Kudos to Chris Bowers, who says he is still fighting for the public option.

Good job.

Like Jeralyn, today is a travel day for me. Unlike Jeralyn, I am leaving warm Florida and traveling north to New York.

In tonight's college football action, I like the Ducks (-9.5) in the Civil War.

This is an Open Thread.

Add Steve Benen to the Village bloggers who are thrilled that Netroots stalwart Chris Bowers has capitulated on the public option:

In general, the netroots have not looked kindly on "Public Option Pragmatists." It was interesting, then, to see Chris Bowers, who has as much netroots credibility as anyone, embrace, with some apparent reluctance, the Pragmatists' line.

This is the upshot of of Bowers' actions. He provides cover for those who have been arguing against the very policy and strategy Bowers championed all year. If Bowers had "netroots credibility," he certainly no longer does. Imagine watching Bowers rally support for a progressive initiative on anything? Why listen to him? He'll be caving in the end anyway.

Speaking for me only

For non-wanking topics.

The Civil War is tonight. Autzen will be a madhouse.

This is an Open Thread.

In a number of posts yesterday and today, I have been highly critical of Chris Bowers. On some points, I was over the top, and I think I owe Chris an apology. I should not have mentioned his past connections to the Sestak campaign. Chris is a sincere person who acts in ways he thinks is best. I accept that his support for Sestak had nothing to do with the position he took.

That said, I strongly feel that Chris' actions are indefensible for an activist. This is an old argument for me. I had it with Chris' old blogging partner Matt Stoller - when you take on the mantle of activist, you can not wear the hat of pundit. To me, Chris has changed his hat from activist to pundit regarding the health care bill. In my view, it is a hat change that can not work.

Of course, I also disagree with with Chris' punditry. But my larger point here is about understanding the role of the activist, the blogger activist, in this case. It is to help shore up the Left Flank of the Party. I am no activist. And I am hardly Left. I do not whip people to call their Congresspersons or frankly, to do anything. I am in the peanut gallery. What activists do matters. What I do does not. Yet, I care very much that the effective activists, like Chris, not lose sight of their mission and not compromise it in order to engage in meaningless punditry. There are enough of us out here wanking. Stick to the important work.

Speaking for me only

In celebrating Senator Bernie Sanders' hold of the renomination of Ben Bernanke as Fed Chairman, the bloggers at Open Left are not explaining what makes the Sanders' hold something to celebrate but the Republican hold on other Obama nominations outrageous obstructionism.

Setting aside how you feel about the President's nominees (Yea! Dawn Johnsen, Boo! Bernanke), there is a principled reason why Sanders' hold can be applauded while the Republican hold on Administration posts is unacceptable obstructionism. Posts like Fed Chairman or judicial appointments are independent and extend well beyond the term of a Presidency. Posts like head of the OLC (the post for which Johnsen is nominated) are, at the most, for the duration of a particular Presidential term. In short, a President should have a free hand to choose who will serve in his Administration. He should NOT have a free hand to choose who will sit on the Supreme Court or on bodies that act independently, like the Fed (where member have 10 year terms.) More . . .

Joining fellow Village blogger Matt Yglesias, the disingenuous Ezra Klein also throws bouquets to Chris Bowers for his public capitulation on the public option.

There are two aspects to Chris' position which are indefensible. First, Chris was one of the foremost proponents of arguing for the public option as the vehicle for establishing progressive influence in the legislative sausage making. Day after day he urged the Progressive block to hold the line and criticized those who showed signs of breaking ranks. His about face NOW is simply inexcusable. If a progressive ACTIVIST cannot hold the line, how in blazes can that same progressive activist ask pols to do it?

Second, Chris has now adopted the Village Blog style of pretending that it is the "reform" in the health bill that provides insurance coverage for 30 million uninsured Americans. That is a bald faced lie. It is indeed the favorite lie of the Village Bloggers. The provision of insurance assistance has nothing to do with the Exchanges and the individual mandates, the provisions considered sacrosanct by the Village Bloggers (now joined by new Village Blogger Bowers.) It is the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and federal subsidies to the less well off for the purchase of insurance. Has it not occurred to Bowers that he can support health insurance assistance without supporting the individual mandate, the Exchange and the regressive excise tax? More . . .

It's 2 degrees outside but at 6:00 am the TL kid and I are off to Key West for the annual NORML Legal Conference.

Here's a pretty blowup of the sunset picture. The water is very inviting as are the restaurants. And the hotel with its Caribbean Spa is just perfect for our group. [More...]

The Taliban has reacted strongly to President Obama's pledge of more troops for Afghanistan. From one of its commanders:

"Obama is sending more troops to Afghanistan and that means more Americans will die. With just a handful of resources we can cause them even more casualties and deaths."

Where's the exit strategy? We will have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan after the additions. Obama says we will begin withdrawal in 2011. That's too nebulous. When will we be finished?

Where's the clarity? Training Afghan troops to turn the war over to them didn't work too well in Iraq. How will sending more troops strengthen Afghan institutions or create a sustainable economy?

David Sirota asks, Is this hope or change? This is Obama's war now. He owns it. [More...]

The progressive bloggers supporting Joe Sestak have an interesting problem on their hands now. Their champion in the Pennsylvania Senate Democratic primary, Rep. Joe Sestak, supports escalation in Afghanistan. (So do I.) Their nemesis, Senator Arlen Specter opposes the Afghanistan escalation. Via Jerome Armstrong, Hotline reports:

Sen. Arlen Specter (D) has staked out Afghanistan as the next issue on which to prove his Dem bona fides after his party switch earlier this year. Specter has come out against a troop buildup in Afghanistan, a position his campaign cites as farther to the left than that of his opponent, Rep. Joe Sestak (D).

Some Sestak supporting bloggers have been prominently opposed to the Afghanistan escalation. In addition, one Sestak supporting blogger has now reversed course on his support for the public option. Is this a harbinger of a Sestak capitulation on the public option? Will Specter left flank Sestak on the public option too? Interesting problem for the Sestak contingent.

Speaking for me only

The same sex marriage bill was defeated in the New York Senate today.

The bill was defeated by a decisive margin of 38 to 24. The Democrats, who have a bare, one-seat majority, did not have enough votes to pass the bill without some Republican support, but not a single Republican senator voted for the measure. Still, several key Democrats who were considered swing votes also opposed the bill.

The bill is effectively dead for the year. Newsweek: Is it time for federal action?

Matt Yglesias hands out a bouquet to Chris Bowers for his capitulation on the public option. Leaving aside the stupidity of a self styled activist deciding to capitulate on an issue he has been agitating about for the entire year (Who will believe Bowers about anything now? Why would you give him a dime? Does he plan to reimburse folks for money he raised on his staunch advocacy for the public option?), I want my bouquets too. I am ready to support a health insurance assistance bill that does not have a public option and provides insurance to 30 million uninsured Americans. I have a couple of suggestions though.

(1) Eliminate the individual mandate. (2) Eliminate the Exchange (we need this to take out the Stupak amendment problem.) (3) Finance the health insurance assistance through taxes on the well off, as provided for by the House bill and Senator Reid's increase of the Medicare tax on person earning more than $200,000/year. (4) Funnel all health insurance assistance funds through an increase in Medicaid eligibility.

The question is will the Village and the Obama Administration let their ideology stand in the way of providing 30 million Americans with health insurance? I sure hope they would be practical about this.

Speaking for me only