Salon: War Room

Maybe healthcare reform bill isn't too long after all

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:05:00 PST

It's almost a given at this point: Any time a Congressional Republican's commenting on the Democrats' healthcare reform bills, they'll likely bring up their length. Some will just mention the 2,074 pages in the Senate version, others will tally the amount of dollars spent per word, some will tell you it's longer than "War and Peace." It's a way to suggest that the bill is impenetrable, that Democrats are sneaking big changes into it -- and that it's bound to increase the size of the federal government, not to mention taxes.

Part of what they're saying is true -- the bill is quite long; the House's version is probably the longest produced in the past 10 years. But "War and Peace" is almost twice as wordy, and the Republicans have gotten pretty verbose recently, too.

The Associated Press noted Tuesday that the Senate bill comes in at 318,512 words, while the House's contains 319,145. "War and Peace," by contrast, ranges from 560,000 to 670,000. And when it was taken out of the legislative format and published in the Congressional Record, the Senate version took up only 209 pages.

OpenCongress.org also did some analysis of the measure, especially as compared to other legislation from the past 10 years. Turns out five of the ten longest bills in that period were written by Republicans.

In fact, while the House's healthcare reform proposal was the longest, a bill authored by Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, was only 68 words behind. A 2005 appropriations bill sponsored by Rep. James Kolbe, R-Ariz., came in fourth at 296,111 words and one of the centerpieces of former President Bush's agenda, the No Child Left Behind Act, was sixth behind the strength of its 274,559 words. Minority Leader John Boehner, now spearheading the message that the Democrats' bills are too hefty, was the sponsor.

Olbermann gets hypocritical on Beck, Grayson

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:36:00 PST

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann does deserve some credit for standing up against a sexist remark made by one of his rivals, Fox News' Glenn Beck. After Beck repeatedly referred to Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., as a prostitute, Olbermann called him out on his show Tuesday night, naming Beck "Worst Person in the World" and saying, "Where are the conservative feminists? A woman politician is called a prostitute and you're OK with that. It's OK if I call Sarah Palin that? The hell it is."

Olbermann's anger would have seemed a whole lot more sincere, though, if it weren't so transparently hypocritical.

Earlier in the same show, Olbermann had interviewed Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who got some unwanted attention late last month for an appearance he'd made on a conspiracist radio show, during which he'd called a former lobbyist a "K Street whore." Of course, Grayson wasn't on "Countdown" to talk about that -- he was there for a friendly, even fawning interview about his proposal to change the number of senators needed to overcome a filibuster to 55. He never got the "Worst Person in the World" award for his comments, either.

This wasn't the first time in November that Grayson had been on "Countdown." His comment hit the news on Oct. 27; that night, Olbermann hosted his show, but didn't criticize the congressman. Then the host went on vacation for a few nights; his first night back, Nov. 2, he had Grayson on. Again, it wasn't to talk about his having called a political opponent a whore, but for another friendly interview.

To paraphrase Olbermann himself: A woman was called a prostitute, and -- apparently because the man doing the namecalling was on his side -- he's OK with that.

Obama heading off to Europe again

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:23:00 PST

President Obama's first trip to Copenhagen, the one he made as part of an effort to lobby for Chicago to host the 2016 Summer Olympics, didn't go so well. But just two months after that, he's got another chance.

Obama will be heading to Copenhagen next month to take part in a summit meeting on global warming. The conference is unlikely to produce the treaty supporters were hoping for, but Obama's presence there will at least signal that the administration is more committed on the issue than its predecessor was.

Besides, Obama was scheduled to be in the neighborhood anyway: The day after he goes to Copenhagen, he's off to Oslo to pick up his Nobel Peace Prize.

Finally: Palin, Bachmann and tea partiers, all together

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:45:00 PST

If you're going to hold something you're billing as the "First National Tea Party Convention," there are a couple things you really have to do. The first is to invite former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin; the second is to invite Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

That's what Tea Party Nation, which is organizing this convention, did. And according to CNN's Political Ticker blog, the group has announced that both women will be speaking, and that Palin will be giving the keynote.

Now, Palin's people haven't yet confirmed her appearance, which -- given her history with announced speaking appearances -- may be a sign that she won't end up going. But we can hope.

McCain comes to Palin's defense

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:26:00 PST

John McCain really can't go anywhere these days without the subject of his old running mate, Sarah Palin, coming up. That's especially true when he's giving an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, who's been a favorite of Palin's for some time now.

So on Tuesday night, at the conclusion of his appearance on her show, Van Susteren asked McCain, "I've got to ask you a Governor Palin question .... We went on the road with her; she's drawing thousands for book signings. What do you make of this sort of Palin mania so to speak?"

McCain's response was interesting:

I think it's fantastic. I think, you know, I'm so proud of her and can I say I'm entertained and sometimes a little angry when I see this constant, vicious attacks by people on the left that, you know, tell them to calm down. I've never seen anything like it in all the years that I've been in politics, the viciousness and the personalization of the attacks on Sarah Palin. But I'm very proud of her. I'm proud of the job she's doing. And I believe that she will play a major role in the politics in America. Americans like her, whether The New York Times and others happen to like that or not.

There's certainly plenty of criticism of Palin coming from the left, but the most potent fuel has often been provided by McCain's own staff, from his presidential campaign. And last week, he was defending some of the staff members who'd come in for the harshest treatment from Palin -- in some cases, though, those aides have given as good as they've gotten.

Dobbs considering Senate run before presidential?

Alex Koppelman — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 07:45:00 PST

Come on, people: Did you really think Lou Dobbs was going to run for president immediately after quitting CNN? I mean, he'd have to have a super-inflated ego and be immensely self-righteous to do that, right? So don't worry: Dobbs might just run for the Senate -- then he'll run for president.

At least, that's the latest from the New York Times, which has been hearing talk that Dobbs is considering a challenge to Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. A spokesman for the former anchor told the paper, referencing the possibility of a presidential run, "I think Lou is realistically saying, that’s a long way off, but if he did run for office there’d have to be an intermediary step, such as the Menendez seat."

For the record, the idea that Dobbs could mount a successful campaign for Senate is almost as far-fetched as the idea that he could become president. (Then again, stranger things have happened.) But the real problem with his making a run for the Senate, if he does indeed harbor White House dreams, is that Menendez isn't up for re-election until 2012. That means Dobbs couldn't run for president until 2016 at the earliest. By then he'd be 71.

Why reconciliation might not save the public option

Alex Koppelman and Mike Madden — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:25:00 PST

Liberals are frustrated these days, and they have reason to be. They helped Democrats win a theoretically filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and now the part of the reform bill they prize most highly faces death at the hands of members of the Democratic caucus.

A healthcare reform bill that includes a version of the so-called public option -- a new insurance provider run by the government -- passed its first test in the Senate this weekend. It was a bittersweet moment, though, as at the same time, it was becoming increasingly evident that Democrats won't have the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster if the final legislation still includes a public option. Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., had already declared his intention to support a filibuster if it came to that, and he's been digging himself in further; Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska could well join Lieberman.

Some liberals, though, have a solution in mind, a silver bullet to save the public option. Led principally by the blog Firedoglake, with encouragement from DailyKos and even former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, they're calling on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to use a heretofore obscure procedure known as budget reconciliation that forecloses the possibility of a filibuster and would theoretically allow him to pass a bill that includes a public option with only 51 votes.

But as with so much in politics, especially when it comes to Senate procedure, things are not nearly so simple. In fact, if Reid did try using reconciliation, he could end up having to remove key parts of the legislation, not to mention hurting his party politically and losing an extra couple of votes in the Senate -- and, having done all that, he might well find out that he still needed 60 votes in order to get a public option approved.

Reid has ruled out the idea for now, saying last week, "I'm not using reconciliation." And other senators, like Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, agree with their leader, believing the procedure would end up doing more harm than good. An aide to a senior Democrat, who asked for anonymity in order to discuss the issue more freely, told Salon, "This isn't like a two-week delay, or a three-week delay. This fundamentally changes what we have promised to the American people, and it's risky, and I'm not talking about a little bit of fucking risk, I'm talking about a lot of risk ... It puts universal coverage at risk ... [and] risks allowing insurance companies to discriminate against those with preexisting conditions."

And of those pushing for the use of reconciliation, the aide concluded, "A bunch of people that watched 'Schoolhouse Rock' growing up think that they understand how the Senate works, and they don’t."

The problem is that budget reconciliation isn't really supposed to be used to make policy. Instead, as the Congressional Research Service's Robert Keith said in a 2008 report, reconciliation "is a procedure ... by which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent spending and revenue programs." In the procedure's early years, however, it was used to circumvent the filibuster on provisions unrelated to that purpose. So in the 1980s, then-Minority Leader Robert Byrd led the Senate in a crackdown. What resulted was the Byrd Rule, which prohibits the Senate "from considering extraneous matter as part of a reconciliation bill."

The definition of "extraneous matter" is fairly broad, and subject to interpretation -- during the Bush administration, Republicans passed tax cuts using reconciliation -- but it generally includes any provision that fails one of these six criteria, as listed in Keith's CRS report:

it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
it is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond the "budget window" covered by the reconciliation measure; and
it recommends changes in Social Security

Even if a provision violates one of these rules, it won't automatically be stricken from a bill. In order for that to happen, a senator has to take action, generally by raising a point of order. Then, the chair (the majority leader or a designee) rules on whether to sustain that point of order and remove the offending part of the bill. That may seem like an easy victory in the making -- Reid rules that the public option passes the Byrd Rule's tests, and that's that -- but that's not necessarily the case.

Liberals argue that the public option could survive the Byrd Rule, pointing to tax cuts that Republicans passed using reconciliation during the Bush administration as precedent, and arguing that the public option would pass the tests anyway because it would theoretically decrease the federal deficit.

They may have a point, but it doesn't much matter -- the only thing that does is the opinion of Alan Frumin, the Senate parliamentarian. Technically, Reid isn't required to abide by Frumin's judgment, but according to Robert Dove, who served twice as Senate parliamentarian, he will anyway. "It's not that they have to [listen to the parliamentarian]," Dove told Salon, "but absolutely they do ... The past history is that the view of the parliamentarian becomes the ruling of the chair."

If Reid did rule the public option out of order under the Byrd Rule, the whole point of using reconciliation would be rendered moot. The only way to overturn the chair's ruling in such a case would be with a three-fifths vote of the Senate -- that is, with the same 60 votes the majority leader would need to round up in order to defeat a filibuster. In that eventuality, there's no way Reid could get the supermajority; Lieberman would certainly abandon him, and moderate Democrats might too. Plus, Byrd has already expressed his distaste for the idea of using reconciliation for health reform, and could be expected to vote to support the rule that bears his name.

Dove wouldn't speculate on what Frumin might decide, or give his own view on the matter, but aides from both parties have met with him, and Reid's office made "preliminary inquiries" about the public option, the aide to a senior Democrat told Salon. No one's offering much detail about what Frumin said, but the fact that Reid has taken reconciliation off the table could well have something to do with those meetings.

The public option might not be the only thing dropped from a bill that's pushed through the Senate using the procedure. Republicans would almost certainly object as often as possible to elements in the legislation, and they'd win many of those battles -- maybe even the war. "If you're a Republican, your job in reconciliation is to do two things: One, to put Democrats in an untenable position to have to vote for or against things that are going to bite them in the ass when they run for re-election; but more importantly, your thing is to find provisions where if you snip that out, it's going to bring down the entire bill," the aide to the senior Democrat said.

Ultimately, passing a reform bill with reconciliation is "feasible," Dove says, but the resulting legislation "would not be pretty, and it couldn't contain a lot of things that people want to be in it."

Hoffman concedes NY-23 race -- again

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:58:00 PST

Last week, third-party candidate and eventual Republican favorite Doug Hoffman announced that he was retracting the concession he'd made on election night. The right's favorite bogeyman, ACORN, had stolen the special Congressional election and thus New York's 23rd district from him, Hoffman said.

But as absentee ballots were tallied, it quickly became clear that Hoffman had no shot at victory in the initial count, and probably couldn't win a challenge, either. So on Tuesday he conceded one last time.

In a statement noticeably free of the accusations of theft and fraud that had accompanied his un-concession, Hoffman said:

Yesterday, the remaining ballots were counted in the 23rd Congressional District special election. The results re-affirm the fact that Bill Owens won. Since, the morning of November 4th, many of my supporters have asked me to challenge the outcome of this race. Their concerns centered on the veracity of the new voting machines used, for the first time, in the majority of the eleven counties that make up the Congressional District. Over the past three weeks, we nearly cut Bill Owens' lead in half. Sadly, that is not enough. The shift in support since election night highlights one fact; the Boards of Elections, both state and county, need to work closely to ensure the seamless use of these machines in the 2010 statewide and midterm elections. I would like to thank my supporters for everything they did over the past four months. They proved that average Americans can stand up and make their voices heard, all the way from Watertown to Washington. They proved that the voters are sick and tired of wasteful government spending, high taxes and an ever growing deficit. And most importantly, that when it comes to politics: principles do matter. While we may have lost the election, this race proved that Americans are sick and tired of the status quo in both Albany and Washington.

Lieberman really, really doesn't like the public option

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 11:35:00 PST

In case anyone was still wondering, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., tells the Wall Street Journal in an article published Tuesday that he opposes all possible forms of a public option, and he's going to be "stubborn" about it.

The Journal's Gerald Seib asked Lieberman if he could support some compromise form of the public option -- if not the one currently in the Senate bill, which allows states to opt out, then perhaps the "trigger" plan advanced by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine? The answer, reportedly, was no to all possibilities. Asked whether any form of a public option would lead to his voting to support a filibuster, Lieberman replied, "correct."

On a related topic, in the Daily Beast, Peter Beinart has an interesting article exploring Lieberman's history and his current stance. Beinart asks why, given his record as a liberal on domestic policy, the senator's staking out the position he is, and has this answer:

For close to a decade, he got nearly perfect scores from the American Public Health Association, which backs a single-payer health-care system, and in lieu of that, the “public option.” Now, all of a sudden, he’s so outraged by a public option that he’s threatening to filibuster any bill that contains it. The arguments he makes on behalf of his new position are remarkably weak: He says the public option will raise costs, even though the Congressional Budget Office has said no such thing, and even though logic suggests that by competing with private insurers, a government plan will actually drive costs down. Some have accused Lieberman of shifting right in order to win backing from the insurance industry in preparation for a 2012 reelection run. But, in fact, he gets relatively little insurance money, and Connecticut politicos mostly think he won’t run. So why is he doing this? Because he’s bitter. According to former staffers and associates, he was upset by his dismal showing in the 2004 Democratic presidential primary. And he was enraged by the tepid support he got from many party leaders in 2006, when he lost the Democratic primary to an anti-war activist and won reelection as an independent. Gradually, this personal alienation has eaten away at his liberal domestic views. His staff has grown markedly more conservative in recent years, and his closest friends in Congress are now Republicans John McCain and Lindsey Graham. For Lieberman, the personal has become political, and it has pushed him further to the right.

Paying for the war in Afghanistan

Gabriel Winant — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:45:00 PST

President Obama’s agenda this year has involved a number of big-ticket items: the stimulus, some of the bailouts, healthcare and cap-and-trade. And though some -- or arguably, all -- of these will actually increase federal revenue in the long term, they clearly give the impression of the government handling a lot of money, which can sound an awful lot like “the government is blowing through wads of your cash.”

Unsurprisingly, then, being a deficit-hawk is back in vogue among Republicans. It’s been one of the GOP’s main lines of attack against, well, everything -- but particularly healthcare reform. One major policy debate, however, has managed to avoid any discussion of costs, even though the expenditures could total hundreds of billions of dollars, with little promise of return. That policy, of course, would be any escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

So Democrats who are skeptical of the war have started trying to play at the GOP’s game. Powerful House Democrats are speaking up in favor of some sort of new tax to defray the immense costs likely to be incurred in Afghanistan in coming years. The group includes Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who runs a crucial armed forces subcommittee and Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., the number-four guy in the Democratic caucus.

One of the ideas floating around is a graduated surtax on income, the size of which would depend on how much the war ends up costing. Says Frank, "It's conditional, but if we're going to add 40,000 troops, people ought to know what the costs are. It's important for people to understand how these wars are adding to our deficits."

As of now, the White House is staying neutral on this. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs points out that, as no decision has been announced about a broad policy approach for Afghanistan, there's no public proposal on how to pay either, though conversations are going on in private.

Still, some administration-watchers have taken note of the presence at the Afghanistan meetings of Peter Orzsag, the director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. When asked about Orszag's attendance, Gibbs explained simply, "Cost is a concern."

Beck prepares the two major parties for burial

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:10:00 PST

Give Glenn Beck a little credit: Every time you think he can't possibly get any weirder, or go any further over the top, he does. (That's not necessarily a good thing, of course, but still -- the man is apparently capable of more eccentricity than just about anyone else.)

Following up on his big announcement of vague plans that seem to involve maybe, possibly supporting a third party, Beck had a rather interesting idea for his show on Monday: In order to dramatize what he believes is the death of the two major parties, he had people on set building coffins for both of them.

No, seriously.

Video below, via Mediaite.

Report: Obama announcing Afghanistan plans next week

Alex Koppelman — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 07:39:00 PST

For weeks now, President Obama's been under pressure to announce his next move in Afghanistan. And for weeks, the White House has tried to buy him some time. But now it appears that he's ready to unveil the decision he's made.

Politico's Mike Allen reports that Obama is likely to make the announcement next week, perhaps in a prime-time address to the country on Tuesday, Dec. 1. Obama held a final meeting Monday night, leading White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to release a statement in which he said, "After completing a rigorous final meeting, President Obama has the information he wants and needs to make his decision and he will announce that decision within days."

It seems certain that the president will decide to send more U.S. troops to the country -- the question is how many. Liberals, at this point, are disillusioned with the war, and would like the number kept low, or would like a withdrawal begun, but Obama's under pressure to conform to recommendations from his commanding general, who's said he needs about 40,000 additional soldiers.

Fox News execs cracking down on mistakes

Alex Koppelman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:32:00 PST

With the eyes of the chattering class upon Fox News due to the White House's "war" on the network, now is not the time for its employees to be making glaring errors. But that's what's happened in several instances recently, and the channel's been embarrassed by it. So now network executives are cracking down, and according to an internal memo obtained by FishbowlDC, "jobs are on the line."

Perhaps the most embarrassing of the recent errors -- certainly the most high-profile -- was the use of footage from a conservative protest held on the Capitol lawn this September during a story about another protest that took place earlier this month. The clip, which made the November rally appear larger than it really was, aired on Sean Hannity's program, and was caught by "The Daily Show," leading to much mocking from Jon Stewart and an on-air apology from Hannity.

That wasn't the only mistake of that kind, though. A week later, there was another mix-up with old footage used for a new story: This time, it was video of Sarah Palin from the 2008 presidential campaign in a piece about her book tour. Again, the clip used made the crowd appear larger than it was.

Not all of the mistakes have favored the right, though. The network has repeatedly shown the cover of "Going Rouge," a parody of Palin's memoir "Going Rogue," when the actual memoir was the subject of discussion. That, apparently, was the last straw, and the network is going back to basics until it can start getting things right.

From the memo:

We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months .... Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough.

Prepare yourself, America, for President Dobbs

Alex Koppelman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:37:00 PST

Back when Lou Dobbs announced that he'd decided to quit his post as a CNN anchor, there was plenty of talk going on about why, exactly, he'd made the move. In an article he wrote for Salon, Joe Conason appears to have hit part of the reason, at least, square on the nose. Shortly after Dobbs' announcement, Conason wrote: "Having observed the former CNN anchor for many years, including a number of recent appearances on his nightly broadcast, I suspect that he may well nurture ambitions to run for president."

On Monday, Dobbs was talking about just that; in two separate radio appearances, he said he's at least considering making a run for the presidency in 2012. When one interviewer asked Dobbs about the "crazy" idea of him entering the campaign, Dobbs replied, "What's so crazy about that?" He added, "I'll tell you this much: it's one of the discussions that we're having."

During an interview with former Sen. Fred Thompson, R-Tenn. -- who himself made an abortive try for the Republican nomination in 2008 -- Dobbs responded, "yes," when Thompson asked, "Have you given any thought to perhaps running for president?"

RNC considers instituting a purity test

Alex Koppelman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:24:00 PST

Some conservatives want the Republican Party to strive for ideological purity in its platform and choice of candidates. Others want to make it official policy.

10 members of the Republican National Committee have put together a resolution that would keep the RNC from endorsing or supporting any candidates who don't agree with at least eight out of 10 principles described in it. (The math is based, natch, on a philosophy straight from former President Reagan, who said, as mentioned in the resolution, "that someone who agreed with him 8 out of 10 times was his friend, not his opponent.")

National Committeeman James Bopp is leading the charge on the measure; he gained fame earlier this year when he sponsored another resolution, one that would have officially declared President Obama's agenda socialist. That resolution was watered down before it was passed, but Bopp has inserted similar language in this one; it, too, is likely to be toned down somewhat.

Here, via the New York Times' Caucus blog, is the list of principles candidates would have to abide by in order to get the RNC's endorsement and/or money:

We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;

We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership

The best campaign ad ever?

Alex Koppelman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:29:00 PST

James Perry wants to be the next mayor of New Orleans, but right now, he's an underdog. And because of the city's unique election schedule -- the primary's being held next February -- he doesn't have much time to introduce himself to voters.

So Perry and his campaign have come up with an interesting solution -- an ad that doesn't hold back in expressing what it says are the views of city residents. When a narrator, describing other candidates, says, "Political insiders and career politicians," a woman's face appears onscreen and she says, "What? Are you shitting me?" (The word "shitting" is bleeped out, as are all the other curse words in the ad.) Then, a man comes on and asks, "Are you fucking kidding me?" He's followed by another man who simply says, "What the fuck?"

The spot is certainly an attention-grabber, even without the promse Perry makes at its conclusion -- he says he'll cut the city's murder rate by 40 percent or he won't run for re-election. In some cases, a campaign might put an ad like this out solely for the media attention; while that certainly seems to be a factor here, Perry's reportedly spending $60,000 for airtime as well.

Video is below, with a tip of the hat to my former colleague Vincent Rossmeier.

Glenn Beck has some really big plans

Gabriel Winant — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:15:00 PST

Say this for Glenn Beck: When the guy goes on the road, he doesn’t hold out on his fans. The Fox News host put on a show this weekend in the Villages, Fla., and he played all his classics:

In America, Beck says, we’re supposed to decide peacefully according to agreed-upon procedures. “But everything is upside down right now!” You might think Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were elected according to standard procedures. But Beck thinks that democracy is on the ropes; his evidence appears to be a made-up claim that Arianna Huffington wants to roll back his free speech protections. Powerful stuff.
The U.S. is in the same situation as Weimar Germany in the 1920s, and it “ends the same way."
The federal Treasury is being looted and emptied by corrupt politicians who go, naturally, unnamed. (Beck points to the $300 million earmarked for Louisiana in the healthcare bill to win the vote of Sen. Mary Landrieu. While unseemly, this is money going to Louisiana public services, not Landrieu herself, as Beck seems to imply. He also cites former Rep. Bill Jefferson, D-La., who was recently convicted on federal charges, as evidence for current corruption.)

You get the drift. There are vast, sinister and -- most important -- vaguely specified forces out there, about which you should feel massive unease. But don’t fear, America. Beck has a plan. In fact, he has The Plan. He’s assembling a team of advisors (not to run for president, he makes clear), and he’s reading up. Explains Beck:

Here’s how it’s going to work: I’ve done a lot of reading on history in the last few years. And I was amazed to find that what we’re experiencing now is really a ticking time bomb that they designed about a hundred years ago, at the beginning of the Progressive Movement. And they thought, if we just do this, and this, and this and this, over time, if we do it in both the Republican and Democratic parties, we will have our socialist utopia. Well, I say again, two can play at that game. I am drafting plans now to bring us back to an America that our founders would understand … We need to start thinking like the Chinese. I am developing a 100-year plan for America. We will plant this idea and it will sprout roots.

Apparently, Beck is going to hold seven rallies around the country, where he’ll impart the lessons he’s learned about history and policy. “You’re going to learn about history, you’re going to learn about finance, you’re going to learn about community organizing … And then, come August 28 -- I would like you to make your plans now, to join me at the feet of Abraham Lincoln in Washington, DC… We’re going to Washington together, where I will outline the steps that we need to take.”

OK, so it seems like Beck did hold out on his fans in one big way. I’ve now watched the speech all the way through, and it’s not at all clear what The Plan is. Keep listening to Beck until next summer apparently, and then there’s a new Plan.

This is pretty basic out-of-power movement stuff. MoveOn.org and Democracy for America spent the Bush years holding activist training meetings and rallies also. What’s interesting here is how badly Beck wants to think in continents and feel in centuries, rather than the grubby, day-to-day, unexciting facts of real-world politics. He’s identified a purely imaginary, epic-scale villain, and is pitching his otherwise kind of run-of-the-mill activist exercise as correspondingly high drama. Beck sees a dictator and his unthinking followers on the left, and wants to respond with an instructional national meeting where he can “outline the steps that we need to take.”

Also, just to be clear: If you're the person who told Beck about the 100-year socialist takeover plan, President Obama is very upset with you. Way to ruin it for everyone.

Time to go courting Republicans for healthcare bill?

Alex Koppelman — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:40:00 PST

The Senate vote on Democrats' healthcare reform bill Saturday night was close -- maybe too close. Majority Leader Harry Reid won an important victory, no doubt, but he had only the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and move the legislation to the floor, no more. He may not have all 60 when the next cloture motion, the one to break a Republican filibuster and force an up-or-down vote, comes around.

One member of the Senate's Democratic caucus, Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., has already said he intends to support a filibuster if the bill includes a public option. And he's not the only one saying something like that -- Sens. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska are also talking defection.

That means that unless Reid can work out some sort of deal, he'll need to look for votes elsewhere: specifically, across the aisle. The New York Times reported Monday that he's already done that; along with the White House, he's courting Maine's two senators, Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. Both voted with their party on Saturday, but both have also shown signs that they're willing to defect for the right bill. Snowe, for instance, became the only Republican to have voted for any of the Democrats' proposals when she supported the Finance Committee's version of reform legislation.

And Collins is quoted in the Times as saying, "“I have ruled out voting for this bill, but I still very much want to vote for a bill and that is why I am continuing to have discussions. I still cling to the belief that it is possible for a group of us to come together and rewrite the bill in a way that would cause it to have greater support.”

Senate Democrats' healthcare bill clears first hurdle

Alex Koppelman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:09:00 PST

It's done: Senate Democrats gathered 60 votes and got their healthcare reform bill through the first test it will face.

All 60 members of the Senate's Democratic caucus stuck together for this vote, a cloture motion that opens debate on the legislation. Similarly, all 39 of the Republicans who voted opposed the motion. Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, was the lone senator not voting.

Actual debate on the bill won't begin until after Thanksgiving, and it won't be easy. Already, two members of the Democratic caucus -- Sens. Joe Lieberman and Blanche Lincoln -- have threatened to support a Republican filibuster if it includes a public option, and more could follow.

Reid has 60 votes -- for now, at least

Alex Koppelman — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:01:00 PST

Later Saturday night, the Senate Democrats' healthcare reform bill will pass its first test. Majority Leader Harry Reid officially has the 60 votes needed to win on a cloture motion that will open debate on the legislation. The last two members of the Democratic caucus to announce their intentions, Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, both said Saturday that they'll be voting with their party.

But this is just one procedural vote. The more daunting hurdle of the cloture vote to break a filibuster and hold an up-or-down vote on the bill itself still lies ahead, and there Reid may have serious trouble, especially if a plan to create a government-run insurance provider -- the public option -- remains in it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who is a member of the Democratic caucus, has already said he'll vote to filibuster a bill that contains any form of the public option. (He is voting for cloture tonight, but not, he says, the next time around.) And on Saturday, Lincoln too threatened to support a filibuster of the legislation if it includes the public option.

Both will be tough nuts for Reid to crack. Lieberman's not up for re-election next year, and has already been taunting liberals by saying he's not afraid of possible retribution. Lincoln, on the other hand, is up for re-election -- and that's the problem. She's seriously vulnerable, and is looking at polling numbers that seem to indicate voting with her party to support a public plan would only put her in a more precarious position.

The Senate vs. the House on healthcare reform

Emily Holleman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:01:00 PST

Earlier this week, Senate Democrats finally unveiled their healthcare reform legislation. Despite all the squabbling that's gone on over the public option the bill does, like its House counterpart, contain a plan for a government-run insurance provider. However, there are a number of important differences between the two proposals. Assuming Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid musters together the 60 votes necessary to get his version through the Senate, there are going to be a number of points that negotiators will need to work out in committee. Here are some of the most important differences between the bills.

Public Option: Will states be allowed to “opt out”?

Both bills include the creation of a government-run insurance provider to compete with private insurers. However, the Senate version would allow states to opt out of the public plan.

Abortion: The Stupak Legacy

To garner much-needed support from anti-abortion Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) allowed them to attach the infamous Stupak-Pitts amendment to her chamber's version of the bill. The provision would bar women who are receiving federal subsidies for their insurance from purchasing plans that cover elective abortions. It would also bar the public plan from offering abortion coverage. The Senate version takes a more moderate approach: Those receiving federal subsidies could buy insurance that covers abortion -- but insurers would have to place federal money in separate accounts and could only use private dollars to cover the procedure. The public plan could also offer abortion coverage, as long as it segregated federal subsidies in the same way.

Cost: The difference a year makes

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill would cost about $1.052 trillion and reduce the deficit by $138 billion. The CBO predicts that the Senate bill would cost $849 billion, while cutting $130 billion from the deficit. This difference is largely due to the fact that many major provisions in the Senate proposal would not go into effect until 2014 -- a year later than in the House bill.

Coverage: Universal? Not quite

For decades, the Democrats talked of providing universal healthcare. These bills come closer, but neither quite reaches that goal. Both, however, will significantly reduce the number of uninsured. Today, 83 percent of non-elderly legal residents have health insurance. (The elderly are covered by Medicare.) Under the House bill, 96 percent of that population would be covered by 2016. The Senate's legislation would expand coverage to 94 percent. Still, about 18 million people would remain uninsured under the House's proposal, as would about 23 million in the Senate's.

Paying the bills: What gets taxed

Under the House bill, much of the money to pay for the reforms would be raised through a 5.4 percent surtax on high-income people -- that is, individuals making more than $500,000 a year or couples with annual incomes in excess of $1 million. The Senate version, on the other hand, would impose a different series of new taxes including: A 40 percent tax on “Cadillac health plans” (employer-sponsored group plans with premiums of over $8,500 for individuals or over $23,000 for families); the introduction of annual fees for health care companies; an increase in Medicare payroll taxes from 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent for those earning more than $250,000 a year and the implementation of the so-called "Botox tax," which is a five percent tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures.

Employer mandates: Do companies need to offer health insurance?

The House bill stipulates that employers with payrolls of more than $500,000 must offer health coverage or pay a federal tax. The Senate version does not explicitly require employers to provide coverage; however, companies with 50 or more full-time employees would have to pay a penalty of $750 per employee if they fail to offer coverage and if any of their employees obtain federally subsidized care via the new health insurance exchanges.

Friday, Senate Democratic leaders agreed to include the Wyden amendment in their healthcare proposal. Under this provision, employers would have one of two options. Companies could offer their employees a single plan and give all eligible workers the option of accepting a voucher to independently purchase their own insurance. Alternatively, an employer could offer two or more health care plans, provided that at least one has a premium that costs no more than the average premium of the two least expensive health plans in the local exchange. The House bill includes no comparable language.

Individual mandates: Penalties for remaining uninsured

Both bills require most Americans to maintain a minimum level of health insurance. However, the penalties for not doing so are much stiffer in the House bill: Those who failed to acquire insurance would pay a tax equal to 2.5 percent of their gross income of over $9,350 for individuals or $18,700 for couples. Under Reid’s legislation, the penalties would start at $95 per person in 2014 and gradually go up to $750 a head in 2016.

Insurance Exchanges: State-based or national

Both bills would create some sort of health insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small companies can shop for insurance and compare benefits and prices. The exchanges would put individuals into large risk pools, which are intended to provide them with leverage to purchase insurance at a lower cost. The House bill would create a national exchange, although states could petition to run their own exchanges as well. Under the Senate proposal, states would form their own exchanges. This, however, could prove problematic, as it is unclear whether state exchanges would be able to attract a sufficient number of enrollees to push for lower premiums.

Illegal Immigrants

The House bill would allow illegal immigrants to buy insurance from the exchanges, but would not allow them to obtain federal subsidies. The Senate version prohibits illegal immigrants from purchasing insurance from these exchanges, even if they could pay for their own coverage in full. This could have the effect of preventing illegal immigrants from buying individual insurance altogether.

Real life is stranger than parody

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:39:00 PST

It's been an odd day for political videos, and on both sides of divide, no less.

On the right, there's a preview for a movie about the Tea Parties floating around. And yes, it's just as corny, melodromatic and self-important as you'd think.

Then there's a public service announcement, scheduled to air over Thanksgiving, that features NFL players tossing a football around with kids and, um, President Obama. That one, too, is just plain weird -- you don't often expect to see New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees on the White House lawn. Plus, the shot in that commercial that involves Obama slowly appearing on screen in order to catch Brees' pass is so forced that it just looks like unintentional self-parody. (Also, Obama, who's almost 50 years old, can apparently burn an All-Pro safety. Who knew?)

Both videos are below.

Hoffman decision on election challenge this weekend

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:41:00 PST

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate who lost a close race in a special election for an upstate New York Congressional seat earlier this month, has already retracted the concession he made on election night. Now, though, he has to decide whether he'll try to challenge Democrat Bill Owens' win in court.

A spokesman for Hoffman, Rob Ryan, says Hoffman will be making that decision "over the weekend," according to CQ Politics' Emily Cadei.

Over the past two days, after Hoffman officially unconceded, victory in the current count has become mathematically impossible for him. The third-party candidate had hoped to gain on Owens during the tally of absentee ballots, but as the count stands now, it's actually Owens who's picked up a net of 61 votes during the process.

There was some measure of hope for Hoffman's supporters on Thursday, though, due to a report in a local publication that a virus had affected voting machines. An election watchdog has debunked that claim, however.

Nelson off the fence on healthcare vote, Lincoln not

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:01:00 PST

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can rest at least a little bit easier tonight. As he heads into the first vote in his chamber on Democrats' healthcare reform bill, he knows he has at least one senator who was wavering on his side.

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said Friday that he will vote with his fellow Democrats Saturday night on a cloture motion that will allow the Senate to begin debating the legislation.

"Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct," Nelson said in a statement. "That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about. It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday .... If you don't like a bill why block your own opportunity to amend it?"

Another key vote, though, remains uncommitted. Majority Whip Dick Durbin had said Friday that Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., had told Reid how she'll vote, implying that she, too, was a yes. He's since walked that back, however, and Lincoln remains publicly uncommitted. So does Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La.

Elsewhere on Salon today, there's a great piece from Joe Conason on Lincoln and her vote. You can read it here.

Obama falls below 50 percent in Gallup poll

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:30:00 PST

For the second time this week, a reliable pollster shows President Obama's approval rating falling below 50 percent. On Wednesday, it was Quinnipiac; now, it's Gallup. This new survey will likely prove the more symbolically important of the two, due to Gallup's long history and the weight it's given.

49 percent of respondents in Gallup's poll said they approve of the job Obama's doing, compared to 44 percent who disapprove. According to the pollster, Obama's fall below the 50 percent threshold is the fourth fastest of all the presidents in the post-World War II era. Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton beat him to the mark.

That said, the value of these numbers is mostly symbolic, and if history's any guide, it's likely that he'll be back up over 50 percent soon. But this kind of data has a way of scaring members of Congress who are unsure about whether or not to back the president.

Intra-party feuds fuel Senate primary campaigns

Gabriel Winant — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:50:00 PST

Generally speaking, primaries are where ideological fights play out. And it looks like we may have some interesting battles to watch next year in a few key Senate races. Both parties are now split by fights over whether it's better to support compromises to achieve shared goals or go down fighting. These divisions, in turn, are fueling some pretty heated show-downs.

There have been some noteworthy developments in all this intra-party Senate feuding lately. Here's the latest:

In Arkansas, Sen. Blanche Lincoln is feeling pretty squeezed. A moderate Democrat who’s never had to worry too much about reelection before, Lincoln is currently surprisingly weak against third-tier Republican challengers. A new poll shows her leading state Sen. Gilbert Baker 41 percent to 39, and state Sen. Kim Hendren 45 to 29. But just in case her response to the threat is to go all Joe Lieberman on the president’s agenda, she’s got a fellow Democrat, Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, lurking on her left, threatening a primary challenge.
When Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced that he'd be running for Senate, he was immediately considered a shoo-in. That status seems to have melted away. A new poll has the moderate Republican leading the conservative he'll be facing in the primary, former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, by only 10 points. Rubio has fast become a favorite on the right, appearing on the cover of the National Review and getting the coveted keynote speaking slot at the CPAC conference. He’s tying Crist, a once-vocal supporter of the stimulus package, to President Obama in much the same way that, say, Ned Lamont once tied Sen. Joe Lieberman, formerly D-Conn., to then-President Bush.
Being an old party warhorse is no longer good enough to guarantee Sen. John McCain’s reelection in Arizona, apparently. Though the former presidential candidate has never been beloved by his state party’s base, his reelection has never really been in doubt. It probably isn’t now either, but it depends now on what a potential opponent decides. Former Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., is weighing a primary challenge, and McCain's lead over Hayworth in one poll stands at just two points, 45 to 43. Hayworth was defeated for reelection in 2006, but clearly retains a connection with the Arizona conservative base. He was especially known for his hard-line stance on immigration, an issue that has dogged McCain among Republicans for years.

"A whale is in trouble -- I have to go!"

Alex Koppelman — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:37:00 PST

The best-kept secret in Washington has nothing to do with nuclear codes or Dick Cheney's undisclosed location. It's this: Al Gore is actually pretty funny. Funny enough, in fact, that he managed to raise a daughter who wrote for "Futurama." (Also "Saturday Night Live," but let's just forgive her for that.)

Gore does pop up now and then doing cameos in various comedies -- like Thursday night's episode of "30 Rock." He's always at his best when he's making fun of himself, as he's done a couple times in "Futurama," and this was no different. Watch it below.

Victory slips from Hoffman's grasp again -- blame ACORN!

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:45:00 PST

Quick! Someone look for ACORN operatives; check around every corner, under every cushion, down every alley -- they must be somewhere, because Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman now has no chance of winning the special Congressional election held in upstate New York earlier this month without a recount.

Late Wednesday, Hoffman retracted his concession, charging ACORN and other nefarious actors with having stolen the election from him. He'd gotten a glimmer of hope because of corrected vote totals that showed Democrat Bill Owens with a smaller margin of victory than was originally reported, and because absentee ballots hadn't yet been counted.

But Hoffman's chances of prevailing, even after the new numbers were in, were always slim. And on Thursday, victory for the conservative favorite officially became mathematically impossible: With 3,072 absentee ballots remaining uncounted, Owens led by 3,105 votes.

Hoffman's campaign hasn't ruled out the idea of challenging the results, though even his spokesman has always sounded skeptical about the idea of a comeback win.

Lieberman to liberals: Bite me

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:35:00 PST

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., isn't worried about Democrats getting angry if he votes with Republicans to filibuster healthcare reform legislation. But the reason for his lack of concern that he gave Politico this week may make some liberals even madder:

After what I went through in 2006, there’s nothing much more that anybody [who] disagrees with me can try to do.

Ouch.

Senate to hold healthcare vote Saturday

Alex Koppelman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:29:00 PST

The first of a series of important votes on Senate Democrats' healthcare reform bill is slated to take place on Saturday, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced at a press conference on Thursday.

The vote will merely open debate on the bill, and there's still a long way to go before passage. But every vote that involves moving the bill forward is being closely watched, and Republicans have put wavering Democrats on notice that they'll be portraying even a vote in favor of opening debate as one supporting the legislation.

At the press conference, Reid wouldn't say he was sure he had all of the 60 votes he'll need to prevail on Saturday. "We'll find out," he told reporters.