Krugman writes:

[P]rogressives are now in revolt. Mr. Obama took their trust for granted, and in the process lost it. And now he needs to win it back.

That may be, but I am against the idea of trusting any politician, including Obama, Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Weiner. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Speaking for me only

The inevitable begins. Steve Benen:

Late yesterday, the Gang of Six managed to connect over the phone. They reportedly raised the idea of moving the reform legislation even further to the right [. . .]

At the risk of beating a dead horse, note that the only reason to "rein in the scope" of reform, and try to make the efforts much cheaper, would be to satisfy the demands of conservative Republicans -- the conservative Republicans who oppose health care reform, and who intend to vote against the bill anyway. This is madness.

(Emphasis supplied.) Madness for Democrats theoretically committed to serious health care reform. For Republicans and Dems like Baucus (and Obama?), not so much. For them it is shrewd political bargaining. It's a wonder that Klein, Yglesias, Drum, Starr and Benen do not get that.

On political bargaining, see Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4. Speaking for me only

After months of attacks from the Right and perhaps the most inept political performance by a White House in recent memory, the public option still garners majority support in the country, according to a WaPo poll (a SUSA poll has approval at 77%, proving yet again that wording is everything in polling):

52 percent of Americans said they favor the government's creation of a new health insurance plan to compete with private insurers, while 46 percent are opposed. That is a big shift from late June, when 62 percent backed the notion and 33 percent opposed it.

A President with a 57% approval rating (according to the WaPo poll) compared to a 21% approval rate for Congressional Republicans, should be able to enact a policy he says he favors and which is supported by 52% of the electorate. If he can't, that means he really is not in favor of it or he is too incompetent politically to get it done.

Speaking for me only

"Progressive" bloggers love to hate on Terry McAuliffe. So this, via FDL, is hilarious to me:

Terry McAuliffe thinks it is time to "insist" on the public option. We couldn't agree more. Terry's agreed to host a fundraiser with Virginia and national bloggers who are insisting on a public option for the first Virginia Congressman who will take our pledge!

The "corporate shill" Terry Mac is to the left of a good segment of the "Left" blogosphere on health care reform. How funny is that?

Speaking for me only

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she won’t be able to pass health-care legislation in her chamber if the measure doesn’t include a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. “There’s no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, said at a press conference in San Francisco today.

The Blue Dog revolt in the Senate, led by the insane and extreme Kent Conrad, is acting against the expressed wishes of President Obama:

Obama today reiterated his support for the proposal. “If we have a public option in there it will help keep insurance companies honest,” he told a group of community volunteers in Washington.

The question Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum and Paul Starr need to ask themselves is why are the aligning themselves against the express wishes of President Obama and with the Blue Dog position?

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias does not like being equated with Blue Dogs:

— In terms of the present-day political debate, I think mandate-regulate-subsidize plus a public option would be a major improvement over the status quo.

. . . — But if in the final standoff we get a choice between mandate-regulate-subsidize and the status quo, I would prefer to take mandate-regulate-subsidize.

I don’t personally think that this set of views makes me a closet Blue Dog . . . I don’t like to see my views mischaracterized.

I do not think Matt, or Ezra Klein, or Kevin Drum, or Paul Starr are closet Blue Dogs, but I DO think, in terms of political bargaining, they DO represent well why Democrats and progressives are the worst political bargainers I have ever seen. More . . .

Below, Jeralyn discusses the reports of a split bill on health care reform. On that issue, Matt Yglesias writes:

[I]t’s a good idea. Still, it is worth emphasizing that no level of procedural cleverness can substitute for actual desire to pass legislation. If moderate Democratic senators just don’t want to cast a “yes” vote in favor of progressive health legislation, this lets them have their way and still pass a good bill. But if Max Baucus and Kent Conrad are actually fanatically devoted to defending the interests of the for-profit health care industry, then he can find ways to make this not work.

(Emphasis supplied.) Matt is missing a key player in this bargaining - the Progressive Block in the House. If the Progressive Block stands firm in saying no to health care reform without a public option (meaning no vote on the non-public option half of this split without a vote on the public option half)) - if they demonstrate they will walk away, then Max Baucus and Kent Conrad do not have the only veto in this. Moreover, there is no reason for Baucus and Conrad to have such a veto anyway - reconciliation means just that - it takes 50 (plus Biden's tiebreaker.) Unless Baucus and Co. round up 11 Dem votes, they can't veto a thing.

My previous posts on the madman theory of political bargaining here and here.UPDATE - Kevin Drum explains the obvious to Ezra Klein - "the point is probably to protect centrist Democrats. They can vote against Bill #1 and for Bill #2 . . ."

Speaking for me only

Being reported by the Boston Globe. Good for Sen. Kennedy to be thinking about this (PDF). We all of course hope for his recovery, and the report is clear in that Sen. Kennedy is not planning to resign nor is he at imminent risk.

This issue has been discussed a lot here, in hushed tones for the most part. But the 2004 law that stripped the Massachusetts governor of the power of appointment was clearly flawed. A special election, as called for by the law, is of course good, but an interim appointment by the Governor must be allowed. Massachusetts should not stand unrepresented until a special election.

Kudos to Sen. Kennedy for again proving he is a man who puts the people first.

Speaking for me only

Adding insult to injury to his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth, Gawker is reporting that John Edwards has decided to move Ms. Rielle Hunter and their baby to the Edwards' North Carolina neighborhood so he can help raise her. Gawker reports:

Elizabeth Edwards told The Enquirer that she flipped out when she found out about Hunter's move to their neighborhood.She's always figured the child may be John's, but the positive DNA result really floored her. And as if that wasn't bad enough, John told Elizabeth he needed to be in his daughter's life - and that Rielle was moving to North Carolina.

"He told Elizabeth he was tired of all the lies, and that's why he was ready to publicly admit Frances is his baby. "That's when Elizabeth exploded! In a fit of rage, she grabbed a suitcase and started packing her things . . ."

[More...]

This is me in shill mode - citing Ras issue polls to flack my point of view.

This poll does point to something I think is true - the heath care reform bill now has two potential endings - pissing a lot of people off (Republicans plus GOP leaners, roughly 47% of the electorate), or pissing everyone off (if HCR without a public option.)

What about no bill? Pisses everyone off, but not so much. President Obama now finds himself with little maneuver room.

Speaking for me only

You don't need them, so it does not matter, but in case Dems were going to try and placate them, Blue Dogs say no to health care reform.

Gene Taylor (D-MS), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Travis Childers (D-MS), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and Walt Minnick (D-ID) all announced they are voting against health care reform. This really simplifies things if you ask me.

There is no need to placate them in any way. Forget them and move on to those who will vote for health care reform. Same with Republicans in the Senate. Other than Snowe and Collins, none of them will vote for it under any circumstances. Since the Progressive Block in the House is insisting on a public option, then look for people willing to vote for that and negotiate with them. If that means not Snowe and Collins, then do not talk with them. I WOULD talk with Dem Senators, like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Kent Conrad, even if they will vote No, because you need their vote for cloture. But they need to understand that all discussions must accept a public option as non-negotiable. This should simplify things considerably.

Speaking for me only

That's Kevin Drum's theory:

[I]t takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, and unless someone gets Teddy Kennedy back on the floor of the Senate, Democrats only have 59 votes right now. As for the Democratic senators who might join a filibuster if the bill contains a public option, who knows? But Ben Nelson is certainly a candidate. So are Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu.

So Teddy Kennedy's inability to appear in the Senate, according to Kevin, is the obstacle to health care reform. Ironic. But that is easily remedied really - Kennedy should resign (enabling a special election to replace him.) Health care is more important than he is. As for Kevin's alternative Dem filibusterers, I'll believe it when I see it. Easy to say they MAY filibuster, a lot harder to do when it is an unamendable House-Senate conference report. Personally, I do not think there is one Dem Senator with the guts to do it. But why don't we find out?

Speaking for me only