You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (21)

PLAYS: (107)

From The Chris Matthews Show 'Tell me something I don't know' segment, Kathleen Parker throws this tidbit out there:

Parker: I'm hearing a couple of very interesting things. One shocker is that some Democrats are thinking of jumping ship and changing parties.

Matthews: Do you have the names?

Parker: That's all I can say about that. The other thing is...

Matthews: What part of the country?

Parker: I can't say one more thing. I'm probably in big trouble already.

Fineman: In the continental United States?

Parker: Yes. The other thing is that these -- some of the Senators who've ...

Matthews: Arlen Spector going to flip back?

(Laughter)

Parker: But these people who've been obstructionists on the health care bill are going to have a lot of trouble. Their seats are in danger and they're going to have a lot of trouble getting money from their donors.

If she's just talking about more of the Blue Dog Democrats in the House, that isn't much of a shocker. I've got to think she's referring to some Senators since she went straight into their fund raising problems as her second point. I guess we'll find out soon enough. So who's the next Joe Lieberman we've got lying in wait out there?

Now the final phase begins, where we see what House liberals can achieve within the confines of a broken system that gives a handful of senators from sparsely populated states a disproportionate power to shape legislation:

Democrats are already outlining a strategy to achieve a final compromise that can satisfy the more liberal House without upsetting the painstakingly assembled coalition of 60 Senate Democrats and independents.

Central to those talks, House leaders said, will be the search for an acceptable substitute for a government-run insurance plan that those without medical coverage could purchase, a provision the House designed to compete with private insurers and force them to rein in costs. While the Senate has decisively rejected the "public option," House leaders say they will demand other concessions to ensure that Americans can afford the insurance they will be required to buy if the bill becomes law.

[...] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has signaled approval for the Senate's solution: the creation of at least two nationwide insurance plans run by private companies but overseen by the Office of Personnel Management, the same federal agency that handles health insurance for members of Congress. In a conference call Wednesday, Pelosi also assured rank-and-file Democrats that they would not be asked to rubber-stamp the Senate bill and began soliciting ideas to improve it.

Among the options under discussion: pressing the Senate to increase the federal subsidies that would be offered to low- and middle-income people who do not have access to affordable coverage through an employer; having a single national marketplace for people buying insurance, rather than 50 state-based exchanges, as the Senate prefers; and moving up the launch date of those marketplaces and subsidies to 2013, one year earlier than under the Senate bill.

Still same as the old boss. A fan of the site sends me this Boston Globe article, which discusses how prominent Democratic politicians pushed to get the second F-35 engine into the final DOD Appropriations bill prior to President Obama's signature. You might remember that F-35 second engine as one of those costly gold-plated things that DOD really didn't ask for and that President Obama said he wouldn't stand for. First it was gone.

The Obama administration has signaled for months that funding for a second F-35 engine in the fiscal 2010 defense bill could become veto bait. Gates spent months, most recently at the beginning of September, making the case that the Pentagon does not need the alternative engine, built by a General Electric-Rolls-Royce team.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) said
Wednesday that he decided against funding the engine because he was concerned about the floor vote on the entire defense spending bill.

Now it's back.

Senator John F. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, said that GE officials had told his office that 1,000 jobs in Massachusetts will be saved or maintained once full production begins on the backup engine.

"There will also be some jobs gained, but maintaining jobs right now is very important,’’ he said yesterday, defending his efforts to persuade fellow lawmakers, including the highly influential Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii and Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania, to overturn Obama’s proposal in a final vote on Saturday.

Inouye chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, while Murtha oversees a House panel with jurisdiction over defense spending.

Kerry also used his influence with the White House to get it to back off a threatened presidential veto. He told the Globe that he ultimately got assurances from Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s chief of staff, that the president would not veto the fiscal year 2010 defense appropriations bill if the money for the engine was included. Obama signed the bill which totals $626 billion, on Monday.

What utter bullshit. This is just unjustified crap, and it doesn't smell any better coming from a Democratic politician than a Republican. In talking about defense acquisition with a colleague, he said that he might believe in Santa Claus, but he didn't believe in acquisition reform. With clowns like this in the Senate and White House, it's no wonder that the Defense Department can't get clear of its huge funding bills and massively overpriced, behind schedule programs.

The VH-71 presidential helicopter program also got $85 million to "wind down" its efforts. Must be a big office. The USMC's Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle is getting $293.5 million, despite its many troubles. I'm severely disappointed.

I think it's pretty obvious that we need to change the procedural rules in the Senate, and hopefully get around obstructionist tactics while still allowing honest debate and compromise. We can't have a system where senators from sparsely-populated states maintain such disproportionate power (and that's not even getting into the reality of a Congress corrupted by K Street):

WASHINGTON - Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, who one month ago proposed an overhaul of financial regulations that was hailed by many consumer activists, has all but jettisoned that proposal following Republican objections and has initiated talks for a new approach designed to satisfy some of his fiercest GOP critics.

Dodd’s strategy has raised concerns among consumer activists who were counting on him to come up with a tougher bill than the one recently passed by the House, and now worry that the entire measure will be weakened.

But the Connecticut Democrat, in an interview in which he laid out his strategy, said it would be too risky to launch another legislative effort that might repeat the Senate’s experience with in the health care debate, in which single senators have forced major rewrites or threaten to defeat the measure.

Dodd’s new approach began last week when he paired four Republicans and four Democrats on the Banking Committee to work together to come up with suggestions on reshaping the legislation. The process has not produced any details and is expected to continue through January, but participants have said they are hopeful of brokering a compromise bill that could get a Senate vote next year.

Asked what has become of his initial proposal, Dodd replied: “I laid down a bill that is as much a reflection of where I am on this as to plant a flag. I did what I wanted to do. I provoked people.’’

The strategy contrasts with the method employed by his legislative counterpart, House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, who oversaw passage of a bill that would transform the regulatory landscape for banks and many businesses - while failing to gain a single Republican vote. Unlike in the House, where bills can pass by a single vote, Dodd needs 60 of 100 senators to avoid a filibuster.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 45

PLAYS: 10

(Korea: Police Action - swore up and down we'd be there a few weeks)

Our legacy of Foreign Policy misfires is long and involved and certainly not the exclusive property of the last twenty or so years. Although it does make you wonder how long we've been screwing up and has it always been this bad.

There was that matter of Korea and the Domino Theory of Communist takeovers in the Far East put forth by the Eisenhower Administration. There was also the matter of the Red Scare and how the Marshall Plan was a dismal failure guaranteed to make the U.S. a weaker superpower. There was the blame game where the United Nations was a dismal failure, also guaranteed to make the U.S. a weaker superpower and how we needed to divest ourselves of that body.

But nowhere in all the arguments, even going back to 1950, was there an alternative to what we were doing and doing badly.

Everybody agreed something was wrong and something needed to change drastically over how we were dealing with the rest of the world and both sides of the political aisle varied wildly over what the solution was. This exchange between Senators William Benton (D-Connecticut) and George Malone (R-Nevada) offer ample proof. The program was The American Forum Of The Air, broadcast on July 9, 1950 - the subject: "Do We Need A New Foreign Policy?". The ensuing shouting match said it all.

Sen. George Malone: “We have not yet had a definite Foreign Policy. I note that your subject today, do we need a new foreign policy? I say definitely we do, because we have never yet said and the President has not said in Korea whether or not the integrity of Korea is important to our ultimate safety. He (President Truman) has said he has got us in it on account of the United Nations and half of the world is not with us in the United Nations. Eastern Europe, Russia, Communist China. We better make up our minds just what our foreign policy is and let the American people know it and let the other nations know it. So we can come out. Now if he has any ideas at all, if he has any ideas, I say he ought to let us know what they are.”

Coming up on 60 years and the arguing doesn't look like it's ending anytime soon. Meanwhile, there's the body bags . . .

Nate Silver on why we shouldn't celebrate just yet:

Needless to say, it would have been very, very bad news for the Democrats if the motion to proceed to debate on their health care plan had failed tonight. But I'm not sure how newsworthy this really is. The potential hold-outs, like Lincoln and Ben Nelson, are going to have much greater leverage later on, when the bill nears its second major procedural hurdle: the cloture motion to proceed to the final vote.

And there's some bad news for Democrats too: Lincoln has joined Senators Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman in making a fairly explicit threat to filibuster a bill that contains a public option. Mary Landrieu, on the other hand, sounds a little bit more open to compromise. But this impromptu Gang of 3 -- Lincoln, Nelson, Lieberman -- could be a tough one for progressives to penetrate.

Yeah, it's going to be ugly by the time they get done dealing away any real hope of competition for the insurance companies. I'm not optimistic about the short-term results here and I have to keep muttering to myself that this will be good for our children and grandchildren - probably.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (861)

PLAYS: (3798)

Fresh off warning us that President Obama intends to create a "one world order," Chuck Norris went on Sean Hannity's show last night on Fox and described his eliminationist fantasies if he ran for office:

Hannity: Why don't you run? No no no, there's a solution -- why wouldn't you -- Chuck Norris could be governor of Texas one day.

Norris: You know why? Because I'd be sitting here with my opponent, and debating, and then he would start attacking my character, and I'd jump over there and choke him unconscious.

[Laughter]

Hannity: You have more control than that!

Norris: I don't! That's the problem, you know. I have a thin skin. It was really tough in the film world. And in the political world, you know, I'd be killing half the people.

Because, you know, nothing bespeaks personal character like the volatile use of violence on your opponents.

He goes on to explain why he wouldn't fit well in political arenas like the Senate:

Norris: You know, with all the senators, you can't get anything done. You know, it's always right and left --

Hannity: No, no, you can, I disagree with you. You can.

Norris: Well, what I'd have to do, I'd have to choke out all the Democrats.

Hannity: [laughs] Well, it's a good start.

He also describes one of the eliminationist "jokes" in his new book:

Norris: One of the "facts" there [in his book] is America is not a democracy, it's a Chucktatership. And if it was, I said I would go to Congress, I'd line up every member of Congress, and I'd have Ron Paul, who I believe is one of the, probably one of the more honest ones there, I'd say, 'Ron, point out the honest ones' --

Hannity: I like Ron Paul. He's nuts.

Norris: Yeah, I know. That's why I like him. But anyway, I'd choke out the dis -- every dishonest politician that's up there.

Evidently, that would perforce include "all the Democrats." And any non-Paulbot Republicans. Which is most of them.

Well, paranoia and eliminationist violence often go hand in hand. And eventually, for the paranoid, the violence ceases to be a mere fantasy.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1229)

PLAYS: (784)

(h/t Heather)

I can see that Ben Nelson and the Conservadems/Baucus Dogs have a plan. They bitch and moan about the effect a public option would have on the poor, poor health-insurance industry, so if they do have to vote for a public option in the Senate that clearly benefits Americans and not his favorite donors, they will only do it under the provision that the states "opt in" rather than "opt out."

His hair has been saying this for a while now.

Nelson's hair doesn't explain why he favors the "opt in" version and Harwood doesn't bother to ask. And he can count on the media to not inform America what the differences are in an opt in or an opt out version of the PO so when we complain about it the Villagers will attack us. He was interviewed by John Hardwood, a Villager of the highest order on MSNBC.

Here's what Ben Nelson's hair said:

Harwood: You'd agree that unless a comprehensive health care bill would pass that it would cripple his presidency.

Nelson's hair: Well, I don't know that we should conclude that some form of health care reform won't pass. I believe that some form of health care will pass.

Harwood: What in your mind are stoppers, things that, knowing this place, things that either because you oppose them or other senators oppose them, simply can 't be in the final product to have it pass?

Nelson's hair: Well, it's very difficult to see how that CLASS Act that was in the HELP committe bill would make it [that's long term care provisions] I think also any kind of public option that would undermine or destabilize the private insurance that 200 million Americans have, I don't see that that would make it. But some version such as an opt-in, for the states with a state option, that could very well be in.

Digby alerted me to this clip and she astutely writes:

But I am still suspicious that there might be a play to make opt-in the reasonable alternative to opt-out. It just keeps cropping up in all kinds of places, often from White House reporters. It's worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Harwood thinks that Nelson will stick with them on cloture and I haven't heard otherwise. (and if Harwood asked him he didn't say, the putz.) But he certainly keeps dangling himself out there as a vote for opt-in, so if this thing really comes down to the wire I could see it happening. Again, I don't think the village media have clue about just how different the two things are. It's just bumper sticker slogans to them.

The Hill reports that Sheldon Whitehouse also trumpeted the same thing.

The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an "opt-in" provision versus an "opt-out," one Democratic senator said Friday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.

"I think it's falling into an opt-in, versus opt-out," Whitehouse said during an appearance on MSNBC. "You have a public option, but it's up to a state to take an affirmative act to take advantage of it."
Whitehouse suggested the opt-in as a potential compromise on the public option to win enough Democratic votes in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he will vote against a bill containing a public option, and several other centrist Democrats have been reluctant to support the current proposal.

I'm doing some digging around to see what's really happening and I'll have news soon. Reid is already having the "opt out" scored by the CBO, but my sources indicated that the Senate has not sent out the "opt in" to be scored. From what I'm hearing. The "opt in" would not pass the House conference.

So it may turn out that Harry Reid was the hero in the public option after all.

Much of the hoopla surrounding Reid's decision centers around a tense Thursday night meeting between President Obama and Senate health care principles--including Reid and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)--at the White House. But according to sources briefed on White House-Senate health care negotiations, things began boiling over earlier in the week, when a key question was, Who's going to take the blame when the public option doesn't make it in to the base health care bill?

{}

On the morning of the meeting, anonymous sources--and even some high profile senators--came forward to say that Reid was leaning very heavily toward backing the public option. And that's the news he and other senators brought to the White House that night.

"Reid actually asked Schumer to make the pitch," the first source said. When he did, "Obama was less than responsive and asked questions that suggested he preferred an option that could get the trigger and bipartisan support."

How the meeting ended remains unclear. But what we do know is that, early Friday morning--hours after the parties went their separate ways--Politico's Mike Allen reported that, according to a top administration official, Obama's preference was still for triggers, and he'd let the senators know that...read on

And mcjoan says that reconciliation may still be on the table after all.

This is the correct answer to the bleating of Joe Lieberman, and Blanche Lincoln, and Ben Nelson. If you don't want to be a part of the most critical domestic policy reform in generations, we can always do it without you.

"Sure, it's always an option," Reid said after leaving his press conference Monday, when he announced that he'd be pushing forward with a public health insurance option with an opt-out provision that would give states the right not to participate....

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is in charge of corralling and counting votes, also said that reconciliation is still being considered. "The failsafe on this is reconciliation," Durbin said. "I hope we don't reach it because you can only do a limited amount of things on reconciliation."

Reid's comments were from Monday, before Joe put on his show, which could mean that Reid's now definitely put it on the table.

You know how much the Villagers hate this idea, so what that means to mean is it's awesome.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1088)

PLAYS: (487)

(h/t Heather)

I've been hearing from my sources that the ConservaDems in the House of Lords (The Senate) would rather have states be able to "opt in," rather than "opt out," of the public option in health-care reform. No matter how you feel about these proposals, the one Ben Nelson supports is a far, far worse plan than the other. Here's what he said on CNN's State of The Union:

KING: If there is a vote and Harry Reid needs 60, have you promised him, even if you disagree with the proposal and might vote no on the proposal, you would give him your vote on the procedural issue?

NELSON: I have made no promise. I can't decide about the procedural vote until I see the underlying bill. It would be, I think, reckless to say I'll support the procedure without knowing what the underlying bill consists of. And it's not put together yet. It's a draft -- it will be a draft bill some time next week, submitted the Congressional Budget Office for the review of the cost. And until I've seen a completed draft...

KING: Well, let me -- let me jump in, can you support...

NELSON: ... I'm not going to...

KING: Can you support a public option where states could opt out so there is a public option in the federal legislation, or will you only support a public option where the state would have to opt in, so there is not a national program already created?

NELSON: Well, I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out or a robust, as they call it, robust government-run insurance plan. I'll take a look at the one where states could opt in if they make the decision themselves.

I understand what the other Senators are trying to do with the opt-out proposal -- which comes down to guaranteeing the public option an uphill, state-by-state battle -- but Ben Nelson in particular continually thwarts every effort to include a robust public option in America. I think he uses health insurance payoffs as a form of roughage to keep his bowels clear. And he still won't say if he'll give us an up-or-down vote. Schmuck.

Nelson must be looking to become a health insurance lobbyists once he leaves the Senate and since he takes the most cash from them---I imagine he has a gig already lined up.

Sadly, No!: According to the Virgin Queen of the Right Wing Baloney-sphere, the title of "Teabagger" was worn with pride by our colonial forebearers. No, really.

Dependable Renegade: Seriously Meghan, put the iPhone DOWN. But first, tweet Carrie Prejean a message from the General.

Earth Bound Misfit: "Republicans for Rape" isn't just a vote, it's thirty votes. And now it's a blog. Susie Bright (NSFW) points to a simple statement on "how to prevent rape." Highly recommended.

Distributorcap NY: Discovered at Schwabs.

Mike Finnigan returns tomorrow; send tips to finnsagain AT aol DOT com.

Are you sick and tired of the silly talking point Republicans use when they say all we have to do is allow people to cross state lines and buy insurance anywhere in America? They say that'll lower costs and save us all. Really? OK, here's what I have to say to that.

I want every member of Congress who is against health care refom with a public option to go out into the real world and try to purchase their own private insurance in any state they choose as a test. They can't say they are Senators or Congressmen, though. Make believe they are real citizens and then be like everybody else. Let's see how many of them actually would qualify for a plan at all and if they somehow can get insured, I want to see how much it would cost them and their families.

Hmmm, I wonder what would happen to Orrin Hatch?

That's what I want to see.

Senator Tom Harkin, who leads the HELP committee, made a stunning statement to The Hill:

The Senate has the votes to pass a healthcare reform bill including a public option, a key Senate chairman said Tuesday.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said that the Senate "comfortably" has a majority of votes to pass the public plan, and that he believes Democrats can muster 60 votes to break a filibuster.

"I have polled senators, and the vast majority of Democrats — maybe approaching 50 — support a public option," Harkin said told the liberal "Bill Press Radio Show." "So why shouldn't we have a public option? We have the votes.

"I believe we'll have the 60 votes, now that we have the new senator from Massachusetts, to at least get it on the Senate floor," Harkin later added. "But once we cross that hurdle, we only need 51 votes for the public option. And I believe there are, comfortably, 51 votes for a public option."

That's great news. Let's hope it plays out this way.

Mike Lux has more:

I have said before (most recently here) that the Senate Finance Committee was conservative, in fact the most conservative committee makeup in the Senate, and that we would be likely to lose these votes:

With numbers like this, and with the entire Democratic base mobilized intensely around the issue, you would have to be politically tone deaf as a Democrat to oppose this, but this is the Senate Finance Committee, so public option advocates are likely to lose these votes. The question, though, will be the margin. On a committee this conservative, far more conservative than the Senate as a whole, if we only get seven votes for the public option amendments, that would have to be considered a major political victory, and a sign that the public option can definitely get a majority vote on the floor.

So getting 10 votes on this is promising for those of us who believe a public option is essential. Baucus, Conrad, Lincoln, Carper, and Bill Nelson are five of the ten most conservative Dems in the Senate, and on the Schumer amendment, even two of them went with us. President Obama is for it, a majority in the House is for it, and the whip count we're running right here at OpenLeft.com shows that 51 Democrats are in favor of it. And today Tom Harkin confirmed that our whip count is right...

Will all this evidence, the public option will only be hard to beat if Democratic leaders decide they don't want to do it.

And Digby has more:

Carper and Nelson flipped on the Shumer public option amendment, leaving only Conrad, Lincoln and Baucus voting against it. This is good news believe it or not. It indicates that there are 51 votes for a public option in the senate.

The question most certainly is whether or not the president can change their minds. And frankly, if he doesn't have enough juice to at least hold them together for one cloture vote then I have to wonder if he has any real juice at all. Every one of these corporate lackeys can vote against the final bill if they dare. Assuming they can bring Byrd in to do it, all they need to do is break a Republican filibuster and "allow an up or down vote."

Now matter what FOX News says, the public option is not dead. I saw Schumer on with Tweety and he was ecstatic that he flipped a couple of votes. It sucks that he has to kowtow to Max Baucus, though. He was talking to him like he was the Duke of Westminster. All that royalty cannot be overlooked.

Tweety asked Schumer about those pesky liberal ads that are being run against Baucus, as if Matthews thought he was NOT going to defend his Senate brother. And during our President Obama blogger conference call, Obama told US to keep the pressure on everybody. He's got to push for the public option hard no matter what Rahm thinks.

One constant theme which needs dealing with is the idea that the country is more conservative than liberal and that centrists are needed to hold off horrible conservative things from happening.

More than that, this is an argument for oligarchy. What I see is that the majority of people, in poll after poll, want single payer. A huge majority want the public option, yet odds are decent you won't even get that.

When people talk of left-center coalitions the center part include a large number of Senators (like Diane Feinstein) who won't do what the majority of their constituents want them to do. At this point centrist = captured by monied interests.

Odds are if Obama wanted single payer, the House could pass it. It'd be close, but they could get it done. The House is the more representative body of the two bodies, the Senate is deliberately retrograde.

When I look at the US what I see is a banana republic, because it doesn't act like a democracy. I see people who think that the Senate, or even the House, actually does what the American people want. Again and again, Congress does things that the majority disagree with. In 2006 the Dems were elected to end the war in Iraq, for example, and refused to do so (though again, the House at least went through the motion, the Senate didn't even make an effort). Oh, Congress will sometimes do what the majority want—when that's what it was going to do anyway.

The plan to fix this is simple enough and always has been.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2260)

PLAYS: (1550)

Max Baucus finally unveiled his new/old bill from the Senate Finance committee today and as has been expected the bill is all about bowing down to the minority party that has no intentions of supporting any type of health care reform. He's chucked aside America just to try and land one Republican vote in the Senate... errrr... I mean, the House of Lords.

Sen. Rockefeller has been very outspoken about his opposition to the Baucus Dogs bill and says as much while many other Democrats are not pleased either.

Baucus Bill: Rockefeller Says Dem Senators Are Not Pleased

On Andrea Mitchell, Sen. Kent Conrad came on at the end of the show and read off a list of things that Republicans should be so happy to support in the bill. It was as if Baucus and Conrad wrote a bill that caters to the Republicans and his Gang of Six committee. It was disgusting watching him gush when he said there was no public option in the bill because Republicans didn't want it. He then read off more and more things that Grassley wants in the bill and it's as if he really thinks there's a chance in hell that they will vote for his bill.

Actually, it's a bill nobody but self-eviscerating Dems will vote for.