Google and Verizon released a new plan this week for how the Internet should operate (see Susan's post for more background), if they got to rule the world. We'd keep Net Neutrality for the wired Internet (at least for consumers not corporations), but they could set up fast lanes and slow lanes for the wireless Internet. Wireless is of course the future of the Internet, but then again that is exactly the point.

Their proposal has devided the tech industry, as the NYT reported today, with Facebook, Amazon, eBay and venture capitalists raising serious concerns with the Google/Verizon evil deal:

It set off a flood of reaction, much of it negative, from Web companies and consumer advocacy groups. In the most extreme situation that opponents envision, two Internets could emerge — the public one known today, and a private one with faster lanes and expensive tolls. [snip]

The wireless Internet is quickly emerging as the dominant technology platform, said Matt Cohler, a general partner at Benchmark Capital, a prominent venture firm in Silicon Valley that has invested in start-ups like Twitter. “It is as important to have the right protections in place for the newer platform as it is for the older platform.”

The media has trashed their evil deal and over 300,000 people have signed an open letter demanding Google drop this proposal.

It's a giant corporate power-grab and Google who claims to "do no evil" is doing exactly that with this evil plan. That's why MoveOn, the PCCC (where I work), CREDO Action, Color of Change and Free Press are holding a rally at noon tomorrow in front of Google headquarters. The event is at the corner of Amphitheatre Parkway and Charleston Road in Mountain View. Click here to RSVP.

For people in the San Francisco area, there will be a bus leaving from the San Francisco Opera House at 11 a.m. You have to RSVP to get on the bus, as seats are limited.

This deal can be stopped, but only if President Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski understand just how angry we are at the prospect of our rights being trampled online by Google and other corporate giants. So, please join us, or if you don't live in the Bay Area, pass along the info to your friends.

Greg Sargent reports:

Senator Bernie Sanders, in a brief interview in the Capitol just now, confirmed to me that he’s willing to commit to introducing an amendment that would add the public option to the Senate bill’s reconciliation fix.

This is important, because as far fetched as this seems, if this amendment is introduced, a vote on it would be very hard for the Senate Dem leadership to block. The only thing that could stop it from happening, according to Senate expert Robert Dove, is for the parliamentarian to rule that it’s not germane to the Senate bill somehow — something that seems unlikely...read on

As Adam Green is launching another initiative for the PCCC, we know the House doesn't trust the Senate at all, but the process seems to finally be winding down.

Ryan Grim reports that the public option is still viable, but he says it's a matter of will and not votes.

The public option faces its last stand. With more than 40 senators publicly willing to vote for a health care reform reconciliation package that includes the option, the opportunity to reinsert it into the final bill has never been greater, though the battle is nearly over without having been fought.

--

That balance of power gives House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) extraordinary leverage of a historical nature. Pelosi, however, has yet to concede in negotiations that it is the obligation of the House to go first. And the deal that is being reached is driven largely by the White House. But both the Senate and the White House need Pelosi. And the House, of course, has already passed a health care bill with a public option.

If the House does move first, the Senate would essentially face an up-or-down vote on whatever Pelosi sends over. Durbin was asked by HuffPost if he would whip a reconciliation package from the House that included a public option. An analysis of past statements and positions taken by members of the Democratic caucus indicates that there could plausibly be 53 votes for a public option and perhaps several more.

Durbin, in response to the question, said at first that it was hypothetical, but then answered, "I think there will come a time when we reach agreement on what the reconciliation package includes, with the understanding that any changes in the House or Senate could slow down or stop the process."

So whatever comes from the House, that's what you will whip?

"That's basically it," he said. "I hope that what comes from the House is what we agree on going into this debate."

--

UPDATE: The news that the Senate parliamentarian told Senate Republicans that the bill must become law before any amendments can be made through reconciliation alters the equation if true. The House, however, could still pass the Senate bill into law and then send the Senate a reconciliation fix with a public option. The Senate could torpedo that legislation without concern that no reform package at all would get passed, giving the Senate added leverage. The underlying dynamic, however, remains unchanged: In the next few days, as the White House and congressional leaders meet to hash out the way forward, the votes appear to exist to include a public option. It's only a matter of will.

It appears that Dick Durbin is not going to risk the entire bill because of the public option.

Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged Wednesday that liberals may be asked to oppose any amendment, including one creating a public option, to ensure a smooth ride for the bill. “We have to tell people, ‘You just have to swallow hard’ and say that putting an amendment on this is either going to stop it or slow it down, and we just can’t let it happen,” Durbin, who supports a public option, told reporters. “We have to move this forward. We know the Republicans are likely to offer a lot of amendments, and some of them may be appealing to Democrats, but we have to urge them to stick with the bill.”

The PCCC is running a campaign against Durbin at this time and asking members of the Senate to not turn their back on it.

Greg Sargent finds some interesting poll results on reconciliation.

With the spin war shifting to a battle over the meaning and implications of “reconciliation,” there will be more and more argument over what polls indicate about the public’s attitude toward the tactic.

Here’s some more fodder for this argument: A new batch of polls by the nonpartisan Research 2000 indicates that in key states, majorities are okay with the use of reconciliation — if the question is worded in a certain way.

The polls — sent over by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, DFA and Credo, which sponsored them — ask the question this way:

If the Senate passes a health care reform bill that you consider to be beneficial to your family, would you object to the Senate’s use of “reconciliation” rules to pass that bill with a majority vote, or not?

In Nevada, 55% wouldn’t object; in Illinois, 67% wouldn’t object; in Washington state, 65% wouldn’t object; in Missouri, 58% wouldn’t object; in Virginia, 60% wouldn’t object; in Iowa, 66% wouldn’t object; and in North Dakota, 53% wouldn’t object.

The key here, obviously, is that the question casts the legislation as “beneficial to your family,” which of course makes it more likely that people will be okay with using reconciliation to pass it.

The PCCC is doing a great job getting this polling done. David Axlerod whacked the Republicans for the whining on reconciliation too.

"The American people ... all they want is an up or down vote. They want to move on, have the vote, let's finish the debate. The American people say let the vote be held, let the majority rule and let's move on," Axelrod said.

"Let's move forward," he repeated several times.

Digby and I have talked a lot about the mandate issue being presented by the health-care bill for months now, and a lot of great blogs have been hitting it too. A new poll done by Research 2000 for the PCCC and DFA says American voters will hate this bill if there are mandates and no public option.

If American voters aren't going to see any immediate pluses to their overall health care and are forced to pay into the mandates of the health care bill then how will the voters feel about the new outlay of cash? A good many will probably just pay the penalty instead of signing up and will be just as pissed, and that's coming from the left. The right-wing crazies will hate it even if it significantly helped their lives. so the debate has really focused on the differences on the left. We have captured the debate.

Duncan writes:

I know I'm a broken record on this subject, but I do think it's the thing most lacking from the insider conversations on HCR. Not that I really know, because I'm not an insider, but occasionally I get a wee sense of what's actually occupying staffers in various places. "Voters liking this thing" seems to be at best an afterthought.

It's sorta weird, really, because on most subjects it's the first thing they think of, both about the policy itself and the myriad imaginary attack ads that can be run based on the policy. If voters don't like this thing, it'll likely be repealed before most of it even takes effect, either because Republicans take over or because frightened members of a Dem controlled Congress do so. Sure, there's the optimistic view that it could be "made better" instead of repealed, but I'm not really feeling all that hopey.

No matter what the tosser Ron Brownstein says, liberal activists want health-care reform much more than Villagers can imagine, but we don't want it if it does nothing more than enrich insurance corporations and in the end never accomplish much of the goals that the defenders of the Senate bill are saying.

Lieberman and the Villagers are more interested in protecting the DC insider crowd than they are reforming health care for America.

And to show how lacking his argument is, Brownstein tries to paint us as the racists. Brownstein should check out a few teabagger rallies. And to dismiss the complaints we have as "ideological" shows how petty the elitists truly are.

Sen. "I need 60 votes to do anything" Reid has lost the confidence of enough of us over his weak leadership that Progressive Change has decided to run ads letting Harry know that he better show some spine, or be prepared to be voted out. From the email going out to PCCC's membership:

Senate Majority Leader Reid is brokering a health care bill this week. But he seems ready to cave to a few corporate Democrats who want to kill a public health insurance option. We can't let that happen.

Our ad features one of Harry Reid's constituents, Nevada nurse Lee Slaughter. She has seen insurance companies cut off care to patients in need -- and says that in 2010, she will vote on only one issue: "I'm watching to see if Harry Reid is strong and effective enough as a leader to pass a public option into law."

We know that Sen. Reid is concerned about his election next year. Polls show him trailing Republicans, and he's already running campaign ads. Our ad will remind him that for many voters back home, the public option is a make-or-break issue. Voters want Reid to fight for the public option and win -- not cave.

Keith Olbermann reports that Reid is "pushing back against progressives" and "setting expectations low." That's unacceptable. The public overwhelmingly wants the public option. Democrats control the government, with a huge 60-seat Senate majority.

This week is critical. We need Harry Reid to be a strong and effective leader right now. It has never been more important.

If you can, please help PCCC raise the funds to put this ad on the air.

The netroots has made a huge stand for health care reform and we're not sitting around doing nothing. Blue America hit Blanche Lincoln hard which forced her to write an op-ed in Arkansas to try and redefine her position and now the PCCC and DFA just hit Ben Nelson in an action called: Health care Can't Wait. Lincoln, who is up for re election took an approach in which she informed her constituents that she's considering the public option now which is a good start, but Ben's response was to cry, stomp his feet and declare that health care reform will be killed if Americans stand up and demand that he be part of the solution.

Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) lashed out Friday at the ads being run against his position on health care reform in his home state, saying they would backfire -- and might even derail the entire reform process.

In a statement issued late in the afternoon by Nelson's office, spokesman Jake Thompson warned that if the new series of ads calling out the Senator's "stalling" on reform were "an indication of the politics going into August, then health care reform may be dead by the end of August."

"Nebraskans don't need outside special interest groups telling them what to think. Senator Nelson has nothing but praise for Nebraska groups working toward health care reform. Unfortunately, he says, these outside groups undermine the sincere and dedicated efforts of people in our state," Thompson wrote. "Recently, similar ads have run in Nebraska. Those ads by other special interests prompted hundreds of Nebraskans to call our offices, with 9 to 1 urging Senator Nelson to do exactly the opposite of what the special interest group wanted. In short, the ads backfired."

Politicians who dare to say that they will kill health care because the American people want change just proves our point about the gasbags that reside in Washington that rule our country for themselves and not for the people they were elected to represent.

Olive Willis:

They seem to think that the support they got in 2006 and beyond is going to keep them up if they just have a (D) behind their names. Conservative democrats who obstruct meaningful progress in Washington are the political equivalent of Bush Republicans, and they’ll be treated that way.

Do your job, Senator.

We will not back down and we will not go away. Blanche Lincoln will hear from us shortly too.

PCCC and DFA are doing their part and so are we. Please donate to Blue America's Health Care Choice so we can keep the pressure on.

There are just a few days left in the PCCC / DFA campaign to Add Your Name to an ad demanding a strong public option and select the next Senator(s) to target. So far, it looks like it's Max Baucus by a good margin, with Kerry second, Feinstein third and Lieberman fourth.

Personally, as much as I loathe my Senator Feinstein's attitude, I think it's time to amp up the pressure on Lieberman, who is trying to slow down the process in order to hobble it.

Go here and place your vote for who to target. Voting ends Monday morning.

Remember this ad to which you could add your name?

Well, it's aired in Sen. Blanche Lincoln's (D-AR) and Sen. Kay Hagan's (D-NC) districts with happy success. From a PCCC email:

In the last 72 hours, two senators named in our TV ad -- Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Kay Hagan (D-NC) -- announced support for the public option!

The big lesson? Pressure works. TV ads work. Now it's our job to keep the momentum high. So we'll be running versions of our hard-hitting ad in targeted states -- pressuring individual Senate Democrats back home where it hurts most. We just need you to help us decide where.

Click here to cast your vote!

On the voting page, you'll see profiles of eight senators -- including how much money they've taken from the health and insurance interests, whether they sit on important committees, and their statements on the public option. Each version of the ad will feature the names of a senator's local constituents who "signed" our ad -- representing the 76% of Americans who demand a public option. It will also display the senator's big contributors.

We know that these ads are working. Not only have our ads been featured in the New York Times and Washington Post (which said we're rattling Democratic senators), but MoveOn and Blue America have been running ads in Sen. Hagan and Sen. Lincoln's home states. And the result? They are coming around. Two down, eight to go.

Now before any of you start dismissing the campaign because it's not single payer--please keep in mind that single payer is not on the table, nor is it likely to be on this go-round of health care reform. Obama has said that it would be too "disruptive" to the existing system. Our goal--and I speak for Blue America's campaign and presumably PCCC as well--is to fight for the most vibrant public option possible currently and then to keep incrementally fighting for something closer and more akin to a single payer.

I believe strongly that we will eventually come around on single payer in this country. But we need to work for it tactically and intelligently, or we risk having the whole thing blow up in our faces as it did in 1993.

I'm endorsing this move because the truth is the truth. Presente Action (a new Hispanic organization) and the PCCC are going to run ads in Florida called: DenunciaRush.com to highlight the anti-Latino sentiment that permeates the right wing Republican base, and how that bias is bubbling over with the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

Adam explains:

We've been pushing hard for health care reform recently, but another big thing is happening this week: The hearings to confirm Sonia Sotomayor as our first Latina Supreme Court Justice are starting today. And it's already ugly. First, congressional Republicans refused to denounce Rush Limbaugh's racist attacks on Sotomayor.

Then just yesterday, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee went on CBS and questioned the role of her "ethnic background" in her judicial work. Really? In 2009? Enough! It's time for Republicans to pay a political price for their blatant racism. That's why our friends at Presente Action are going on offense, running Spanish radio ads in key congressional districts -- starting in Florida. These ads will expose Republican racism for voters.

And Blue America's Alan Grayson is also getting big props for stepping up and bashing Limbaugh:

Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson -- also from Orlando -- did take on Limbaugh, despite representing a long-time Republican district. He said, "We have an African-American President and, soon, a Puerto Rican Supreme Court Justice. I'm proud of that. You're proud of that. And if Rush Limbaugh doesn't like it, that's just too bad." Grayson is a bold progressive in Congress. He successfully prosecuted Iraq war profiteers before defeating a House Republican last year and earning a reputation for grilling Wall Street execs this year. Grayson's outspokenness has made him a top Republican target in 2010. When you chip in to help air the radio ads, we've added a place where you can help Grayson's re-election as well. Please consider it.

You can also donate to Alan Grayson's campaign via Blue America here.