Can the Senate Finance Committee please stop talking and just vote already? In other news, President Snowe has announced she will vote Aye for BaucusCare as will Blanche Lincoln.

That means both Rockefeller and Wyden can vote No. They should.

Speaking for me only

Here is an opportunity for some enterprising blogger to write a post defending Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid from criticism (a "they don't have the votes!!!" post will do.) The detested (they agree with the Taliban!) Fred Hiatt page writes:

Frustration with Mr. Obama and the lack of progress in fulfilling his pledges on gay rights were evident at Sunday's National Equality March. But why is he the only target? Overturning "don't ask, don't tell" and DOMA require legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) have been content to sit on the sidelines while Mr. Obama takes the hits. This can't continue. Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid must exert the necessary leadership in their respective chambers to pass bills the president has promised to sign. Until then, they deserve as much criticism and blame as Mr. Obama for impeding the long march to equality.

(Emphasis supplied.) No, this won't do. WaPo does not completely absolve Obama of all criticism. To the barricades! LEAVE OBAMA ALONE!!!!

Speaking for me only

WaPo sez that everyone is waiting for Snowe. Not me. The Senate Finance Committee is no longer The Show. Kagro has a good run down. In any event, the title of my post was really an excuse to post some Pac:

This is an Open Thread.

Leave Charlie Rangel Alone!!! Just kidding.

I actually think every pol should face a primary challenger, including my cult leader, Charlie Rangel:

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) will face a 2010 primary challenge from one of his own former campaign directors. Vince Morgan, a New York banker who once worked for Rangel as a special assistant and subsequently as a campaign director, announced Monday that he would challenge Rangel for reelection.

Kos and Co. should back the challenger. I promise I won't call them interlopers. I am for Rangel.

Speaking for me only

Many health reform advocates have objected to Federalist Public Option. From single payer advocates, nationwide robust public option advocates, even level playing field public option advocates, I see the logic of their arguments. But d-day offers (btw congrats d-day for the FDL gig) an objection to the Federalist Public Option that makes no sense to me - one that argues that a trigger is superior:

Nelson, a former state Insurance Commissioner in a state with a Republican legislature and Governor, probably understands that an opt out would mean that Florida gets bubkus. Obviously, his positive comments on the trigger mean he’s itching to sell out, but not in a way that would deny his constituents at least a fig leaf of a benefit. The politics of the opt-out haven’t been thought out entirely by supporters; in states like Florida it probably loses Democratic votes. [. . .] If the opt out doesn’t bring in additional votes and in fact loses some, I’m not sure why it’s being discussed as an option.

The idea that it loses votes is surmise. But certainly it makes no sense for health reform advocates to disfavor the Federalist Public Option in favor of toothless and empty triggers. Do not let triggers be a viable political alternative and Dems will get in line is my theory. But allow them to consider triggers as acceptable, and many will run to it. D-Day's thinking makes no sense to me.

Speaking for me only

Hunter has a good catch and may be the ultimate answer to Chris Bowers' question - here is Bill Nelson (the Florida Nelson) arguing for the trigger instead of the opt out:

Bowers thinks the discussion is about national level playing field public option versus national robust public option. It is not. Bill Nelson wants to thread his particular needle. Here is where the final bargaining starts. How we got here is interesting but not to the point. The Federalist Option is the political answer for getting a robust public option out of the Senate imo. Then we move to the House-Senate conference and see what happens.

Speaking for me only

Chris Bowers writes:

Many of these progressives were eager to support the opt-out because they believed it would ease passage of the bill, create political problems for Republicans, and that few states would opt-out. However, there were always two major problems with the opt-out, problems that have not been alleviated during the five days since the start of the craze: 1. No one knows what sort of public option states would be opting out of. [. . .] If we don't even know what type of public option is in the opt-out compromise, there is no justification for claiming it is a better compromise than Senator Schumer's "level playing field" compromise. For all we know, it might be worse.

This is misguided, at least as directed at me. I am for a robust (Medicare +5) Federalist Public Option. The reason I am for it is precisely because it is better than the level playing field option. If it is not robust, and is just a level playing field option, then obviously I will not be in favor of it over the national level playing field option.

As for whether it gains us votes, those of us who think it will gain votes (either for cloture or for final passage) are applying logical reasoning to the situation. To wit, some Dem Senators have talked about the effect of a public option in their states. Senators like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Addressing their parochial concerns with an opt out provision seems the best compromise for getting their votes (at least for cloture.) Chris' basic argument is "we don't know." No kidding. Nobody knows for sure. But that is hardly a response to the arguments presented. Here's a question for Chris, what if the only way to get a robust public option was through adding an opt out? Would he oppose that and still favor the level playing field option? Hey, I get to ask questions too.

Speaking for me only

The irony is rich:

A report commissioned by America's Health Insurance Plans alleging that the Senate Finance Committee legislation would cause health care costs to go up faster than under the current system. [. . .] It's interesting that the report comes from AHIP, which has spoken publicly in favor of overhauling the health care system, but has worked behind-the-scenes to kill aspects of the president's plan, including attempts to create a government competitor to private plans, Insurance companies have also balked at the watered-down individual mandate in the Finance bill.

[. . .] UPDATE: An administration official called. The White House isn't happy. AHIP chief Karen Ignagni met with White House and Senate Finance officials last week, and she said they were "a ways away from doing an analysis," the official said. "There is a feeling among White House officials that they were misled." This might be the first rift unfolding in public between an industry player and the White House and Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.)

Governing is hard work. Especially when you play footsie with the folks trying to destroy your supposed agenda.

Speaking for me only

NYTimes:

Impatient and discouraged by what they see as a certain detachment by President Obama on their issues, gay rights supporters took to the streets of the capital on Sunday in the largest demonstration for gay rights here in nearly a decade.

[. . . ] The rally on Sunday and a black tie gala on Saturday here hosted by the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s largest gay rights advocacy group, made for a glaring dichotomy. President Obama, who spoke at the dinner, had the crowd on its feet as he reiterated his pledge to end the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and declared that his commitment to gay rights was “unwavering.” But at the rally, demonstrators gave the president’s speech low marks for lacking any new substance and failing to acknowledge several major issues confronting the gay movement. In the words of Billie Myers, a musician who spoke to an eager crowd of tens of thousands that gathered on the West Lawn of the Capitol Sunday, “I’m sorry, but I didn’t like your speech.”

(Emphasis supplied.) Not everyone is ready to give aspirational awards to President Obama it seems.

Speaking for me only

Robert Reich on the Nobel Committee's mistake:

[. . .] The Prize is really more of Booby Prize for Obama's predecessor. Had the world not suffered eight years of George W. Bush, Obama would not be receiving the Prize. He's prizeworthy and praiseworthy only by comparison.

[. . .] Giving the Peace Prize to the President [. . .] only underscores the paradox of Obama at this early stage of his presidency. He has demonstrated mastery in both delivering powerful rhetoric and providing the nation and the world with fresh and important ways of understanding current challenges. But he has not yet delivered. To the contrary, he often seems to hold back from the fight -- temporizing, delaying, or compromising so much that the rhetoric and insight he offers seem strangely disconnected from what he actually does. Yet there's time. He may yet prove to be one of the best presidents this nation has ever had -- worthy not only of the Peace Prize but of every global accolade he could possibly summon. Just not yet.

Well said by Reich.

Speaking for me only

The defense of the farce committed by the Nobel Committee in awarding President Obama the Peace Prize is exemplified by Robert Naiman, who writes "the Nobel Committee is [. . .] giving an award to encourage the change in world relations that Obama has promised, and to try to help shield Obama against his domestic adversaries." Chris Cilizza agrees that it will have that effect:

Winning the Nobel Prize will allow Obama to go to his divided Democratic caucus and make the case far more forcefully that the time is now to stay united behind him on Afghanistan.

You think that is what the Nobel Committee had in mind?

Speaking for me only

The President speaking now. Glenn Greenwald wrote:

[T]here are simply no meaningful "peace" accomplishment[s] in his record -- at least not yet -- and there's plenty of the opposite. That's what makes this Prize so painfully and self-evidently ludicrous.

President Obama says he does not deserve it. Good for him. He will accept the award though. Looks sheepish about the whole thing. I take it he hopes this goes away quickly. President Obama's awkward reference to the Afghanistan "theater" demonstrates how ridiculous this all is.

Final thought - future headline "Nobel Peace Prize Winner Escalates War in Afghanistan"

Final Final Thought - the problem here is NOT President Obama, it is the Nobel Committee. Obama did nothing wrong and it is absurd to criticize him for the foolishness of the Nobel Committee.

Speaking for me only