Say what you want about President Olympia Snowe and her Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, they played a shrewd card today when Snowe voted yes for BaucusCare in the Senate Finance Committee. What is Snowe's thinking here? Here's my view.

Snowe saw that BaucusCare was fast becoming irrelevant and would have been completely irrelevant without her vote. She did not want to offer her trigger amendment now because she is saving that "concession" for the endgame. And she wants the final bargaining to begin with BaucusCare. She did what she had to do today to make BaucusCare the blueprint.

Senators Rockefeller and Wyden (or Schumer) misplayed their hands today by announcing they will vote Yes for BaucusCare. If two of them had voted No (Wyden does not really care about the public option and Schumer is in the leadership so I think I give them a bit of a pass on the political bargaining question), then BaucusCare would have been seen as a nonstarter from the Progressive side. This is important not only in the Senate but in the House, where the Progressive Block needs all the help it can get.

Snowe's shrewd play need not be a big deal in the endgame, but it could very likely be one. It all depends on how progressives in the Senate play it. So far, not good.

Speaking for me only

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

Booman writes - hilarity ensues:

If you supported Obama during the primaries, you know who you are and this does not necessarily apply to you. For the rest of you, you spent the primaries either shilling for Clinton and telling us our guy was all talk and no show, or you spent them bitching that David Plouffe wouldn't respond to and obey your emailed wisdom. As soon as he won the presidency, you started bitching about his appointments. As soon as he became president, you started bitching about his messaging, his framing, his agenda, and his lack of deference to your opinion. I want to know where the point was in this process when Obama was supposed to conclude that you were his allies and that you were responsible for his victory. When was he supposed to conclude that he owed you something, or that you had any respect for him, or that you credited his good intentions, or that you understood the myriad responsibilities of the job might mean that your pet issues might have to wait six months, a year, or two years to get to the top of his agenda.

[. . .] I think the White House is willing to listen to criticism from their allies. From you? Not so much.

Heh. I think Booman thinks that Obama will be taking his calls now. Being an "ally" and all. I never had any illusion that ANY pol is my "ally" or friend. What I would like folks to imagine is a post written like this about say, Harry Reid. Why doesn't anyone write "Leave Harry Reid Alone!" posts I wonder?

Speaking for me only

BarbinMD likes this from Eugene Robinson:

The problem for the addlebrained Obama-rejectionists is that the president, as far as they are concerned, couldn't possibly do anything right, and thus is unworthy of any conceivable recognition. If Obama ended world hunger, they'd accuse him of promoting obesity. If he solved global warming, they'd complain it was getting chilly. If he got Mahmoud Abbas and Binyamin Netanyahu to join him around the campfire in a chorus of "Kumbaya," the rejectionists would claim that his singing was out of tune.

(Emphasis supplied.) Perhaps they would. But reasonable people question THE NOBEL COMMITTEE (NOT Obama who had nothing to do with this) in its decision to award an IF. This simple proposition seems impossible for some to understand.

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

Digby writes:

Obviously, I have no way of knowing if any of this is true and nobody else does either. That's the beauty of anonymous sourcing, right? And that leads me to believe that while it's certainly possible that an administration official said this to him about the left, it's also entirely possible that Harwood made it up.

(Emphasis supplied.) Can Digby possibly believe this? That Harwood made it up? What a ridiculous thing to write. But Digby really does not believe that. She believes the WH official said it because "the official watches Harwood saying it on TV every other week and was currying favor with him." (Note that sometimes the progblogs like what Harwood says) You see? Harwood put a gun to the WH official's head and made them do it.

Speaking for me only

As you all know, Jeralyn is spa-ing it this week. So we are light on the criminal law coverage until she gets back.

So, an assignment to our readers, bring us the important criminal law stories and/or blog posts that you are reading and thinking about. I will do a daily crime linky thread.

In the meantime, this is an Open Thread.

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

Jane Hamsher writes:

[T]he White House is now openly challenging the accuracy of Harwood’s reporting. Obama adviser Dan Pfeiffer emails Greg Sargent and refutes Harwood’s claims:

That sentiment does not reflect White House thinking at all, we’ve held easily a dozen calls with the progressive online community because we believe the online communities can often keep the focus on how policy will affect the American people rather than just the political back-and-forth.

Due respect to Jane, all Harwood claimed was that "for a sign of how seriously the White House does or doesn’t take this opposition, one adviser told me today those bloggers need to take off their pajamas, get dressed and realize that governing a closely divided country is complicated and difficult." That is certainly a sign they do not take these concerns seriously. There have been many many other signs as well. We did not need John Harwood's reporting on a comment from a WH advisor to tell us that. The quote from Dan Pfieffer is pretty meaningless dontcha in context it seems to me. What did you expect? 'We really think you stink?' So the record is there and people will see whatever they want to see. In the end, action speaks loudest. And we're still waiting on that.

Speaking for me only