Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

Usain Bolt breaks the world record in the 200 meters at the World Track and Field Championships in Berlin:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:

U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she won’t be able to pass health-care legislation in her chamber if the measure doesn’t include a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers. “There’s no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option,” Pelosi, a California Democrat, said at a press conference in San Francisco today.

The Blue Dog revolt in the Senate, led by the insane and extreme Kent Conrad, is acting against the expressed wishes of President Obama:

Obama today reiterated his support for the proposal. “If we have a public option in there it will help keep insurance companies honest,” he told a group of community volunteers in Washington.

The question Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Kevin Drum and Paul Starr need to ask themselves is why are the aligning themselves against the express wishes of President Obama and with the Blue Dog position?

Speaking for me only

Matt Yglesias does not like being equated with Blue Dogs:

— In terms of the present-day political debate, I think mandate-regulate-subsidize plus a public option would be a major improvement over the status quo.

. . . — But if in the final standoff we get a choice between mandate-regulate-subsidize and the status quo, I would prefer to take mandate-regulate-subsidize.

I don’t personally think that this set of views makes me a closet Blue Dog . . . I don’t like to see my views mischaracterized.

I do not think Matt, or Ezra Klein, or Kevin Drum, or Paul Starr are closet Blue Dogs, but I DO think, in terms of political bargaining, they DO represent well why Democrats and progressives are the worst political bargainers I have ever seen. More . . .

Not everyone, including journalists, understand the terms "public option", "single payer" and "universal health care." Media Matter has a primer with definitions for the media, reminding them that "Universal health care is different from the public option, which is different from single payer. Britain and Canada have very, very different health care systems."

Public Option:

The public option is a proposal included in the Senate health committee and House bills that would establish as one option among many a government-run health insurance plan. It would not be open to anyone who wishes to enroll in it, and those who are eligible would be able to choose it from a list of other, private options. CBO estimates that if the public option passes in the form envisioned by the House draft bill, only about 11 or 12 million people would be enrolled in it by 2019.

[More...]

Former NY Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress pleaded guilty today to attempted possession and agreed to a two year sentence, of which he will serve 20 months. He is expected to begin serving the sentence on September 20, when he is offiically sentenced. His lawyer, Ben Brafman, said:

"This is a sad day because I think a very good man who is a brilliant athlete is going to unfortunately spend 20 months in prison when he had no intent to violate the law," Brafman said. "I give Plaxico a great deal of credit for accepting responsibility, recognizing that he had to accept responsibility. It was a hard decision in a case like this because as all of you know, the facts in this case have never been in dispute from day one. This is a perfect example in many ways of bad judgment sometimes has very terrible consequences, consequences far more severe than may be justified, in my view.

[More...]

Below, Jeralyn discusses the reports of a split bill on health care reform. On that issue, Matt Yglesias writes:

[I]t’s a good idea. Still, it is worth emphasizing that no level of procedural cleverness can substitute for actual desire to pass legislation. If moderate Democratic senators just don’t want to cast a “yes” vote in favor of progressive health legislation, this lets them have their way and still pass a good bill. But if Max Baucus and Kent Conrad are actually fanatically devoted to defending the interests of the for-profit health care industry, then he can find ways to make this not work.

(Emphasis supplied.) Matt is missing a key player in this bargaining - the Progressive Block in the House. If the Progressive Block stands firm in saying no to health care reform without a public option (meaning no vote on the non-public option half of this split without a vote on the public option half)) - if they demonstrate they will walk away, then Max Baucus and Kent Conrad do not have the only veto in this. Moreover, there is no reason for Baucus and Conrad to have such a veto anyway - reconciliation means just that - it takes 50 (plus Biden's tiebreaker.) Unless Baucus and Co. round up 11 Dem votes, they can't veto a thing.

My previous posts on the madman theory of political bargaining here and here.UPDATE - Kevin Drum explains the obvious to Ezra Klein - "the point is probably to protect centrist Democrats. They can vote against Bill #1 and for Bill #2 . . ."

Speaking for me only

Being reported by the Boston Globe. Good for Sen. Kennedy to be thinking about this (PDF). We all of course hope for his recovery, and the report is clear in that Sen. Kennedy is not planning to resign nor is he at imminent risk.

This issue has been discussed a lot here, in hushed tones for the most part. But the 2004 law that stripped the Massachusetts governor of the power of appointment was clearly flawed. A special election, as called for by the law, is of course good, but an interim appointment by the Governor must be allowed. Massachusetts should not stand unrepresented until a special election.

Kudos to Sen. Kennedy for again proving he is a man who puts the people first.

Speaking for me only

The Wall St. Journal reports Democrats are discussing splitting up the health care bill. Here's what would pass first.

Next would come:

Does this satisfy anyone who wants the public option?

Adding insult to injury to his cancer-stricken wife Elizabeth, Gawker is reporting that John Edwards has decided to move Ms. Rielle Hunter and their baby to the Edwards' North Carolina neighborhood so he can help raise her. Gawker reports:

Elizabeth Edwards told The Enquirer that she flipped out when she found out about Hunter's move to their neighborhood.She's always figured the child may be John's, but the positive DNA result really floored her. And as if that wasn't bad enough, John told Elizabeth he needed to be in his daughter's life - and that Rielle was moving to North Carolina.

"He told Elizabeth he was tired of all the lies, and that's why he was ready to publicly admit Frances is his baby. "That's when Elizabeth exploded! In a fit of rage, she grabbed a suitcase and started packing her things . . ."

[More...]

Who's giving up on the public option? Not us.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

John Richard Marek was executed tonight in Florida as Gov. Charlie Christ and his staff monitored events from the Governor's office. 8 needles later, Mr. Marek was dead.

Gov. Christ allowed the AP to observe him for the 50 minutes before the execution, as he sat at his desk, reviewed the case file and had his staff check for any last minute stays with three courts.

6:05, "The needle has been inserted into the inmate's left arm."
- 6:06, "The inmate continues to remain calm."
- 6:09, "The needle has now been inserted in the inmate's right arm."
- 6:11, "The sheet that covers the inmate is now being placed over him."

[More...]

Professor Alan Dershowitz, writing in the Daily Beast today calls Justice Antonin Scalia's remarks about the death penalty a betrayal of both the Constitution and the Catholic Church.

The Supreme Court justice’s shocking remarks about capital punishment are not just a distortion of the Constitution, says Alan Dershowitz, they’re also an outrage against his church.

My views on Scalia's remarks are here. To recap, Scalia wrote in his dissent in the Troy Davis case:

“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is ‘actually’ innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged ‘actual innocence’ is constitutionally cognizable.”

Alan makes this analogy: [More...]