Well, it's a blow to the progressive movement but not the end of the world. (Especially since Halter wasn't really all that progressive.)

I do wonder if progressives might be better served by pouring all that money into lobbying on causes rather than pushing candidates who so often end up being absorbed by the Beltway Borg, anyway. Because I don't think we have enough time left to build a new Congress - but that's just me:

WASHINGTON — On a primary election night when the heralded anti-incumbency sentiment was expected to again demonstrate its strength, Senator Blanche Lincoln proved there were clear limits to its power.

Virtually written off as a likely victim of voter outrage at veteran politicians, Mrs. Lincoln, a two-term Arkansas Democrat, showed that an experienced office-holder with money, message and determination still had a chance to prevail even in a toxic environment.

“Blanche has proven once again she is a true independent voice for the people of Arkansas, but she is also a fighter for what she believes in and will never stop standing up for her convictions or for her state,” said Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

But while Mrs. Lincoln survived to fight on in the general election, incumbents in both parties could not take much solace from the outcome in Arkansas. In South Carolina, Representative Bob Inglis, a veteran Republican, was forced into a runoff election after finishing a distant second in the battle to hold on to his seat. And Gov. Jim Gibbons, Republican of Nevada, lost his primary.

Thanks to obstructionist Republicans in Congress and their perpetual campaign to kill the estate tax, the United States Treasury stands to lose billions in revenue in 2010. And as the New York Times reported this week, a large chunk of it won't be coming from a single family. The heirs of Texas pipeline billionaire Dan L. Duncan "may become the first American billionaire allowed to pass his fortune to his children and grandchildren tax-free" and so become among the first beneficiaries of the GOP's new slogan for the wealthy, "die here, die now, pay less!"

The Times described how the supposed deficit-hawks Republican Party conspired to unleash a flow of red ink that could cost the federal government billions this year alone:

Had his life ended three months earlier, Mr. Duncan's riches - Forbes magazine estimated his worth at $9 billion, ranking him as the 74th wealthiest in the world - would have been subject to a federal tax of at least 45 percent. If he had lived past Jan. 1, 2011, the rate would be even higher - 55 percent.

Instead, because Congress allowed the tax to lapse for one year and gave all estates a free pass in 2010, Mr. Duncan's four children and four grandchildren stand to collect billions that in any other year would have gone to the Treasury.

In 2009, only 1 in 500 American estates paid taxes. But barring new legislation in Congress, in 2011 the estate tax rate will jump back up to its pre-2001 level of 55%, starting at $2 million per couple. In December, the House voted 225-200 to maintain 2009's rate of 45% beginning at $3.5 million per person or $7 million per couple. But as 2009, Jon Kyl led the successful GOP effort to block the bill, ensuring the temporary expiration of the estate tax on January 1st:

"It's a problem that doesn't have to exist if they'll just leave the existing law alone and let the rate go to zero, which is where everyone wants it to be."

Well, not everyone.

Continue reading »

Granted, it's the Politico, but still an interesting look at the mindset around Obama. Gee, I wonder if a certain Pretty Ballerina also feels the same way about the $10 million the Democrats spent on Arlen Specter's campaign?

A senior White House official just called me with a very pointed message for the administration's sometime allies in organized labor, who invested heavily in beating Blanche Lincoln, Obama's candidate, in Arkansas.

"Organized labor just flushed $10 million of their members' money down the toilet on a pointless exercise," the official said. "If even half that total had been well-targeted and applied in key House races across this country, that could have made a real difference in November."

Lincoln relied heavily both on Obama's endorsement, which she advertised relentlessly on radio and in the mail, and on the backing of former President Bill Clinton, who backed her to the hilt.

Lincoln foe Bill Halter had the unstinting support of the AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME and other major unions. And labor officials Tuesday evening were already working to spin the narrow loss of their candidate, Bill Halter, as a moral victory, but the cost in money and in the goodwill of the White House may be a steep price to pay for a near miss.

I love the AFL-CIO response:

"If that's their take on this, then they severely misread how the electorate feels and how we're running our political program. When we say we're only going to support elected officials who support our issues," said AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale. "When they say we should have targeted our money among some key house races among Blue Dog Democrats — that ain't happening."

"Labor isn't an arm of the Democratic Party," Vale said. "It exists to support working families. And that's what we said tonight, and that's what we're going to keep saying."

Tonight was a big night in primary-land with some expected, some unexpected, some disappointing, and some cliffhanging results.

Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln squeaks by Bill Halter

Despite Bill Halter's slight lead in the polls, Blanche Lincoln took the lead in votes from the first returns and never gave it back, squeaking through the runoff by a 9,500 vote margin as of this writing, winning the Democratic nomination to run against Republican John Boozman in November.

It appears that voter turnout was down slightly from the May 18th primary. In that race, a total of 324,216 votes were cast. In this one, with 83% reporting, 213,818 votes had been cast. Extrapolation of that result gives me an estimated voter turnout of 257,600 or so. This might not be such a big deal, but there are lingering questions about the integrity of this runoff, given that one county only had two polling places for this runoff instead of the 40 open for the primary. A lawsuit has been filed; voter disenfranchisement alleged.

California message: Rich corporate washout women win

Yep, that's right. Carly Fiorina will run against Barbara Boxer for the US Senate, and Meg Whitman will face Jerry Brown for Governor. Tom Campbell, Chuck Devore, and Steve Poizner were left in the dust. Sarah Palin can finally put a winner (Fiorina) in her column, and we're off to the races. Whitman spent $81 million ($71 million of her own money) on the primary. And they say Republicans are conservative.

On the ballot initiatives, Californians bear-hugged open primaries but sent fair elections packing. Despite a harrowing first few hours of returns, it appears that enough Californians rejected the idea of P,G&E and Mercury Insurance buying custom-built laws to build up their business at taxpayers' expense, but it is not a shoe-in. It is 1:00 AM as I write this, and Prop 17 just flipped to NO 15 minutes ago. Prop 16 flipped at midnight or so. Prop 13 sailed to victory as did Prop 14.

In other news, Rep. Jane Harman overwhelmed challenger Marcy Winograd 59.3%-40.7%.

Seems that anti-incumbent sentiment didn't quite ooze all the way out to California.

Birther takes a bath

Orly Taitz lost big, but it still amazes me that nearly 300,000 California Republicans think she's worthy to run for or hold public office.

Nevada - Harry Reid has a very strange challenger: Sharron Angle

A lot of money went to Angle from the tea party groups in the last few months of the campaign, and with Sue Lowden doing the funky chicken, Angle pulled out the win, more or less guaranteeing Harry Reid his next term in the Senate. Angle isn't your ordinary conservative. She wants to repeal Social Security, Medicare, health care reform, and all regulations hindering offshore drilling. I think there may be some issues with that these days. There's more, but that link goes to a cached version of her website which may change since the live site is offline but for a donation page.

Senator Ensign's good buddy Gov. Gibbons lost his primary bid by 30 points (ouch!) to Judge Brian Sandoval, who will run against Democrat Rory Reid in November.

More on yesterday's primaries here.

There are more stories to tell, including how this Twitterer was born. Election nights are emotional, and tonight was no exception, even for some unnamed "senior White House officials."

Oops. I imagine this is a pretty uncomfortable situation for Bill Clinton, since Bill Halter served in the Clinton White House. The Halter campaign attributes it to a previous commitment to Lincoln, made before Halter entered the race:

A day after finishing ahead of Lt. Gov. Bill Halter by just 5,000 votes and being forced into a runoff, Sen. Blanche Lincoln announced she's bringing in a hefty campaign reinforcement: former President and Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton.

The Lincoln campaign said Clinton would campaign for her in the Little Rock area on May 28. Details of the stops have not yet been released.

"Blanche is fighting the special interests and standing up for Arkansas," Clinton said in a statement released by the Lincoln campaign. "She has written the toughest Wall Street reform proposal to help Main Street businesses. She has fought for Arkansas farmers, ranchers and foresters. Arkansas cannot afford to lose Blanche's leadership as Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee," the former president continued.

The move is squarely designed to halt the momentum Halter has gained by coming within two percentage points of the two-term incumbent. With 93 percent of the vote counted, Lincoln led Halter 44 percent to 42 percent. The little-known D.C. Morrison captured 13 percent of the vote.

"We understand President Clinton is fulfilling a commitment he made before Bill Halter entered the race," said Halter campaign manager Carol Butler.

DOWNLOADS: (699)

PLAYS: (811)

Embed

ConservaDems in the Senate like Blanche Lincoln have been almost as big a problem for enacting the agenda voters elected President Obama to advance, particularly, as we've seen, on health care.

Now, with Tea Parties on everyone's mind, they're making sounds like they are getting ready to cave to the Republicans on clean energy legislation like cap-and-trade.

Lincoln, for instance, has issued press releases claiming that such legislation "places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in rural America" -- without any evidence to support this claim.

This is simply buying into right-wing rhetoric about clean-energy legislation. Similarly, Sen. Claire McCaskill has tweeted about cap and trade thus:

Anticipating their weakness in the coming debate over cap and trade, Al Gore's Repower America organization has prepared a series of ads featuring constituents in states like Arkansas and Missouri reminding their senators that they strongly support clean energy efforts.

The ads are taken from the Repower Wall, which enables ordinary citizens to upload messages declaring their support for creating clean-energy jobs, as well as safeguarding our nation's economic and energy future and doing our part to combat the global climate crisis.

So far, some 57,000 people have made their voices heard. Go make yours heard too.

Remember that just about anything can happen between now and the final version of the healthcare reform bill that comes out of the conference committee.

At first glance, this latest proposal seems like a workable compromise - but it really isn't. What are the odds that Blue Cross plans will undercut their own products? And why the separate plan, anyway? Why not just let people buy into the federal employees' plan?

President Barack Obama will meet Sunday with Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill, as a group of moderate and liberal senators weighed a new public option compromise in hopes of striking a deal by early in the week.

The president’s visit comes at the start of what will be a critical week for the health care reform bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will attempt to reach a so-far elusive compromise on the public option, and begin taking the procedural steps needed to pass a bill by Christmas.

As the Senate convened a rare Saturday session, about a dozen Democratic senators continued intensive talks on the public option, with the goal of agreeing on a framework that can garner 60 votes.

There appeared to be serious consideration of a new proposal on the table: a national health plan similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan, which provides insurance to members of Congress and federal workers. It would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the federal plan, and all of the insurance options would be not-for-profit.

“So in other words, what we got is a national plan that the progressives would like, but that’s where that middle is, we’re trying to find that middle,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

“There’s sort of a kind of a general agreement on where we’re headed on this thing,” Harkin added.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), a public option opponent who faces a tough reelection next year, said she was encouraged by the proposal.

“It’s one of the things that’s been talked about, and I think it bodes well for being able to do what we want to do, which is to create greater choice and options in the marketplace but also have a downward pressure on premiums on cost ,” Lincoln said. “Those are the dual objectives we've got.”

If Reid doesn't get this done, he won't be Majority Leader for long:

Talk about using budget reconciliation to pass healthcare reform in the Senate has faded from public view, but Democratic leaders continue to hang the threat over centrists in private.

FYI: They're not "centrists" - they're corporate conservatives.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) discussed reconciliation with wavering centrists before an important procedural vote to begin debate on healthcare reform.

On Saturday, Nov. 21, three centrists, Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), voted to commence debate, despite heavy pressure from Republicans and conservative groups to oppose it.

Nelson wrote in an op-ed last week that he voted for the motion to avoid the prospect of Reid bringing healthcare legislation to the floor under budget reconciliation, a process with special procedural protections originally intended for legislation to reduce the deficit, such as tax increases or spending cuts.

[...] Under reconciliation, healthcare legislation could pass with a simple majority after a strictly limited floor debate. But lawmakers would have to carve up the bill to eliminate provisions that do not clearly raise revenue or cut spending and therefore would be subject to parliamentary objections. Reid has said that he could pass a government-run health insurance program, known as the public option, under reconciliation.

DOWNLOADS: (1235)

PLAYS: (1361)

Embed

MarketWatch:

A health-care overhaul proposed by Senate Democrats will cost $849 billion over 10 years, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday, and slash the deficit by $127 billion over the next decade.

The price tag is just under President Barack Obama's target of $900 billion over 10 years.

The estimates, from the Congressional Budget Office, also showed that the bill would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 31 million people, said the Journal, citing a senior Senate leadership aide.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been anxiously awaiting the CBO's price tag for the bill before moving to debate on the Senate floor. The first procedural vote could come later this week on the bill. Obama wants to sign a health-care reform bill before the end of the year.

Like a bill that passed the House on Nov. 7, the Senate's bill aims to cover most Americans, bar insurers from denying coverage to sick people, set up insurance "exchanges" where people can shop for coverage and fine those who don't get insurance. It also sets up a government-run insurance plan, expected to enroll about 6 million people.

But Reid faces a number of hurdles in getting a bill through the Senate, including concerns about the measure's cost. Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., are among two of Reid's fellow Democrats who have openly worried about the cost of health-care reform.

Per what I've been told from Senate leadership offices, the Senate health care bill will:

• cut the budget deficit by $127 billion over 10 years
• cut the budget deficit by $650 billion in the second decade
• extend guaranteed coverage to more than 9% of Americans -- including a 31 million person reduction in the uninsured

Reid will probably file cloture on the motion to proceed tomorrow. The CBO's report should go up on the Senate Democrats site shortly.

I've been reading the coverage about the public option remarks yesterday, and I think I understand the likely scenario now.

First of all, don't panic. Believe it or not, Sebelius is right: The public option is not the only way to get accountability into the health care system. And a rose by any other name smells as sweet.

That said, President Obama is still claiming to back the public option.

Linda Douglass (comm director for White House Office of Health Reform): "Nothing has changed,” said Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform. “The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”

More:

Jim Messina (White House deputy chief of staff): "Nothing has changed. POTUS [President of the United States] has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and increase choice and competition. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."

But those quotes yesterday weren't accidental; that isn't how this game is played. So this quote from Chuck Todd seems right:

The White House has been hinting at this for weeks if not months. When Kent Conrad … came out with that co-op idea, I can tell you, insiders at the White House said: ‘Boy, this is going to gain a lot of traction.’ And those conservative Democrats -- this is not about getting a bipartisan bill out of the Senate, Lester. This is about getting folks like Ben Nelson in Nebraska; Joe Lieberman in Connecticut; Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor of Arkansas -- getting them on board. And a full-fledged public option was making them hesitant. Co-op will be the option that probably gets ‘em done. And that’s why the White House is allowing themselves wiggle room.

Seems to me this is more of a re-branding than an actual surrender. These senators are hesitant about the public option but will almost certainly embrace something that sounds more voter friendly.

Remember, the person to watch is Howard Dean. I know he's explained why co-ops don't work, and I think the newest version will be called a "co-op" - but that doesn't mean it works the same way.

So I'm waiting to see what Dr. Dean thinks of the finished product.