 10 who think it's "unhealthy," "stagnant" or needs large reforms. [...]

What's more, a whopping 93 percent believe there's too much partisan infighting; 84 percent think the special interests have too much influence over legislation; nearly three-quarters say that not enough has been done to regulate Wall Street and the banking industry; and an equal 61 percent complain that both Democrats and Republicans in Congress aren't willing to compromise.

And the percentage who believe the country is headed in the wrong direction now stands at 58 percent, the highest level of Obama's presidency.

...but they're not necessarily blaming the president for their anguish.

[I]f the public is fed up with Washington, its anger isn't necessarily directed at President Obama.

Only 27 percent say they blame him for not being able to find solutions to the country's problems. By contrast, 48 percent blame Republicans in Congress and 41 percent blame congressional Democrats.

"The president has problems," Hart adds, "but the Congress has much bigger problems."

It reminds me of a point I've been meaning to make: as an objective matter, President Obama is still the most popular political figure in Washington, and enjoys more support than either political party and either congressional delegation.

For Republicans, this creates a strong incentive to block any and all progress -- the more they can destroy American politics, the more the president appears ineffective. Undermining Obama's presidency improves their chances of winning additional power.

For Democrats, this should create the opposite incentive -- the more successful Obama is, the better off they'll be. The more they argue amongst themselves, or delay (or deliberately kill) key parts of the party's agenda, the more they drag Obama's support down.

Dems' success is inextricably tied to Obama's standing. As Ezra noted last week, this should point Democratic lawmakers in the right direction on health care, though the message isn't getting through.

If health-care reform dies, the media will try and explain the Democrats' failure. That means they'll spend a lot of time talking about what Obama has done wrong. If Democrats had simply refused to freak out and moved quickly to pass the Senate bill, there would be endless stories on what Obama did right, and how the Democrats finally passed this longtime priority.

Even putting aside all the moral arguments for passing this bill -- all the lives and homes it will save -- a crassly political calculation should have left Democrats rushing towards passage.

—Steve Benen 10:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (25)

AN OBJECT LESSON IN GOP COMPROMISE.... The Senate voted yesterday on a proposal to create a bipartisan commission on deficit reduction. The effort failed -- "only" a 53-member majority supported the idea.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether the commission was a worthwhile idea, but if we put merit aside for a moment, it's worth noting what yesterday's vote tells us about Senate Republican attitudes right now.

Six GOP senators co-sponsored the legislation to create the commission, and then voted against their own idea. Asked for an explanation, the Republicans said the commission -- which was intended to push policymakers to make uncomfortable decisions -- might have told them what they didn't want to hear, and should therefore not exist.

Among those voting against it: Republicans Sam Brownback of Kansas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John McCain of Arizona.

A spokesperson for McCain, who supports the partial spending freeze Obama plans to announce in his State of the Union address, said the senator became convinced the commission would be "kind of a back door" to a tax increase, which he thinks would be "the worst thing that can happen now." That was clear "once we saw the final legislation," the spokesperson said.

A Brownback spokesperson said: "He removed his co-sponsorship last week over concerns that the commission will be able to raise taxes."

Look, if the federal government is eventually going to address the budget deficit, policymakers are going to have to a) bring in more money; b) spend less money; or c) some combination of the two. There are no other choices. The commission would ostensibly create the conditions for some kind of grand bargain -- Democrats would have to accept spending cuts they would otherwise oppose, and Republicans would accept tax increases they would otherwise oppose. Spread the pain around and everyone gets some political cover.

These six Republican senators said they'd welcome a commission -- it was, after all, their idea to co-sponsor the bill -- just so long as the GOP isn't asked to make concessions or compromises at all.

We've heard plenty of rhetoric of late about how President Obama just needs to reach out more to Republicans to strike bipartisan compromises. But how can anyone take such an approach seriously when leading GOP lawmakers oppose their own ideas because they may be asked to accept bipartisan concessions?

—Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

DOES OREGON COUNT AS A 'MESSAGE,' TOO?.... It's understandable that policymakers would look to statewide elections to get a sense of the public's mood. Last week, a narrow majority of Massachusetts voters chose a conservative senator, and the political establishment took that to mean the electorate is shifting to the right.

But if those results offered broader lessons about voters' attitudes, maybe this week's results in Oregon do, too.

Facing a budget crunch that threatened to close schools early, lay off teachers and slash healthcare benefits, Oregon voters ended two decades of tax scrimping Tuesday by approving higher taxes on corporations and wealthy families.

The two ballot measures passed handily in a referendum watched closely around the country as a signal of whether voters are ready to approve targeted tax hikes to bail out cash-starved state treasuries.

Oregon voters since 1990 have limited property taxes, rejected sales taxes and vetoed across-the-board income taxes. But with 87% of the ballots counted, the measure to raise income taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year, and individuals earning more than $125,000, was winning with 54.1%. A second measure to raise the state's corporate income tax was ahead with 53.6%.

One can only assume that Republicans will see these results, notice that usually-tax-averse voters just endorsed tax increases, and interpret Oregon's vote as "sending a signal" about the kind of economic policies Americans want to see right now.

Or maybe not.

—Steve Benen 9:15 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

A THIRD-RATE BREAK-IN IN LOUISIANA.... James O'Keefe became something of a right-wing hero when he released a "heavily edited" video -- featuring him posing as a pimp -- intended to discredit ACORN. It now appears O'Keefe will be known for something entirely different.

The conservative young filmmaker whose undercover sting damaged a liberal activist group last year faces federal criminal charges in an alleged plot to bug the New Orleans office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.).

James O'Keefe was among four men who created a ruse to enter the lawmaker's downtown office, saying they needed to repair her telephones, according to court records unsealed Tuesday. O'Keefe used his cellphone to take pictures of two men, Joseph Basel and Robert Flanagan, who are accused in an FBI agent's sworn affidavit of impersonating telephone company workers. Stanley Dai is accused of aiding the Jan. 25 plot.

All four were taken to a suburban New Orleans jail and charged with entering federal property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony. If convicted, each man faces up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000.

Keep in mind, O'Keefe was not just some random conservative gadfly. Just a few months ago, 31 far-right House Republicans introduced a congressional resolution to praise O'Keefe's work, claiming he was "setting an example for concerned citizens across America."

Yesterday, in light of the arrest, Rep. Pete Olson (R) of Texas said he still thinks O'Keefe is worthy of "praise," but said he does not "condone" unlawful behavior. Olson wouldn't say whether he would withdraw the resolution.

Support for the conservative activist extended beyond just the Hill. After ACORN sued O'Keefe and his cohorts for alleged "illegal videotaping" and distributing a doctored video, Sean Hannity, Andrew Breitbart, and other far-right figures helped raise money for their defense.

And Fox News, which went out of its way to help make O'Keefe a right-wing celebrity, hoped to downplay the significance of his arrest and apparent scheme. A network reporter told viewers that the scandal is a "very weird story that probably needs a lot of context."

Louisiana Democratic Party Chair Michael McHale, meanwhile, is having plenty of fun with this, calling it "a Louisiana Watergate."

—Steve Benen 8:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (36)

HOUSE LOOKS TO SENATE FOR HCR ASSURANCES.... The NYT reports that congressional Democrats have "no clear path forward on major health care legislation," and party leaders have "effectively slammed the brakes" on the entire policy initiative. The piece makes it sound as reform is all but dead.

From what I can gather after talking to a variety of sources, the Times has overstated matters. The road ahead is far from encouraging, but all hope is not lost.

Indeed, when it comes to the House, there's growing evidence that the chamber really can pass the Senate bill -- if only the Senate would give the House some signals about improvements that could be approved. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) made some encouraging remarks yesterday, and Brian Beutler's report after last night's caucus meeting offer additional hope.

Leading Democrats in the House still insist that "all options are on the table" to move ahead on health care. But for the first time since last Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts, it's clear that they're coalescing around the most widely discussed option: moving ahead with the Senate bill once it's clear that it will be changed through the filibuster-proof reconciliation process. Before they can move ahead, they need the Senate to make some real headway on their end of the bargain -- and they're not getting the signs they need.

Several leading House members, including Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), said they're prepared to move forward with this approach.* "The hang up, they now say, is not on their end, but that they first need a high sign from the Senate that the two chambers can work in lockstep."

What's needed, then, is 50 Senate Democrats willing to agree to changes -- improvements senators were prepared to accept just two weeks ago -- that would finally produce a breakthrough.

That should be easy. It's not. While 60 Senate Democrats voted for a comprehensive reform just a month ago, there may not be 50 Senate Democrats willing to accept minor changes now. Why? Because they're scared after Massachusetts' special election.

Indeed, several knowledgeable sources have told me that pro-reform calls to the House have helped stiffen spines -- a week ago, 218 appeared impossible; now it appears doable -- but it's the overly-cautious, risk-averse Senate that needs to receive public pressure. The upper chamber has become so terrified, it's apparently reluctant to do or say much of anything -- so much so at yesterday's caucus meeting, senators literally didn't mention health care at all.

Over the last few days, every relevant player has come to realize that there are two real choices: (1) failure; or (2) House passes the Senate bill, Senate agrees to some minor changes. If you'd pressed me last week, I would have said there's a 5% chance this is going to work out. Now, I'd put the number at maybe 20%, higher if the White House starts trying to make this happen.

The odds are long, and the smart money is still on failure, but I'm not jumping out the window yet.

Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

* edited for clarity

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (22)

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

* Haiti: "The dusty soccer field lined with spacious tents is an oasis for earthquake survivors among Haiti's homeless sheltering by the hundreds of thousands in squalid camps. Competition for the canvas homes has boiled into arguments and machete fights, a sign of the desperation felt by the hundreds of thousands of people without homes struggling for shelter in this wrecked city. Haiti's president has asked the world for 200,000 tents and says he will sleep in one himself."

* Baghdad: "A suicide bomber driving a truck packed with explosives attacked the Iraqi Interior Ministry's forensics division Tuesday morning, killing at least 38 people. The attack, a day after coordinated bombings on three landmark hotels in the capital, drove up the death toll in Baghdad over the past 24 hours to nearly 75 people. In all, nearly 150 people were wounded in the explosions."

* The Senate today voted to reject a plan to create a deficit commission. The final vote was 53-46, but a majority of the Senate is no longer enough to pass legislation.

* Please tell me the Senate isn't going to screw up the possibility of progress on health care reform.

* A little boost in consumer confidence.

* Schadenfreude alert: "Alleging a plot to tamper with phones in Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu's office in the Hale Boggs Federal Building in downtown New Orleans, the FBI arrested four people Monday, including James O'Keefe, 25, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group's credibility."

* Fox News was despondent after learning of O'Keefe's arrest.

* Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't impressed with the high court's ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

* On a related note, here's an interesting question: does Fox News' coverage constitute campaign contributions to Republicans?

* Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.) was under a Justice Department investigation, but as of today, he's been cleared of any wrongdoing.

* Bill O'Reilly thinks the south side of Chicago is "like Haiti."

* New rules on colleges and federal aid.

* Michael Cohen ponders whether governing in the United States is still possible.

* South Carolina Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer (R), who recently compared low-income families to "stray animals," regrets his choice of words. What a prince.

* Quote of the day, from Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.):"There's a lot of populism going on in this country right now, and I'm tired of it."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

MAJORITY RULE ON BERNANKE?.... There's an ongoing head-count underway on whether the Senate will allow Ben Bernanke to stay on as chairman of the Federal Reserve. By most estimates, supporters outnumber opponents, but those planning to vote "aye" still aren't close to 60 votes.

Except, as Ryan Grim reported today, supporters apparently won't need 60 votes.

When it comes to progressive priorities in the Senate, there's one standard: 60 votes are needed. But for Ben Bernanke, there's a second standard: 50 will be just fine, thank you.

Democratic leaders in the Senate are asking colleagues who are reluctant to support Bernanke's nomination for a second term as Federal Reserve chairman to nevertheless vote with them to end a filibuster and allow a vote on the actual nomination. The reluctant members would then be free to vote no to express their displeasure. Several Democrats have committed to just that and others are considering it. [...]

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told reporters on Monday afternoon after a meeting with Bernanke that some opponents of the chairman had pledged to support him on the first vote, but not on the second.

Oh, I see. Senators believe Bernanke should get an up-or-down vote in the Senate, and that there should be majority rule -- on this nomination.

Asked why senators would agree to majority rule on Bernanke but no on health care reform, Durbin replied, "I don't know. That's a good question."

If only there was a good answer. There's no reason in the world there should be one Senate standard for a vote on Bernanke confirmation and an entirely different Senate standard for votes on the entire policy agenda of the 111th Congress.

Matt Yglesias had a good item on how maddening this is: "This is just a depressing reminder that if Senate Democrats were even remotely serious about governing the country they would have adopted a 'vote with the leadership on cloture' policy as a standard principle. They refused to do so out of a selfish concern for their own petty power, but by doing so ironically created a situation in which it's been impossible for them to accomplish anything -- including effective economic recovery -- and now all their seats are endangered. Think how much better off they'd be, for example, if a larger stimulus had passed but with five or six vulnerable members able to 'break with their party' and vote no."

—Steve Benen 4:45 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (19)

CLYBURN SAYS REFORM DEAL STILL POSSIBLE.... It's a fairly big day for the fate of health care reform, and the Democratic leadership from both chambers are scheduled to get together for a chat in just a few minutes, in advance of a House caucus meeting this evening.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn's (D-S.C.) remarks this afternoon offer at least a small ray of hope that success is still possible.

An influential House Democrat is now predicting that House Dems will pass the Senate bill if they are persuaded they have a guarantee that it will be fixed in reconciliation -- a declaration that could give a boost of momentum for the prospects of getting reform done via this route.

In an interview with [Sargent], House majority whip James Clyburn also urged the President to throw his weight behind this approach during tomorrow's State of the Union Address, declaring that it would be "helpful."

The comments from Clyburn -- who's been canvassing opinion from members in recent days -- could contribute to a growing sense that this is course of action most likely to succeed, and could give ammo to those pressing this case.

"I feel certain that the House Democrats will pass health care reform if the fixes that we feel need to be made to the Senate bill are guaranteed," Clyburn said. Asked directly if the House votes would be there if this happened, Clyburn said: "Yes, sir."

OK, so health care reform becomes law if the House gets assurances from the Senate about improvements through reconciliation. That means at least 50 Senate Democrats have to be on board with accepting changes -- which, by the way, they were already on board with 10 days ago in the midst of White House negotiations.

This afternoon, three center-right Senate Dems -- Evan Bayh (Ind.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), and Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- all said they'd rather see health care reform die. But with a 59-member caucus, the leadership has votes to spare, and these three simply aren't in a position to derail this once-in-a-generation opportunity -- unless they pick up six allies from the caucus. (If we assume Lieberman and Landrieu join them, they'd still need four more.)

For his part, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said there's "no rush" to complete the process. I strongly disagree. The debate that began in earnest 10 months ago has run its course, and the public is clearly ready to see Democrats pivot to other issues. Months of negotiations and machinations will only breed additional frustrations -- especially when a victory for the ages is one vote away.

Besides, giving opponents of reform more time to undermine public support and trash necessary legislation hasn't worked up until now; it's unlikely to be effective if policymakers tolerate additional delays.

With that in mind: Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

—Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

INDEPENDENTS DAY.... Chris Cillizza notes this afternoon, "In the wake of Sen.-elect Scott Brown's (R) victory over state Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) in last week's Senate special election, a debate has been raging over independents."

And part of the underlying problem with that debate is that the definition of "independent" is far too vague to be of any real value.

John Sides' item earlier has been making the rounds, and I can only hope the political media takes notice. He refers back to the case he presented a couple of months ago:

[H]ere is the problem: Most independents are closet partisans. This has been well-known in political science since at least 1992, with the publication of The Myth of the Independent Voter.

When asked a follow-up question, the vast majority of independents state that they lean toward a political party. They are the "independent leaners." ... The number of pure independents is actually quite small -- perhaps 10% or so of the population. And this number has been decreasing, not increasing, since the mid-1970s. [...]

The significance of independent leaners is this: they act like partisans.... There is very little difference between independent leaners and weak partisans. Approximately 75% of independent leaners are loyal partisans.

Most of the time, "independents" are thought of as a group of "moderate" or "centrist" voters -- as if the right sides with Republicans, the left sides with Democrats, and the middle stays "independent."

That's wrong. The Washington Post published a lengthy analysis of political independents in July 2007, based on a survey conducted by the Post in collaboration with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University. The result was a pretty straightforward reminder: there's an enormous amount of political diversity among independents.

The survey data established five categories of independents: closet partisans on the left and right; ticket-splitters in the middle; those disillusioned with the system but still active politically; ideological straddlers whose positions on issues draw from both left and right; and a final group whose members are mostly disengaged from politics.

Appealing to "independents" is inherently tricky if "independents" don't even agree with one another.

—Steve Benen 3:35 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (12)

WHEN IS A FREEZE NOT A FREEZE?.... Following up on his much-discussed interview with Rachel Maddow last night, Jared Bernstein, chief economist and economic policy adviser to Vice President Biden, has an item on the White House blog this afternoon. You can probably guess the subject.

As part of an explanation about the spending freeze, Bernstein emphasizes that "no one [at the White House] is arguing that we should take our foot off the accelerator today, when the economic recovery remains fragile and job growth has yet to return." That's good to know.

So, what's the plan here?

[T]here are two ways to do a freeze like this: (1) an across-the-board freeze on every program outside of national security; and (2) a surgical approach where overall totals are frozen but some individual programs go up and others go down. In short, a hatchet versus a scalpel.

During the campaign, you may recall that John McCain touted option 1 -- the hatchet approach of an across-the-board freeze.

The President was critical of that approach then, and we would be critical of it now. It's not what we're proposing. To the contrary, the entire theory of the President's proposed freeze is to dial up the stuff that will support job growth and innovation while dialing down the stuff that doesn't. Under our plan, some discretionary spending will go up; some will go down. That's a big difference from a hatchet.

I guess the problem is that policy-focused Americans woke up yesterday with a rather unambiguous understanding of what a "spending freeze" is -- funding for programs stay at their current levels, even if they were supposed to get more, even if economic conditions dictate that they should get more.

What the White House is effectively saying is, "No, no, that's the old definition. Under the new spending freeze, some worthwhile investments will go up, and some wasteful ones will go down." Indeed, in his post today, Bernstein highlights the need for additional "investments in clean energy, health care, and education that will ensure that the next economic expansion is characterized by broadly shared prosperity."

The moment the discussion starts parsing the meaning of the word "freeze," it gets a little mind-numbing, I suppose the key takeaway here is that the White House is looking for some kind of overall spending cap on discretionary spending not related to national security, which is flexible enough to let the administration direct more funding to some programs, and less funding to others. Officials are calling this a "freeze."

And why, exactly, would the administration call this a "freeze," if it doesn't seem to be a "freeze"? Probably because officials see the polls, and believe the country is looking for assurances that the White House is taking fiscal responsibility seriously. "Freeze" is basically serving as some kind of shorthand.

But when we get past the rhetoric, we're still talking about a White House budget that sought to cut $11.5 billion in spending from the last budget, and will try to cut $15 billion from the new budget.

—Steve Benen 3:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

THE RELATIVE PRICE TAG OF CHANGE.... Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who's been pushing aggressively for a spending freeze (despite being a model "deficit peacock"), appeared on MSNBC to tout the new administration proposal.

As part of his endorsement of the plan, Bayh also said the White House took the wrong tack on health care reform: "[G]oing with the large bill in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s and a major new expenditure at a time we were running a $30 trillion deficit just didn't resonate real well."

Igor Volsky noted how misguided this analysis really is.

Bayh is wrong to suggest that health care reform is antithetical to reducing the nation's $1.4 trillion deficit. After all, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the Senate health care bill would reduce the deficit by $132 billion over 10 years (or up to $409 billion over 10 years according to a Commonwealth study) and lower Medicare spending per beneficiary from 8% growth rate to 6% growth rate. [...]

Health care reform would complement the administration's new focus on deficit reduction by slowing the fastest growing part of the deficit.... As he told Congress during his address in February, "Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close. Nothing else."

In fact, one of the great ironies of the current political debate is that much of President Obama's domestic agenda -- all the talk about spending and deficits notwithstanding -- saves the country money. The biggest elements of the to-do list just aren't expensive (as compared to, say, huge tax cuts, Medicare expansion, and two foreign wars).

Health care reform would cut spending and reduce the deficit. The cap-and-trade proposal not only combats global warming and helps create new jobs in a burgeoning sector, it also lowers the deficit. The student-loan overhaul saves money. Cleaning up Wall Street doesn't cost much at all.

Lawmakers are feeling panicky and are desperate to prove how fiscally responsible they are. But in reality, this White House, unlike the last one, isn't asking Congress to be reckless with the public's money -- it's asking for key policy breakthroughs that put the nation on stronger financial footing.

—Steve Benen 2:05 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

RNC 'PURITY TEST' STILL ON THE TABLE.... Just two months ago, some activists on the Republican National Committee came up with an idea: what the party really needs in 2010 is a "purity test."

The idea, pushed by right-wing lawyer James Bopp Jr., would mandate that all Republican candidates agree with at least eight of 10 points on a party platform. If you're deemed insufficiently conservative on three or more issues, no party backing for you.

The RNC is getting ready to ponder the matter this week at a meeting in Hawaii, and it's apparently occurred to some party officials that Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-Mass.), the party's new golden boy, probably would have failed the purity test and been ineligible for party support during the special election.

[S]ome moderate Republicans are circulating another e-mail arguing that in fact, a different reading of Mr. Brown's record -- a difference choice from his career of quotes and votes -- could lead to a his failing the Reagan test.

As much as he opposed Mr. Obama's health care plan, he voted for the law passed in Massachusetts that has provided the model for President Obama's proposal -- including a mandate on individuals to purchase insurance. [...]

Conservative leaders who say, in the light of victory, that Mr. Brown passed the test may have easily found the grounds to make precisely the opposite argument had he lost the vote last Tuesday. This is one of the reasons why officials of the Republican National Committee are quietly lobbying to kill the Bopp resolution and trying to come up with an alternative by the vote on Friday.

I still have a hard time believing the RNC will actually accept this -- it would likely block party backing for too many candidates Republicans need to win this year -- but the party has certainly done incomprehensible things before.

Kathleen Parker got this right, when she called the proposal a "suicide pact," that signals to Republican candidates, "Thinking people need not apply."

One can only assume the DNC is praying the resolution is approved.

—Steve Benen 1:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

MCCAIN'S FUZZY MEMORY ON REAGAN.... Reporting on President Obama's intended "spending freeze," George Stephanopoulos interviewed John McCain this morning -- imagine that -- to ask about the senator's position. McCain expressed support for the idea, but added that the White House should also stop its economic recovery efforts.

As the Arizona Republican sees it, the best course is more "tax cuts" and "fiscal sanity." He added, "If you cut people's taxes I think it stimulates the economy. We certainly found that out with President Reagan."

To be sure, it's a mistake to pretend John McCain knows or cares about details, accuracy, and history. But this notion that Reagan offers a lesson for policymakers deserves additional scrutiny.

Consider this chart, which Paul Krugman posted last week. Reagan's first big tax cut was signed in August 1981. Over the next year or so, unemployment went from just over 7% to just under 11%. In September 1982, Reagan raised taxes, and unemployment fell.

We're all aware, of course, of the correlation/causation dynamic, but as Krugman noted, "[U]nemployment, which had been stable until Reagan cut taxes, soared during the 15 months that followed the tax cut; it didn't start falling until Reagan backtracked and raised taxes."

Indeed, Stephanopoulos didn't press McCain on the point -- imagine that -- but it'd be helpful if more Republicans were asked to consider the contemporary parallel. Conservatives believe Obama's stimulus didn't work, and as proof, they point to the unemployment numbers 11 months after the policy became law. But if that's the appropriate measure, wouldn't Republicans also have to believe that Reagan's 1981 tax-cut plan also failed, since unemployment went even higher the year after it passed?

McCain's worldview is obviously pretty simplistic, but given all the time he spends in television interviews, it's tempting to think someone would ask him about these things. As far as he's concerned, tax cuts = growth. Of course, Clinton raised taxes, and the economy soared. Bush cut taxes, and the economy collapsed. Obama's recovery package featured several elements, and the least stimulative part was ... you guessed it ... the tax cuts.

I'll just never know why anyone takes these guys seriously on economic policy.

—Steve Benen 12:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

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.

* The latest Research 2000 poll in New York shows Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand leading former Rep. Harold Ford of Tennessee in a Democratic primary, 41% to 27%. The same poll shows state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo leading incumbent Gov. David Paterson in a Democratic primary, 63% to 19%.

* Sen. Joe Lieberman (I- Conn.) said over the weekend that he's "likely" to remain an independent, but that's it's "possible" he could be a "good old-fashioned New England moderate Republican."

* Rep. Mike Pence (R) had been sought out by Republican leaders to challenge Sen. Evan Bayh (D) in Indiana next year, but Pence announced today that he will not run for the Senate this year. He is, however, still mulling a presidential campaign in 2012.

* In Nevada, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman has been mulling an independent bid for governor for several months, but announced yesterday that he will skip the race.

* Rep. Bart Stupak (D) of Michigan recently said he was considering a gubernatorial campaign, but announced this morning that he will instead seek re-election to the House.

* With the leading Democratic contenders skipping the Senate race in Delaware this year, the most likely candidate appears to be New Castle County executive Chris Coons, who would take on the favorite, Rep. Mike Castle (R). Marc Ambinder noted a little history: "Back in 1972, no Democrat wanted to run against a popular Republican, so a young New Castle County Councilman with no money entered the race. His name: Joe Biden."

* And in Utah, a Salt Lake Tribune poll shows incumbent Gov. Gary Herbert (R) with a big lead over challenger Peter Corroon (D), 55% to 30%.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)

HEATING UP IN FLORIDA.... The Republicans' Senate primary in Florida -- pitting Gov. Charlie Crist against former state House Speaker Marco Rubio -- has become something of a proxy for the larger fight within the GOP. The struggle pits conservative Republicans against very conservative Republicans.

And by all indications, the latter contingent is winning.

Rubio leads by just three percentage points -- 47-44 -- which is well within the error margin of the Quinnipiac University poll.

Crist has a large cash advantage over Rubio and ample time to catch up before the Aug. 24 primary. Yet the trend of Rubio's rise and Crist's fall is stark and troubling for the governor, who once looked like he would waltz into the Senate.

In October, Crist led 50-35 percent. In August, Crist's lead was even bigger (55-26) and in June the race looked like Crist would blow out Rubio by 54-23 percent.

"Who would have thunk it? A former state lawmaker virtually unknown outside of his South Florida home whose challenge to an exceedingly popular sitting governor for a U.S. Senate nomination had many insiders scratching their heads. He enters the race 31 points behind and seven months later sneaks into the lead," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Connecticut-based Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

In match-ups against the leading Democrat, Rep. Kendrick Meek of Miami, Rubio leads by nine and Crist leads by 14 -- in part because Crist enjoys relatively stronger support among independents and some Florida Dems.

It's hard not to wonder if this race may yet take some unexpected twists. Meek became the Democratic frontrunner because no one else in the party wanted to take on Crist, who once looked unbeatable. Now that it appears likely that the right-wing Rubio will win the primary, is there a chance we'll see the Democratic race shift at the last minute?

Also note, Daily Kos fielded a poll in late November and found that Crist would be in a very strong position to win the Senate seat -- if he switches parties and runs as a Democrat. 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 been trying 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.

—Steve Benen 11:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)

UDALL JOINS FIGHT AGAINST OBSTRUCTIONISM.... Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) is clearly trying to raise the profile of this issue, and it's good to see others stepping up.

Another Democratic senator is making a legislative push that could alter the use of the filibuster, this time by trying to give senators more authority to change the parliamentary rules that bind their actions.

Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) introduced a resolution on Monday that would give the Senate the ability to vote on its own rules and regulations every two years, when a new Congress convenes. Such a resolution would mean that a future Senate body would not have to operate under the guidelines of its predecessors, such as the rule that 60 votes are needed to end debate on legislation. In short: the filibuster could be drastically changed from its current incarnation.

"We, as elected representatives, have a duty to our constituents. But partisan rancor and the Senate's own incapacitating rules often prevent us from fulfilling that duty," Udall said in his remarks on the floor of the Senate. "While I am convinced that our inability to function is our own fault, we have the authority within the Constitution to act."

Udall's Communications Director Marissa Padilla explained in a brief conversation with the Huffington Post that this was not a frontal attack on the filibuster itself. Rather, what the senator is trying to do is lift the burden of outdated parliamentary stipulations. Since 1959, it has been mandated that Senate rules continue from one Congress to the next. The only recourse for change is provided in Senate Rule XXII, which states that a two-thirds vote of all senators is required to limit debate on a proposed rule change.

This may seem convoluted, but what Udall is saying is that changing the filibuster rule would take 67 votes, which is exceedingly unlikely. Instead, he wants each Congress to set its own standards, giving lawmakers the chance to put the cloture threshold wherever they want at the start of the year.

"Essentially no rules can change or many rules can change," Padilla said. "The Senator is saying the Senate has the right to do it under the Constitution."

In his statement, Udall added a quote from former Massachusetts Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge (R): "To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile."

Another effort to keep an eye on.

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

TEABAGGERS' CONVENTION 'UNRAVELING'.... The news for the left hasn't been especially encouraging for a while, but if it's any consolation, things aren't exactly going smoothly for the Tea Party crowd, either.

Tea Party Nation's first national conference is coming right up -- it's scheduled to begin a week from Saturday -- and at this point, "its founders, former sponsors and participants are now trading accusations."

A Tea Party convention billed as the coming together of the grass-roots groups that began sprouting up around the country a year ago is unraveling as sponsors and participants pull out to protest its expense and express concerns about "profiteering."

The convention's difficulties highlight the fractiousness of the Tea Party groups, and the considerable suspicions among their members of anything that suggests the establishment.

The convention, to be held in Nashville in early February, made a splash by attracting big-name politicians. (Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska is scheduled to deliver the keynote speech.) But some groups have criticized the cost -- $549 per ticket and a $9.95 fee, plus hotel and airfare -- as out of reach for the average tea partier. And they have balked at Ms. Palin's speaking fee, which news reports have put at $100,000, a figure that organizers will not confirm or deny.

Late Sunday, the National Precinct Alliance, which seeks a right-wing takeover of the GOP from the precinct level up, withdrew its sponsorship of the event. The announcement came on the heels of the American Liberty Alliance and American Majority, two far-right outfits, pulling their support.

Complicating matters, the event has apparently spawned a counter-event for like-minded conservatives: "[A]bout 50 local tea party leaders from across Tennessee are planning to attend a sort of counter-convention caucus set for this Saturday in Nashville, while some activists are discussing staging protests outside next month's convention, which will be held at the Gaylord Opryland Hotel and Convention Center."

I still think these fissures matter, and go beyond just anger over excessive ticket prices. To reiterate a point from a couple of weeks ago, there are some pretty fundamental questions it seems the "movement" needs to address.

* What is it, exactly? Are Teabaggers a grassroots "movement," a marketing enterprise, a new activist organization, a political party, or something else altogether? Or some combination? It's unclear.

* What does it want? Do these activists intend to strengthen a wing of the Republican Party, or fight from outside the GOP structure?

* Where does it want to go? Some Tea Party folks are libertarian-minded, with an emphasis on the size of government. Others are religious-right-style activists, concerned about abortion and gays. Who's behind the wheel? Will there be two Tea Parties?

* What does it intend to offer? The Tea Party gang wants government to cut spending, but it doesn't say where. It wants policymakers to reduce the deficit, but it doesn't say how. Activists take all kinds of positions on all kinds of issues, but most of them seem misplaced and confused about basic details. Is there some kind of policy platform in the works, or will they stick to vague right-wing generalities?

These details matter. And given the divisions over the increasingly-bizarre National Tea Party Convention, the fissures may not be resolved anytime soon.

—Steve Benen 10:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (28)

STILL HOPING TO SNATCH VICTORY FROM THE JAWS OF DEFEAT.... As recently as Thursday, there was every reason to believe that health care reform was simply not going to happen. Democratic policymakers, stunned by the results in Massachusetts, were simply unwilling to keep fighting.

But as the shock wore off, and Dems began to realize the consequences of failure, the desire to move forward made a comeback. There's still a very real possibility that the effort will fail and reform will, once again, come up short. But at least officials are still trying.

Democratic congressional leaders are coalescing around their last hope for salvaging President Obama's sweeping health care overhaul -- legislation that has produced growing angst among consumers in a new poll.

Their plan is to pass the Senate bill with some changes to accommodate House Democrats, senior Democratic aides said Monday. The procedural route -- known as reconciliation -- would allow a majority of 51 senators to amend their bill to address some of the major substantive concerns raised by the House. That would circumvent the need for a 60-vote majority to hold off Republican delaying tactics.

Leaders will present the idea to the rank and file this week, but it's unclear whether they have enough votes to carry it out.

TPM reports this morning that congressional leaders will "continue to work toward a grand bargain: House and Senate leaders will huddle today at 4 p.m., House Democratic leadership will meet at 5 p.m. and then House leadership will hold a caucus meeting with rank-and-file members at 7 p.m."

It should be an important day.

In the meantime, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who just loved reconciliation in the Bush era, has said he and other Republicans would fight any and all efforts to modify the health care reform bill through the reconciliation process. "We would make it an extraordinarily difficult exercise," Gregg said.

Stay tuned.

—Steve Benen 9:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (23)

'NO STUPID HOOVERISM AROUND HERE'.... If you have a few minutes this morning, I'd encourage folks to check out the discussion on MSNBC last night between Rachel Maddow and Jared Bernstein, chief economist and economic policy adviser to Vice President Biden. The topic was supposed to be the latest targeted proposals to help the middle class, but in light of the news about the proposed "spending freeze," the two shifted gears and had a spirited discussion.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I know some of you can't watch video clips from your work computers, and I'm looking for a transcript that I can link to, but in the meantime, the discussion was extremely informative. Rachel didn't hold back, explaining that it seems "completely insane" to have a spending freeze "in the middle of a recession."

Bernstein, one of the leading progressives in the White House economic team, explained that the "freeze" wouldn't take effect until 2011, wouldn't undermine recovery efforts, bears no resemblance to the Republican freeze proposals, and would allow some programs to receive more money, not less.

Borrowing a phrase Rachel had used earlier in the program, Bernstein assured viewers, "There`s going to be no stupid Hooverism around here."

—Steve Benen 8:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

THE BIG FREEZE.... I don't doubt that spending freezes poll well. A lot of Americans, perhaps even a healthy majority, are convinced that "big government spends too much money." There's a perception, fed by the media and Republicans, that things -- the deficit, the size of the budget -- have gotten "out of control." For all I know, President Obama's intention to call for a three-year freeze will make independents and centrists swoon.

But that doesn't make this a good idea.

President Obama will call for a three-year freeze in spending on many domestic programs, and for increases no greater than inflation after that, an initiative intended to signal his seriousness about cutting the budget deficit, administration officials said Monday. [...]

The freeze would cover the agencies and programs for which Congress allocates specific budgets each year, including air traffic control, farm subsidies, education, nutrition and national parks.

But it would exempt security-related budgets for the Pentagon, foreign aid, the Veterans Administration and homeland security, as well as the entitlement programs that make up the biggest and fastest-growing part of the federal budget: Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The freeze intends to save $250 billion over 10 years.

Now, talk of spending freezes is not new. During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was one of the centerpieces of John McCain's campaign. A year later, it was the official Republican plan to deal with the financial crisis. Now, at least rhetorically, it's President Obama -- you know, the "radical socialist" -- who's waving the banner.

Though, in fairness, it's not quite the same thing. GOP freezes were across-the-board hatchet jobs, while administration officials are insisting the White House is eyeing a "surgical" freeze. Indeed, as part of the proposed freeze, the administration intends to increase some budgets while cutting others, which raises the question of whether this is really a "freeze" at all.

It's a cliche, but "the devil is in the details" certainly applies here. We've been told that the freeze would not only exclude defense and national security, but also economic recovery investment and health care reform (should it happen). The new jobs bill is still moving forward, too.

Indeed, while we wait for additional details -- an administration official said the cuts would target "duplicative," "ineffective," and "inefficient" spending -- I'm tempted to call the freeze idea symbolic, at best. In President Obama's first budget proposed cutting $11.5 billion in spending, and most of the cuts were approved by Congress. This next budget, including the freeze, is eyeing reductions between $10 billion to $15 billion.

So, if the proposal isn't really going to change much, why is this disappointing? Because it fully embraces the conservative narrative, instead of using the power of the bully pulpit to explain why conservatives have it wrong.

It may be even worse as a policy matter -- we just don't have enough details to say -- but that's distressing enough.

—Steve Benen 8:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (51)

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

* Putting together a long-term relief plan: "Haiti will ask the international conference meeting in Montreal on Monday for $3 billion to rebuild this city, left largely in ruins by the Jan. 12 earthquake, according to a senior Haitian government official."

* Baghdad: "A coordinated attack of vehicle bombs on Monday ripped through the perimeters of three hotel compounds known for housing foreign journalists, destroying a nearby apartment building and leaving at least 36 people dead."

* The Iraq bombings followed the execution of Ali Hassan al-Majid, a former Iraqi official best known as "Chemical Ali."

* Housing crisis: "Home sales slid in December, putting at least a temporary end to a gradually improving picture for real estate and deepening questions about the market's viability."

* President Obama re-emphasizes the middle-class agenda: "Promising repeatedly to 'keep fighting' for average Americans, President Obama rolled out new proposals Monday to help struggling middle-class families, setting the stage for his first State of the Union address Wednesday night."

* Soon after, congressional Republicans said they hate all of the president's ideas, including tax breaks favored by the White House.

* Taliban talks: "This -- to be very clear -- isn't a shift of position. Both Richard Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of NATO troops in the war, have said that they would support any outreach made by the Afghan government to reconcile with insurgents not linked to al-Qaeda."

* As of today, will Ben Bernanke get to keep his job at the Fed? Roll Call reports that a push from administration officials "has turned the tide" in the nominee's favor.

* House Majority Whip James Clyburn's (D-S.C.) frustration with the Senate is both understandable and growing.

* Fact checking the Sunday shows.

* Laurie Mylroie probably isn't the best choice to offer "expert" analysis to the Pentagon.

* The extent to which the Republican National Committee is willing to mislead Americans, even its own supporters, is limitless.

* Caps on student loan repayments?

* One of the best possible excuses for missing jury duty: busy running the executive branch of the federal government.

* And Sen. Jim DeMint has been so conditioned to say "Democrat Party," he can't even use the word "democratic" in other contexts. How sad.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

—Steve Benen 5:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (35)

PTDB CALLS REACHING CAPITOL HILL.... For those who haven't seen his post yet, Mark Kleiman called his senator today with a "pass the damn bill" message, and had an interesting exchange.

Despite an initial tendency in Blue Blogistan to debate whether the recent reverses should be blamed on (1) progressives (2) centrists or (3) Barack Obama, a healthy consensus seems to be developing that we should (1) blame the Republicans and (2) do something about it, namely demand that our legislators Pass the Damned Bill. That would mean having the House pass the Senate bill under assurances that various points of dispute will be resolved satisfactorily to the House under the budget reconciliation process.

Today I called the Washington office of Sen. Diane Feinstein. (I'm reliably told that, for those without the time to make a personal visit either to Washington or to the local office of a legislator, faxes are best, calls second-best, and emails nowhere. Snailmail is effective -- more effective if handwritten -- but now very slow due to screening. There's a logic to this: the more effort a communication takes, the more impressive it is.)

The polite young man who answered the phone said that he could take a comment about a legislative matter, listened politely to about three polite sentences of Pass the Damned Bill and an expression of displeasure about DiFi's "slow down" comment, assured me that the Senator had voted for the bill and was eager to see it pass -- and then gave me the first ray of sunshine I've seen since the catastrophe in Massachusetts. He said that they'd been getting a lot of Pass the Damned Bill phone calls and wanted to know whether my call was part of an organized effort. [emphasis added]

I was curious to see whether, in the wake of last week's developments, reform advocates just threw up their arms in disgust and walked away. If Kleiman's experience is in any way similar to the norm, it suggests proponents are still willing to put some effort into making reform a reality.

I'm also curious to see whether there's a cumulative effect to all of this. Since, say, Wednesday or Thursday, Democratic policymakers have been urged to finish the deal by leading reform advocates, major union leaders, health care policy experts, and the nation's most influential progressive pundits, all of whom emphasized the exact same thing, giving Dems the exact same advice.

But at the end of the day, lawmakers are probably more likely to be influenced by their own constituents than anyone else. The more congressional Democrats hear PTDB, the more likely it is to happen.

—Steve Benen 4:50 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (32)

TRY CONFIDENCE.... In David Plouffe's op-ed piece, advising Democrats on how best to proceed in 2010, the former Obama campaign manager urges lawmakers to "pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay," adding, "It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature."

It prompted Ezra to make a good point about the nature of confidence.

You'll notice that Plouffe doesn't spend a lot of time hedging that "this bill is not perfect, but it's better than nothing," or "this bill isn't Democrats' first choice, but it's still worth passing." Instead, he says it's a good plan that's been spun as a bad plan, and lists a lot of what it'll do to help families immediately. Democrats could take a lesson from that approach.

This isn't exactly a new observation, and Dems have burdened by this bad habit for a long time. They somehow manage to win a policy fight; Republicans trash the policy; and Dems get defensive and act sheepishly about their success.

In the face of Republican hysterics, Dems, more often than not, seem a little embarrassed by their victories.

Take the stimulus package, for example. Pressed on their vote, a few too many Dems will say something like, "Well, it was a necessary evil. No one likes spending that much, but it was probably necessary." The preferable message would be, "Of course the stimulus was a success. This recovery package -- which cut taxes, created jobs, and generated growth -- prevented a huge crisis. No one in their right mind could possibly think this was a mistake. For crying out loud, Republicans, who got us in this mess, wanted an insane five-year spending freeze that would have dug us into a deeper hole."

This was quite common in Massachusetts lately. Martha Coakley, when the pressure was on, became exceedingly timid -- on everything. Voters everywhere know the difference between candidates with the courage of their convictions and those who lack confidence.

The public is certainly less likely to back a health care reform bill when its leading proponents fail to give it a full-throated endorsement. The more Dems say, "You're damn right I fought for health care reform; why didn't you?" the more the stronger message resonates.

—Steve Benen 4:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (43)

FEWER VICTORIES = FEWER VICTORIES.... The other Sen. Nelson agrees that the Senate health care reform legislation is "a good bill" that deserves to be passed. He's right.

The problem is what Nelson recommends for the rest of the year.

"I think the President is going to have to scale back his agenda after we pass health care reform," he told ABC News in an interview that aired on Good Morning America. "Then I think some of those folks we think are in danger like Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, I think you'll see they're gonna win."

Nelson said "the president's instincts are right in the mainstream of America. I think he's allowed the left wing pull him too much in that direction. But he always comes back into the center."

First, I can't really think of any key instances in which "the left wing" has pulled President Obama away from the mainstream. Literally, none. I just don't know what Bill Nelson is thinking with a comment like that.

And second, how much more can policymakers "scale back"? The White House, at the start of this Congress, basically asked for four bills: health care, Wall Street reform, student loans, and a climate bill. A majority of the House and a majority of the Senate support all of four, but so far, zero have reached the president's desk.

Nelson's suggestion is in line with a certain kind of conservative (small "c") thinking: successful policymaking makes people uncomfortable. Don't move too fast, don't try too hard, don't aim too high. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) approaches politics the same way.

So, here's the follow-up question for Nelson and others who agree with his go-slow approach: later this year, voters are going to wonder what huge Democratic majorities and a Democratic president got done in 2009 and 2010. What does Nelson intend to tell them?

Opinions may vary, but I tend to think voters are impressed by accomplishments. It's very likely that fewer legislative victories will mean fewer electoral victories.

—Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

OPEN TO PERSUASION.... When House Speaker Nancy Pelosi approached her caucus last week about possibly approving the Senate's health care reform bill, she heard more than a little resistance from House Democrats. Are they still open to persuasion?

Obviously, I hope so, and have written a strategy memo to make my case. But in the meantime, Greg Sargent reports that aides in both chambers still believe a breakthrough is possible, if enough House Dems believe that fixing the Senate bill through reconciliation "is procedurally realistic."

This gets at an aspect of this whole discussion that's been lost in the noise. Specifically, there's good reason for many House Dems to say right now that they can't vote for the Senate bill, even if it includes a "reconciliation fix": The leadership has not persuasively made the case -- yet -- that such a fix can actually work.

Dem leaders on both sides are feverishly exploring a range of options, one of which includes drawing up a series of fixes to the Senate bill that would be passed through the Senate via reconciliation along with the Senate bill passing the House -- the reconciliation "sidecar," as it has been called.

Aides on both sides think that House Dems might be persuaded to support this route if the procedural ins-and-outs are laid out for them convincingly in, say, a document. After all, why declare support for this course of action before this case is made?

That is an important point. By all accounts, several House Dems are looking to make a deal -- they'll support a reform bill they don't really like, and in exchange, they'll get some improvements to the bill (which were largely already negotiated before a certain recent special election) through reconciliation.

There's clearly some trust issues with the other chamber playing out here, but there's also just regular ol' negotiations at play -- the House doesn't want to give up its leverage, endorsing the Senate bill without knowing exactly what's being offered in return. They are, in effect, waiting for a piece of paper.

The gamble is serious -- if the negotiations stumble, reform dies, the nation suffers, and Dems are completely screwed. But there's obviously a logic behind the tactics, and reason to at least hope (a little) that progress is possible.

—Steve Benen 1:40 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (18)

STRATEGY MEMO.... Long-time observers of the health care reform debate may recall that about 16 years ago, Bill Kristol crafted a strategy memo for congressional Republicans, advising them on how best to deal with then-President Clinton's health care reform initiative. His memo offered a simple and clear direction: the GOP had to kill the Clinton reform plan at all costs. Republicans took the advice, and reaped the political rewards of the plan's demise.

It occurred to me that Democratic policymakers might benefit from a similar strategy memo -- offering the opposite advice -- while the party weighs its options. So I wrote one. It's online here.

While Kristol published his strategy in his capacity as the chairman of "Project for the Republican Future," I'm publishing mine as part of something I've labeled the "Project for a Healthy American Future."*

The memo presents a way forward, and explains why such a course is necessary: the House should quickly approve the reform bill passed by the Senate; the Senate should extend assurances to the House about proposed changes; and the White House should provide the leadership that brings the contingents together.

The arguments will no doubt seem familiar to those who've been following the process closely, but it's my hope that it will be valuable to have the totality of the argument in one document.

I've already been in contact with some congressional offices about bringing the strategy memo to the attention of lawmakers and administration officials. If readers wanted to help distribute the document, you can refer interested parties to the online version; you can copy and paste the text into an email, or you can make use of a pdf version, which is available at the bottom of the piece.

Americans have been talking about getting this done for a century now, and we're painfully close to delivering on the promise of reform. It is not too late for champions of reform to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, take advantage of this once-in-a-generation opportunity, and bring meaningful, life-saving change to a dysfunctional system.

Democrats have already paid a steep political price for proposing and working towards a solution; now it's time for policymakers to reap the rewards that come with completing the task.

* Post Script: Just to be clear, there is no actual "Project for a Healthy American Future." I came up with the name as a way to tweak/mock the Kristol letter. I'm just a blogger sharing some ideas about health care reform, not launching an advocacy group.

—Steve Benen 12:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (39)

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.

* In a major blow to the DSCC, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (D) announced this morning that he will not run for the Senate this year. His decision makes it very likely that Rep. Mike Castle (R) will win in November, giving the GOP a key pick-up.

* There was some talk that after the Massachusetts special election, there would be a flood of Democratic retirements. That has not yet happened, but Arkansas Rep. Marion Berry (D) is poised to announce he's stepping down at the end of his term. He'll be the 12th House Dem incumbent to retire this year. There are 14 House Republicans retiring.

* Confirming long-rumored plans, former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R) has decided to give up his far-right radio talk show and take on Sen. John McCain in a Republican primary in Arizona next year.

* In Nevada, a new Research 2000 poll shows Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) trailing his GOP opponents by about 10 points each. If Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman runs as a Democrat, he leads those same Republican challengers by narrow margins.

* A new Ohio Newspaper Poll shows incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland (D) trailing former Rep. John Kasich (R) by six, 51% to 45%.

* With timing running out in Illinois's Senate primaries, a new Chicago Tribune poll shows state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias (D) and Rep. Mark Kirk (R) leading their respective fields.

* A new Rasmussen poll shows Sen. Evan Bayh (D) with narrow leads over his Republican challengers, but if right-wing Rep. Mike Pence (R) runs, Rasmussen shows him leading Bayh by three, 47% to 44%.

* Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D) of Arkansas trails state Sen. Gilbert Baker (R), her top GOP opponent, by 4 points in the latest Mason-Dixon poll, 43% to 39%.

—Steve Benen 12:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (11)

THE EFFECTS OF READING FROM THE WRONG SCRIPT.... After the failed Christmas terrorist plot, Republicans and conservative detractors of the administration worked quickly to characterize the unsuccessful attack as a "success" -- a word both Brit Hume and Bill Kristol used soon after the decidedly unsuccessful incident. The point, of course, was to try to further undermine the administration.

Adam Serwer noted this morning that the rhetoric has, not surprisingly, bolstered terrorist propaganda.

Alleged underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab didn't hurt anyone but himself, and he was quickly subdued by unarmed civilian passengers. But the Republican reaction -- hyping the failed bombing as a victory -- was so successful that Osama bin Laden claimed the failed operation in a recent videotaped message.

Marc Lynch added:

Osama bin Laden has released a new tape to al-Jazeera claiming responsibility for the attempted Christmas Day bombing, linking it to Gaza and declaring that America would not be secure until Palestinians were truly secure. Bin Laden's ability to frame an entire tape around a failed bombing attempt demonstrates how badly the American public's over-reaction played into al-Qaeda's hands. It should not be surprising that bin Laden would claim responsibility on behalf of al-Qaeda Central or threaten new attacks, whether or not it's actually true. [emphasis added]

The point isn't to characterize the Cheneys and other GOP attack dogs as terrorist sympathizers; it's to note that, in their zeal to weaken Obama's presidency, they're inadvertently giving U.S. enemies exactly what they're looking for.

As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Jay Bookman recently explained, "Cheney, Kristol and a lot of top Republicans in Washington are acting as unpaid PR agents for al Qaida, trying to turn even its failures into successes."

—Steve Benen 11:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

FORD'S ADVICE TO IGNORE.... Yesterday, David Plouffe, President Obama's campaign manager from 2008, published some very good advice for the Democratic Party. Today, former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D), apparently planning a Senate campaign in New York, offered Dems some advice of his own. After reading his op-ed, it's even more difficult to take Ford seriously than before.

Ford identifies "four simple steps we must take immediately to put us, and the nation, on a better course." The list includes dropping the kind of comprehensive health care reform that Democrats have already voted for -- he thinks protections for those with pre-existing conditions can be done on its own, proving he hasn't done his homework -- and also promotes passing immigration reform.

But the real fun was noticing how the other two of the four points complement one another. Ford, for example, believes Democrats should cut taxes some more...

[C]ut taxes for businesses -- big and small -- and find innovative ways to get Americans back to work. We can start by giving any companies that are less than five years old an exemption from payroll taxes for six months; extending the current capital gains and dividend tax rates through 2012; giving permanent tax credits for businesses that invest in research and development; and reducing the top corporate tax rate to 25 percent from 35 percent.

...and a few paragraphs later, Ford goes on to encourage Democrats to focus on deficit reduction.

[W]e need to address budget deficits now rather than waiting for some ideal future economic situation.

That cutting taxes makes deficit reduction largely impossible doesn't seem to bother the former congressman, probably because he's not especially serious about public policy.

—Steve Benen 10:35 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

NOW THAT THE TIDE ISN'T ADVANCING.... When President Obama was inaugurated a year ago, there were 58 Senate Dems and 257 House Dems -- the largest majorities in decades, but not filibuster-proof. Few observers expected at the time that legislative gridlock was impossible to avoid. It's not as if folks were running around saying, "President Obama can't expect get anything done with 'only' 58 Democrats in the Senate."

There had to be some kind of plan in mind. In an interesting WaPo piece yesterday, we get a sense of what that plan looked like. The White House apparently intended to move its agenda through Congress on an "advancing tide" theory.

Democrats would start with bills that targeted relatively narrow problems, such as expanding health care for low-income children, reforming Pentagon contracting practices and curbing abuses by credit-card companies. Republicans would see the victories stack up and would want to take credit alongside a popular president. As momentum built, larger bipartisan coalitions would form to tackle more ambitious initiatives.

The president stacked his administration with Capitol Hill veterans to help get the job done. Vice President Biden had served in the Senate since 1972. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had been a rising star in the House. Senior advisers Pete Rouse and Jim Messina, budget director Peter Orszag and legislative affairs director Phil Schiliro had close ties to key lawmakers.

By the end of June, Congress had sent 10 major bills to Obama, including tougher tobacco regulations, a new public service initiative, and recession-related efforts to provide mortgage relief and curb predatory banking practices.

But Republican votes never materialized.

Well, no, they didn't. The White House must have hoped otherwise, but Republican lawmakers decided early on to pursue a scorched-earth strategy -- no compromise, no constructive role, no mercy. It was a calculated gamble -- if the Democrats' agenda proved successful, the GOP wouldn't benefit. The congressional minority felt compelled, then, to do whatever it could to undermine public policy, stoke the partisan fires, and be more obstructionist than any minority in American history.

The "advancing tide" theory sounded reasonable enough -- I'm not sure what the alternative would have been -- but in the face of unrelenting partisan obstinacy, generating momentum isn't a credible option.

So, 2010 starts the way 2009 began, at least insofar as there's a Democratic president with a long to-do list, dealing with large Democratic majorities in both chambers, but not "supermajorities." The difference is, the tide appears to be receding, not advancing.

Was there a back-up plan?

—Steve Benen 10:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

PERCEPTIONS VS REALITY ON STIMULUS.... Congressional Republicans have invested considerable energy over the last year in trying to convince the country that economic recovery efforts were a mistake. The stimulus, the GOP insists, didn't work.

The repetition, coupled with a still-struggling economy, has proven persuasive to much of the public -- a new CNN poll finds that a majority of Americans believes the investments were wasted or spent for political reasons, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Among economists, however, we seem awfully close to complete unanimity that the Democrats' recovery effort rescued the economy from collapse, created jobs, and generated economic growth that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Among the experts, this isn't even worth debating anymore -- it's simply an obvious truth that the stimulus was effective.

USA Today published an item today after surveying a panel of economists.

President Obama's stimulus package saved jobs -- but the government still needs to do more to breathe life into the economy, according to USA TODAY's quarterly survey of 50 economists.

Unemployment would have hit 10.8% -- higher than December's 10% rate -- without Obama's $787 billion stimulus program, according to the economists' median estimate. The difference would translate into another 1.2 million lost jobs.

Not surprisingly, the economists believe there should be more stimulus, not less, including increased spending on infrastructure.

But that's almost certainly impossible, because of public opinion as reflected in the CNN poll.

—Steve Benen 9:25 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

WORK CONTINUES BEHIND THE SCENES.... Is there enough support in the House to pass the Senate health care reform bill? By every measure, not yet. In fact, Newsweek reports that the Democratic leadership isn't just short of a majority, they're "way short."

That's the bad news. The good news is they're still working on it. (via Kevin Drum)

For now, senior lawmakers are working the phones furiously to talk up the idea of the Senate promising to retroactively unravel several distasteful components. If House Democrats make the good-faith deal, Pelosi is arguing that the Senate promise would be easy to keep. Reconciliation votes require only a 51-vote majority. Or even 50, in which case Vice President Biden could break the tie.

This aide says that leadership considers reconciliation, with the House conditioning its support on promised fixes in the Senate, as the much more strategic route than breaking the package into parts, which isn't ideal because all of the parts are interlocking. Asked what the timetable would be for that, this aide says weeks, not months.

I'm not getting my hopes up, but this at least suggests some of the Powers That Be are considering the right solution.

It's not that complicated -- the House passes the Senate bill, the Senate agrees to approve key changes through reconciliation, and the White House keeps the players together. Everyone wins (except insurance companies and the Republican Party).

So, what's in the Senate version that would need to come out? The House wants a deal on the excise-tax financing, which shouldn't be too difficult since a compromise was reached nearly two weeks ago. The House also wants to see the "Cornhusker Kickback" scuttled, which also should be fairly straightforward -- the measure was necessary to bribe win over Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and even he's not willing to stand by his ransom anymore.

There's been a lot of pressure on the House to pass the Senate bill, and for good reason. But the sooner the Senate steps up and extends meaningful assurances to the House about clear-cut changes that can be made -- and can't be filibustered -- the sooner policymakers can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (20)

LET'S PUT THEM SIDE BY SIDE.... Throughout the lengthy debate on health care reform, Republicans refused to negotiate in good faith. Compromises were considered out of the question. Blatantly, demonstrably false claims were the norm. Perhaps worst of all, GOP leaders would embrace specific reform ideas, and when Democrats would agree, those same GOP leaders would reject the same measures they'd already endorsed.

And yet, now that reform is hanging by a thread, congressional Republicans are arguing with a straight face that legislation can still pass -- just as soon as the Democratic majority approves the GOP reform plan.

Last week, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) "made it clear that the only starting point for bipartisan compromise would be for Dems to drop their health care plan and embrace the GOP one." Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) made the same offer yesterday.

John McCain took a similar line yesterday, suggesting that the only ideas that can pass in a Democratic Congress are those that come from Republicans.

Mr. McCain, a Republican from Arizona, said on the CBS news program "Face the Nation" that President Obama should sit down with Republican leaders and begin adopting some of their ideas for improving the nation's health care system such as overhauling medical malpractice lawsuits, allowing residents of one state to buy health insurance from a company in another state, and granting tax credits for people who purchase health insurance on their own.

Perhaps now would be a good time to look back at the official Republican health care reform plan, as it was unveiled in November. It was largely lost in the shuffle -- and het media largely ignored it because reporters knew it had no chance of passing -- but it told us a great deal about how the GOP approaches this issue.

The Republican plan was nothing short of laughable -- it did nothing for the uninsured, nothing for those with pre-existing conditions, and nothing for those worried about losing coverage when it's needed most. It was an entirely partisan plan, written in secret. The Republican proposal sought to create a system that "works better for people who don't need health care services, and much worse for people who actually are sick or who become sick in the future. It's basically a health un-insurance policy." And as we learned in November, the plan included provisions that "mirror the suggestions put forth by the lobbying entity of the private insurance industry way back in December 2008."

Indeed, the official Republican plan didn't even offer modest provisions that the party used to support. Roll Call reported at the time, "Under the GOP plan, insurance companies would still be allowed to exclude anyone with a pre-existing medical condition from coverage, there would be no national insurance exchange and businesses would not face any mandate to provide insurance nor individuals to buy it. Boehner also left out tax credits to help the poor and middle class buy insurance -- a central pillar of most GOP reform proposals and a key feature of a four-page outline Republican leaders released in June."

The plan was quickly labeled "a major embarrassment."

Now, Cantor, McCain, and McConnell are labeling their approach "the bipartisan solution."

Ideally, the public could see the two plans, side by side, and see for themselves which party offered the more sensible solution.

It often goes unsaid, but if you were to have assembled a bipartisan group of policy wonks a couple of years ago, and asked them to put together a comprehensive plan that incorporates ideas from both parties, that expands coverage and cuts costs, they would have crafted a plan that looks an awful lot like the current Senate bill.

It's not the majority's fault that Republicans have lost their minds.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

STRATEGERY AND THE SHIFTING POLITICAL WINDS.... As most observers have no doubt noticed, political winds can turn pretty quickly. I was doing some research the other day and found a piece noting that the National Republican Senatorial Committee, as recently as May, thought it was likely that Democrats would expand their Senate majority in 2010.

As recently as late July, House Dems were believed to be "sitting pretty" for the midterms.

...CQ reports that the 2010 outlook for Democrats actually looks pretty good and "the only three contests in which CQ Politics rates an advantage to the challenging party are all for seats now held by the Republicans and targeted by the Democrats." [...]

Meanwhile, the geography of the 2010 Senate races is also highly favorable to the Democrats. And given the contrast between ironclad discipline on the GOP side and the "anything goes" attitude on the Democratic side, it looks like for a while yet we may be in a California-style dynamic where Republicans can't win elections but Democrats can't actually pass a governing agenda.

Now, I'm not trying to pick on Matt for this post; that's really what the landscape looked like at the time and it's what CQ actually reported. My point is there's an ebb and flow to political fortunes, not that predictions can look mistaken six months later.

Last summer, it seemed possible, if not likely, that the Democratic majority in the Senate would be larger in 2011. After all, between vulnerable incumbents and GOP retirements, seats in Florida, New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri, and North Carolina looked like strong pick-up opportunities. How significantly have things changed? Nate Silver put together an item weighing the possibility that the Dems' 59-seat majority may completely disappear by next year.

In the House, we've gone from a scenario in which a dominant Democratic House majority was practically a given after the midterms, to a landscape in which the list of vulnerable House Dem incumbents is almost limitless.

So, is there anything Dems can do to get the winds to blow back in the other direction? Some aspects of the campaign season are hard to predict -- the strength of the economy will make a big difference, no matter what strategy the parties pursue.

That said, when it comes to Dems and their agenda, we talked earlier about David Plouffe's advice to the party, with suggestions that struck me as sound: "pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay"; create jobs; stand by the stimulus; emphasize reform issues; run great campaigns; and avoid "bed-wetting."

That's a positive, affirming approach. I'm wondering, though, about some of the possible attacks on Republicans.

The GOP isn't in power right now, but the party still has vulnerabilities to exploit.

* Those guys really screwed up the last time.

Republican rule during the Bush/Cheney was a fiasco unlike anything America has seen in a very long time. The party, however, hasn't changed at all -- it's deliberately fought any efforts to improve -- so to reward the GOP in 2010 would be to endorse the same failures. I still don't know why Democrats never chose to label this the "Republican Recession."

* Why turn back the clock?

Nearly every crisis and policy challenge facing the United States right now -- the recession, two wars, a disastrous job market, a massive federal budget deficit, and crushing debt, a health care system in shambles, a climate crisis, an ineffective energy policy, an equally ineffective immigration policy, a housing crisis, the collapse of the U.S. auto industry, a mess at Gitmo, a severely tarnished global reputation, etc. -- is the result of Republican mismanagement, neglect, corruption, or some combination thereof.

The Dem line seems fairly obvious: if the country needs to put out fires, why vote for a team of arsonists?

* "Party of No"

As a rule, voters tend to like candidates/officials who at least pretend to be interested in problem-solving. "Whatever Dems are for, we're against" shouldn't resonate. Most of the American mainstream seems unimpressed by a party that reflexively rejects every idea, regardless of merit, while offering nothing substantive of its own.

* Worst. Ideas. Ever.

Republicans haven't been in power, but they occasionally have presented some genuinely ridiculous ideas over the last year. Resolving the financial crisis with a spending freeze? Voting for an alternative budget that would privatize Medicare out of existence? Pretending global warming isn't real? And remember the truly laughable GOP "health care plan"? C'mon. It's no wonder the RNC's own chairman questioned whether Republicans are ready to be in the majority again.

* "Party of Crazy"

Republicans have spent a year trying to drive away moderates, and taking orders from a drug-addled radio talk-show blowhard. Instead of moderating its message and direction in the wake of humiliating failures in 2006 and 2008, today's GOP moved even further to the right -- becoming the home to Tea Partiers, Birthers, Deathers, Oathers, and "Freedom Fighters."

As far as 2010 is concerned, it would seem Republicans have positioned themselves just outside the political mainstream. (As Charles Barkley said in 2006, "I was a Republican until they lost their minds." It's the kind of sentiment Democratic officials may be tempted to broadcast more.)

Any other possible campaign narratives come to mind?

—Steve Benen 2:25 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (107)

AXELROD SIGNALS SUPPORT FOR WEAKER, SCALED-BACK BILL.... I keep waiting for the White House to step up and urge the House to pass the Senate health care reform bill, and to urge the Senate to give the House assurances about improvements to be made through reconciliation. It's the solution that so many reform advocates keep emphasizing, and they could use some help.

But at least publicly, that's not happening. David Axelrod appeared on ABC's "This Week" earlier, and Terry Moran asked if health care reform is "dead," in light of some of the comments President Obama made to George Stephanopoulos this week. Axelrod responded:

"No, that's not true at all. I think what he's saying is let's take a look at this. There are so many elements of this -- tax breaks for small business, extending the life of Medicare, more assistance for seniors with their prescription drugs, a cap on out-of-pocket expenses, help for people with pre-existing conditions -- that are too important to walk away from. What he's saying is, let's get back to it."

Sigh.

The rest of the reform bill is "too important to walk away from," too. If the House passes the Senate bill, Americans can benefit from the tax breaks for small business, the strengthening of Medicare, the help for seniors -- and so much more. It just takes one roll-call vote in the House to deliver a victory for the ages.

And that victory may not happen unless the White House intervenes to help make it happen. It may be up to Obama to personally facilitate a deal.

That said, it doesn't have to be on the president's shoulders. As we talked about yesterday, Congress is its own branch, with its own leaders. It's in members' interests to get this done. Congress should realize the importance of delivering on the promise of reform -- whether it gets instructions from the White House or not should be irrelevant.

—Steve Benen 11:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (66)

SO MUCH FOR COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM.... The idea was always shallow and more about rhetoric than reality, but it looks like the notion of "compassionate conservatism" is officially dead. Take the latest rhetoric out of South Carolina, for example.

South Carolina Republican Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said Saturday he could have chosen his words more carefully when he compared people who take public assistance to stray animals Friday. [...]

Friday, Bauer said giving food to needy people means encouraging dependence. It also gives the recipients a license to have children who will also be dependent on public aid, he said.

"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," Bauer told a Greenville-area crowd. "You know why? Because they breed.

"You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."

This is, by the way, not only the sitting lieutenant governor, but also one of the leading gubernatorial candidates in South Carolina this year.

"It amazes me how some Republican politicians claim a monopoly on Christianity and then go out and say and do some of the most un-Christian things imaginable," said Charleston attorney Mullins McLeod (D), who participated in a candidates' forum yesterday. He added, "Bauer's comments are despicable and the total opposite of the Christian values Bauer espouses."

—Steve Benen 10:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

'HEALTH CARE REFORM IS A JOBS BILL'.... This week, it's been frustratingly common to see congressional Democrats who believe they can't win a policy argument on health care reform -- despite being right on the merits.

It was encouraging, then, to see Rep. Paul Hodes (D), running for the Senate in New Hampshire, emphasize a point that's gone largely overlooked -- health care reform is critical to job growth.

"I've been very, very straightforward with the folks in New Hampshire about the importance of substantial health care reform. We've got to have lower costs, [increase] quality and putting the folks of New Hampshire and this country back in control of their health care, instead of the health insurance companies," Hodes said.

"And health care reform is a jobs bill, and that's what I've been telling the folks all over the state that I've been talking to, and they get it here. Small business is big business in New Hampshire and small businesses in New Hampshire are getting pummeled by double-digit premium costs going up every year. They can't afford it. They know we need health care reform, and I'm finding a lot of fertile ground because people get that health care reform is a jobs bill, especially for small business."

More of this, please.

—Steve Benen 9:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (15)

PLOUFFE'S SOUND ADVICE.... David Plouffe, as President Obama's campaign manager, earned a strong reputation as a smart, strategic thinker. One would like to think his advice for the party would be taken seriously, especially given his new role as an outside political adviser to the White House.

In a Washington Post op-ed today, Plouffe acknowledges the Democrats' "challenging election year," but said the looming disaster can be avoided if "Democrats do what the American people sent them to Washington to do." To strengthen Dems' election-year hand, he recommends, among other things:

* Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it. I know that the short-term politics are bad. It's a good plan that's become a demonized caricature. But politically speaking, if we do not pass it, the GOP will continue attacking the plan as if we did anyway, and voters will have no ability to measure its upside. If we do pass it, dozens of protections and benefits take effect this year. Parents won't have to worry their children will be denied coverage just because they have a preexisting condition. Workers won't have to worry that their coverage will be dropped because they get sick. Seniors will feel relief from prescription costs. Only if the plan becomes law will the American people see that all the scary things Sarah Palin and others have predicted -- such as the so-called death panels -- were baseless. We own the bill and the health-care votes. We need to get some of the upside. (P.S.: Health care is a jobs creator.)

* We need to show that we not just are focused on jobs but also create them. Even without a difficult fiscal situation, the government can have only so much direct impact on job creation, on top of the millions of jobs created by the president's early efforts to restart the economy. There are some terrific ideas that we can implement, from tax credits for small businesses to more incentives for green jobs, but full recovery will happen only when the private sector begins hiring in earnest. That's why Democrats must create a strong foundation for long-term growth by addressing health care, energy and education reform. We must also show real leadership by passing some politically difficult measures to help stabilize the economy in the short term. Voters are always smarter than they are given credit for. We need to make our case on the economy and jobs -- and yes, we can remind voters where Republican policies led us -- and if we do, without apology and with force, it will have impact.

* Make sure voters understand what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act did for the economy. Rarely does a congressional vote or issue lend itself to this kind of powerful localization. If GOP challengers want to run ads criticizing the recovery act as wasteful, Democratic candidates should lift up the police officers, teachers and construction workers in their state or district, those who are protecting our communities, teaching our children and repairing our roads thanks to the Democrats' leadership. Highlight the small-business owners who have kept their doors open through projects funded by the act.

The recovery act has been stigmatized. We need to paint the real picture, in human terms, of what it meant in 2010. In future elections, it will be clear to all that instead of another Great Depression, Democrats broke the back of the recession with not a single Republican vote in the House. In the long run, this will haunt Republicans, especially since they made the mess. [...]

* No bed-wetting. This will be a tough election for our party and for many Republican incumbents as well. Instead of fearing what may happen, let's prove that we have more than just the brains to govern -- that we have the guts to govern. Let's fight like hell, not because we want to preserve our status, but because we sincerely believe too many everyday Americans will continue to lose if Republicans and special interests win.

Sounds like good advice to me. It seems the preferred alternative -- crawl into a fetal position and hope the storm blows over -- isn't a recipe for success.

—Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

NOTHING GOOD HAPPENS IN 'PAUSE MODE'.... The NYT reports today on the president and his team planning ahead for the rest of the year. On the matter where things stand with regard to health care reform, the report was very discouraging.

It remains an open question how much new legislation will pass Congress, but the coming months will help frame the campaigns. While some form of financial regulation and job creation measures may pass, Obama aides said, the larger initiatives like health care, a cap on carbon emissions and an immigration overhaul may have to wait, even though the White House denies trimming its ambitions. [...]

The administration is still exploring options with Congressional leaders to salvage a wide-reaching health care bill, but one adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy said, "I think they're coming to the realization that we may be in a pause mode."

"Pause mode" is not a good place to be. Nothing happens in "pause mode." There is no progress is "pause mode." No one finds real, meaningful change in "pause mode."

This is one of those times when the fierce urgency of now would be awfully helpful.

Now, I didn't hear the context of the quote -- maybe "pause mode" refers to the White House's short-term interests in focusing on the State of the Union address. Maybe "pause mode" ends later this week if/when the president brings the principals together to wrap up a deal.

But that's probably just wishful thinking. I interpret "pause mode" to more likely mean, "Let's kick this down the road a couple of months and see if the polls look any different."

This would be a terrible mistake. Dragging out the process, when it can be resolved with one, simple roll-call vote in the House, is the exact opposite of what's needed right now.

Giving opponents of reform more time to undermine public support and trash necessary legislation hasn't worked up until now; it's unlikely to work while policymakers are in "pause mode."

Ideally, the president and his team would be working the phones, facilitating a deal. If, however, the White House is going to remain detached -- and for all I know, congressional leaders may have specifically asked Obama to let them work this out themselves -- that doesn't mean lawmakers can't do their job.

Congress is its own branch, with its own leaders. It's in members' interests to get this done. Congress should realize what needs to be done -- whether it gets instructions from the White House or not should be irrelevant.

—Steve Benen 3:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (53)

MORE INFORMATION MEANS MORE SUPPORT.... Public opinion on health care reform has been shaped in large part by right-wing advertising, public anxiety and confusion, and major media outlets that aren't especially good at helping news consumers separate fact from fiction. As a result, the current push for comprehensive reform has come under intense attack -- just like every other major attempt at health care reform over the last century, each of which was derailed by lobbyists and scare tactics.

With that in mind, pay particular attention to the Kaiser Family Foundation's latest research. It notes that Americans are evenly divided in their feelings about the reform proposals. But the report show that support for the plan grows when Americans actually learn what's in it.

A significant majority of the respondents said they were more likely to support the bill when the following features were described: tax credits for small businesses that want to offer coverage to their employees, health insurance exchanges, the elimination of insurance denials based on pre-existing conditions, help in closing the Medicare "doughnut hole," and a tax hike on couples making more than $1 million a year to pay for the changes in health care.

Many Americans remain unfamiliar with key elements of the major bills passed by the House and Senate. Among the least known elements of the legislation is that the Congressional Budget Office has said health care reform would reduce the deficit. Sixty percent expect the legislation to increase the deficit, but almost as many, 56 percent, said that reducing "the federal deficit by at least $132 billion over 10 years" would make them more supportive of the health care proposal.

This is hardly unprecedented. Over the summer, in the middle of the right-wing freak-out, a NBC/WSJ poll found that 36% of Americans approved of the plan. When the plan was actually described, support jumped to 53%.

So, what we have here is ... a failure to communicate. Americans don't like the proposal, until they learn what the proposal actually entails and realize the scare tactics aren't true. ("Wait, you mean there are no death panels and this isn't a government takeover? Well, in that case....")

The importance of this cannot be overstated.

Yesterday, DCCC Chairman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Greg Sargent that the Senate bill may have been irrevocably tarnished, making it "unacceptable in its current form to many voters," and leaving House Dems unwilling to pass it.

But this is based on faulty assumptions. The House could pass the Senate bill, make changes through reconciliation, and get rid of measures like the Nebraska Medicaid deal through a freestanding bill. Van Hollen's instincts are backwards.

The point is, public perceptions can change -- if Democrats give success a chance. The polls are discouraging, but failure, weakness, and delays won't improve matters. Van Hollen's message, in a nutshell, is, "We can't deliver on the most important piece of legislation in a generation because Republicans lied to the country; we can't overcome that; so we'll have to shape our policy accordingly."

That's madness. That's weakness. That's electoral suicide.

Again, what I'm suggesting is that they give success a chance. The polls are far more likely to recover if lawmakers do what they said they would do, pass the most important domestic policy legislation in generations, reap the rewards of a historic victory, and then get out there and sell their handiwork -- making clear to the country that the scare tactics were wrong. Once the bill is signed, the media won't just have a major signing ceremony to cover, but there will be plenty of reports about what the new law does and does not do -- "How the new health care law affects you" -- which would further help debunk the myths.

Van Hollen thinks the public has soured on the plan. There's ample evidence to support that. But Americans feel a lot better about the plan when they learn what it is, and they're far more likely to learn what it is if it passes.

Dems can either deliver or break their promise. They can either help Americans who need support or let them suffer. They can either help turn the polls around or watch them fall further. They can either prove their ability to govern or prove themselves inept. They can either satisfy the expectations of those who elected them or demoralize those who are counting on them. They can either watch the media cover their once-in-a-generation breakthrough or watch the media scrutinize a fiasco for the ages.

They can either look like victorious heroes who remained strong when the going got tough or they can look weak.

They can either fix a broken system and save lives or watch a dysfunctional system get considerably worse.

They can either succeed or fail.

How is it not obvious that Dems need to pass ... the ... damn ... bill?

—Steve Benen 11:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

THIS WEEK IN GOD.... First up from the God Machine this week is a pretty big dust-up over the use of U.S. military rifle scopes featuring inscriptions with New Testament citations.

The scopes are obviously problematic, not only on church-state grounds, but for undermining the American position that our conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are not about religion. Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation said this week, "It allows the Mujahedeen, the Taliban, al Qaeda and the insurrectionists and jihadists to claim they're being shot by Jesus rifles." Gen. David Petraeus, Central Command's top officer, called the practice "disturbing," and said the scopes represent a "serious concern to me and the other commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Late Thursday, the matter was resolved when the manufacturer reversed course.

A Michigan defense contractor will voluntarily stop stamping references to Bible verses on combat rifle sights made for the U.S. military, a major buyer of the company's gear.

In a statement released Thursday, Trijicon of Wixom, Mich., says it is also providing to the armed forces free of charge modification kits to remove the Scripture citations from the telescoping sights already in use. Through multimillion dollar contracts, the Marine Corps and Army have more than 300,000 Trijicon sights.

Marine Corps spokeswoman Capt. Geraldine Carey said the service "is making every effort to remove these markings from all of our scopes and will ensure that all future procurement of these scopes will not have these types of markings."

Also from the God Machine this week:

* A Gallup poll released Thursday found that "more than 4 in 10 Americans (43%) admit to feeling at least 'a little' prejudice toward Muslims -- more than twice the number who say the same about Christians (18%), Jews (15%) and Buddhists (14%)."

* And in related news, a report released by the Pew Research Center found that "most Americans accept interracial marriage, but many people of faith say they would be troubled by a family member's decision to marry an atheist." Specially, a 43% plurality said they would be bothered by a family member's marriage to an atheist, but would probably accept the marriage eventually. However, 27% said they would be bothered and would never accept the marriage.

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

FOCUS ON THE FAMILY'S AIRTIME.... For much of the Bush era, progressive voices found it surprisingly difficult to purchase television advertising time. MoveOn.org tried to buy an ad on GOP corruption, but NBC wouldn't air it. The Center for Constitutional Rights tried to buy an ad about torture, but Fox News wouldn't air it. The progressive United Church of Christ put together an ad that told viewers, "No matter who you are or where you are on life's journey, you're welcome here." All of the major networks refused to run it.

And in 2004, MoveOn.org raised enough money to buy an ad during the Super Bowl, but CBS rejected it, noting its "long-term policy not to air issue ads anywhere on the network." The spot was about the Bush/Cheney deficits, which the network described as "divisive."

It looks like conservative voices are having more luck now.

Will television viewers take issue with issue advertising during a Super Bowl?

That is what CBS will find out as it gets ready to broadcast Super Bowl XLIV on Feb. 7. An evangelical organization, Focus on the Family, that takes stands on issues like abortion and gay marriage -- the organization opposes both -- is buying a commercial during the game.

Issue ads are rare during Super Bowls, partly because almost all the time is bought by marketers of consumer products and partly because the networks have strict policies regarding the discussion of contentious issues in national commercials.

The Focus on the Family ad will reportedly feature college football player Tim Tebow and his mother, both of whom have spoken publicly about their opposition to abortion rights.

It creates an interesting situation. Does Focus spend a lot of money on a commercial with a vague, watered-down message? Does Focus push the envelope and force CBS to reject the spot?

Or are we left with a situation in which issue/advocacy advertising on television is fine, so just so long as it's a conservative message?

—Steve Benen 9:55 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (27)

IF IT'S SUNDAY.... CBS News's "Face the Nation" is touting its line-up for tomorrow's show.

Coming Up: Jan. 24, 2010: Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

And a roundtable discussion on the Supreme Court campaign ad ruling with CBS News' Nancy Cordes and Jan Crawford.

Yes, we've reached the first anniversary of President Obama's inauguration, so it's time once again to have John McCain appear on yet another Sunday morning talk show.

For those keeping score, this will be McCain's 19th appearance on a Sunday morning talk show since Obama took office 12 months ago. That's an average of one appearance every 2.9 weeks for a year -- more than any other public official in the country.

Since the president's inauguration, McCain has been on "Meet the Press" three times (December 6, July 12, and March 29), "This Week" three times (September 27, August 23, and May 10), "Fox News Sunday" four times (December 20, July 2, March 8, and January 25), and CNN's "State of the Union" four times (January 10, October 11, August 2, and February 15). His appearance on "Face the Nation" will be his fifth in the last year (January 24, October 25, August 30, April 26, and February 8).

Congratulations, "Face the Nation," you're now in the lead.

And who, exactly, is John McCain? He's the one who lost the 2008 presidential race badly, and is now just another reactionary conservative senator in the minority. He's not in the party leadership; he has no role in any important negotiations on any issue; and he's offered no significant pieces of legislation. By all appearances, McCain isn't even especially influential among his own GOP colleagues.

There's just no reason for the media's obsession with McCain. None. Nineteen Sunday-show appearances in 12 months? It's farcical.

Of course, if "Face the Nation" is going to go to the trouble of having McCain on once again, Bob Schieffer could, in theory, ask the senator to explain why he humiliated himself during a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing this week. For those who missed it, McCain insisted that Christmas/underwear bomber Umar Abdulmutallab bought a one-way ticket from Nigeria to Detroit. That's completely wrong. When National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter tried to explain reality, McCain became visibly annoyed, forcing Leiter to apologize for being correct.

If our media culture made sense, television producers wouldn't reward this.

—Steve Benen 9:10 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (26)

STERN ADVICE.... Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, is one of the more influential figures in progressive politics, and is one of the nation's leading champions of health care reform. In light of talk that some congressional Dems are considering a weaker, "scaled-down" health care reform bill -- even with a stronger, more effective bill one vote away from passage -- Stern is insisting that this isn't good enough.

SEIU chief Andy Stern took a hard shot at Dem leaders just now for considering a scaled-down health care bill, strongly hinting that labor might not work as hard for Dem candidates in 2010 if they failed to deliver real and comprehensive reform.

"It's gonna be incredibly difficult to stay focused on national politics if by the end of 2010 we have minimal health care and minimal changes on what's important to our members," he said in an interview, ridiculing the emerging Dem approach as "fear masquerading as a strategy."

Stern unloaded on Dem leaders in response to reports today that they're mulling either a scaled down bill to win GOPers or a broken up bill passed in pieces. His anger suggests Dems risk paying a big price with labor if they fail to figure out how to pass the Senate bill and fix it later, as labor wants.

Stern concluded, "For the 31 million people who don't have health care, for the 14,000 who lose it every day, for the 120 people who die every day, they elected this Congress to make change, not to set their sights lower when the going gets tough."

What I find interesting is the sizable group of progressive champions -- allies of the Democratic Party who have no interest in steering Dems in the wrong direction -- who are all urging the House to do the right thing, pass the Senate bill, and make improvements through reconciliation. Leading reform advocates, major union leaders, health care policy experts, and the nation's most influential progressive pundits are all saying the exact same thing, giving Dems the exact same advice.

On the other hand, Republicans and right-wing activist outlets are urging Dems to scrap all the progress they've made, give up, start over, and/or pursue a weaker, ineffective bill (which the GOP would end up opposing anyway).

Why on earth would Dems follow the advice of those who want to destroy them?

—Steve Benen 8:40 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (24)

THE TALKS THAT MAY SAVE HEALTH CARE REFORM.... Over the last few days, it's become increasingly evident that congressional Democrats aren't sure how, when, or whether to move forward on health care reform. There is an obvious course that would deliver an extraordinary victory -- the House passes the Senate bill, then approves changes through reconciliation -- but fear is driving reluctance.

Politico reports that there will apparently be some talks this weekend that may save health care reform (and save the Democratic Party, and save the lives of uninsured Americans, and save countless families from bankruptcy).

Struggling to salvage health reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun considering a list of changes to the Senate bill in hopes of making it acceptable to liberal House members, according to sources familiar with the situation.

The changes could be included in separate legislation that, if passed, would pave the way for House approval of the Senate bill -- a move that would preserve President Barack Obama's vision of a sweeping health reform plan. [...]

The changes are being worked on this weekend with plans for Pelosi to present them to her caucus next week, according to sources familiar with the situation. But, sources stressed, neither Reid nor Pelosi know if this strategy can win the support of their members, but they are attempting it because it is the quickest path to passage.

As recently as last week, in the midst of lengthy discussions at the White House, a wide variety of changes were agreed upon by House and Senate negotiators. The idea, of course, was to craft a final bill to be approved by both chambers. Voters in Massachusetts have since made this approach impossible.

But if Reid and Pelosi can package those already-discussed improvements, and agree to approve them through reconciliation after the House passes the Senate bill, then there's still hope that a fiasco for the ages can be avoided.

The changes being considered track closely with the agreements House and Senate leaders made in White House meetings last week, according to a source. They include the deal with labor unions to ease the tax on high-end insurance plans, additional Medicare cuts and taxes, the elimination of a special Medicaid funding deal for Nebraska and a move to help cover the gap in seniors' prescription drug coverage. Pelosi is also working to change the Senate provision that sets up state insurance exchanges. The House prefers a single, national exchange.

Discussions, a Pelosi spokesperson said, "are ongoing ... but no final decisions have been made."

Once more with feeling: Pass. The. Damn. Bill.

—Steve Benen 8:05 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (41)

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

* Haiti: "Haitians are fleeing their quake-ravaged capital by the hundreds of thousands, aid officials said Friday, as their government promised to help nearly a half-million more move from squalid camps on curbsides and vacant lots into safer, cleaner tent cities."

* New tensions in Baghdad: "The two biggest secular coalitions were hit hardest by this month's decision to bar about 500 candidates from parliamentary elections in March, a top election official said Thursday, as efforts to resolve what has become a political crisis intensified.... In an early effort to resolve the crisis, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested that the list of the disqualified be set aside until after the elections, so that only those on the list who won would have to be examined for Baathist ties, according to Iraqi officials."

* President Obama pushes a jobs bill, among other things, in Ohio.

* Are Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke's prospects for a second term in real trouble? Actually, yes.

* China really doesn't take criticism well.

* Gitmo: "A presidentially created task force has recommended about three dozen Guantanamo Bay detainees face trial or military commissions, two government officials said Friday. Such prosecutions would almost certainly take place in the United States. The two officials said that a task force has recommended 35 Guantanamo Bay detainees for prosecution. Attorney General Eric Holder has already decided that five of those will be tried in New York federal court for their alleged roles in the 2001 terror attacks. Another six have been chosen to face military commissions."

* As Obama goes after banks with a populist pitch, Republicans bring "class warfare" back from the rhetorical trash heap.

* It was only a matter of time before more conservatives starting criticizing Haiti for not having been colonized long enough.

* Tuition-free, online higher ed?

* Dear Jewish air-travelers: using a tefillin is apparently going to cause some trouble.

* I absolutely loved Tom Toles's latest gem. Clip it, save it, send it to your representative.

* Pass the damn bill: "59 out of 59 Democratic incumbent Senators voted for the Obama health care plan. And 218 Democratic House incumbents voted for the Obama health care plan. This plan does not poll well today. And if the narrative about the plan in the media becomes a narrative of failure, all about why Obamacare went down, it will poll even worse.... The votes cannot be untaken. But it is still possible to (a) accomplish something for the American people, (b) at least have a chance at turning the narrative around, and (c) avoid demoralizing those people who do like the health care plan."

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

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

DINGELL POINTS THE WAY FORWARD.... Rep. John Dingell (D) of Michigan has been fighting for a health care reform bill since the day he got to Congress -- 55 years ago. His father fought for a health care reform bill before him, alongside Harry Truman. This is not some passing interesting for Dean of the House Conference and the third longest-serving member of Congress ever.

And he agrees with the strategy that seems obvious to every except his House Democratic colleagues.

Dingell ... thinks Democrats should first put Republicans on the spot opposing the bill, then move ahead without them.

"They can go to conference," Dingell told me in an interview this afternoon. "Bring the Republicans in. They've been whining about the need to have transparency, let them get up there and say that they oppose this bill before the people."

Once that exercise is over, though, Dingell says Democrats should bare (sic) down and pass the Senate bill. "I don't foreclose the utilization of the adoption of the Senate bill, accompanied by an agreed to piece of legislation to be embodied in the reconciliation package," Dingell says. "And just tell the Republicans that you have a chance to co-operate with us, and if you don't we'll be proceeding.

He also told Brian Beutler, "There is only a limited amount of time to address this."

On the other hand, there's Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who suggested today that Congress just delay the consideration of health care altogether for up to six weeks.

I suspect Dodd means well -- he's helped get reform this far -- but that's a recipe for failure. The bill isn't going to improve over the next month and a half. Giving more opponents more time to attack, extending a debate no one wants to hear anymore, is a dreadfully bad idea.

Update: Bill Galston tends to oppose ambitious progressive activism in nearly every instance, and has never been especially supportive of the reform initiative itself, but even he thinks the House needs to step up and pass the Senate bill quickly.

—Steve Benen 4:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (83)

IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE?.... The only thing political reporters love more than accepting the conventional wisdom without question? Writing the contrarian piece that questions the conventional wisdom. With that in mind, the lead story at Politico today has this headline: "Why the GOP should still be nervous."

Obviously, a lot of Republicans are going to scoff at this. For that matter, so will Dems. This has been an incredibly difficult week; Democrats feel demoralized; and Republicans feel giddy. Dems have a still-popular president and huge majorities in both chambers, but it's the minority that's feeling all of the momentum right now. To deny this is to deny reality.

But the various caveats are important. Less than 20% of the country actually approves of the direction of the Republican Party. The latest NBC/WSJ poll, released earlier this week, found those approving of the way President Obama is handling health care way down -- but it's still 12 points higher than those approving of the way congressional Republicans are handling the issue. Indeed, on pure favorability, Obama is 22 points higher than the GOP.

With that in mind, the piece from Jim VandeHei and James Hohmann is counter-intuitive, but not ridiculous.

Republicans are riding high in the wake of Scott Brown's win, talking up an authentic resurgence for their party and a real chance for reclaiming power.

Don't bet on it. [...]

POLITICO talked with many of the country's most experienced political operatives, and each one warned Republicans against irrational exuberance.

It may seem easy to forget, but the Republican brand is still awful, and the problems Democrats are struggling to fix right now were caused by the GOP. As angry as people are, the number of people who like and trust the Republican Party is still very small. That, coupled with internal divisions, weak fundraising, weak leadership, and the total absence of a policy agenda constitute meaningful hurdles for the GOP's "comeback."

Of course, the obstacles may not matter if recent trends continue. If the Democratic base is demoralized, and the Teabaggers don't tear each other apart, Republicans will enjoy extraordinary gains by default -- no matter how ridiculous, irresponsible, and wrong they've been.

But those who measure the drapes in January can be disappointed in November. Matthew Dowd, who consulted for former President George W. Bush and voted for President Barack Obama, said, "If any Republicans are running around town celebrating in jubilation, they should remember that in the country's constant state of change, neither party gets more than a moment."

Know what would really make things easier for Dems? If the House passes the Senate health care bill, and Democrats prove they're capable of delivering on their agenda.

—Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (30)

OBAMA: 'I AM NOT GOING TO WALK AWAY'.... I've obtained an advance text of the remarks President Obama will deliver in Elyria, Ohio, this afternoon. The emphasis on the remarks and the town-hall event will be the economy and jobs, but the president will address the health care issue.

"...I had no illusions when I took on health care. It was always going to be hard. I knew from the beginning that seven Presidents had tried it and seven Presidents had failed. But I also knew that insurance premiums had more than doubled in the past decade, that out-of-pocket expenses had skyrocketed, that millions more people had lost their insurance, and that it would only get worse.

"I took this up because I want to ease the burdens on all the families and small businesses that can't afford to pay outrageous rates. I want to protect mothers, fathers, children from being targeted by the worst practices of the insurance industry.

"Now, we've gotten pretty far down the road, but I have to admit, we've run into a bit of a buzz saw along the way. The long process of getting things done runs headlong into the special interests, their armies of lobbyists, and partisan politics aimed at exploiting fears instead of getting things done. And the longer it's taken, the uglier the process has looked.

"I know folks in Washington are in a little bit of a frenzy this week, trying to figure out what the election in Massachusetts the other day means for health insurance reform, for Republicans and Democrats, and for me. This is what they love to do.

"But this isn't about me. It's about you. I didn't take up this issue to boost my poll numbers or score political points -- believe me, if I were, I would have picked something a lot easier than this. No, I'm trying to solve the problems that folks here in Elyria and across this country face every day. And I am not going to walk away just because it's hard. We're going to keep on working to get this done with Democrats, Republicans -- anyone who is willing to step up. Because I am not going to watch more people get crushed by costs, or denied the care they need by insurance company bureaucrats, or partisan politics, or special interest power in Washington." [emphasis added]

The remarks did not point to a specific course of action the president prefers -- though that may come up during the Q&A -- but it sounds as if Obama remains committed to finishing the job.

I'm torn about whether the White House has dealt with the issue appropriately this week, in part because I haven't gotten a strong sense of exactly how much work has been done behind the scenes.

There may be some value to the president taking a hands-off approach for a few days, letting lawmakers calm down and giving the process some breathing room.

That said, if the House is going