Salon: War Room

House passes healthcare reform bill

Alex Koppelman — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:15:00 PST

The House of Representatives took a historic step on Saturday night, passing the Democrats' healthcare reform bill and bringing supporters closer to passing the first major overhaul of the U.S. health in almost half a decade. As the time allotted for the vote expired, cheers and applause broke out on the floor of the House.

In order to pass the bill, Democrats needed a majority, or 218 votes. They got 220 -- 219 Democrats, and a single Republican, Louisiana Rep. Joseph Cao. Voting against were 39 Democrats and 176 Republicans.

Earlier in the night, pro-life Democrats successfully added an amendment to the bill; the language, part of a deal breaking an impasse over abortion that threatened to torpedo the vote, imposes restrictions on coverage of abortion.

Update: The White House just sent out a statement from President Obama. It reads:

Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people. The Affordable Health Care for America Act is a piece of legislation that will provide stability and security for Americans who have insurance; quality affordable options for those who don’t; and bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the government while strengthening the financial health of Medicare. And it is legislation that is fully paid for and will reduce our long-term federal deficit. Thanks to the hard work of the House, we are just two steps away from achieving health insurance reform in America. Now the United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year.

Republican votes for House Dems' health bill

Alex Koppelman — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:19:00 PST

House Republicans have been remarkably unified this year, sticking together on all of the big votes and ensuring that Democrats don't have any bipartisan cover whatsoever. But when the House votes on the Democrats' healthcare reform bill Saturday night, things could be different.

Multiple outlets are reporting that both sides of the aisle are lobbying aggresively to win over Rep. Joseph Cao, R-La. Cao has reportedly told colleagues he's undecided, and the White House is getting involved in the fight for his vote as a result. According to ABC News, even White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has spoken with Cao.

Cao is in a unique position, because he's a first-term congressman who represents a heavily Democratic district. As a result, he'll have a hard time getting reelected as it is, and though the GOP base would undoubtedly rise up against him, Cao can use a little bipartisan credibility with the Democrats in his district. The only reason he was able to win election in the virst place is because he was running against Rep. William Jefferson, who was under indictment on federal corruption charges at the time of the vote; Jefferson has since been convicted on a majority of the counts against him.

Update: Whether due to Emanuel's infamous gift for arm-twisting, his district's blueness or something else, the Democrats won over Cao. He crossed the aisle to provide the bill with its 220th "aye."

House nears healthcare vote -- can it pass?

Alex Koppelman — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:45:00 PST

If everything goes as House Democrats hope, they will pass their version of healthcare reform sometime around 9:30 p.m. EST Saturday night. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her allies reportedly believe they have the 218 votes needed for passage, but it took quite a bit of work, and at this hour both sides are still laboring to whip enough votes to push themselves over.

President Obama himself worked on Saturday to try and round up the last bits of support necessary to ensure the legislation would survive. He went to the House in order to speak to his fellow Democrats and encourage them to vote for the bill, and upon his return to the White House he made remarks that hit the same theme.

"I just came from the Hill where I talked to the members of Congress there, and I reminded them that opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation. Most public servants pass through their entire careers without a chance to make as important a difference in the lives of their constituents and the life of this country," Obama said. "This is their moment, this is our moment, to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us -- even when it's hard; especially when it's hard. This is our moment to deliver. I urge members of Congress to rise to this moment. Answer the call of history, and vote yes for health insurance reform for America."

Supporters of the bill already won a key test, a procedural vote to open debate, 242-192. 15 Democrats joined all of their Republican colleagues in voting no, but members often vote to allow debate and then ultimately oppose the bill in the final roll call. As of this post, Republicans are saying they have counted 35 Democrats as "no" votes - 41 would have to cross the aisle in order to defeat the bill.

There will be three votes before the one that really counts. The first will be on an amendment offered by pro-life Democrats that would severely restrict coverage of abortion offered by any providers that participate in an exchange created under the bill. The decision to allow that vote was a major concession to that wing of the party, a concession made Friday night in order to break a deadlock and ensure that the bill could come to the floor. The amendment is expected to pass, though it could go either way.

The second vote is on a Republican amendment, one that would substitute their own proposal for the entire Democratic bill. It will, given the large Democratic majority, go down to defeat. Similarly, the third vote -- a last chance for the GOP to kill the bill with something called a motion to recommit -- should fail, allowing Democrats to proceed to the big moment of the night, the final roll call.

Wiesel slams tea partiers over Holocaust signs

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 14:20:00 PST

Unfortunately, it seems that whether it's on the Internet or in real life, Godwin's Law always finds a way to prove itself again. People manage to use Nazi and Holocaust references in the most poorly considered of ways, as if they're unaware of the true horror that was the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

That sort of thing has been happening all too frequently during protests against Democratic healthcare reform plans, and one of the more shocking examples was on display at the protest on Capitol Hill Thursday: A banner that featured a picture of naked, emaciated bodies stacked in a pile, with text reading, "National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany -- 1945."

Now, someone with credibility on the issue that's all too real has spoken out against these comparisons. Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor and author, put out a statement through his foundation's Twitter account. It reads simply, "Elie Wiesel on the GOP Tea Party's anti-Semitism and Holocaust comparisons: 'This kind of political hatred is indecent and disgusting.'"

(Hat-tip to Wonkette.)

"Fox and Friends" suggests screening Muslim soldiers

Emily Holleman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 13:40:00 PST

It was only a matter of time before the right-wing media really sunk their teeth into the fact that the alleged Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim and jumped to what, in their minds, could be the only logical conclusion: It’s time to consider whether Muslims in the military should be subject to special screenings.

On "Fox and Friends" Friday morning, Brian Kilmeade cut right to the chase, asking Geraldo Rivera the following question:

Do you think it’s time for the military to have special debriefings of Muslim army officers, civilians, of anybody enlisted, because if I’m gonna be deployed in a foxhole, if I’m gonna be sticking in an outpost, I gotta know that the guy next to me isn’t gonna kill me?

(Video, via Media Matters, is below.)

To his credit, Geraldo initially backed away, instead discussing the value and achievements of Muslims in the military. For a moment, it seemed like some modicum of reason had crept in. That feeling didn't last long. Gretchen Carlson immediately shot back with the following question:

Could it be that the military—because our society, let’s just face it, our society has become very politically correct—could it be that the military was also exercising political correctness, even though he had a poor performance report and even though he spoke openly about being a radical Muslim and had those supposed postings online, could it be that the military was exercising political correctness in not approaching him as seriously as they would have had he not been a Muslim?

At that point, Geraldo abandoned any brief flirtation with objectivity, and whole-heartedly agreed with the claim that the military was exercising undue political correctness. He then went on to scornfully describe the military as “basically civil servants in uniform” which, as a bureaucratic government agency, has (God forbid!) “human resources” and “procedures.”

He, more than anyone, should know.

Dems don't have votes to pass House health bill

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:54:00 PST

House Democratic leaders had hoped to have a final vote on their version of healthcare reform legislation Saturday evening. Now it looks as if the vote could be pushed back a day or more, and for the simplest of reasons: They don't yet have the votes to pass it.

It takes 218 "ayes" to pass a bill in the House, and the Democratic caucus has 258 members. But they won't get any help from their Republican colleagues, and there's a pretty decent number of Democrats who aren't ready to vote for the bill.

The big stumbling blocks remaining are the issues of coverage for abortion and for illegal immigrants. One other potential obstacle was removed on Friday when Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-Ny.Y., agreed to drop an amendment he'd planned to offer that would have turned the bill into one that created a single-payer system. House progressives had demanded at least a vote on the amendment -- which wouldn't have passed anyway -- but they won't get it now.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is preemptively blaming any delay on Republican stalling tactics, but that's a stretch, at the very least. The GOP may employ some of those tactics when the House does prepare for the vote, but the thing holding it up right now is a lack of Democratic votes.

Palin's "Going Rogue" tour will stick to friendly territory

Emily Holleman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 09:20:00 PST

The itinerary for former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s much anticipated “Going Rogue” book tour has some glaring omissions: The liberal bastions of New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Seattle have all been snubbed. Instead, Palin has opted to visit a group of 25 smaller cities in the heart of what she might call “real America,” including Birmingham, Ala., Roanoke, Va. and Fort Wayne, Ind.

The tour kicks off in Grand Rapids, Mich. The choice of starting point has a special significance for Palin, given the fact that it was her outspoken criticism of the McCain campaign’s decision to pull out of the state that set her decisively on the path toward “going rogue” in the first place.

Palin's not going to be ignoring less-real Americans altogether, though, and will in fact be going to some of their strongholds -- in order to sell the book through the liberal media, no less. ABC announced Thursday that its Barbara Walters will be interviewing the former governor. Palin will even brave President Obama's adopted hometown of Chicago in order to appear on “Oprah” next week.

In case you couldn’t guess who else she’s interested in talking to, Palin’s included a wish list on her Facebook page. She’s hoping to discuss the book with some friendly faces, like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. Katie Couric, unfortunately, didn't make the cut.

Census worker hanging may have been suicide

Gabriel Winant — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 08:45:00 PST

When news broke in September of the apparent violent death of a Kentucky census worker, it raised some red flags. In addition to being horrifying and gruesome on its own merits, the case seemed to point toward the dangerous side of extreme anti-government sentiment. The census, after all, has been singled out on the right as a threat to liberty, and the worker who was found hanged in a forest reportedly had the word “fed” written on his chest. Nobody wanted to jump to conclusions, but frankly, it seemed open-and-shut.

Well, now the AP has a report that’s a reminder against making those kinds of assumptions. Apparently, investigators are doubtful that Bill Sparkman was killed because of his job, and instead have begun to suspect that it was a suicide.

Apparently, Sparkman’s body showed no signs of struggle, and his hands were bound in a way that would have left him able to manipulate a rope. Still, his son, his colleague and the man who found his body all believe that he was killed, based on what they saw of him before and after his death.

It’s all quite disturbing, and obviously does have some potential political implications. Many on the left have spent the year sizing up the resurgent far-right to determine just how worried they ought to be. The death of Sparkman seemed like another entry, and a tragic one, in the “be afraid” category.

Today’s AP story doesn’t necessarily refute the broad trend (or even the specific theory about Sparkman), but it’s still a good corrective. Sometimes we really don’t know the details, and should have the humility about these things. It's a particularly useful lesson in light of how many have responded to yesterday's shootings at Fort Hood.

The conspiracy against Glenn Beck's internal organs

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:12:00 PST

There's a story behind the case of appendicitis that felled Glenn Beck recently. It's not just an isolated incident -- there's a serious conspiracy at work.

But with Beck himself out sick, someone else had to find a chalkboard and tie all the evidence together in a particularly ludicrous fashion. So thank God for Jon Stewart, who managed to do just that, and with a pretty good Beck imitation going on the whole time, no less. One of the funnier "Daily Show" clips in recent memory; you can watch it below.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The 11/3 Project

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

What the media got wrong about the Fort Hood shooting

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:30:00 PST

For hours now, the news about Army Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan, the man who allegedly opened fire at Fort Hood, killing 12 and wounding 31, has been that he was killed at the scene by law enforcement. The police officer who shot Hasan was reportedly killed as well.

Actually, Lt. Gen. Bob Cone said at a press conference just now, they are both alive. Hasan is believed -- again, contrary to some rumors that had been flying around -- the lone shooter. He's in custody at an area hospital, in stable condition.

Update: At his Thursday night press conference, Cone attributed the mistaken report about Hasan being dead to "confusion at the hospital." The briefing had been delayed for some time while the general and others worked to get all the facts about Hasan's condition.

The alleged shooter has been in custody "throughout the hospitalization process," Cone said. He is not currently speaking with investigators, though according to Cone, "his death is not imminent."

Two other people were initially detained, but were released after being interviewed. The two were involved in an altercation, Bruce Ziesdorf, a public affairs officer at Fort Hood, told Salon, and were "apprehended because, in the emotion of the situation, they were acting abnormally."

The number of people reported dead stands at 12, even with Hasan alive.

What's motive behind Fort Hood shooting?

Mark Benjamin — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:45:00 PST

(Updated below.)

Fort Hood, the country's largest Army post, was the scene of a tragedy on Thursday, a mass shooting. Details are still a little fuzzy as reports come in, but the Army says 12 people have been killed and another 31 were wounded.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, appeared on MSNBC to discuss the incident, with information she'd received from a general on the post. According to Hutchison, the shooting took place at the Fort Hood Soldier Readiness Processing Center. Typically, this is a facility where military officials go through a final check on the preparedness of soldiers deploying for war -- confirming everything from whether the troops have completed their training to whether they've gotten the proper vaccinations. It's also the first screening point for soldiers returning from theater, and the first time they are asked questions about the potentially serious mental consequences of combat. Hutchison said that in this case the center was "processing soldiers to go to Iraq and Afghanistan."

There's been some confusion and some conflicting reports about details of the incident because of the chaos that naturally follows anything like this, but Hutchison said she's been told there were two shooters in this case. Military police wounded one of the shooters, Hutchison said, while the other was not yet apprehended. Also appearing on MSNBC, Chris Haug, a Ft. Hood spokesman, said one shooter has been apprehended and that officials are "investigating the scene for possible other shooters."

It is far too early to guess at the motive behind the shooting. It is not even clear at this point that the person or persons responsible are soldiers. The trauma of going to war, however -- or of going back to war for a second or third time -- is considered an emotional flashpoint for troops and a possible trigger for violence, including murder and suicide.

Update: At a press conference, Lt. Gen. Bob Cone told reporters that the shooter was among those killed in the incident as authorities responded to the violence, but did not specify if the shooter is counted among the 12 reported dead. Cone said two more soldiers had also been apprehended as suspects in the shooting, but he provided no new details about the circumstances surrounding those suspects. He did say that the shooter used two weapons, both handguns.

"It is a terrible tragedy," Cone said. "It is stunning."

Contrary to swirling reports that additional shootings had occurred at other places on post, Cone said all of the violence occurred at the processing center at 1:30 p.m. local time.

President Obama, too, has spoken about the shooting, making brief remarks at an unrelated event Thursday afternoon. He noted that details remain sketchy, but said, "What we do know is that a number of American soldiers have been killed and even more have been wounded in a horrific outburst of violence."

Obama added, "My immediate thoughts and prayers are with the wounded and with the families of the fallen, and with those who live and serve at Fort Hood. These are men and women who have made the selfless and courageous decision to risk and at times give their lives to protect the rest of us on a daily basis. It's difficult enough when we lose these brave Americans in battles overseas. It is horrifying that they should come under fire at an Army base on American soil."

Update 2: Multiple news outlets are now identifying the shooter as Army Maj. Malik Nadal Hasan, who's believed to be in his late 30's.

Update 3: The Associated Press is reporting that Hasan had been a psychiatrist at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and that he was transfered to Fort Hood this summer. The AP cites unnamed "military officials" as saying Hasan had received a poor performance evaluation at Walter Reed.

Update 4: At a second press conference Thursday night, Cone said that Nadal is not dead, but was shot. As of this update, the alleged shooter is in custody and hospitalized in stable condition. See this post for more.

Obama trumpets AARP, AMA healthcare endorsements

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:55:00 PST

Supporters of healthcare reform got some very good news on Thursday: Two influential groups, the AARP and the American Medical Association both announced their official support for the House Democrats' bill, and the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network chimed in with its endorsement as well.

With President Obama having been through a rough few news cycles due to Tuesday's election results, the time was right for him to try to get a personal stake in the good news today. So he dropped in on White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' regular briefing in order to discuss the announcements and give a little preview of how they'll be used in pro-reform messaging from here on out.

"When it comes to the AARP, this is no small endorsement .... They are a non-partisan organization, and their board made their decision to endorse only after a careful, intensive, objective scrutiny of this bill," Obama said.

"They're endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it. They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them. So I want everybody to remember that the next time you hear the same tired arguments to the contrary from the insurance companies and their lobbyists. And remember this endorsement the next time you see a bunch of misleading ads on television."

Turning to the AMA's support, which he portrayed as representing the nation's medical professionals generally -- true in that the AMA claims that mantle, but still something of an overstatement -- Obama said, "These are men and women who know our health care system best and have been watching this debate closely. They would not be supporting it if they really believed that it would lead to government bureaucrats making decisions that are best left to doctors. They would not be with us if they believed that reform would in any way damage the critical and sacred doctor-patient relationship."

The president closed his remarks by "urg[ing] Congress to listen to AARP, listen to the AMA, and pass this reform for hundreds of millions of Americans who will benefit from it." He left the briefing without taking questions.

On the plus side, he was good in "Midnight Cowboy"

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 10:50:00 PST

Though they may rail against Hollywood personalities who become involved in politics when those personalities are on the left, conservatives have never turned down a little star power of their own. (See Reagan, Ronald.) Problem is, the pickings are a bit slim. So the guy who shows up lately is Jon Voight, who's been known to say some things that are pretty outlandish, even by an actor's standards.

Voight was back at it on Thursday, when he spoke at an anti-healthcare reform rally on Capitol Hill, organized by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. On Twitter, NBC's Chuck Todd reported that Voight asked if President Obama's agenda was really about "subconscious programming... to damn America" received from his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Michele Bachmann, explained

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:45:00 PST

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., is the conservative hero of the day for having organized a protest against Democratic healthcare reform proposals that's taking place on Capitol Hill Thursday. In preparation for that protest, she participated in a conference call with supporters and press on Wednesday night.

While on the call, she gave this rundown of where she gets the information she needs to do her job as a member of Congress:

The first thing I do when I wake up in the morning out of bed, I grab my cell phone and I look to RedState ... and I feel like I at least am kind of prepared to get out of bed, and then I go read the editorial page of Investors Business Daily or the Wall Street Journal for a wider background of knowledge for the day... I just find it is one of the most credible sources of information out there.

Yes, Bachmann's "wider background of knowledge" goes from the conservative blog RedState -- led by a guy whose idea of a brilliant political tactic is sending fake dog poop to a Democratic congressman -- to the WSJ's notoriously ideological editorial page and then to the IBD editorial page, which is sort of a poor man's WSJ for people completely uninterested in anything but a strict conservative line.

Bernie Kerik pleads guilty to federal charges

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 09:01:00 PST

Bernie Kerik started from humble beginnings, but he rose to the top at a remarkable speed. His mother, he revealed in his autobiography, was a prostitute, but he went into law enforcement. Once he became friends with New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, things happened fast: In less than a decade, he went from being an undercover detective to the city's correction commissioner and then the head of its police department.

The fall happened just as fast.

It began at the end of 2004, when then-President George W. Bush named Kerik as his choice to head the Department of Homeland Security. Questions about some of his dealings led to the nomination being withdrawn, but it was too late to save him.

On Thurday, Kerik plead guilty to federal charges that stemmed from the nomination, which included lying to the Bush administration about his relationship with contractors who worked for the city and renovated his apartment. He's also expected to admit to his guilt on tax charges. Prosecutors have recommended 27 to 33 months in prison, but a judge could decide to sentence him to more than that -- the maximum is 61 years.

The plea came after Kerik, who'd originally planned a vigorous defense, had his bail revoked and was sent to jail a little more than two weeks ago. During that time, there were reportedly serious concerns about his mental state and he spent 10 days in a psychiatric unit.

Can Rand Paul bring the Tea Parties to the Senate?

Gabriel Winant — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:06:00 PST

Everyone seems to agree that when Doug Hoffman drove his moderate GOP rival out of a special Congressional election last week, it said something about the future of the Republican Party. (Whether it boded well or ill depends on who you asked.)

Would other looming intra-party ideological throw-downs confirm the Tea Party takeover of the Grand Old Party? We may get an answer to that over the next year. In the race for one of Florida's Senate seats, former state House Speaker Marco Rubio is carrying the right-wing standard against the establishment heavyweight, Gov. Charlie Crist. In California's Senate race, state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore recently earned the conservative stamp of approval -- including the endorsement of Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. -- over moderate GOP rival Carly Fiorina.

Rubio and DeVore are probably still both long-shots, though. Meanwhile, there’s a Republican primary race going on in which an obvious Tea Party-type candidate appears to be out-hustling the party leadership’s choice, and not many people are paying attention.

In Kentucky, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell succeeded in muscling his doddering colleague Jim Bunning out of running for reelection. McConnell had a replacement already in mind in the form of Secretary of State Trey Grayson. But Grayson was joined in the race by an ophthalmologist named Rand Paul, who just happens to be the son of former presidential candidate Ron Paul. He also just happens to be leading Grayson in early polls.

A new SurveyUSA poll has Paul up by three percentage points, 35 to 32. Obviously, that’s not an overwhelming margin, but given that he’s never held elected office and Grayson has won statewide, it’s nothing to sneeze at. Besides, thanks to the network of supporters he inherited from his dad, Paul actually has outraised Grayson recently, and will clearly have enough money to compete.

It’s hard to imagine any candidate better-positioned to scoop up the Tea Party faction’s enthusiasm and support than the younger Paul. His campaign is basically just the Glenn Beck Show on the road. He’s explicitly signed on to the 9/12 Movement, and likes to hit Grayson for hanging out with bailout-favoring Republican senators. He bashes the Federal Reserve. He even spoke at Boston’s Faneuil Hall on the anniversary of the real Tea Party. Because the 9/12-ers love them some Founding Fathers.

This guy is clearly the real deal for the right-wing. Though Grayson isn’t an obvious target the way moderates Crist and Fiorina are, it’s hard to imagine a better chance for the Tea Parties to get a vote in the Senate than Kentucky. And that’s got to have McConnell running a little scared.

Glenn Beck gives his take on Hoffman loss

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:30:00 PST

If it weren't for Glenn Beck, Doug Hoffman and his unlikely insurgent third-party candidacy in New York's 23rd Congressional District might never have happened. Hoffman did, after all, recently name Beck as one of his mentors, and the Fox News and radio host gave the candidate a boost by putting him on the air.

So it was only natural that Beck would weigh in on Hoffman's loss to Democrat Bill Owens during his radio show on Wednesday. And it wasn't particularly surprising that Beck, like some of his ideological allies, would say the defeat was really a win. In fact, he said it was "setting the stage" for something next year that would "dwarf" the midterm elections of 1994, when Republicans swept back into power in Congress.

From the transcript made available on Beck's Web site:

GLENN: Then you have New York 23, and I love the propaganda on this one. First of all, this just shows ‑‑ I mean, when you've lost Virginia by 20 points, Corzine loses in the most corrupt state in the union. No, my apologies to Massachusetts .... But anyway, when you lose that, when you've got the Democrats coming out and saying, yeah, but the congressional district 23. And here's their case: Well, you know, this just shows the failure of the tea party. Okay. Let's just go through this. Let's just go through this. If I heard that one more time last night, I was going to blow my head off. Here it is. This is the failure, okay? .... I like him, but he is not, he's not flashy. He's an accountant eight weeks ago that nobody even knew, a complete unknown. He's a third party guy. The Republicans spent with what's her face, Scuzzia, they gave her, I believe it was $800,000? Is that right? .... To destroy him. To destroy him. Then she drops out of the race and then she unites with the Democrats who are also spending money hand over fist to destroy the accountant! And you win by 3 points? That's a victory? You've double‑teamed an accountant and you only won by three points. Boy, you guys are good .... That's like the Yankees playing a high school team and winning by three runs. Oh, wow! .... And here's what the ‑‑ forget about the Democrats. Here's what the Republicans should learn. The tea party movement, if you think you're going to run people that are going to be, you know, ACORN wannabes and they're just part of the corruption, part of the system, if you're going to run those people, you can expect a tea party guy to come out, and the tea parties, they'll help you lose every single election. Every single election. Because I for one am not ‑‑ if I believe in the Republican, I'll vote for the Republican. But if you're running somebody who's like part of the system, I'm not interested. I'm not interested. And I think that a lot of Americans are like that. So the Republicans have a choice to make. You can either spend a million dollars trying to destroy a third party accountant, or you could say, wow, this accountant probably would come in within three points of beating the Democrat if we combined our efforts, Republicans and Democrats, spent a fortune, had our candidate then drop out and campaign for the Democrats, we might be able to come in with about a 3‑point margin. You might want to just say, "Maybe we should go with the accountants. Maybe we should go with the regular people...." This is setting the stage for ‑‑ it's going to dwarf 1994, dwarf it. Dwarf it. What's coming next year, dwarf .... I really think that this is going to make what happened in 1994 look small.

One other Beck note: During his radio broadcast on Wednesday, the host reportedly suffered an attack of appendicitis. He's since had his appendix removed, according the president of his production company. Salon wishes him a speedy recovery.

Report: AARP will endorse House healthcare bill

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:20:00 PST

Endorsements just don't matter as much as they did in the good old days of machine politics. Back then, when a big-name politician gave you his backing, you knew it meant more than just a photo opportunity: It meant foot soldiers, serious foot soldiers, plus walking-around money, clout and as many dead people voting for you as anyone could ever need. It's just not that way anymore, at least not

There are a few endorsements that still count for something, though, and the House Democrats' healthcare reform bill is reportedly about to pick up one of them. The Associated Press is reporting that the AARP -- "the nation’s largest membership organization for people 50+," as it bills itself -- will be officially endorsing the legislation Thursday morning.

A nod from the AARP is a real boon to the Democrats on this issue. The group has sway with senior citizens, obviously, and that's a demographic the party needs to be successful -- but it's also a demographic that has been running scared away from the Democrats' reform proposals. Having the AARP there to reassure its membership will be a big help. More than that, the organization excels at lobbying and at organizing support outside of Washington. If it can mobilize some of its members, there may be some members of Congress who can be persuaded to come down from the fence and vote for the bill.

House Dems look to hold healthcare vote on Saturday

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:15:00 PST

If everything goes according to plan, House Democrats may get their version of a healthcare reform bill passed this coming weekend. Roll Call reports that the Democrats are planning a final vote on the legislation for Saturday evening.

There are still some procedural issues to overcome, and, no doubt, some votes to be whipped, but recalcitrant Democrats have extra incentive to get in line in time for the vote: An extended vacation. The House was scheduled to recess from Wednesday to Friday for Veterans Day, but if the bill passes on Saturday, the chamber would instead break for the whole week, according to Roll Call.

Even if the bill does pass, that doesn't mean it will be on President Obama's desk any time soon. The Senate still has to approve its version, then the two have to be merged in conference and that bill has to be voted on in both houses. And the Senate may end up delaying things for quite some time -- there's now talk that the whole process won't be finished until next year.

The return of Ned Lamont

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:01:00 PST

Right now, all the buzz about intra-party warfare is focusing on the GOP. But just a few years ago, it was the Democrats who were fighting over the direction of their party, and now a guy who knows a little something about those days is considering a return to the fray, albeit in a different sort of way.

Businessman Ned Lamont, who challenged Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and beat him in the 2006 Democratic primary before taking him on again in the general election and losing, may be returning to Connecticut politics. In a statement released Wednesday, Lamont said he's forming an exploratory committee as he decides whether to run for statewide office.

For any of you out there hoping for a Lamont-Lieberman rematch, don't get your hopes up yet. Based on his statement, it appears that Lamont's looking to take on Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican, next year.

Michael Steele: Everything's coming up GOP

Gabriel Winant — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:45:00 PST

Almost immediately after Michael Steele got his job as chairman of the Republican National Committee, speculation started up about how long he’d last. So the guy’s got to be feeling pretty good today, after running the RNC through its first significant elections and, to say the least, not falling on his face.

In his press conference today, Steele was happy to talk about how yesterday’s elections ratified 10 months of GOP opposition to the president.

As recently as a couple of months ago, Republicans were written off. Many of you were writing our epitaph and reminiscing of the good old days, whatever they happen to have been. But the real heroes last night, the real heroes who brought home the victory are the Republicans and independents and, yes, even Democrats who spoke up against an incredibly arrogant government in Washington that has put our country, our freedoms and our economy at risk with unprecedented spending.

So, we know what Steele thinks: New Jersey and Virginia went for Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell, respectively, because the Obama administration is spending too much money. This is pretty much the standard GOP establishment line on the Tea Parties and Glenn Beck, rewritten to apply to yesterday’s elections. The basic idea is that the outrage of the right-wing fringe represents a broad popular reaction against the president’s policies -- if not, as Steele specifies, the president himself.

As Mike Madden wrote last night, off-year elections sometimes tell us a lot more about whose base is amped up and angry than about what the country as a whole actually thinks. But it seems pretty clear that, despite Steele, not a lot of folks voted for Christie, or even Doug Hoffman -- the third-party candidate in the race for a congressional seat in upstate New York -- as a way of endorsing House Minority Leader John Boehner and Senate counterpart Mitch McConnell over President Obama. Steele may think there's just one Republican Party and he's in charge, but voters are perfectly capable of voting for their local GOP candidate without signing on for the whole hog.

Of course, it’s part of a party leader’s job to pretend that everyone’s getting along just fine. But it’s worth remembering that Steele is pretending. That’s why he brushed off the debate over what the big Democratic bright spot of the night -- the win in New York's 23rd Congressional district -- means for the GOP.

In doing so, though, he did say one thing that's contrary to the message emerging from his erstwhile allies to the right: "I don't see a victory in losing seats." That's not the way they see it, and that may cause Steele some headaches as he and his party gear up for next year's midterm elections.

How to succeed in elections without really winning

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:01:00 PST

Just this past weekend, conservative activists were basking in the glow of victory. Dissatisfied with the local Republican Party's choice of a candidate in a special election to fill a Congressional seat in upsate New York, one Dede Scozzafava, they'd successfully wooed over some of the GOP's biggest names and then managed to drive Scozzafava from the race in favor of their favorite, third-party candidate Doug Hoffman.

Then, on Tuesday, the news wasn't so good: Hoffman, even with the backing of the Republican establishment newly granted to him, lost to Bill Owens, a Democrat who'd gone all but unnoticed in the commotion.

No matter, though. Because despite their candidate's ultimate defeat, some of the conservatives who'd been pushing hardest for Hoffman are still claiming victory.

RedState's Erick Erickson, who was instrumental in Hoffman's rise, had this to say shortly after the race was called for Owens:

This is a huge win for conservatives. “Whaaaa. . . ?” you say. There are two big victories at work in New York’s 23rd Congressional District. First, the GOP now must recognize it will either lose without conservatives or will win with conservatives. In 2008, many conservatives sat home instead of voting for John McCain. Now, in NY-23, conservatives rallied and destroyed the Republican candidate the establishment chose. I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do — crush the establishment backed GOP candidate .... So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted.

Erickson also used the opportunity to make a threat related to another conservative upstart whose cause he's championing -- former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, who's taking on Gov. Charlie Crist in a Senate primary.

"For all intents and purposes, NY-23 is a trial run for Florida," Erickson wrote. "And in Florida, the conservative candidate is operating inside the GOP. If John Cornyn and the NRSC do not want to see Florida go the way of NY-23, they better stand down."

On her blog, Michelle Malkin had similar thoughts, writing:

Hoffman may have lost narrowly, but NY-23 is a much broader victory for conservatives who believe the Republican Party should stand for core limited government principles ....This is a victory of principle. Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in elephant’s clothing making a complete ass of the GOP. Moreover, NY-23 is a victory for conservatives who refuse to be marginalized in the public square by either the unhinged left or the establishment right. A humble accountant from upstate New York exposed the hypocrisy of GOP leaders trying to solicit funds from conservatives by lambasting Pelosi and the Dems’ support for high taxes, Big Labor, and bigger government — while using conservatives’ money to subsidize a high-taxing, Big Labor-pandering, bigger government radical. The repercussions will be felt well beyond NY-23’s borders. Conservatives’ disgust with the status quo has been heard and felt. They have been silent too long. They will be silent no more.

It's easy to mock these sorts of reactions, and many liberals are doing so. It's also easy for liberals to celebrate their opponents' hard-headedness, hoping it will lead to more trouble for the Republican Party in the future. And that may well happen. But it's probably too early to write off the Ericksons and Malkins of the world completely -- once, the right was doing the same when it came to bloggers on the left like DailyKos' Markos Moulitsas. But now those forces have contributed to the Democratic Party's resurgence. Granted, Moulitsasa and company were working on a party that was much closer to the center than today's GOP, and that gave them an advantage, but there's still the chance that lightning could strike twice.

Happy anniversary, Mr. President...

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 07:35:00 PST

Hard to believe, maybe, but it's true: One year today, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States. Time sure does fly when you're having fun, huh?

Unfortunately for the president, it doesn't seem like he's getting many anniversary presents today, or that the day will include a whole lot of celebration. Right or wrong -- mostly wrong -- pundits are already lining up to proclaim their opinion that last night's election results mean trouble for him, for his Democratic allies in Congress and for his agenda. And lost in the excitement of Election Day was one particular bit of bad news: Though the House is getting ready to vote on its version of a healthcare reform bill, it seems like progress in the Senate may have stalled, and that the process may not be complete until next year.

Democrat Garamendi wins in Calif. congressional race

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:30:00 PST

There weren't a whole lot of happy moments for Democrats on Tuesday night, but there was one in a little-noticed special election out in California. There, in the state's 10th Congressional District, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi easily defeated Republican David Harmer.

Garamendi will now be heading to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he'll replace former Rep. Ellen Tauscher, who's now the under secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.

One reason the race had gotten so little attention nationally was that the outcome was all but assured. Beyond Garamendi's name recognition and long history in state politics, which certainly helped, the district is heavily Democratic.

A bittersweet night for the LGBT community

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:15:00 PST

Supporters of same-sex marriage had reason to be optimistic on Tuesday afternoon and into the evening. In Maine, they had their best chance yet to win at the ballot box, where the state's voters looked set to defeat a referendum that would reverse a bill, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, to legalize gay marriage. Reports of heavier-than-expected turnout and early results that showed the referendum losing turned out to be no more than false hope, however.

By the end of the night, the real result was clear: Maine had voted to repeal the marriage law and continue the state's prohibition on same-sex weddings.

There were some bits of good news out there for the LGBT community, however. One of their biggest issues may have gone down to defeat yet again, but gay and lesbian candidates had prevailed in races around the country. Chapel Hill, N.C., elected a gay man as mayor; Detroit's new city council president is gay as well. In Houston, a lesbian mayoral candidate will go into a run-off having won a plurality on Tuesday.

Fox calls NY-23 race for Democrat Owens

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 21:09:00 PST

What had been a major victory for conservative activists ended up in a stunning defeat as Tuesday night crept in to Wednesday morning and Fox News declared Democrat Bill Owens the winner of a closely watched special election in New York's 23rd congressional district.

Owens was actually an afterthought for much of the race, overshadowed by civil war amongst his opponents. Conservative activists banded together, with help from prominent Republicans like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, to push Republican Dede Scozzafava out of the race over the weekend, leaving their favorite, third-party candidate Doug Hoffman as the GOP's pick.

Going in to the election, Hoffman was the favorite to win the seat, which has been in Republican hands for more than a century. But somehow, perhaps with the help of an endorsement and a little campaigning from Scozzafava, Owens managed to pull out a victory.

The thing to watch for now is the reaction of the GOP and its base. A Hoffman victory might have given the most conservative wing of the party even more clout, if not a virtual veto over 2010 candidates deemed too liberal. This result -- the right winning the intra-party battle, but not the war -- might give the Republican establishment more room to push back.

Update: Hoffman has reportedly called Owens and conceded.

Dems: Pay no attention to that election behind the curtain!

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:55:00 PST

The staff at the Democratic Governors Association had a very tough task on its hands Tuesday night: How do you put a happy face on an Election Day when Democrats lost both of the gubernatorial races on the ballot? So, in their defense, let's at least acknowledge that the DGA's job was nearly impossible. That said, though, they still managed to come up with a remarkably pathetic-sounding bit of spin.

The headline on the e-mail that the DGA sent out to reporters after Democrats Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds conceded their races in New Jersey and Virginia, respectively: "DGA looks ahead to 2010 election cycle."

Ouch.

Things didn't get much better from there, as the release went on to read:

Washington, D.C. – After a disappointing election night tonight, Democrats are now looking ahead to the critical 2010 election cycle. “We knew both these races would be tough, and although we’re disappointed in the results, we’re not discouraged in our greater mission,” said Nathan Daschle, executive director of the DGA. “Tomorrow marks the first day of the 2010 election cycle, when four out of five Americans will choose a governor. While we wish tonight's results in two states would’ve been different, we’re preparing for the fight ahead in 37 states. A fight to restore prosperity, build the middle class, and elect strong democratic governors.” The results, while disappointing, are in line with historic trends. The last time the party in the White House won the New Jersey governorship was 1985. In Virginia, the streak goes back to 1973. “The question on everyone’s mind will be: ‘What does this mean?’ The answer is simple,” said Nathan Daschle, executive director of the DGA. “Nothing. The party in the White House has lost these races for 24 straight years, and this election merely continued that streak. New Jersey and Virginia are independent-minded states, and tonight they reminded us of that.” “We’re looking ahead to 2010, with 37 races for governors who will oversee the Congressional redistricting process that will reshape our political landscape for a generation to come,” Daschle said. “These races are the most important election in a generation and we’re committed to protecting our incumbent governors and expanding our ranks. The DGA is better positioned than ever before to win in 2010, with record-setting fundraising, strong candidate recruitment and early strategic investments in key states.”

N.J. Republicans: "Yes, we did!"

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:25:00 PST

Sometimes, politics makes for some very strange combinations. Like the New Jersey Republicans at gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie's victory rally, who on Tuesday night broke out in a slightly different version of a chant the GOP came to hate last year. As Christie began speaking, his supporters started yelling, in unison, "Yes, we did!"

The governor-elect had to pause his speech for a minute, and appeared a little confused, but he eventually stepped back from the podium and began clapping along.

After wait, Bloomberg declared winner in New York City

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:25:00 PST

The New York Times has declared a winner in its hometown's mayoral race: Incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who's running for his third term. The paper wasn't the only outlet to call the race -- earlier on in the night, NBC News reported a call for Bloomberg from the firm that conducted exit polling in the city and gave the incumbent the check mark on its Web site.

Thing is, though, that the results are looking much closer than anyone had expected. As of this post, with 63 percent of precincts having reported, Bloomberg's at 49 percent, leading Democrat Bill Thompson by just under two percentage points -- about 13,500 votes. So now NBC has withdrawn that check mark and is again calling the race a toss-up.

If Thompson does manage to win, it'd be a pretty stunning victory. Bloomberg has always been the strong favorite in the race, with Democrat Bill Thompson almost an afterthought. Even President Obama, who's been close to Bloomberg, gave his fellow Democrat only a cursory endorsement -- and seemingly a grudging one at that.

Update: After a few hours of confusion, it looks like the result will be the one everyone had predicted. Though the race ended up being much closer than expected, Bloomberg has been re-elected, according to the Associated Press. Other outlets are following the AP and calling the race for Bloomberg as well.

Republican Christie wins N.J. governor's race

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:12:00 PST

For a little while there, it seemed as if New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, might be able to overcome the general distaste many of his state's votes have for him and -- with the help of an independent candidate playing spoiler -- pull off an improbable victory over Republican Chris Christie. In the end, though, Corzine appears to have fallen short.

The Associated Press has called the race for Christie, the former U.S. attorney. Christie was a big early favorite, but had fallen in the polls recently after his reputation as a clean, law-and-order guy -- in contrast to other state officials, some of whom were only recently swept up in a federal corruption probe -- was tarnished. The challenger seemed to have a problem in independent Chris Daggett, who was taking a significant portion out of the Republican's support in recent polls. Christie had an advantage in Corzine's unpopularity, though, as it gave the governor a relatively low ceiling in terms of the percentage of the vote he could hope to capture.

Republicans will, no doubt, point to Christie's victory as a sign of their party's resurgence. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele was, even before the election was called, flying from Bob McDonnnell headquarters in Virginia to New Jersey in order to be there in order to celebrate the GOP's win.

Update: The call's unanimous, with the major cable news networks all declaring Christie the victor as well.