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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

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

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

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

Well, she did. She voted against it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how's that going?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Markos Moulitsas explained:

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

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

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

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

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

But it's fun to ponder, I suppose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Yglesias recently explained:

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

Once in a while, policymakers have to be responsible enough to ignore polls and do the right thing. If these results are accurate, people care more about the deficit than the economy. But that's crazy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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