Given this pronouncement by Kent Conrad, I expect that WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will pronounce the health bills initiative over. After all, as Brian Beutler reports:

"The only way this works is for the House to pass the Senate bill and then, depending on what the package is, the reconciliation provision that moves first through the House and then comes here," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). "That's the only way that works." I pointed out that House leadership has repeatedly said they won't take a flier on a reconciliation package--that they will only pass the Senate bill after the smaller side-car reconciliation bill has been all wrapped up.

"Fine, then it's dead," Conrad said.

(Emphasis supplied.) Apparently, in the words of Gibbs (when explaining why the Obama Administration opposes the public option now), "there isn't enough political support in a majority to get this through," so that's that. I mean it's not like the Obama Administration is willing to fight for anything here so what is there left to talk about. By Gibbs' reasoning, the health bills initiative is over. Better luck next time.

speaking for me only

Nate Silver endorses the White House strategy of depressing base voters going into the 2010 elections:

How close they could have gotten if Obama and Harry Reid had done everything in their power to whip the votes for it, we don't know. Instead, it's been pretty obvious, from the reporting of people like Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn, that the White House regarded the latest reincarnation of public option as a nuisance that they hoped would go away. But frankly, I think the White House is right on the politics of this. Yes, as public option proponents are fond of pointing out, the measure polls well in the isolate. But that's true of a lot of the individual components of the bill -- and the public option is not one of the most popular components, nor one of the ones that ordinary voters consider to be the most "important". The overall package fares poorly not because of concerns about the presence or absence of certain individual measures, but because people are exhausted and turned off by the process and have vague and ill-informed concerns about what the bill would do.

(Emphasis supplied.) Hilariously obtuse. I'll explain why on the flip.

It's women's night on American Idol. Two will get sent home on the live results show Thursday. I hope they are Lacey Brown and Paige Miles. Lacey was awful.

Really good: Janell Wheeler and Lilly Scott. I'm waiting for Crystal Bowersox to come on, so far she's been my favorite.

Update: Charlie Sheen goes into rehab, catching CBS by surprise. His show, "Two and a Half Men," for which he gets $900k an episode, is now in production limbo. His next court appearance is March 15. Sounds to me like his lawyers want to continue it and being in rehab is a good justification. If they wanted a rehab certificate to show the DA for a plea bargain, I don't think 3 weeks is going to be that impressive -- and aren't most in-patient rehabs 28 days? Or maybe the DA won't agree to drop the felony or offer a deferred judgment on it unless Charlie does a rehab stint.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

More bad news for attorney Lynne Stewart today. The Second Circuit polled its members and there weren't enough votes for en banc review of the appeals court decision vacating her 28 month sentence because it was too light. (Views on her conviction here.)

The opinions were issued as the circuit announced it was declining to rehear en banc a November ruling by a three-judge circuit panel that was itself sharply divided over the leniency shown Stewart by Koeltl.

On Nov. 17, a majority of Judges Robert Sack and Guido Calabresi faulted Koeltl for failing to make a finding on whether Stewart committed perjury at her trial. In vacating the "strikingly low" sentence, the majority remanded the case and directed Stewart be sent to prison immediately.

Two judges issued a dissenting opinion saying they would have granted en banc review. But not because they thought she shouldn't be sentenced more severely. The opinions are here.

The next step in the war on drugs: Embedding U.S. drug and intelligence agents agents in Mexico.

The increasingly close partnership between the two countries, born of frustration over the exploding death toll in Ciudad Juarez, would place U.S. agents and analysts in a Mexican command center in this border city to share drug intelligence gathered from informants and intercepted communications.

...Until recently, U.S. law enforcement agencies have been reluctant to share sensitive intelligence with their Mexican counterparts for fear they were either corrupt or incompetent. And U.S. agents have been wary of operating inside Mexican command centers for fear they would be targeted for execution

The cost: In addition to the $1.4 billion aid package to Mexico, President Obama is asking for an additional $310 million for drug war aid to Mexico.

Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) tells TPMDC that he plans to sign a letter urging Senate leadership to pass a public option via reconciliation. "I expect that I will" sign, Carper said. The letter, written by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO), has been signed by 23 senators so far.

Carper is perceived as a moderate Dem. His signing of the letter would be a big deal, much like Diane Feinstein's joining the letter.

If this keeps up, Obama will clearly be seen as the obstacle to the inclusion of a public option.

Speaking for me only

Wonderful use of the bully pulpit, we don't have the votes, and we won't try to get them says the White House:

In today's press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said President Obama didn't include a public option in his health care plan because it doesn't have the votes to pass.

"We have seen obviously that though there are some that are supportive of this, there isn't enough political support in a majority to get this through," Gibbs said today, according to Sam Stein. "The president ... took the Senate bill as the base and looks forward to discussing consensus ideas on Thursday."

I bet that, as of today, the Obama Proposal does not have the votes in the Senate or the House. Given Gibbs' answer, one can assume that Oama will be dropping his health proposal right after the summit Thursday.

Speaking for me only

Scotus Blog has a detailed recap of today's oral arguments before the Supreme Court in a case addressing the constitutionality of the law prohibiting material support of terrorism. The case involves the first amendment rights of free speech, association and expression versus laws designed to aid the war on terror.

The case is Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. The New York Times weighs in here. Georgetown law professor and civil liberties expert David Cole argued for the Humanitarian Law Project. Elena Kagen argued for the Government. Here's a scary note:

[Kagan] told Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor and John Paul Stevens that the law would forbid a listed group from retaining a lawyer to file a friend-of-court brief in a U.S. court on its own behalf, because that would amount to an outlawed “service” to the organization. And she told Stevens that, if one of the Project supporters involved in this case — California college professor Ralph Fertig — approached the United Nations as an agent of one of the listed groups, he would be covered by the law.

[More...]

In the Olympics, the curling action continues.

This is an Open Thread.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) is not budging on his opposition to the Senate health bill's provisions partially funding, through subsidies, private insurance that offers abortion services coverage:

[T]the President's proposal encompasses the Senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The Senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable. While the President has laid out a health care proposal that brings us closer to resolving our differences, there is still work to be done before Congress can pass comprehensive health care reform.

If Stupak carries enough votes with him, he can block the passage of a Senate health bill, even with a reconciliation fix. I've discussed this before, but one clear way of addressing the Stupak problem is to replace the subsidies and the exchanges with a further expansion of Medicaid. Remember, the Stupak Amendment is all about preventing subsidy monies from being used to fund private health insurance policies that cover abortion services. Expand Medicaid further, eliminate the subsidies and exchanges, expand the exemption from the individual mandate and you can eliminate the Stupak problem while still meeting the objectives of the current Senate bill. And all of this is doable with a reconciliation fix.

Speaking for me only

Sam Stein's report on Sen. Jay Rockefeller's reluctance to pass a public option through reconciliation has led to a lot of frustration. However, as is usual with Rockefeller, I think his statement not only does not make sense, it is also pretty squishy (he's not known as Jello Jay for nothing.) Rockefeller said:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) [. . .] sa[id] that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. "I don't think the timing of it is very good," the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. "I'm probably not going to vote for that, although I'm strongly for the public option, because I think it creates, at a time when we really need as much bipartisan[ship] ... as possible. "

[MORE . . .]

There's the Olympics. And on the Bachelor, Women Tell All Nothing. Also, 24 and Life Unexpected.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has obtained new FOIA documents showing Congress knew much more about the CIA's secret rendition program and torture than previously disclosed. The new documents also highlight the role of Dick Cheney counsel Richard Addington. For example, a newly obtained February 4, 2003, CIA memo documents the role of Counsel for the Office of the Vice President (OVP) in analyzing and approving the CIA techniques. CCR says:

“Members of Congress must come clean about whether they encouraged or objected to torture during these many secret meetings with CIA officials and we need a complete accounting of Cheney’s counsel, David Addington’s, role in the creation of the torture program. These new documents show that the CIA may have lied to Congress about the role of interrogation techniques in detainee deaths and key members of Congress abdicated their oversight role. This new information points even more strongly to the need for a full criminal investigation of the torture program, up the entire chain of command.”

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.