I have always said politics is a dirty business and that among Democrats in the country, New Jersey Dems really understand this. At the beginning of this year, Jon Corzine was a dead man walking politically. The Republicans had identified an apparently unblemished former US Attorney with no prior record to be a small target and appeared poised to have the New Jersey Governor's race be a referendum on Corzine in a time of deep economic misery (plus Corzine was a Wall Street man, having made his fortune as the head of Goldman Sachs.)

For some wonks, Republicans, who have called Dems, traitors, godless, gay, race baited, lied, stolen and cheated in elections, are to be treated with kid gloves. But NJ Dems don't play that sh*t. Corzine has ripped the bark off of Chris Christie and now is in position to maybe win this thing. Matt Yglesias thinks the Corzine campaign is too mean and there will be a "backlash." Yeah, right. The GOP is going to whine about Corzine picking on Christie? Really? Yeah, that'll work. The good news is I am confident that Corzine's people know what to do down the stretch - continue to rip Christie a new one right up to election day. The political arena is not for the meek. Look at Creigh Deeds.

Speaking for me only

Sam Stein:

Senate Democrats have begun discussions on a compromise approach to health care reform that would establish a robust, national public option for insurance coverage but give individual states the right to opt out of the program.

The proposal is envisioned as a means of getting the necessary support from progressive members of the Democratic Caucus -- who have insisted that a government-run insurance option remain in the bill -- and conservative Democrats who are worried about what a public plan would mean for insurers in their states.

This is the camel's nose under the tent compromise I support. Good to see it gaining traction.

Speaking for me only

[. . . P]ublishing lies as a way of sucking up to Marty Peretz makes Sullivan look worse rather than better. Whether he has a place in American political discussion really depends on the depth of his repentance. And it ain't too deep. - Brad DeLong

Via Atrios and Drum, Sully says his McCaughey Moment is Hillary's fault:

Again, I take responsibility. [. . .] But look: it was one piece in a magazine. It's being treated as if it were a turning point in history. Please. There's one reason the Clinton healthcare bill failed and it isn't Betsy McCaughey. It's Hillary Clinton.

Why Andrew Sullivan fails is the issue here, not health care reform in 1994 (Matt Cooper addresses that one.) BTW, Sully still has no apologies for "The Bell Curve" and "The Fifth Column." Maybe those were Hillary's fault too. BTW, Brad DeLong is old enough to remember that in 2007, Sully was defending his McCaughey Moment.

Speaking for me only

The Yankees play the Twins tonight (6:07 ET) in the Bronx. I think the 5 game series format is awful. Baseball, where GREAT teams lose 1 out of 3 games, should not shorten the test period. In football, the best team wins 3 out of 4 at least. In the playoffs, it is 4 out of 5. All MLB playoff series should be 4 out of 7.

In the big news of the day, Tim Tebow practiced again today, but Florida coach Urban Meyer said Tebow's participation in Saturday night's game at Baton Rouge will be a gametime decision. I won't lie to you, I'm nervous about this one. More on Saturday about Florida-LSU, Bama-Ole Miss and all the big games this weekend in the Saturday Football Thread.

This is an Open Thread.

I have not paid much attention to the VA governor's race because I found Creigh Deeds to be about as lousy a candidate as I had seen. It was with some amusement that I watched "progressive" blogs celebrating the center right Deed's "great" win in the primary. In any event, we now see that Deeds has pretty much thrown in the towel and started the fingerpointing. Not surprisingly, he is pointing at "liberals":

Virginia Democratic gubernatorial nominee Creigh Deeds said in an interview that he was lagging in the polls entering the final weeks of the campaign in part because of voter concerns over his national party’s agenda. “Frankly, a lot of what’s going on in Washington has made it very tough [. . .] We had a very tough August because people were just uncomfortable with the spending; they were uncomfortable with a lot of what was going on, a lot of the noise that was coming out of Washington, D.C.”

Ha! Deeds stinks and it is the "liberals'" fault. Hilarious. He's toast in case you are wondering.

Speaking for me only

Frank Newport of Gallup:

Americans' approval of the job Congress is doing is at 21% this month, down significantly from last month's 31% and from the recent high of 39% in March. [. . .] Of note is the steep decline in approval among Democrats, who appear to be souring on the job Congress is doing despite the fact that their party controls both the House and the Senate. For the first time since February, Democrats' approval of the job Congress is doing is below 50% -- with only slightly more than a third of Democrats now approving.

(Emphasis supplied.) Now some may think Max Baucus' shenanigans in an attempt to please President Olympia Snowe will energize the Dem base for 2010. I am not one of them.

Speaking for me only

WSJ:

A new proposal by Sen. Tom Carper would spell out how to boost competition in the private market by enacting government-run plans at the state level. States could act alone or in concert with others to gain more leverage in the marketplace, and would be bound by the same rules established for private companies using the national insurance exchange envisioned by the Senate Finance bill. Another option would entail states opening their workers' employee-benefit plans to the general public.

The Delaware Democrat's plan won praise from some in his party Tuesday as a way of bridging differences among them. "Conceptually, having the states take responsibility makes a great deal of sense," said Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, a key voice for moderate Democrats. [. . .] Another Democratic centrist, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, said the Carper proposal was "very constructive."

(Emphasis supplied.) Now we can define the right wing of the Senate Democratic Party as in favor of the Carper Proposal (for yet another example of wonks not understanding political bargaining, see Steve Benen) and the House Democrats in favor of a robust public option (national plan, Medicare +5 rates, etc.) President Obama can swoop in and be the "consensus builder" - and put forth the Blue State Public Option - a national robust public option from which individual states can opt out. Nebraska and North Dakota can have their state run co-ops. Arkansas and Alabama can take a pass on the whole thing (no mandates, no public plan, etc.) 11 dimensional chess or just plain luck - this solution would work for me as a camel's nose under the tent health care reform worth passing.

Speaking for me only

Busy day ahead.

What's going on?

This is an Open Thread.

Tom DeLay's rump-shaking days are over on DWTS -- with stress fractures in both feet, he calls it quits tonight. I actually enjoyed watching him.

Also on, The Biggest Loser, a very depressing season so far. The Good Wife....I really dislike the show and all the characters. It's unoriginal and boring.

What's on your agenda tonight, TV or otherwise? This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Once upon a time, a President was called irrelevant and he fought back against the charge. And then he proved his relevance, even when the Congress was controlled by the opposition party.

Nowadays, Obama sycophants think they do him a favor by arguing FOR his irrelevancy, even when his party controls the Congress. Kevin Drum pushes back and reminds us when the "formlessness" problem started - during the campaign. The funny thing is Obama had a a second chance after the financial meltdown to capture a mandate for real change, but he appears to have decided he does not want such a mandate.

Instead, Obama has a mandate for multidimensional chess.

Speaking for me only

Via Yglesias, Benjamin Friedman is pretty funny:

Michael O’Hanlon [. . .] is for generals respecting the president’s policy decisions, except when he isn’t — cases where the general is obviously right, in that he agrees with O’Hanlon. (To me, this McChrystal incident shows the robustness of civilian control. McChrystal spoke too freely and got rebuked. The Republic seems OK. So does the Army.)

I am for generals respecting the President's policy decisions in all cases, even when the generals agree with me, as General McChrystal does on Afghanistan.

Speaking for me only

I just got back from court. Anything interesting going on?

BREAKING!! Tebow Practices.

This is an Open Thread.