I wonder: Now that Howard Dean's been the first person to say it out loud, will the media lemmings follow? We'll see:

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean called on Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) to resign as chair of Senate Homeland Security Committee if he can't bring himself to oppose a Republican filibuster of health care reform legislation.

Appearing on "The Joe Scarborough Show" on WABC, Dean stressed that he had no problem with Lieberman opposing the bill on its philosophical merits, or lack thereof. But he insisted that it was irresponsible and unprincipled to not allow the legislation to come to an up-or-down vote.

"I think that is a very complicated guy," said Dean. "He does because he says he's a principled guy but there's nothing principled about holding up a bill... If he was a principled guy he'd resign his chairmanship."

"If you are with a caucus you don't owe the leader any vote on any substance," Dean added. "I have no problem with him voting against the public option... You owe it to Harry Reid to allow him to run the Senate. And if you're not willing to do that the proper thing to do is to step aside."

The vote on bringing the bill to the floor may happen by the end of this week:

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid scrambled Tuesday to lock down votes behind a health-care bill that he may present as early as Wednesday.

The Nevada Democrat would not confirm that he had received commitments from all 60 members of his caucus to overcome GOP procedural objections and bring the bill to the Senate floor, saying only, "I feel cautiously optimistic that we can do that. I think we're together as a caucus."

[...] Preliminary estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the legislation's official scorekeeper, have indicated that the Senate measure would cost far less than the bill the House approved last week, while lowering the federal deficit further over the long term, said several senior Democratic aides who have reviewed the CBO data.

Which, of course, makes me wonder: Who did the Senate leave out?

Democrats are hopeful about winning over at least one Republican, Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, on a vote for final passage. But the Maine moderate has pledged to support a GOP filibuster at the outset because Reid's bill is expected to include a public-insurance option that she opposes.

UPDATE from TPM:

Under the terms of the bill, Medicaid would be expanded to cover everybody up to 133 percent of the poverty line. And in a move that will disappoint progressives, tax credits to buy health insurance would be limited to those between 133 and 300 percent of poverty line. (People between 300 and 400 percent of poverty would not be provided any direct federal assistance, but insurers would not be able to set their premiums at more than 9.8 percent of their annual income.)

Here we go again. That's not going to be enough to make it affordable to most people, and it has to change in the final version. Call your Congress critter!

So Harry Reid's holding firm - for now. And you just can't argue with Sherrod Brown: What concessions have the ConservaDems made?

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

[...] “I don’t think in the end, anybody here in our caucus wants to be on the wrong side of history, wants to kill on a procedural motion, something as important as this,” Mr. Brown said. “It’s the most important thing they ever will have voted on except perhaps the Iraq war.”

Mr. Brown, who is a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which included a public plan in its version of the health care legislation, said that liberals had already given a lot of ground, starting with their willingness to give up a fully government-run single-payer system, which many favor.

“A large number of people in this country including many, many doctors wanted Medicare for all,” he said. “That didn’t happen. Then we wanted a strong public option tied to Medicare rates. Then we wanted a public option building the Medicare network. That didn’t happen. Now we are saying public option coming out of the HELP Committee. And now we’re saying public option with the state opt-out. Where was the compromise coming from their side?”

Hopefully the Big Dawg will make them see the political danger of screwing up this health care bill. Of course, since Sen. Bob Casey is already hard at work on a Stupak-type bill, I wouldn't count on them listening:

CNN has learned from two senior Democratic sources that former President Bill Clinton will attend the Senate Democrats' weekly luncheon Tuesday to address the caucus about health care.

A notice obtained by CNN went out to Senate Democrats saying, "All Senators should be aware that former President Clinton will be making a presentation on Health Care at tomorrow's caucus lunch. Senator Reid has requested that all Democratic Senators attend."

A constant refrain from Democratic leaders is that wavering Democrats must heed what they say is a lesson of the Clinton administration: fail to pass a health care reform bill, and congressional Democrats will suffer on Election Day.

With this visit at a critical time for health care in the Senate, the former president will be able to deliver that message in person.

Ah, feel the eliminationism.

Rep. Gregg Harper, a Mississippi Republican, had a jocular interview with Politico's Anne Schroeder Mullins and popped out this little knee-slapper:

Mullins: What in the world does the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus do?

Harper: We hunt liberal, tree-hugging Democrats, although it does seem like a waste of good ammunition.

Coming from a congressman from a state still renowned for its lynchings and murders not just of black people but white civil-rights workers -- in an era many of us can still remember clearly -- this kind of "humor" is anything but funny.

However, it is the kind of thing we've come to expect to today's Republicans, isn't it?

Not that makes any difference to Blue Dog Democrats like Ben Nelson. As Media Matters notes:

Ironically, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), a co-chair of the caucus, has praised the group for being bipartisan. "Unlike some of the other activities in Washington, Republicans and Democrats reach across the aisle and join hands to work together, not as Republican or Democrat, but as sportsmen and women," he wrote.

Someone should ask Ben Nelson if he enjoys hunting liberal Democrats too, since that's what his caucus is apparently viewed as a venue for.

(Addendum: Somehow I'm not surprised that Harper is a Mississippian who thinks John Grisham is a "literary great" who surpasses Faulkner and Welty. Gad.)

Politico:

A Democrat, amused at the shots of Eric Cantor working his Blackberry as the president talked about the cost of health care a few minutes ago, passes on this item from last week headed, "Cantor: GOP will be 'attentive' during Obama speech":

Cantor and I talked about how Republicans would behave, and I asked if it would be like a State of the Union when they sit on their hands or hiss for parts they don't agree with.

I also asked Cantor if there were going to be any "no Tweeting" rules for Republicans, since some of them had busy thumbs during Obama's winter quasi-State of the Union address.

"I don’t think we’re going to be guiding the caucus to boo or applaud or whatever. We’re all going to be very attentive," he said.

He was not, for what it's worth, Twittering. But his office did get a statement out immediately after the speech, which he says he found "overhyped" and of "strangely unclear" purpose.

Hate to break this to you, Cantor, but the only thing truly "overhyped" and "strangely unclear" is Obama's need to reach across the aisle to you pathetic bunch of un-American obstructionists. As the DNC's new ad states: "Republicans Just Say No"

Finally, someone's telling it like it is. These Blue Dogs are nothing but venal malcontents and it looks like even other Congress members are getting fed up:

Moderate Blue Dog Democrats "just want to cause trouble," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who heads the health subcommittee on the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

"They're for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process," Stark told reporters on a conference call.

A spokeswoman for the Blue Dog caucus did not immediately respond to an e-mail request for comment.

Thursday's call was being hosted by the liberal group Campaign for America's Future to release a report making the case for a strong new public health insurance plan to compete with private insurers as part of any health overhaul legislation.

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

DOWNLOADS: (643)

PLAYS: (716)

Well, this doesn't look good. Dick Durbin, in the name of bipartisanship says he'd be willing to accept a health care bill that does not include a public option. Isn't that special? And singing the praises of Max Baucus as he does it. Senator, it appears to me the only thing Max Baucus has been working on is lining his own coffers while these "negotiations" are going on.

John Amato says:

There is a lot of moving parts grinding along right now as the Senate finishes the Baucus bill and since there is no actual bill that we can see it's really hard to be definitive about what we're talking about, but if Obama wants to lose the left then he'll go ahead and take Cokie's advice and stiff the left and bow down to the minority party that's magically called the center by Villagers in DC. There are trial balloons floating around everywhere. Call Dick Durbin and let him know co-ops are unacceptable.

In Washington, DC-9 am to 6 pm
(202) 224-2152 - ph
In Chicago, 8:30 am to 5 pm
(312) 353-4952 - ph

You can flood his office with emails too.

KING: All right, Senator Durbin, the big issue on your side is whether there will be a public option, a government plan to compete with private plans in the health insurance spectrum. The chairman of the Budget Committee, Kent Conrad has raised doubts on this program, that votes were there. And he said this in The Washington Post on Thursday. "The hard reality is that a public option does not have enough support in the Senate to pass." You're the number two Democrat. Should your caucus be prepared for a health care bill that does not have a robust public option?

DURBIN: Well, I can't speak for the caucus, but I'll tell you, luckily there are three Republican senators and only three who are still negotiating with us. And we want to keep them negotiating.

Some of them are opposed to a public option. Some want a co-op approach to it. But we're determined -- despite the kind of pressure that they're under to stop negotiating and stop working on it, we're determined to get a bill to the floor. It doesn't have to be a perfect bill, but it should move forward through the amendment process.

And at the end of the day, we've got to -- have to make sure that we have health care reform that really helps middle-income families.

KING: If you're determined to get a bill that those three Republicans support -- and I assume you hope would go to Senator Cornyn and others and say, look, you might at least try to give this a good look -- then you're open to having a bill. Because Senator Grassley, Senator Enzi, and others have said they don't want a public option. If you want to keep them in the room, then, by extension, you are open to a bill without a public option -- fair?

DURBIN: I support a public option, but, yes, I am open. Just understand that, after we pass this bill -- and I hope we do -- in the Senate, it will go to conference committee. We'll have a chance to work out all of our differences. So we'll see how this ends, but I don't want the process to be filibustered to failure, which unfortunately, many senators are trying to do. I want to make sure that we do something positive for the American people.

KING: Well, Senator Cornyn, let me come in on that point, because Senator Enzi, Senator Grassley are trying to reach agreement on some sort of a co-op plan that they think would get health care especially to people in rural areas -- and your state has many of them -- without a strong government hand. Are you open to a co-op that has, maybe, a larger government role but not a full government option?

CORNYN: Well, I'm not for a government takeover using another name like "co-op," but so we have to see what the details are. But, you know, the problem is that there's a lot of middle ground where we can meet where it's insurance reform; it's realigning incentives to provide value rather than incentivize volume of procedures; providing continuity of care, medical homes and the like, which I think have a lot of hope out there to providing better quality of care at hopefully a lower price.

Continue reading »

When I lose patience with the pace of healthcare reform, I remind myself exactly how much detail work is involved. (Via MSNBC: Above, House Energy and Commerce Committee Special Assistant Mitch Smiley, center, thumbs through boxes of amendments to the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, on Friday.) So stay patient and keep calling, we're getting closer all the time. All three major committees have finished their version and will vote in September:

Reporting from Washington -- President Obama's ambitious plan to overhaul the nation's healthcare system got a major boost when a pivotal House committee passed a compromise bill Friday night, clearing the way for a floor vote this fall.

The bill was approved 31 to 28, with five Democrats and all of the Republicans on the energy and commerce committee voting against it. Despite the defections, enough liberal and conservative Democrats were able to come together to break the deadlock that had stalled the bill for weeks.

"We are a diverse caucus with many points of view," said committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills). "We've agreed we need to pull together."

To reach agreement, Waxman earlier this week had accepted conservative lawmakers' demands to limit the bill's price tag to $1 trillion over 10 years, exempt more small businesses from the employer-provided insurance mandate, and reduce the number of low-income people who would qualify for subsidized coverage.

But those changes provoked a backlash among liberals. To win them back, Waxman crafted a compromise that would restore low-income subsidies. The committee also added a major provision that would limit the premium increases that insurers could impose, and another that would let the government negotiate pharmaceutical prices under Medicare's prescription drug program -- a goal long sought by liberals as a way to reduce drug costs. (The idea was bitterly opposed by Republicans when the program was established in 2003, as critics questioned whether the government would secure discounts.)

The bill is designed to provide insurance for the 46 million people in the U.S. who now go without it; to curb healthcare costs; and to make it harder for companies to deny coverage or increase premiums.

"We have a historic opportunity to transform our healthcare system," Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), a leader of the panel's conservative faction, said ahead of the vote.

But Republicans said that despite changes made to address conservative Democrats' concerns, the legislation remained a costly, intrusive expansion of government power over medical care. Conservatives did little more than "pick the color of the lipstick on this pig," said Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.).

The vote came just as House members prepared to leave town for a monthlong recess.

Here's Harry Reid telling us it's time to get serious on health care. Well, WhenTF is he going to get SERIOUS?

Harry Reid is caving to the pressure from the do no nothing Max Baucus caucus and says that he's fine with no bill being voted on before the August recess.

WASHINGTON – Senate Democratic leaders on Thursday abandoned plans for a vote on health care before Congress' August recess, dealing a blow to President Barack Obama's ambitious timetable to revamp the nation's $2.4 trillion system of medical care.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., delivered the official pronouncement on what had been expected for weeks, saying, "It's better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through." His words were a near-echo of Republicans who have criticized the rush to act on complex legislation that affects every American.

Reid told reporters the Senate Finance Committee will act on its portion of the bill before lawmakers' month-long break. Reid then will merge that bill with separate legislation passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee earlier this month.

The process will be difficult since Finance, led by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is seeking a bipartisan deal while the health committee bill was passed by Democrats on a party-line vote.

We need to call his office (202 224 3542) repeatedly to demand that they get a bill done and voted on by the August recess or they should forfeit their vacations because they have an obligation to Americans across this country to get it done. Here's what's at cost if we delay while these House of Lords take their royal time off:

Some in Congress are talking about delaying health care reform for another three weeks through the August Congressional recess. Just to put a fine point on it, over three weeks in America:

• 143,250 people will lose their health insurance coverage [pdf]
  
• 53,507 people will file for bankruptcy because they can't pay their medical bills
• 1,265 people will die [pdf] because they lack coverage

There is a real human cost of even a few weeks in America without health reform. And there is no logical reason for the delay

.
Does Harry Reid want Americans to suffer while they go water skying and play in their sandboxes? Please contact his office and tell the leader of the Royal House to stay at work. (202 224 3542) Nancy Pelosi has taken my advice and will cancel the August recess and now President Obama has come out and said that he wants them to work.

a senior administration official said Reid's announcement does not change Obama's timetable, with the president still wanting House and Senate votes before the upcoming recess.

Who is really the president here, Chuck Grassley?
As Digby says:

The article makes it sound like Republicans asked for a delay, and Reid AGREED to it.

Should we just let Mitch McConnell be Majority Leader at this point?

...I should mention that I haven't seen reports of that Baucus/Finance Committee/public option deal anywhere else. Things are very fluid and I still feel that most stakeholders in the debate are resigned to something called "public option" in the final bill. Whether it's good or not remains to be seen. But conceding the recess and allowing the Finance Committee to delay and dictate the terms is unconscionable.

And don't forget to sign the petition by Midnight to make sure the House does their jobs too.

Oh, darn. I was really looking forward to getting on my horse and going cross-country with my trusty six-shooter. Oh well!

Personally, I think the idea was a great one. In a time of constant right-wing hate directed against an African-American president, why wouldn't you want those patriots to take their guns across state lines? Why, a teabagging party, anti-abortion rally or a revolution might break out:

An amendment that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons across state lines fell just short of passage Wednesday in a vote that revealed deep divisions among the Senate's Democrats.

Supporters included all but two Republicans and 20 Democrats, but the vote of 58 to 39 in favor fell two short of the 60 needed to defeat a filibuster.

Despite its defeat, the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), demonstrated the continuing power of the National Rifle Association and the gun rights issue in Congress. Rather than a setback, those backing the effort consider the vote a sign of strength for the Second Amendment and are planning more gun-related amendments to other legislation throughout the year. Afterward, Thune said he hopes the Senate will "reconsider this important issue" later this year.

It split not only Democrats, many of whom got to the Senate by supporting gun rights, but also the caucus's leadership: Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), campaigning for reelection in 2010, voted yes, while his top lieutenants, Sens. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.) and Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), led the push by liberal Democrats against the measure.

Offered as an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill, the legislation would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms across state lines, provided they "have a valid permit or if, under their state of residence" they "are entitled to do so." It was considered one of the most far-reaching federal efforts ever proposed to expand gun-permitting laws.

From what I hear, despite Arlen's efforts to reassure state Dems, Sestak is running anyway. Should be interesting!

A few days after he switched parties, Sen. Arlen Specter went on Meet the Press and hotly denied reports he had promised President Obama he would be a "loyal Democrat."

In dozens of conference calls and meetings since then, Specter has been trying to reassure Democratic elected officials, county chairs, and party activists around Pennsylvania of the opposite proposition: that he can be counted upon to support the president.

Participants in these efforts say that Specter has been relaxed and direct as he lays out his case, dwelling on instances in which he bucked his former Republican Party during a 29-year Senate career. Specter has been received well, they say, though some skeptics are eager for a Democrat with a more liberal record to challenge him in the 2010 primary.

"I've read about his diligence before, but I've been really impressed to see how they're reaching down to the very base of the grass roots," said Jack Hanna of Indiana County, chairman of the state party's Southwest caucus, who was on two conference calls with Specter. "The guy's on top of it."

This weekend, Specter faces the biggest public test so far of his appeal to party regulars, appearing at the Democratic State Committee spring meeting in Pittsburgh. He is scheduled to host a dessert reception after a fund-raising dinner tonight and to make a major speech tomorrow.

U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak of Delaware County, who has said he intends to run against Specter for the Democratic nomination, also plans to attend.

On Monday, Specter had a breakfast meeting with Democratic leaders in Montgomery County, moved on to Delaware County for lunch, and met with Chester County leaders in the evening.

At the Montgomery gathering, held at the Hilton Garden Inn in Fort Washington, Specter faced a couple of challenging questions about his support for key elements of former President George W. Bush's agenda, including the tax cuts for the wealthy and the Iraq war.

"He was one of the enablers in the Senate because, as a moderate with a lot of seniority, he was in a position to stand up to Bush," said Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel. "I have a hard time getting past that."

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

DOWNLOADS: (1551)

PLAYS: (1502)

Sen. Harry Reid talked at length today on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell about Arlen Specter, the closing of Gitmo and possible prosecutions over the torture memos.

Reid said that he talked to Specter after he read that Arlen supported Norm Coleman when he was interviewed by the NY Times, and Specter says he misspoke.

CQ Politics:

The political whirlwind that surrounded Sen. Arlen Specter ’s switch from the Republican to Democratic party had him forgetting which team he is rooting for in 2010.

But after voicing support for Republican Norm Coleman in his contested Minnesota Senate race, Specter said he misspoke in a New York Times magazine interview and is supporting Democrats.

--

Asked whether he cared about a shortage of Jewish Republicans in the Senate, Specter replied: “I sure do. There’s still time for the Minnesota courts to do justice and declare Norm Coleman the winner.” But questioned outside the Senate chamber Tuesday, Specter said the comment was a mistake.

“In the swirl of moving from one caucus to another, I have to get used to my new teammates,” he said. “I’m ordinarily pretty correct in what I say. I’ve made a career of being precise. I conclusively misspoke.”

Asked who he’s backing now in elections, Specter said, “I’m looking for more Democratic members. Nothing personal.”

Specter's idiocy forced Harry Reid to come out and talk the whole story down. I'm sure he was really giddy about that. And is Specter's support for Franken only based on the fact that he switched sides? Reid also said that he wanted to wait until Dianne Feinsten's investigation into the torture memos was completed before he gave an opinion on the Bush Co. torture memos. Are you sold on her investigation, or the OLC's?

The minute Feinstein became the great congressional leader on torture, I wondered if it wasn't kabuki. It's DiFi we're talking about. She rushed in "begging" the president not to launch any investigation until she'd finished hers. The village babblers were using her investigations as the primary reason not to pursue prosecutions. It makes perfect sense that they would bottle the thing up in secret hearings and a very slow investigation as long as possible.

We already saw them do this with phase two of the pre-war intelligence investigation. It took years and the media treated it as old news, not worth talking about, when it was finished. But it helped keep a lid on the political hot potato that was the dawning realization that the Bush administration had manipulated the intelligence to get us into war.

Secret investigations are a junk yard for rear view mirrors.

We need a special prosecutor, period.

I was surprised that Reid held back on this because he has shown no interest in going after the torture authors, you know, like the Mormon Judge Bybee, but he was very careful today on MSNBC. I wonder if he practiced with Blitzer, because I heard he was mumbling and stumbling his way through The Situation Room.

BLITZER: It certainly sounds like he wants Norm Coleman to beat Al Franken, the Democratic candidate, when the dust settles.

REID: Arlen has said -- that is the way that he said that. I'm not here to put words in his mouth. All I know is he told -- he's told everyone that that isn't the way that it was meant to be. He wants Franken to win ...

Continue reading »

The Cincinnati Enquirer is preparing to rank President Obama’s first hundred days. In doing so they listed how local lawmakers have voted with the President.

• Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio: 100 percent
• Rep. Steve Driehaus, D-Ohio: 86 percent
• Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio: 71 percent
• Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio: 43 percent
• Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.: 41 percent
• Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.: 24 percent
• Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio: 0 percent
• Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky.: 0 percent
• Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio: 0 percent

I think the most telling number there is that of the House minority leader, John Boehner. He is setting the lead for his caucus and they are following in lockstep with him. Even the Senate’s Minority Leader has been able to support the President 41% of the time.