Daily Kos

Stupak Situation

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 17:00:04 GMT

Bart Stupak successfully hijacked the healthcare debate, again, threatening to bring the whole bill down if he can't take abortion coverage away from millions and millions of women. The situation is still very much in flux, but it would appear that his push for an enrollments correction resolution was floated by leadership, and possibly tanked by the pro-choice caucus, who according to the twitterverse, threatened to bolt if he got his vote. Here's CNN's Evan Glass:

"There is no deal" on abortion says Woolsey, adding that all pro-choice female Dems will bolt if Stupak prevails.

That was more or less confirmed by Henry Waxman, who told AP that "'the likely outcome' is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi will move ahead without the votes of a group of abortion opponents," and by the fact that Stupak indefinitely postponed the press conference he had scheduled for this morning. Two anonymous pro-life GOP members told NRO that he cancelled (or postponed?) his press conference because his enrollment corrections effort was rejected, and that "he's finished with Pelosi."

It looks like leadership might be changing their approach from negotiating with him to leaning on him. A bigger gun than the pro-choice caucus has apparently been brought in to influence Stupak: the dean of his Michigan delegation, John Dingell.

Veteran Democratic Rep. John Dingell vowed Saturday to work to defeat fellow Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak (D) on abortion in the healthcare bill.

Dingell, the longest-serving member of the House whose career has centered around healthcare reform, said he would work to "beat" Stupak's efforts to add additional restrictions on federal support for abortion to the healthcare bill before the House....

"I'm going to try to show him the error of his ways, and I'm also going to try to see to it that we beat him on this," Dingell said on MSNBC. "Because this is a matter of the utmost humanitarian and economic concern to this nation."

And a new press conference on women's health care has been scheduled at 1:30 EDT, by pro-choice caucus member Carolyn Maloney that may or may not address the Stupak problem.

What to watch for in the next few hours: will the Rules Committee (streaming on C-SPAN2) see a Stupak provision to create a trigger for deeming the Senate bill passed only upon passage of his proposed concurrent resolution. If that doesn't come up, the deal is definitively dead.

But there could be another trick up Stupak's sleeve, with an assist from Republicans: the motion to recommit. There's been a trend in the last several years of Dems being more or less cut loose by leadership to vote with Republicans on MTRs to buck up their Blue Dog cred. The GOP could very well offer the Stupak language as the MTR, which could tempt a number of Dems.

Stupak could still kill this whole thing. The whip count is that tight.

President Obama Urges Action On Financial Reform

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:32:03 GMT

While calling himself a "vigorous defender" of the free market, President Obama warns that we must learn from last years financial meltdown and enact "common-sense rules that will our allow markets to function fairly and freely while reining in the worst practices of the financial industry."

On Monday, the Banking Committee of the United States Senate will debate a proposal to address the abuse and excess that led to the worst financial crisis in generations ...

Of course, there were many causes of the economic turmoil that ripped through our country over the past two years. But it was a crisis that began in our financial system. Large banks engaged in reckless financial speculation without regard for the consequences – and without tough oversight. Financial firms invented and sold complicated financial products to escape scrutiny and conceal enormous risks. And there were some who engaged in the rampant exploitation of consumers to turn a quick profit no matter who was hurt in the process.

... what we have seen over the past two years is that without reasonable and clear rules to check abuse and protect families, markets don’t function freely. In fact, it was just the opposite. In the absence of such rules, our financial markets spun out of control, credit markets froze, and our economy nearly plummeted into a second Great Depression.

And after saying that reform is essential to "ensure that taxpayers are never again forced to bail out a big bank because it is “too big to fail," the President outlines the purpose of the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency:

... to prevent predatory loan practices and other abuses to ensure that consumers get clear information about loans and other financial products before they sign on the dotted line.

... an agency that he says will be completely independent.

And for a refreshing change, there was no time wasted waxing poetic about bipartisanship:

Unsurprisingly, this proposal has been a source of contention with financial firms who like things just the way they are. In fact, the Republican leader in the House reportedly met with a top executive of one of America’s largest banks and made thwarting reform a key part of his party’s pitch for campaign contributions. And this week, the allies of banks and consumer finance companies launched a multimillion dollar ad campaign to fight against the proposal. You might call this ‘air support’ for the army of lobbyists already arm twisting members of the committee to reject these reforms and block this consumer agency. Perhaps that’s why, after months of working with Democrats, Republicans walked away from this proposal. I regret that and urge them to reconsider.

The President concluded by urging Senators to "remain strong, to resist the pressure from those who would preserve the status quo," and promised to "use every tool at my disposal to see these reforms enacted."

Complete transcript is below the fold.

This Week in Science

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 14:32:03 GMT

Jennifer Jaques at Guilty Planet discusses an interesting idea:

Since the 1960s, studies have shown that behavior does not change merely as a result of information, even if it is fear inducing. Behavior can change if information is combined with an action plan. In a 1965 study ... showed students the somewhat terrifying results of contracting tetanus, which resulted in 3 percent of the students getting a tetanus shot. Other subjects were given the same lecture but were also given a copy of a campus map with the location of the health center circled. ... In this case, 28 percent of the students managed to show up and get their tetanus shot. The medical message seemed to influence attitudes but a specific plan influenced action.

My further thoughts here.

Speaking of my thoughts, did you know that Dark Matter is some kind of liberal plot? Yeah, neither did I ...

Titan, largest moon of lively ringed Saturn, may be a slush ball with an undifferentiated mantle and core.

The Smithsonian opens its Hall of Human Origins, and it has a pretty spiffy website.

Today is defined in astronomy as the start of Spring, but for earlier people, it was more than that. And some of those ancient rites echo into the our own era:

As can be imagined, ancient cultures took the advent of Spring as a serious and profound time of year. So much so, that eventually the cycle of seasons took on an additional spiritual element and the passing of seasons began to serve as a parable to the passing cycles of life. ...

Today in Congress

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 13:32:02 GMT

In the House, courtesy of the Office of the Majority Leader:

FLOOR SCHEDULE FOR SATURDAY, MARCH 20, 2010

House Meets At... 9:00 a.m.: Legislative Business
First Vote Predicted... 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Last Vote Predicted... 2:00 – 3:00 p.m.

"One Minutes" (5 per side)

H.R. 1612 - Public Lands Service Corps Act (Rep. Grijalva – Natural Resources)

Suspensions (7 Bills):

H.Res. 1075 - Commending the members of the Agri-business Development Teams of the National Guard for their efforts, together with personnel of the Department of Agriculture and the United States Agency for International Development, to modernize agriculture practices and increase food production in war-torn countries (Rep. Luetkemeyer - Armed Services)

H.Res. 1099 - Recognizing the 65th anniversary of the Battle of Iwo Jima (Rep. Braley - Armed Services)

H.Res. 925 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the meritorious service performed by aviators in the United States Armed Forces who were shot down over, or otherwise forced to land in, hostile territory yet evaded enemy capture or were captured but subsequently escaped (Rep. DeFazio - Armed Services)

H.Res. 900 - Supporting the goals and ideals of a Cold War Veterans Recognition Day to honor the sacrifices and contributions made by members of the Armed Forces during the Cold War and encouraging the people of the United States to participate in local and national activities honoring the sacrifices and contributions of those individuals (Rep. Israel - Armed Services)

H.Res. 1119 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that all people in the United States should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the United States Armed Forces both at home and abroad (Rep. Peters - Armed Services)

H.R. __ - TRICARE Affirmation Act (Rep. Skelton - Ways and Means/Armed Services)

H.Con.Res. 222 - Recognizing the leadership and historical contributions of Dr. Hector Garcia to the Hispanic community and his remarkable efforts to combat racial and ethnic discrimination in the United States of America (Rep. Ortiz - Judiciary)

Postponed Suspension Votes (3 Bills):

H.Res. 1040 - Honoring the life and accomplishments of Donald Harington for his contributions to literature in the United States (Rep. Snyder - Oversight and Government Reform)

H.R. 4840 - To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1979 Cleveland Avenue in Columbus, Ohio, as the "Clarence D. Lumpkin Post Office" (Rep. Tiberi - Oversight and Government Reform)

H.Res. 1174 - Supporting the goals and ideals of National Women's History Month (Rep. Woolsey - Oversight and Government Reform)

Conference Reports may be brought up at any time.

Motions to go to Conference should they become available.

Possible Motions to Instruct Conferees.

The Senate is not in session today.

UPDATE: Finally got a chance to get some sleep this weekend, and missed my chance to add some commentary this morning. But no biggie, there's very little happening on the floor besides the waiting game.

But today, the ball moves forward a little bit, with the House Rules Committee taking up consideration of the question of how to send the reconciliation bill to the floor, and whether or not to use self-executing language (and what kind) in doing so.

The committee, which usually meets in a cramped room in the Capitol and with very little fanfare, is today for the first time setting up a satellite overflow room for members of the media and the public who want to watch the proceedings (you can watch on C-SPAN2, seen online here), which begin at 10 a.m and are expected to last all day -- with over 90 amendments filed, almost all of which will be rejected.

The Rules Committee also does the important work of determining the mechanics of swapping out the text of the old, October 2009 reconciliation package (the one that appearedto have the public option in it) for the text of the new agreement that's been hammered out over the past few weeks. The Rules Committee can itself opt to amend the text and do the job before it sends the bill to the floor, as opposed to arranging for the amending to be done on the floor. It's probably easier to just guarantee that the job be done neatly in committee, where Democrats outnumber Republicans 9-4.

The thing to watch today: how the committee deals with Bart Stupak (D-MI-01) and his demands for a vote on an "enrollment corrections" resolution that would seek to amend the main Senate health care bill (H.R. 3590) in the space in between its passage by the House and its being sent to the President. Did you know you could do that? Yes you can. Do you wish you had known that while everyone was telling you that the procedural circumstances were such that the Senate bill could not be touched, and that's why you couldn't have a public option vote? Yes you did. But for various reasons, including the fact that the public option wasn't able to hold votes hostage like abortion is, it likely wouldn't have worked.

Hang on. The next few days could get... interesting.

Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:57:52 GMT

Saturday hot air, courtesy of the chattering class.

WaPo editorial (Fri):

Health reform is a risk worth taking

Et tu, WaPo? Victory has a thousand fathers...

Charles Blow:

As we stand at the verge of the historic vote on the health care bill — a signature piece of President Obama’s agenda — it feels appropriate to take a look at how he has fared during the long slog that got us here. My quick assessment: remarkably well.

The pundits didn't fool us into thinking Bush was doing poorly, but they have no issue pretending Obama is 'plummeting'.

The empty-headed chattering class began another round of speculation and inane analysis this week when his approval rating dropped to 46 percent, its lowest yet. Silly pundits.

It was a minor tick and overplayed. If I were a Republican strategist (God forbid!), I would actually be very worried that the lower 50s/upper 40s could be Obama’s bottom. He has weathered some of the worst months of his young presidency recently, and his numbers have barely budged.

That's no surprise. We write about it all the time. Pundits don't know how to read polls (or are paid not to know.) Amy Walter and the Hotline crew, Chuck Todd, Charlie Cook and few other exceptions...

Buffalo News:

For proof, witness the results of a Kaiser Family Foundation poll that showed 46 percent of Americans in favor of the health reform proposal and 42 percent opposed. The poll has a margin of error of 3 points ... meaning the public is almost evenly divided on the issue.

However, Democratic support is solidifying, with 52 percent of Democrats now strongly in favor of the plan, up from 30 percent in January.

If Republicans were in power, the media would call it a mandate.

Medscape on H1N1:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimate that as of mid-January 2010, between 41 million and 84 million cases of H1N1 influenza have occurred in the United States. Estimates of H1N1-related hospitalization range from 183,000 to 378,000, and estimates of deaths number between 8330 and 17,160. In nearly all reports, most infections occurred among young adults. In addition to this study, a synchronous publication of H1N1 cases from Mexico echoed previous reports of increased rates of disease in obese patients (36% of patients in the Mexican cohort).[3] Although chronic respiratory disease has not been a consistent risk factor for H1N1 infection, chronic comorbid medical conditions are disproportionately high in patients with H1N1 influenza.[4] Fortunately, treatment with neuraminidase inhibitors is nearly universal and is associated with improved survival.[3] At present, it seems that the pandemic phase of H1N1 disease may be waning, although vigilance remains important as sporadic cases continue to occur.

41 to 84 million is a lot of Americans. With the next pandemic (yeah, there'll be another, quite possibly worse) they will mostly have health insurance.

Chris Cillizza:

I think it is because so much of the vote-counting is going on behind closed doors and, hence, not available for public consumption.

Remember that simply because there remain a number of undecideds publicly on the bill doesn't mean all of those ame people are undecided privately. My guess is that there are only a handful of truly undecided members at this point.

I have long believed that the White House simply cannot let this bill fail as it would fundamentally undermine the argument Obama made in 2008 that he could get Washington working again.

That said, there is at least one very smart observer of the House that I speak to regularly who insists it is going to be much harder for Pelosi to get to 216 than people realize.

Either way, C-SPAN on Sunday is going to be must-watch TV.

Dana Milbank:

"This is the largest tax bill in history," the Republican leader fumed. The reform "is unjust, unworkable, stupidly drafted and wastefully financed."

And that wasn't all. This "cruel hoax," he said, this "folly" of "bungling and waste," compared poorly to the "much less expensive" and "practical measures" favored by the Republicans.

"We must repeal," the GOP leader argued. "The Republican Party is pledged to do this."

That was Republican presidential nominee Alf Landon in a September 1936 campaign speech. He based his bid for the White House on repealing Social Security.

Open Thread for Night Owls: Milgram Redux

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 05:04:18 GMT

As probably every Psych 101 student knows, in 1961, just three months after former SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann went on trial for war crimes in Jerusalem, Stanley Milgram began his experiment with 40 subjects in a lab at Yale. In groups of two, participants were told that one would be the "learner" and one the "teacher," chosen by whomever picked those identities written on folded slips of paper they drew as lots.

But the drawing was rigged. And the "learner" was actually a confederate of the experimenters, an actor. The teacher and the learner were put in separate rooms where they could communicate with, but not see, each other. The teacher was then told to push a button to administer electric shocks in 15-volt increments to the learner each time he answered a question wrong. The learner's reactions were, of course, faked. But none of the 40 teachers knew that. Only one of them stopped "shocking" the learner before the bogus voltage indicator hit 300. Twenty-six of them went all the way to the top, 450 volts.

Participants in France recently did pretty much the same thing, thinking they were on a television game show.

Laurent Le Doyen, an actor in the documentary "Game of Death," broadcast in France, pretends to grimace as participants in a game show obey orders to deliver increasingly powerful electric shocks to him. Ultimately, he appears to die.
The hostess and a chanting audience urged the players — who had levers in front of them — to send jolts of electricity into the man in the box when he gave an incorrect answer.

Even when the player screamed out in pain for them to stop, 80 percent of the contestants kept zapping him. In reality, the man in the electric chair was an actor who wasn't really being shocked — but the players and the audience did not know that.

The documentary makers say reality television relies increasingly on violent, humiliating and cruel acts to boost ratings. They say they simply wanted to see if we would go so far as to kill someone for entertainment.

Christophe Nick produced the documentary, The Game of Death, with a group of scientists and researchers. ...

One of the game show participants, Jerome Pasanau, said in an interview that he was still haunted by the experience.

"I wanted to stop the whole time, but I just couldn't. I didn't have the will to do it. And that goes against my nature," he said. "I haven't really figured out why I did it."

Pasanau told the TV host that he felt intimidated and isolated on the fictitious game show set, and that the crowd was overbearing.

Pasanau's reaction was not striking. Nearly five decades before, Milgram had divided the participants in his experiment into three groups:

• Obeyed but justified themselves.

• Obeyed but blamed themselves.

• Rebelled.

Finally, rebellious subjects questioned the authority of the experimenter and argued there was a greater ethical imperative calling for the protection of the learner over the needs of the experimenter. Some of these individuals felt they were accountable to a higher authority.

However, even though 14 participants in Milgram's experiment rebelled, refusing to continue administering shocks above a certain level, none of them asked after the well-being of the "learner" or demanded to be let into the room to make sure he was OK, even though he had told several of them that he had a heart condition.

All of which proves, once again, that you don't have to be an SS officer to willingly torture someone to death.

• • • • •

At Daily Kos on this date in 2003

Now, that Bush has finally gotten his war going, he's finally talking about the costs of war in treasure and lives. We've already talked about the $90 billion for one month of hostilities. Now, Ari talks about loss of life:

"Americans ought to be prepared for loss of life," spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

How could they be prepared? The administration and its allies have been saying all along that this would be easy. A matter of days. Mass defections. Smart bombs. Shock and awe.

The president never once said: "We may have to sacrifice the youth of our nation, but their sacrifice won't be in vain because yadda yadda yadda". This was always a video game war where the losers hit "reset" and rise to play again.

Open Thread and Diary Rescue

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 04:16:05 GMT

Tonight's Rescue Rangers are Got a Grip, watercarrier4diogenes, HoosierDeb, Alfonso Nevarez, ybruti, and BentLiberal with jennyjem as editor.

The diaries up for rescue tonight are:

After pondering how best to harness progressive energy to achieve political power, Michael Karpman opens a much-needed conversation concerning Progressive Soul-Searching and the Way Forward. (Got a Grip)

arlenegoldbard explains the difference between Jobs and Snow Jobs, and reminds us that FDR saw our labor as much more than a tool for the benefit of business. (Alfonso Nevarez)

Dcoronata presents a detailed discussion of Global Climate Change and Feedback Potentials along with a glossary of the key scientific terms. (ybruti)

rb137 tells us how physics gets physical in GreenRoots: When nature gets in your face. (Got a Grip)

citisven had the privilege of conversing with an influential leader, and decent human being, and he shares his conversation with us in Archbishop Desmond Tutu: No Person is an Island. (jennyjem)

devtob explains why the Masters of the Monetary Universe are so excited by the prospects before them in the NY-Sen: Wall Street wingnuts embrace one of their own -- Dan Senor. (Got a Grip)

dengre hopes to convince a Congressman to fill in the blank with John Barrow: Profiles in ____________. (jennyjem)

jotter has High Impact Diaries: March 18, 2010.

BeninSC has Top Comments - On Hate.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread.

The Weekly Tracking Poll: A Rising Tide?

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:42:04 GMT

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 3/15/2010-3/18/2010. Registered Voters. MoE 2.8% (Last week's results in parentheses):

	FAVORABLE	UNFAVORABLE	NET CHANGE
PRESIDENT OBAMA	53 (54)	41 (42)	0

PELOSI:	37 (35)	55 (56)	+3
REID:	27 (26)	66 (67)	+2
McCONNELL:	21 (20)	63 (63)	+1
BOEHNER:	20 (19)	62 (63)	+2

CONGRESSIONAL DEMS:	39 (38)	58 (60)	+3
CONGRESSIONAL GOPS:	24 (23)	67 (68)	+2

DEMOCRATIC PARTY:	39 (40)	55 (56)	0
REPUBLICAN PARTY:	30 (29)	66 (67)	+2

Full crosstabs here. This poll is updated every Friday morning, and you can see trendline graphs here.

Well, this qualifies as a "first". I am willing to be corrected, but to my memory this is the first time that the week-to-week trends in the Daily Kos State of the Nation tracking poll show absolutely no one losing ground. Everyone either holds steady or gains 1-3 points.

Perhaps counterintuitively to some folks in the chattering classes (who have been convinced for months that health care was a polling albatross for Democrats), the two biggest gainers are Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats, who both pick up three points of net favorability.

Looking at the Congressional Dems, it is worth noting that this improvement over the past two weeks (the Dems on the Hill also saw a two point boost last week) is largely due to the base coming home, perhaps in anticipation of passage of a health care reform package:

Change in Net Favorability for Congressional Democrats, From 3/11/10 to 3/18/10, By Party/Ideology
Among Democrats: +10 (from 62/35 to 67/30)
Among Independents: +5 (from 33/65 to 35/62)
Among Republicans: +/-0 (from 12/87 to 11/86)

Another potential benefit of this health care endgame for Democrats is a substantial increase in voter intensity, although the Democrats still lag well behind the GOP in this regard.

Last week, the percentage of Democrats either certain or likely to vote languished at just 40%, with 32% saying they were either unlikely to vote or certain not to vote. In just one week, that spread is now 45/31, a net improvement of six points for Democrats in just seven days.

Thus far, the net effect of health care reform moving to the very front of the political conversation again has been a consolidation of both party's core supporters. Since the Dems were lagging so badly in this regard, that presumably is a net win for them. However, it is not showing up as of yet in the generic ballot calculations: the Democratic lead there remains steady for the third consecutive week, with the Dems leading 47-44 over the GOP, a three-point margin. This mirrors the most recent 2010 tracking poll by Gallup, who got the exact same numbers earlier this week.

Stupak takes us into the weeds under the weeds of reconciliation

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:02:05 GMT

Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.

You're not gonna believe how low down in the weeds we're gonna have to get for this one.

We just learned from mcjoan that Bart Stupak is after a deal that would somehow jam a foot in the health insurance reform door for his now-notorious Stupak amendment on abortion:

This morning, during an appearance on Good Morning America, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) reaffirmed that he might vote for the Senate health care bill if Democrats pass the Stupak abortion amendment as a separate measure. Stupak said that Democrats have shown a "renewed" interest in tying his amendment to the Senate bill:

STUPAK: George, that’s called an enrollment corrections bill. I presented that to leadership about ten days ago. There’s renewed interest in that piece of legislation that I and a number of us are ready to introduce. It’s prepared. Everybody’s looking at it right now. That’s one way, maybe. But we set the deal with the Senate. You give us a vote in the House. We had a vote in the House. It was overwhelmingly 240-194, to keep public law, no public funding for abortion.

It seems to me that if the Senate parliamentarian is indeed insisting that the reconciliation bill address "current law," then that means the Senate bill must be not only enrolled, but signed by the President before reconciliation can be considered, at least in the Senate. I assume the House parliamentarian has no such objection to the House beginning its work (which is curious in itself), since he's apparently allowing the House to consider and pass reconciliation before the Senate bill is enrolled.

Will the Senate parliamentarian insist that the bill be signed before permitting the Senate to begin its reconciliation work on the floor? He may have no say over what the House parliamentarian approves with respect to when the House passes reconciliation, but he can prevent the Senate from beginning until the Senate bill becomes "current law."

So, does Stupak have an opportunity, then, to get the House and Senate both to approve an "enrollment correction" bill inserting his preferred language in the Senate bill, and get the Senate bill to the president for signature before the Senate takes up reconciliation?

And if he does have that opportunity -- and the tool for taking advantage of it even has a name, that is, an "enrollment correction" bill -- does that finally lay to rest the question of whether pending legislation can be amended by other legislation before the original underlying bill actually becomes law?

UPDATE:

Here's something else fun!

I found a previous use of the enrollment corrections process. It was used in the 108th Congress under Republicans.

Do you remember that crazy provision that got slipped into an appropriations bill that nobody would claim credit for -- but which was eventually blamed on former Rep. Ernie Istook (R-OK) -- that would supposedly have given the Chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees the right to send people into the IRS to examine people's individual tax returns, etc.?

Well, that crazy piece of crap provision was removed with an enrollment correction bill when the Republicans got caught with it in the conference report and were too embarrassed to let it stand, but didn't want to have to vote on it because it would be to admit the "error," not to mention requiring recommitting the bill to conference.

But wait, there's more! The enrollment correction bill was designated H. Con. Res. 528, and do you know how the Republicans passed it?

They used "deeming" to pass it! Section 3 of H. Res. 866 (which was the rule for the appropriations bill) reads as follows:

SEC. 3. Upon the adoption of this resolution, the House shall be considered to have adopted House Concurrent Resolution 528.

Help! Police! Deeming! Socialismz!

(P.S. -- for still more deep-in-the-weeds "fun" with deeming, see "More about "deeming" exclusively (!!!) at Congress Matters.)

The Vote Counting, Continued

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 02:16:05 GMT

So far today we've reached a total of eight no-to-yes votes switches: from earlier today Kucinich, Markey, Gordon, and Boccieri; throughout the day they've been joined by Scott Murphy, Alan Boyd, and Suzanne Kosmas, and most recently, Harry Mitchell.

Previously undecideds who are now saying yes: Brad Ellsworth who had been a Stupak holdout, but has become convinced that the Senate bill is sufficiently destructive of women's rights; Mary Jo Kilroy; Bob Etheridge; Tom Perriello; Joe Courtney; and Dina Titus.

Definite nos: Heath Shuler; Jason Altmire; the lone Republican Ahn "Joseph" Cao (who had earlier in the day been rumored as a potential yes vote).

Meanwhile, The Hill's Jeffrey Young tweeted:

Pro-choice female Dems are shuttling in and out of Pelosi’s office and they won’t say why.

Which, given the speculation about a potential deal today isn't encouraging. Here's what dday has in his latest:

My running count shows 201 [now 202 with Mitchell, updated since dday wrote this] yes, but I’m adding Rahall and Carney to the Stupak-curious bloc and making them lean no votes. So it’s 201-209, but with leaners? 207-214. If a Stupak deal is struck, passage looks secure, unless the Pro-Choice caucus revolts. If not, Pelosi will have to draw an inside straight. It’s very tight right now.

UPDATE: If you look hard at the numbers, you can see why Pelosi is talking with Stupak and pro-choice women. With 214 No or lean No votes (including the Stupak bloc), Pelosi would have to prevent Dahlkemper and Kaptur from joining them. Then she would need all the other uncommitted votes, save one. That means she would have to get everyone who voted yes last time, plus Jim Matheson or Harry Teague (and all the lean Yes votes who went No last time, like Brian Baird and John Tanner). It’s just not that plausible.

Stay tuned.

Update: Add Harry Teague to the nos.

Ooops

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:30:04 GMT

Memo to self: If I'm ever on the floor of the U.S. House, I hope that I make sure that Anthony Weiner isn't in the room before reading a hoax memo as if it were real.

Late afternoon/early evening open thread

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:56:54 GMT

Coming up on Sunday Kos ….

DavidNYC will lead a sight-seeing tour through the wilds of New York's surprisingly influential third parties. With the Working Families Party in particular exercising its muscle in favor of healthcare reform, the question is, what kind of difference can they make?

exmearden will explore the year-old Washington State Death with Dignity Act and other related assisted dying news.

Dante Atkins will publish his recent interview with Michael Moore, which focused on the DVD release of his new film, the health care bill and financial sector regulation.

Angry Mouse will discuss why morale and unit cohesion in the military is only important when it's about discriminating against gays and lesbians, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to the increasing rates of sexual assault against women.

Cheers and Jeers: Rum and Coke FRIDAY!

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 00:31:27 GMT

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE...

Late Night Snark: Doctor Tested, Nun Approved!

"Texas school board decisions [on textbook content] affect school systems across the country. That's why most sex-ed books have chapters on the reproductive system, abstinence, and how to castrate a steer. [...] But the biggest victory of all was that in the curriculum on great revolutionary thinkers, board members removed any reference to Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence. You see, Jefferson coined the term "Separation of church and state." So Texas has coined the term, "Separation of Jefferson and history."
---Stephen Colbert
-
"Tiger [Woods] has hired Ari Fleischer, George Bush's former press secretary, to handle the press for him. I guess Ari Fleischer figures after years of trying to explain George W. Bush, this should be a piece of cake."
---Jay Leno
-
Clip of Glenn Beck after his botched interview with Eric Massa: America, I'm gonna shoot straight with you...I have wasted an hour of your time and I apologize for that.
Jon Stewart: It appears that Glenn Beck has come up with his new sign-off phrase. Every show he can now end with, "I think I've wasted an hour of your time and I apologize for that. See ya tomorrow!"
---The Daily Show
-
"Karl Rove's memoir, 'Courage and Consequence', is the best-selling book on Amazon.com. The book costs $19.99, and comes with free shipping and mishandling."
---Jimmy Fallon
-
"Harry Smith, the co-anchor of CBS's The Early Show had a colonoscopy live on the air. So I hope you remembered to set your Tivo. On fire."
---Seth Meyers

And this...

"Dick Morris is quick to point out every time I put my foot in my mouth. Well, Dick, at least it's my foot."
---Joe Biden
Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner

Don't forget this is the weekend when you have to get up at 2am Sunday and just sit there and stare at your clocks for an hour. (But don't move them!)

Your west coast-friendly edition of Cheers and Jeers starts in There's Moreville... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

AMA, AARP Endorse Revised Health Insurance Reform

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:48:04 GMT

Two major endorsements of the bill came down today.

The nation's largest association of doctors and the AARP senior citizens' lobby are endorsing President Barack Obama's revised health overhaul legislation.

James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association, said Friday that the pending bill isn't perfect, but it's the next step toward real reform of the nation's health care system.

"This is certainly not the bill we would have written, but we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good," Rohack said.

The board of the Chicago-based group reached a consensus and voted unanimously Thursday night after a review of the House reconciliation bill.
....

In a statement Friday, AARP said the legislation "will improve health care for older Americans and their families." The bill gradually closes the "doughnut hole" coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit and limits insurance companies' ability to charge higher premiums based solely on age, AARP said.

The join more than 250 organizations including the Catholic Health Association, Main Street Alliance, Federation of American Hospitals, National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, American College of Physicians, National Hispanic Medical Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Diabetes Association, American Nurses Association, Families USA, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Women’s Law Center, Consumer Federation of America, and Consumers Union. But the AMA and AARP are among the most influential for member of Congress, so their sign-off is signficant.

Meanwhile, and unsurprisingly, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Retail Industry Leaders Association and the National Association of Manufacturers remain opposed.

Politico: 'Hoax' memo "was purported by Republicans to be an internal Democratic memo"

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:02:04 GMT

Here's an intriguing line in Politico's explanation of why it has removed the disputed 'hoax' memo on health reform that had previously been described as a Democratic memo (emphasis mine):

An earlier post in this spot detailed what was purported by Republicans to be an internal Democratic memo regarding the upcoming health reform vote Sunday.

That seems to be a clear indication that the memo -- which Democrats say is not authentic -- was first distributed to the media by Republicans. Politico's update does not say which Republicans supplied the memo, but Greg Sargent found evidence that John Boehner's office was sending the memo to reporters within minutes of Politico's original report.

This doesn't prove that memo is a hoax or that Republicans created it, but in addition to categorical Democratic assertions that it is a hoax, one of the reasons to be skeptical of its authenticity is that it demands members of Congress keep quiet about plans to pass the so-called "doctor fix," which would improve Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors. The problem with that demand is that both Speaker Pelosi and President Obama in recent days have publicly acknowledged that they plan to address the reimbursement problem in separate legislation -- so there's no secret to be kept. Maybe some junior aide could have written that, but not a leadership staffer.

Moreover, it's hard to imagine Democratic communications staff using some of the language in the memo. For example, given the GOP line of attack on "government takeover," do you think a communications staffer would ever say "reform will take control of insurance companies" and laud the White House for "informing the American people" of this supposed fact? That sounds more like a Glenn Beck fantasy of what Democrats say than what Democrats actually say. So I'll put my money it being hoax, but you never know.

Update (3:17PM): Marc Ambinder offers his views on the memo, which he also posted. In short, Ambinder says it was distributed to him -- on the record -- by Boehner communication aide Michael Steel (not the RNC chairman). Ambinder says that while the memo was not written by White House or Congressional leadership, he does not know if it was a hoax. If it was a hoax, he does not believe it was created by Steel. Ambinder says he suspects it was written by a Democrat or someone aligned with Democrats, though not in the leadership. Whether or not he's right on that last point (and at this point it's pure conjecture), everybody now seems to agree the memo did not come from Democratic leadership and Republican staff and reporters jumped the gun in representing it as such.