For reasons that are unfathomable, President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize:

President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. [. . .] [T]he Nobel Committee announced in Oslo that it has awarded the annual prize to the president “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” The award cited in particular Mr. Obama’s effort to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal.

Just because the Nobel Committee wants to make fools of themselves, Obama should not have to play along. He should turn it down.

Speaking for me only

Q Poll:

American voters oppose 47 - 40 percent President Barack Obama's health care reform plan [. . .] but they support key parts of the plan, including 61 - 34 percent for giving people the option of a government health insurance plan that competes with private plans[.]

(Emphasis supplied.)

Whenever people ask why we should primary Democratic incumbents, you can talk about Jane Harman and now, Arlen Specter:

As debate continues on much needed health care reform, I urge my Senate colleagues to support a robust public option plan.

Here's the trick though, Specter writes "It's important that the President's ideas on the public option be implemented to maintain a level playing field." That's not a robust public option. Joe Sestak, Specter's primary challenger, will likely support a true robust public option in the House and beat Specter over the head with that vote. Would Sestak be a robust public option supporter otherwise? Hard to say. But we can say that because he is a primary challenger, he will be one.

Therein lies the value of primaries. Not necessarily winning them, but as a discipline mechanism.

Speaking for me only

Apparently in need of a fundraising outrage, Congressman Paul Broun (R-GA) said:

We've got a lot of domestic enemies of the Constitution and one of those sits in the speaker's chair of the United States Congress, Nancy Pelosi.

Censure? Apologies? Denouncing? Aren't we tired of all the poutrage? Of course Broun is an idiot. But my gawd, we have serious issues in this country and are wasting half of our time on this type of nonsense. In any event, I am pretty sure Dems will make a big deal out of it and probably should politically speaking. But I am tired of it.

Speaking for me only

TPM:

One of the key questions to consider about the the Federalist Public Option (BTW, see Ezra Klein's very good post on the subject) is how a state opt out of the federal public option would occur. To wit, what is the trigger for a state opt out of a national public insurance program offered in the national exchanges?

Ezra writes "[w]e can see, over time, what happens to state insurance markets that include the national public option and compare them with those that don't." I agree with that but I am not of the mind to make an opt out a simple exercise, such as a Governor's decision or a referendum. I think a state should be required to pass a law that states that its residents will NOT have the option to select the national public insurance program within the national insurance exchange. Let the removal of the option by a state be explicit, on the record and by the mechanisms of state governance. The opt out trigger should be in the open -- no hiding. Let them do it in the daylight where everyone can see them.

Speaking for me only

The Hill:

[Lynn Woolsey] told House Democrats that they have nearly enough votes to pass their preferred version of health insurance reform. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), the leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told a closed-door caucus meeting that the group’s “whip count” showed it had 208 of the 218 [BTD - There are currently only 433 House members and thus the magic number is 217] votes needed to pass what liberals call a “robust” public option. That version would link rates to Medicare plus 5 percent.

Blue Dogs and others don't like that and are disputing it but it is obvious that the momentum is strong. Oh BTW, the Progressive Block seems to have really learned how to play this game.

Speaking for me only

The debate in progressive circles over the Federalist Public Option (see here and here) mistakes, in my view, the basic state of play in the political bargaining on health care reform.

In the House, the debate is between the Progressive Block view that the public option needs to be robust (Medicare +5) or level playing field (negotiated rates.) the good news is that the house seems headed to passing a national public option. there is no doubt which of these is superior - the robust public option.

In the Senate, where the Federalist Public Option is being debated, the option of a robust public option is not even in the conversation. the best you will get out of the Senate would be a meek level playing field public option, which is not a sure bet at all. Triggers, co-ops, the Carper opt-in (which is not really an opt in but rather providing for state run public options) and nothing at all are still in the mix. For political bargaining purposes, it would be a major step forward if the Federalist Public Option became the Senate position on the issue. More . .

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

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