Robert Gibbs opened up his daily briefing today with a frank confession that the administration had made a decision on Shirley Sherrod's speech without all of the facts, and offered an apology to her directly.

QUESTION: And to a lot of people trying to follow this story, they see a government employee who ends up losing her job because of comments posted on a videotape that appears to be taken out of context. It just looks bungled. Is that a fair way to put it?

GIBBS: Well, Ben, I think this is one -- I think this is a fair way to put it: members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on this, have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts. I think that is -- that is wholly and completely accurate.

I think, without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology. I would do so certainly on behalf of this administration.

I think if we learn -- if we look back and decide what we want to learn out of this, I think it is, as I said, everybody involved made determinations without knowing all the facts and all of the events.

When pressed on the reason for the rapid-fire response, Gibbs had a reply that should have made everyone in the room step back and offer their own apology, but instead it just fired up the machine louder, because if there's anything the mainstream White House press hates, it's being held accountable.

GIBBS: I can't speak for everybody involved. But I think we live in a -- I think we live in a culture that things whip around, people want fast responses, we want to give fast responses and I don't think there's any doubt that if we all look at this, I think the lesson -- one of the great lessons you take away from this is to ask all of the questions first and to come to that fuller understanding. I say that, again, from the perspective of this administration, I say that from the perspective of those that cover this administration, and those that are involved in the back-and-forth in the political theater of this country.

And more:

QUESTION: It does sound like you've spoken to the president about this. If so, does he think she was a victim of a rush to judgment?

GIBBS: Again, I don't think I'd be out here, Matt, giving you the answers that I just gave to Ben without having those reflect the feelings of the president and the feelings of the members of this administration.

True to form, questions revert back to the horserace mentality so pervasive in Washington DC:

QUESTION: What if any concern is there within the administration that this handling of Ms. Sherrod could hurt the president and the Democrats as well in the elections?

GIBBS: Your question encapsulates a little bit of what I was talking about a minute ago. I know there is a -- we have this society and this culture now that's pervasive in this town where everything is viewed through the lens of who wins, who loses, how fast, by what margin?

You know -- look, a disservice was done, an apology is owed. That's what we've done. This administration has never looked at -- I think if you go well back into the campaign -- never looked at a scoreboard at the end of each day to figure out where we stood.

I'm no Robert Gibbs fan, but I don't think he could have done a better job keeping the message focused on the wrong done to Shirley Sherrod and the White House message of apology and conciliation, despite every effort to deflect it.

Continue reading »

Here's the latest from the Plum Line:

I’m hearing that House Dem vote counters are preparing to move forward without him. Reports of a deal with Stupak were overblown. Some in leadership argued for it, but pro-choice members shot it down, and Nancy Pelosi never agreed.

There’s still a question as to whether Stupak controls the amount of votes he claims to and discussions with Stupak and the members of the Stupak bloc are ongoing. What Stupak wants — a resolution that adds the same restrictive abortion language Stupak attached last time — isn’t happening.

That may explain why Stupak abruptly canceled his presser.

Conversations are still ongoing, and some kind of accommodation with Stupak is possible, though not the one he’s apparently insisting on. Dems are holding a whip meeting soon to determine where the votes are and whether it’s possible to move forward without him and whoever else he controls.

UPDATE: John Amato:

My sources are telling me that there never was a deal struck with Stupak. A lot of rumors were flying around last night and of course people were in talks.

And Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a leading pro-choice progressive, said they're moving ahead without him. "There's not going to be any deal made with Mr. Stupak...there's been no deal whatsoever. He's been told that his language is not going to be added to the legislation," she told me this morning.

Pelosi just said that there is not going to be a separate vote for Stupak. Pelosi: 'No Separate Vote' For Stupak...Or Anybody Else

House Democratic leadership has apparently told Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) to go take a hike--and they'll move forward without him, or any other anti-abortion Dems threatening to switch their votes from 'yes' to 'no.'

Just off the House floor moments ago, Pelosi told reporters there will be "no separate vote" on abortion or any other measure. And Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a leading pro-choice progressive, said they're moving ahead without him. "There's not going to be any deal made with Mr. Stupak...there's been no deal whatsoever. He's been told that his language is not going to be added to the legislation," she told me this morning.

The NRO is saying the same thing.

Stupak is 'Finished with Pelosi' [Robert Costa]

Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he's finished with Pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.

Digby:

It looks like the pro-choice caucus stood firm. The proposed Stupak separate vote deal is off the table. Now we're hearing that some sort of agreement is being sought for the President to issue an executive order on abortion. I wonder what that means?

Amygdala: Changing attitudes toward mental illness.

Lance Mannion: Stupak and the bishops, the bishops and me.

Sadly, No: Nothing will make them happy.

TBogg: Atlas begs.

Pam's House Blend: Tradishinul marridge is what brings us together today.

Thump and Whip: Glenn Beck doesn't identify as white, or speak for "white America" – except when he does.

James Wolcott: It takes more than a market rally to pull the wool over Bolton's mustache.

Guest post by Batocchio. Mike is back tomorrow. Send tips to Finnsagain AT aol DOT com.

From Greg Sargent at the Plum Line, this cheering news:

I’ve got the latest internal whip count numbers from Dem Rep. Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressional Caucus, who tells me that nearly three-fourths of House Dems will support a health care reform bill with the most robust version of the public option. That’s the one that would reimburse providers at Medicare rates plus five percent.

“I am confident that we have the support of over 70% of the Democratic Caucus,” Grivalva said in a statement emailed my way. That means according to him, around 180 of the 256 Dems in the House are prepared to back the robust public option right now.

The support in the House for the robust public option is a crucial number, and is being closely watched by reform proponents, because it will have a direct impact on the final bill. If a bill passes with a strong version of the public option, that would give House Dems more leverage when the bill is merged with the final Senate version.

Grijalva’s office disputed a recent report in The Politico citing anonymous aides claiming the robust public option only had the support of 145 Dems.

Grijalva and other progressive leaders have been counting votes at the request of House Dem leaders, who are putting together their final bill and asked liberals to show them the support they can muster for a strong public option.

To be sure, liberals still have a ways to go before securing the 218 votes needed for passage, and it’s unclear how many more votes they can pull together and whether the most robust public option will end up in the House bill. But liberals are not done whipping votes yet, and they think the public option has the momentum.

Bottom line: The stronger the support for the most robust version, the greater the pressure on the House leadership to keep a strong public option in the final bill. More later.

Connecting.the.Dots: The politics of personality disorder

Young Republican Voter Fraud Candidate

Whiskey Fire: True media bias is towards eyeballs, profit, and getting ahead according to the  strange rules of elite insider journalism.

Alternate Brain: Galloway on McNamara: Reading an obit with great pleasure

thump and whip: Thugs in Massey Coal shirts invade Keeper of the Mountains July 4th celebration and try to bust heads

Contextual Criticism: Answers in Genesis -an evil organization

DOWNLOADS: (2640)

PLAYS: (5569)

Embed

There's no blithering un-self-awareness quite like right-wing blithering un-self-awareness.

Especially when Bill O'Reilly's part of the program, as he was during The O'Reilly Factor last night. He opened with a scathing attack on the New York Times for its own scathing cartoon.

Somewhat hilariously, O'Reilly speculates wildly about the effects of the release of the photos of prisoners being tortured, saying it's "beyond question" that American servicemen and women abroad will be harmed because their publication will foment so much resentment -- even though, of course, he can produce no evidence to support that speculation at all.

Nonetheless, it's enough for O'Reilly to call the cartoon an "atrocity" and "garbage" and accuse the Times of "pushing a hateful, far-left agenda," while the heads of the Times, NBC, and other "far left" outfits are "doing an enormous amount of damage to this country" and are "haters."

Then he invites on Karl Rove to talk about that NYT cartoon, and Karl happily obliges by making the subsequent attack on NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger as vicious and personal as he can:

O'Reilly: What did you think when you saw that cartoon in the New York Times yesterday of the Statue of Liberty with a whip? What did you think of that?

Rove: I thought Pinch Sulzberger was right to worry about why he had to sell his building and his stock is in the toilet, and I'm glad it is.

O'Reilly: But weren't you offended as an American? I mean, that is just the lowest!

Rove: Look look look, I'm from Texas! I've met this little Pinch Sulzberger. He is an elitist, effete snob, who thinks he knows better than the rest of America and has views that are distinctly outside the mainstream of what America's all about.

Continue reading »

As per Chris Bowers' whip count, we knew Thursday that Sen. Reid said he wouldn't rule out the addition of the public option to health-care reform through the reconciliation process, but today's statement sounds much stronger:

The health care debate just got reignited in Washington, D.C. Late Friday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced he would work with Democrats and the White House to pass a public option through reconciliation, according to the Huffington Post.

Reid put a caveat to the statement saying that he would support it if that's the path the Democratic Party chooses with the legislation.

Ezra Klein, who too often accepts the conventional "centrist" wisdom, still might be right when he says the public positions in the Senate are a lot different from the private ones (Jonathan Cohn expresses similar doubts):

I've spoken to a lot of offices about this now, and all of them are ambivalent privately, even if they're supportive publicly. No one feels able to say no to this letter, but none of them seem interested in reopening the wars over the public option. That's why the White House kicked this at Reid and Reid tossed it back at the White House. If the public option is a done deal, everyone will sign on the dotted line. But between here and there is a lot of work that no one seems committed to doing, and that many fear will undermine the work being done on the rest of the bill.

What you're seeing here are the weird politics of the public option at play. It's popular in the country. It's wildly popular among the base. It's the subject of obsessive interest in the media. There is little downside to supporting it publicly, huge downside to opposing it, and no one is allowed to ignore the issue, or even take a few days to see where the votes are.

[...] No one I've spoken to -- even when they support the public option -- thinks that its reemergence is good news for health-care reform. It won't be present in the package that the White House will unveil Monday. Everyone seems to be hoping this bubble will be short-lived.

But it might not be. The media is talking about it, liberals are organizing around it, none of the major actors feels politically capable of playing executioner, and Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson don't have the power to do the job on their own. As of now, the strategy only has 20 or so supporters, and it'll need at least another 20 or 25 to really be viable. But if it gets there, White House and Senate leadership are going to have some hard calls to make.