This is me in shill mode - citing Ras issue polls to flack my point of view.

This poll does point to something I think is true - the heath care reform bill now has two potential endings - pissing a lot of people off (Republicans plus GOP leaners, roughly 47% of the electorate), or pissing everyone off (if HCR without a public option.)

What about no bill? Pisses everyone off, but not so much. President Obama now finds himself with little maneuver room.

Speaking for me only

You don't need them, so it does not matter, but in case Dems were going to try and placate them, Blue Dogs say no to health care reform.

Gene Taylor (D-MS), Jim Marshall (D-GA), Travis Childers (D-MS), Charlie Melancon (D-LA), and Walt Minnick (D-ID) all announced they are voting against health care reform. This really simplifies things if you ask me.

There is no need to placate them in any way. Forget them and move on to those who will vote for health care reform. Same with Republicans in the Senate. Other than Snowe and Collins, none of them will vote for it under any circumstances. Since the Progressive Block in the House is insisting on a public option, then look for people willing to vote for that and negotiate with them. If that means not Snowe and Collins, then do not talk with them. I WOULD talk with Dem Senators, like Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu and Kent Conrad, even if they will vote No, because you need their vote for cloture. But they need to understand that all discussions must accept a public option as non-negotiable. This should simplify things considerably.

Speaking for me only

That's Kevin Drum's theory:

[I]t takes 60 votes to break a filibuster, and unless someone gets Teddy Kennedy back on the floor of the Senate, Democrats only have 59 votes right now. As for the Democratic senators who might join a filibuster if the bill contains a public option, who knows? But Ben Nelson is certainly a candidate. So are Evan Bayh, Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor and Mary Landrieu.

So Teddy Kennedy's inability to appear in the Senate, according to Kevin, is the obstacle to health care reform. Ironic. But that is easily remedied really - Kennedy should resign (enabling a special election to replace him.) Health care is more important than he is. As for Kevin's alternative Dem filibusterers, I'll believe it when I see it. Easy to say they MAY filibuster, a lot harder to do when it is an unamendable House-Senate conference report. Personally, I do not think there is one Dem Senator with the guts to do it. But why don't we find out?

Speaking for me only

Picking on Ezra again - Ezra writes:

I referenced it an earlier post, but this paper from Families USA outlining the 10 reasons to support health-care reform is a must-read. The public plan is one of the entries. But only one of them. And not the one that would help the most people.

Certainly spending more money on health care, particularly for the less well off, is a good thing. No one would or could argue otherwise. But let's not pretend that is health care reform.

In the end, if there can be no public option, why not instead strip out the "reform" part of "the bills," as the paper Ezra extolls refers to them, and just leave in the extra funding. In short, no public option, then no mandates. Just the extra money. For now.

Speaking for me only

Talk amongst yourselves. Here's a topic - does Brett Favre signing with the Vikings guarantee that Percy Harvin will be the Rookie of the Year?

This is an Open Thread.

Yes, I am picking on Ezra. Here's the famous anonymous White House official:

"I don't understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo," said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "We've gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don't understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform." "It's a mystifying thing," he added. "We're forgetting why we are in this."

(Emphasis supplied.) If you wonder if the Obama team is committed to the public option, the answer is an obvious no --"Another top aide expressed chagrin that a single element in the president's sprawling health-care initiative has become a litmus test for whether the administration is serious about the issue. "It took on a life of its own," he said." Funny, I thought the President said he supported the public option (I never had any illusion that he was married to anything.)

Speaking for me only

Via Left in Alabama, Justice Scalia had this to say about the Troy Davis case, in which he dissented from the majority which ordered Davis get a hearing on his innocence claim. Davis, you may know, has had one of the the most compelling claims of innocence in decades. According to Justice Scalia:

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.

Left in Alabama responds:[More...]

Congratulations Ezra! You too are now part of the Beltway Media! Steve Pearlstein makes it official:

It's Time to Give Up On the Public Option

. . . [T]here was Howard Dean, the former Democratic Party chairman, over the weekend declaring that health reform without a public option simply isn't worth doing. My colleague Ezra Klein pointed out on his must-read blog that Dr. Dean's fascination with a public option is rather recent since it was nowhere to be found in the reform plan he proposed when running for president in 2004.

Or how about MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, who opined that the failure to deliver on a public option would represent nothing less than the "collapse of political ambition" for American liberalism? The public option has become for the left what "death panels" have become for the right -- an easily understood metaphor that can be used to wage an ideological war over the issue of Big Government, and mostly a sideshow.

(Emphasis supplied.) You've made it Ezra. Enjoy the cocktails.

UPDATE: Ezra is "shocked" to find himself used as a cudgel against the public option. Bah.

Speaking for me only

I think I found my new BFF. Say hello to the brand new "The Snitching Blog", by Loyola Law Professor Alexandra Natapoff. Its tagline is: "A comprehensive resource on criminal informants: legal developments, legislation, news stories, cultural reactions, commentary and more...."

Professor Natapoff is an award-winning scholar and a nationally-recognized expert on snitching in the criminal justice system. Prior to joining the faculty she served as an assistant federal public defender in Baltimore.....She clerked for the Honorable David S. Tatel, US Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, and for the Honorable Paul L. Friedman, US District Court, Washington, DC.

[More...]

Bowers does satire of the Great Orange Satan community.

That why I name names. Including Bowers on more than one occasion. BTW. Chris seems to be a nice guy. Met him when we talked with Bill Clinton (now dropping names.)

BTW, it's still Springtime for Hitler.

This is an Open Thread.

Nothing annoys me more than reading those Very Serious bloggers who buy into premises for no good reason. Here is Kevin Drum (via anti-public option Ezra):

Quick background: Republicans will filibuster any healthcare bill that reaches the floor of the Senate, and it takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If a healthcare bill includes a public option provision, it's vanishingly unlikely that we can find those 60 votes. But budget reconciliation bills can't be filibustered, so an alternative is to include the public option but then introduce the bill via the reconciliation process, where it needs only 50 votes to pass.

Quick background - Republicans alone can not filibuster anything. So tell me Kevin, who are the Dem senators who are going to join a GOP filibuster of health care reform? Let's stick to the facts please. Even when you are shilling for a Dem capitulation on health care reform.

Speaking for me only

The Justice Department filed a brief yesterday in a case challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While it says Obama opposes DOMA and thinks it should be repealed, it still recommended the challenge at issue be dismissed.

With respect to the merits, this Administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory, and supports its repeal. Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality, even if the Department disagrees with a particular statute as a policy matter, as it does here.