DemfromCt, citing Peter Hart, argues that it will:

Peter Hart makes the case that the Dems need to rally around their President on health reform.

Democratic voters are strongly in favor of the legislation being pushed by President Barack Obama, particularly constituencies such as blacks, Latinos and self-described liberals. [. . .] "If the Democrats are going to close th[e enthusiasm] gap, they've got to get their people excited. And I don't see how you get those people if you vote no" on the party's health legislation, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "I don't think it's about winning the middle. It's really about alienating the base," Mr. Hart said of Democratic lawmakers' calculations about the upcoming health vote.

A little late in the game to be concerned about the Dem base no? Passing a health bill is likely a little better than not passing a health bill, but the base motivation problem is simply not soluble through the health bills anymore imo. The Dems will need a different issue for that. More . . .

Ezra Klein writes:

For some time, I've been trying to find good polling from the passage of Medicare. According to Greg Sargent, though, the Democrats beat me to it [. . .] I wonder how many of the legislators who took the tough vote to move Medicare forward regret doing that today.

The problem with this analogy for me is this - where is the Medicare-like program in the health bills? Klein loves the exchanges - I venture to say that for him it was the one dealbreaker in the health bills. Klein imagines a future where employer-based health insurance is replaced by individual health insurance policies sold through the exchanges the current proposals set up. I do not think much of this reform approach and do not see it as the Medicare-like proposal that will become unassailable decades from now. In the end, when it comes to the "reform" that is being proposed, what you think about the exchanges will determine whether you believe this is "historic" legislation akin to Medicare. I don't think it is and I do not think this is "historic" legislation.

Speaking for me only

Citing my piece (I would have preferred he consider this post) on the progressive failure in political bargaining on the health bills, Nate Silver writes:

Those, like me, who consider the even the "compromise" bill to be a reasonably important and impressive accomplishment will usually conclude that liberal constituencies did about all that they could reasonably do. But those who are dissatisfied with the outcome are likewise dissatisfied with the tactics.

This seems the incorrect metric to me. The metric should not be whether Nate Silver is satisfied with the bill, but rather how much of what progressives wanted ended up in the bill because of their bargaining. In my view the progressives accomplished almost nothing in their bargaining. And, in fact, it appears Silver agrees with me:

It's Rolling Stones week for the final 12 on American Idol tonight.

A new Idol stage will be revealed and America’s Top 12 – Didi Benami, Crystal Bowersox, Lacey Brown, Lee Dewyze, Andrew Garcia, Casey James, Aaron Kelly, Michael Lynche, Siobhan Magnus, Paige Miles, Katie Stevens, and Tim Urban – will perform songs by The Rolling Stones.

It's 65 degrees here. The TL kid and I are firing up the barbecue to grill some steaks while we watch AI. The sun was so bright today it was 75 degrees inside when I got home -- I had to turn the air conditioning on to cool it down.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Attorney General Eric Holder today testified before a House Appropriations subcommittee. He defended the Administration's decision to try the 9/11 defendants in a federal criminal court rather than a military tribunal.

Holder defended criminal trials as a successful method for prosecuting terrorism suspects, noting that security at past trials has been tight with no incidents and they make it easier to get guilty pleas from suspects.

"They are tested ... they are secure, we have tried these cases in a safe manner," Holder told a House Appropriations subcommittee. "Our allies around the world support us in bringing these cases in (criminal) courts."

Does that mean the Administration will stick to its guns? A decision is weeks, but not months, away Holder said. Holder also said we'll never capture Bin Laden alive. I think he's right on that one. That train left the station years ago, courtesy of the Bush Administration.

Daood Gilani, aka David Coleman Headley, charged in Chicago with assisting in the Mumbai attacks and in plotting an attack on the Danish newspaper that published cartoons critical of the Prophet Mohammed, will plead guilty on Thursday.

He's been cooperating. The plea details aren't available. Will he get less than a life sentence when 8 Americans were killed in the Mumbai attacks? Stay tuned.

Our prior coverage of Headley, including his days as a DEA informant and his potential double agent status, is assembled here.

Will the health care bill pass? Five more Dems said no today.

Five more House Democrats said Tuesday that they will vote against Senate health care legislation, which puts opponents of reform just 11 votes shy of the 216 needed to prevent President Obama from scoring a major victory on his top domestic priority.

Here's the list of 27 Democrats opposing the bill.

I'm off to the jail in the foothills -- it's right before the Eisenhower tunnel. Should be a beautiful drive, I'm looking forward to it.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

March for America and comprehensive immigration reform this Sunday. I hope you will all check out the ad on the right and do your part.

No human being is illegal. This is an opportunity to march for democracy, march for American workers, march for family unification and march for justice.

March 21, National Mall, Washington DC
March at 2:00 pm

Kevin Drum on the selling of the health bills in Jason Altmire's district:

Doyle McManus writes today about a town hall meeting between Blue Dog Democratic congressman Jason Altmire and a group of tea partiers. The Senate healthcare bill, he told them, doesn't have a public option and doesn't raise income taxes:

But the conversation ran aground when he asked a fundamental question: Shouldn't the government help low-income people afford basic health insurance? "No!" most of the visitors shouted. "Some of you are never going to agree with me," Altmire said.

And none of them will ever vote for Altmire or any Democrat. and yet Altmire sells the health bills by pointing to how progressive ideas were discarded. But some want progressives to put on a happy face and whip for these bills. And some will do it. To each his own.

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias reports on Speaker Pelosi's conference with some Village bloggers:

[T]he most interesting part of the discussion was when Pelosi waxed a bit expansively about the historic nature of the achievement if reform passes. She observed that with the exception of John Dingell who was around for the Civil Rights Act and Medic[a]re, nobody else serving in the House has been part of anything this important. For most of us, she said, “this is the most important thing we will ever do.”

For the life of me, I do not see it. This bill is thin gruel. Of course it has its points that are applause worthy - the expansion of Medicaid being the clear winner - but there is nothing in the reform part of the bill that I see as particularly important. And in the end, I think evaluations of the health bills really rest on whether you believe the regulatory, state exchanges model adopted by the Obama Administration will lead to meaningful health care reform. Is it a camel's nose under the tent for real health care reform? In my opinion, it isn't. YMMV. Pass it? Sure. But argue it as important, substantively and/or politically? Don't see it.

Speaking for me only

Facebook has now overtaken Google as the most visited website. How smart is it to share your life on Facebook or other social networking sites? This week, the keynote speaker at the South by Southwest Interactive (SXSWi) festival proclaimed privacy is not dead in the era of social networking, it just needs fixing. The speaker, Danah Boyd, works for Microsoft.

I disagree. It's very much dead, not only for social media but for e-mail. The evidence? Take a look at Facebook's subpoena and search warrant guide -- or Google's or AOL's or anyone else's. Or, take a look at the Stored Communications Act (18 USC 2703) and see how easy it is for law enforcement to get your personal information and contacts, and with a search warrant, the content of your communications.

How are you going to find those guides? I'm not going to publish them, but you can find them on Cryptome.org. I will tell you a little about what they will turn over: [More...]