(h/t CSPANjunkie)

It's hitting the fan in California as students protest the grotesque 32% hikes in their college tuition.

Angry students at the Davis, California, branch of the University of California refused to vacate the school's administration building Thursday evening in a show of defiance and protest over a 32-percent undergraduate tuition hike instituted by the California Board of Regents earlier in the day.

About 50 students remained in the building, which was supposed to close by 5 p.m. PT (8 p.m. ET), UC Davis spokeswoman Claudia Morain told CNN. At one point, as many as 150 students were at the building protesting the tuition increase, she said. She said she hopes campus police can resolve the issue without the need to make arrests.

CNN affiliate KCRA captured footage of students outside the building shouting, "Who's university? Our university!"

Nearly 400 miles south and hours earlier, hundreds of students marched and chanted against the increase while outside the UCLA building in Los Angeles where regents met to vote on the hike.

Protesting students and others say the increased tuition will hurt working and middle-class students who benefit from state-funded education. But officials argue that a fee increase and deep cuts in school spending are necessary because of a persistent budget crisis that has forced reductions across California's state government.

California is in bad shape and it's only to get worse.

Hullabloo:
And there's no end in sight:

In what's become a depressingly familiar story over the last 2 years, California faces another big budget deficit:

Less than four months after California leaders stitched together a patchwork budget, a projected deficit of nearly $21 billion already looms, according to a report to be released Wednesday by the state's chief budget analyst.

The new figure -- the nonpartisan analyst's first projection for the coming budget year -- threatens to send Sacramento back into budgetary gridlock and force more across-the-board cuts in state programs.

As the article points out, the deficit for 2009-10 (current fiscal year) is $6.3 billion, and the projected deficit for 2010-11 is $14.4 billion. Arnold is already talking about closing it with cuts...

Mike Stark has been a regular member in the liberal blogosphere for a long time and has been on the Hill with his Flip camcorder getting pols on tape to answer questions that the media somehow never seems to get around to asking.

Digby, Howie and myself have joined with CREDO and are trying to generate some cash for him. I know it's tight out there. Advertising has been down for all of us and I may have to do another fundraiser soon for C&L, but if you can please sign Credo's petition that will send a coat hanger to every member of the pro-choice party that voted yes to the ugly Stupak amendment and a dollar to Mike. Blue America is collecting the money from CREDO and we decided to give it to Mike.

Here's Mike to explain:

And you aren't the only folks noticing this work. Blue America (Howie Klein, Digby, John Amato) and Credo Action/Working Assets have also been keeping an eye on my efforts. They realize that this work cannot continue without support (I have a family to feed, student loans and rent to pay, etc. etc.), and they know a movement cannot succeed without mutual support. With that in mind, they've teamed up to raise some money for me.

Credo Action/Working Assets has a petition set up. For every signature on the petition, they'll be delivering a coat-hanger to Representatives that voted for the ridiculously regressive ant-choice Stupak Amendment. In addition, for every signature, up to 5,000, they'll donate $1 to StarkReports. Right now they are at about 1800 signatures.

If you appreciate hard-hitting and tenacious reporting... If you like seeing powerful people asked tough questions... If you want a media that works for you... I can use your help. Please sign the petition (it costs you nothing but your time). Watch my videos. Visit (and bookmark) StarkReports.com. If you've got some extra cash, drop it in the donation box on the right-side nav bar...

In the meantime, I'll be asking more tough questions this week. I've got some doozies stored away; this is sure to be a productive week.

As Wanda Sykes might say, "I am so damned sick of these @#!*# Democratic snakes on this @#!*# plane!" Yes, once again, ConservaDems are holding a gun to the head of progress. This time, they want to blackmail Congress into overriding the Constitutionally-mandated power of the House over the nation's purse strings - and hand it over to them:

Seven members of the Senate Budget Committee threatened during a Tuesday hearing to withhold their support for critical legislation to raise the debt ceiling if the bill calling for the creation of a bipartisan fiscal reform commission were not attached. Six others had previously made such threats, bringing the total to 13 senators drawing a hard line on the committee legislation.

“You rarely do have the leverage to make a fundamental change,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who said he hasn’t ruled out offering the independent commission legislation as an amendment to the healthcare reform bill.

What is it about Kent Conrad that makes me want to slap him? Is it that perpetually robotic grin? Is it the fact that he's so reliably a corporate tool? Or maybe it's that somehow, I just know that Celine Dion is on his iPod.

The panel, which has been championed by Conrad and ranking member Judd Gregg (R-N.H), would be tasked with stemming the unsustainable rise in debt.

Among its chief responsibilities would be closing the gap between tax revenue coming in and the larger cost of paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits. The Government Accountability Office recently reported the gap is on pace to reach an “unsustainable” $63 trillion in 2083.

The panel would also have the power to craft legislation that would change the tax code and set limits on government spending.

The legislation would then be subject to an up-or-down vote; it could not be amended.

Chris Bowers calls it a "national suicide pact":

Let's review the threat that these five Democrats are making:

* They will allow the United States to default on its debt, which will vastly increase the overall amount we have to pay on our debt

UNLESS

* Speaker Nancy Pelosi turns over Congressional power on Social Security and Medicare to an unelected commission that will almost certainly propose deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare entitlements. Keep in mind that if deep cuts to Social Security and Medicare pass under a Democratic trifecta, the party would be doomed at the ballot box for years to come.

This is completely insane, and there is no choice but to call this bluff.

Let's see these five Democratic Senators explain to the entire nation why they allowed the country to default on its debt. No matter how safe their seats appear to be, no Senator is going to win reelection after making the entire country default on its debt. Their rationale does not matter. Being blamed for making the country default on its debt - especially after all five of these Democrats voted in favor of the Wall Street bailout and are demanding that Social Security and Medicare be cut - will be the effective end of their political careers.

Go for it, guys. Form your national suicide pact. Tell the country that you are demanding deep cuts in Social Security and Medicare, or else you will personally cause the United States debt to double. Let's see how well that message plays on the air.

When James Webb became a Democratic senator for Virginia in 2006 after beating George Allen, I thought it was a wonderful thing. Here was this former Reagan administration official and military veteran, recognizing that the Dem party had more potential for representing the great people of Virginia. I should have known that he was actually a conservative Democrat, at best, that it was too hard for him to hide his background. Talking Points Memorandum notes his view on the detainee trials in New York City:

"I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

"The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

"I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants."

Now I don't know where Sen. Webb gets his history lessons, but I don't remember any Japanese pilots being tried in a military court for their attack on Pearl Harbor. In fact, the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal was, in fact, a specially appointed international court made up of (gasp!) civilians.

As for Webb's charge that a civilian court would be "disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive," exactly how is it beneficial that we hold these detainees for six to eight years as the military tries to figure out how it can impartially judge and convict these individuals without looking like a kangaroo court? It's not the military's job, Sen. Webb, to judge non-state actors such as these terrorists. They're base criminals - they need to be treated as such. Don't give them the benefit of being judged as "combatants" equal to our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. They aren't worth it.

If Sen. Webb believes that these detainees do not belong in our country, courts, or prisons, then he ought to direct the US government to let them go free (although, ironically, the US government can't seem to get rid of those detainees that they want to release). But Gimto is still a US interest, a military court is still "our" court system, and it's our responsibility to use the rule of law - a foreign concept to many in Congress - to dispose of these cases.

The Repubs want us to be afraid of trying the Gitmo detainees in US courts, because not using special military tribunals might actually be the successful way to do this. Get behind your party, Sen. Webb. Either support the quick disposition of the Gitmo detainees or let them go free. This subversion of US and international law has gone on long enough.

If only women didn't have those drippy, icky parts that make God-loving conservative politicians so edgy, politicians wouldn't be forced to do things like this to us. But women do have those icky parts, and thus we should understand that our job is to hush up - and be grateful for whatever crumbs we get.

Those crumbs, however, do not include routine gynecological care, nor do they include birth control. (Why am I so convinced that somewhere in this bill, Viagra is covered?)

Thanks, Democrats, for standing up for women - again! So far this week, I've turned down two fund-raising calls for the state and national Democratic party. At first, I was just angry over the Stupak amendment, but now I know I'm going to have to save that money in case I need a gynecologist.

From The Nation:

None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation.

Got that? The Pap test itself will be covered - but not the visit to the gynecologist to get it.

Granted, Congress can't--and shouldn't--get into the business of spelling out every possible cause for a trip to the doctor. No one wants the process to collapse under a mountain of requests from special interest groups à la the Clinton mess in 1993. But women, half of all adult patients, are not a special interest group. And since both the House and Senate bills include lists of specific services that must be covered by health insurance companies and be provided without asking patients for additional money, it's hard to understand why all the services provided in a basic well-woman visit to the gynecologist isn't on them along with maternity care, newborn care, pediatric dental and vision services, and substance use disorder services.

Uh, hello? Remember? Icky parts!

The fault for the initial omission can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who shied away from the issue, not wanting to invite controversy, according to women's health advocates who tried unsuccessfully to get women's preventive health care included in the basic benefits package. Some of the concern had to do with cost. Adding any required service to the basic benefits package would mean the Congressional Budget Office would give the bill a higher score, or price tag, leaving it more vulnerable to attack by budget hawks. But another part of the problem clearly stems from the fact that women's bodies have become political lightning rods, even when abortion is not the issue.

Consider what happened when the subject of women's preventive healthcare services came up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) in July, after the minimum benefits package had already been determined. Because some essential care for women wasn't included in the list, HELP committee member Senator Barbara Mikulski proposed an amendment that would require the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to stipulate that basic women's health services would be covered. The language said nothing about abortion, referring only to "preventive care and screenings."

Yet the voting on the amendment went exactly along pro- and anti-choice lines. The amendment passed by just one vote, with all the committee's Republicans as well as Pennsylvania Senator Robert Casey, an anti-abortion Democrat, voting against it. The committee's discussion of the amendment was dominated by Republicans' worry about the possibility of government money winding up in the hands of Planned Parenthood. Since there is no similar language included in the just-released House bill, the only hope for requiring full coverage for these essential services now lies with the Senate.

Good old Bob Casey! He's the same Pennsylvania senator who's now working on the Senate version of the Stupak amendment. (Hey, if you'd like to share your opinion with him, you can call him at 202-224-6324 or toll-free at 866-802-2833.)

While some within the anti-abortion movement have long opposed birth control, there is still widespread support for it among the general public, with virtually all women of childbearing age who have had sex using contraception. So why would senators treat birth control and other basic women's health services as a proxy for abortion? "People equate family planning services with Planned Parenthood, and they equate Planned Parenthood with abortion," says Adam Sonfield, an expert on funding for reproductive health services at the Guttmacher Institute. The senators who turned Mikulski's language into a referendum on abortion "either misunderstood or purposely distorted the amendment."

Such is the intellectual acumen of our elected officials. Either they're really that stupid - or pathological liars. (Or both.)

Either way, the irony of letting anti-abortion sentiment undercut the coverage of birth control is that it will likely lead to more abortions. "If women can't get this kind of primary care, there are three clear outcomes: cancer, abortions and infertility," says Anne Davis, medical director of Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and a practicing Ob/Gyn in New York City. Davis cites the facts that untreated sexually transmitted infections can lead to infertility, and that pelvic exams help diagnose cervical cancers. As for the importance of covering--and not requiring women to kick in additional money for--birth control, Davis says, "It's fundamental primary preventive care. So if we don't do this, we're causing a lot of abortions."

Still, some Democrats involved in the health reform sausage-making process counsel patience. Noting that both Pap smears and mammograms should be covered by a reform bill, Senator Al Franken said, "There's more we need to do for women's health, but this is a huge step forward for American women, many of whom don't get these recommended screenings right now. What we pass may not be perfect, but it will make progress in improving the lives and health of women."

Oh, Al. What would Frannie say? More to the point, what would your daughter Thomasin say?

Yet, before we resign ourselves to a very imperfect health reform bill, it's worth reminding lawmakers that women's health extends far beyond abortion. And while those who make our laws may fear the consequences of taking a stand for basic services for this half of the population, the cost of not doing it, both in terms of health and politics, is sure to be far greater.

As I said, I've already turned down two Democratic fundraising calls this week. I don't know about you, but I'm just not feeling it these days. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd swear the Democratic party just doesn't care about women.

The conventional wisdom about the Stupak bill among the male-dominated media: Why won't the women just sit down, shut up and let the men folk do their political bidness? What is all this talk about "rights"?

Instead, ask yourself these questions: Why is it that the moderates conservatives always get their way - at the expense of liberals, and of alleged Democratic party values? Why is the compromise always on our end? Why aren't people like Bart Stupak being told to "put on their big boy pants" and swallow compromise to get health care reform?

And why isn't some progressive politician introducing a bill to cut off funding for special education or any other services at Catholic schools? After all, how is providing the services from a trailer at the far end of the school parking lot not an "accounting trick"? Why aren't liberals aggressively challenging the tax-exempt status of the Catholic church?

I was under the impression we had freedom of religion in this country. Apparently, I was wrong.

WORCESTER - Opening up a major fissure in the US Senate race, Attorney General Martha Coakley said yesterday that she opposes the landmark health care bill approved by the House Saturday because it contains a provision restricting federal funding for abortion.

Coakley, in her boldest gamble of the campaign, said that fighting for women’s access to abortions was more important than passing the overall bill, despite its aim of providing coverage for 36 million people, establishing a public insurance option, and prohibiting insurers from discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions.

“To pretend that now the House has passed this bill is real progress - it’s at the expense of women’s access to reproductive rights," Coakley said in an interview, after making similar comments yesterday morning on Boston radio station WTKK-FM.

[...] Coakley’s opposition to the bill put her squarely at odds with her three rivals for the Democratic nomination, including US Representative Michael E. Capuano, who voted in favor of the plan and blasted Coakley’s stance yesterday, calling it “manna from heaven" for his campaign.

“I find it interesting and amazing, and she would have stood alone among all the prochoice members of Congress, all the members of the Massachusetts delegation," Capuano said in an interview. “She claims she wants to honor Ted Kennedy’s legacy on health care. It’s pretty clear that a major portion of this was his bill."

He went on: “If she’s not going to vote for any bill that’s not perfect, she wouldn’t vote for any bill in history. She would have voted against Medicare, the Civil Rights bill. . . . Realism is something you have to deal with in Washington."

Why is it that "realism" is always and inevitably at the expense of women, gays and minorities? Is that the new Democratic value?

UPDATE: Apparently Capuano has since changed his position, saying he'll vote against the bill if Stupak amendment stays.

(h/t CSPANjunkie)

Donna Edwards tells her story of being a young mother without health insurance and how she is paying America back with her vote for health care reform.

Edwards: I collapsed and was taken to an emergency room. Without health care I was treated as one of those uncompensated and now it's time for me to pay the American people back with a vote for comprehensive health care reform. This bill will take the burden off of providers and Americans for paying the costs of uncompensated care and safeguards for the health of all Americans.

She's been a solid progressive voice in Congress. We need more like her. I watched the endless insanity of the Republicans in the House on full display all day and night Saturday. It made me sick, watching them line up like replicants, making sure they used the same talking points over and over again. When they talk about "freedom," all they do is smear what that word means to the world. C&L Annette emailed me and said we should start calling them the Republick Party. I like that.

You won't read much about their behavior during a crucial time in our history because the media shields the nuts who are loose in the halls of Congress.

Howie Klein writes:

I love Donna Edwards. Her short speech about why she was voting for health care reform made me cry last night-- and not fake Glenn Beck tears. Like Donna, there was a time in my life when I couldn't afford health insurance-- or health care-- either. Americans deserve better than predatory insurance companies thriving on misery. This is why America needs more members of Congress like Donna Edwards and less like Paul Ryan, Suzanne Kosmas and John Barrow

Village social secretary Lady Stuart Frothenberg.

Who didn't see this orgy of media "analysis" coming? According to the media, anything at all that happens is good news for Republicans, as Atrios says.

You know how crazy it is when Bob Schieffer's making sense.

But the question is, why are Democrats such wankers? Really. We just gained two more proudly progressive seats in Congress (one of them replacing a Blue Dog), but instead they're fixated on 1) a state that has always voted for the out-of-power party in gubernatorial races, helped along by a very bad Democratic candidate and 2) another state that, like the self-destructive electorate of California, loves to vote for anyone who says they have a magic secret formula to cut property taxes. Sheesh.

Do they really not understand the point of healthcare reform? There are many reasons, but the economic argument is simple: It's so people who lose their jobs won't have to worry. It's so employers who are afraid to hire because of premium costs can afford to do so. This has everything to do with jobs - and it's their job to make that clear.

Are they really that appallingly bad at the sales and marketing of this simple idea?

Democrats on Capitol Hill began a nervous debate Wednesday about the course President Obama has set for their party, with some questioning whether they should emphasize job creation over some of the more ambitious items on the president's agenda.

The conversations came as White House officials insisted that the party's gubernatorial defeats in Virginia and New Jersey had few implications for Obama's standing or for Democratic prospects in the 2010 midterm elections.

But moderate and conservative Democrats (Editor's note: Or, as we like to call them, aspiring Republicans) took a clear signal from Tuesday's voting, warning that the results prove that independent voters are wary of Obama's far-reaching proposals and mounting spending, as well as the growing federal debt. Liberal lawmakers, meanwhile, said the party's shortcoming came in moving too slowly on health-care reform and other items that would satisfy a base becoming disenchanted with the failure to deliver rapid change in government.

Voters in both states cited the economy as by far their top concern, and many lawmakers said the outcomes were a blunt wake-up call to put the issue front and center.

"The question is, do people think we're tending to the things they care about?" said Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) as he left a meeting of Senate leaders. He said there was palpable concern among his colleagues Wednesday that the main agenda items Democrats are pursuing -- health care and climate change -- resonate very little with voters focused on finding or keeping jobs.

Are they kidding me? Do they actually know any unemployed people? Because I do, a ton of 'em. And every single one over 40 talks about how they can't wait until they get some help with health care.

Why, oh why are Democrats so out of touch with reality? I guess because they don't have to worry about paying for health care or getting another job if they lose this one - they can always become lobbyists. Really, they need to sit down with some bloggers and stop listening to Beltway soothsayers.

I was writing something pretty close to this and decided to link to the Great Orange Satan.

KOS:

There will be much number-crunching tomorrow, but preliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

1. If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary "bipartisanship", you will lose votes.

2. If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.

3. If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action.

The choice is yours. Give us a reason to vote for you, or we sit home. And you aren't going to make up the margins with conservative voters. They already know exactly who they're voting for, and it ain't you.

Health care should have been passed by the August recess, but to have it go on and on has been a huge mistake. And waiting until next year only makes it worse.

A gaffe, Michael Kinsley famously mused, is what results when a politician inadvertently tells the truth. And so it was Monday when Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch came clean about his party's scorched-earth opposition to health care reform being championed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Hatch acknowledged, as I've long argued, that the GOP is worried not that Obama's health care initiatives might fail, but that they might succeed.

As he did in his pivotal effort to block Bill Clinton's health care efforts starting in 1993, conservative strategist Bill Kristol warned his Republican allies then as now that that a victory for President Obama would earn his party the thanks of a grateful public and guarantee Democratic majorities for the foreseeable future. In an interview with CNS Monday, Senator Hatch revealed that was his darkest fear as well:

HATCH: That's their goal. Move people into government that way. Do it in increments. They've actually said it. They've said it out loud.

Q: This is a step-by-step approach --

HATCH: A step-by-step approach to socialized medicine. And if they get there, of course, you're going to have a very rough time having a two-party system in this country, because almost everybody's going to say, "All we ever were, all we ever are, all we ever hope to be depends on the Democratic Party."

Q: They'll have reduced the American people to dependency on the federal government.

HATCH: Yeah, you got that right. That's their goal. That's what keeps Democrats in power.

Continue reading »

(h/t Heather)

I can see that Ben Nelson and the Conservadems/Baucus Dogs have a plan. They bitch and moan about the effect a public option would have on the poor, poor health-insurance industry, so if they do have to vote for a public option in the Senate that clearly benefits Americans and not his favorite donors, they will only do it under the provision that the states "opt in" rather than "opt out."

His hair has been saying this for a while now.

Nelson's hair doesn't explain why he favors the "opt in" version and Harwood doesn't bother to ask. And he can count on the media to not inform America what the differences are in an opt in or an opt out version of the PO so when we complain about it the Villagers will attack us. He was interviewed by John Hardwood, a Villager of the highest order on MSNBC.

Here's what Ben Nelson's hair said:

Harwood: You'd agree that unless a comprehensive health care bill would pass that it would cripple his presidency.

Nelson's hair: Well, I don't know that we should conclude that some form of health care reform won't pass. I believe that some form of health care will pass.

Harwood: What in your mind are stoppers, things that, knowing this place, things that either because you oppose them or other senators oppose them, simply can 't be in the final product to have it pass?

Nelson's hair: Well, it's very difficult to see how that CLASS Act that was in the HELP committe bill would make it [that's long term care provisions] I think also any kind of public option that would undermine or destabilize the private insurance that 200 million Americans have, I don't see that that would make it. But some version such as an opt-in, for the states with a state option, that could very well be in.

Digby alerted me to this clip and she astutely writes:

But I am still suspicious that there might be a play to make opt-in the reasonable alternative to opt-out. It just keeps cropping up in all kinds of places, often from White House reporters. It's worth keeping an eye on anyway.

Harwood thinks that Nelson will stick with them on cloture and I haven't heard otherwise. (and if Harwood asked him he didn't say, the putz.) But he certainly keeps dangling himself out there as a vote for opt-in, so if this thing really comes down to the wire I could see it happening. Again, I don't think the village media have clue about just how different the two things are. It's just bumper sticker slogans to them.

The Hill reports that Sheldon Whitehouse also trumpeted the same thing.

The Senate health bill is drifting toward ending up with an "opt-in" provision versus an "opt-out," one Democratic senator said Friday.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) predicted that healthcare reform in the upper chamber would shift from its current construction, which allows states to opt out of a public option, to a version that forces states to opt into such a plan.

"I think it's falling into an opt-in, versus opt-out," Whitehouse said during an appearance on MSNBC. "You have a public option, but it's up to a state to take an affirmative act to take advantage of it."
Whitehouse suggested the opt-in as a potential compromise on the public option to win enough Democratic votes in the Senate, where Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) has said he will vote against a bill containing a public option, and several other centrist Democrats have been reluctant to support the current proposal.

I'm doing some digging around to see what's really happening and I'll have news soon. Reid is already having the "opt out" scored by the CBO, but my sources indicated that the Senate has not sent out the "opt in" to be scored. From what I'm hearing. The "opt in" would not pass the House conference.

I know I shouldn't feed the ego that is Lieberman, but do you want to know how awesome Joe is, Mr. President?

Read this from the Weekly Standard.

Joementum 2012?
Is he the greatest senator ever? He fought for victory in Iraq, he's fighting for victory in Afghanistan, and he's fighting to save us all from Obamacare. Who needs Olympia Snowe when you've got Joementum?

Posted by Michael Goldfarb on October 27, 2009.

And we must never forget TNR's love for Joe.
(h/t Atrios)

And key Democrats correct Lieberman on the fiscal awesomeness of the public option. Are you listening, Joe?

I wonder how Connecticut feels since they support the public option by a wide margin:

Connecticut voters support 64 - 30 percent giving people the option to buy health insurance from a government plan.

Maybe it'll be Palin/Lieberman 2012 for this new crowd of voters.

From the Center for Public Integrity, some very interesting news. This sort of undercuts Obama's "let's make the Blue Dogs happy" strategy, doesn't it?

It’s official. The Blue Dog’s fundraising slowdown was not just a symptom of the dog days of summer. Newly released public disclosure forms indicate that over September, the coalition’s PAC took in its smallest monthly total yet this year.

Our analysis of the fiscally conservative and increasingly influential Blue Dog Coalition and its funding noted that the group’s political action committee had averaged more than $176,000 in receipts from other PACs over the first half of 2009. Their monthly haul dropped to a surprisingly low $27,000 in July, rebounded somewhat in August, and but then dropped again to just $12,500 in September.

That September money came from just three donations — $5,000 from accounting and professional services giant Ernst & Young’s PAC, $2,500 from the Food Marketing Institute PAC, and $5,000 from the National Rifle Association of America Political Victory Fund.

After raising $1.1 million from January to June, the committee raised less than $87,000 between July and September — less than it brought in during any one of the preceding five months. And in just three months, the Blue Dog PAC’s monthly fundraising average dropped by more than $50,000 — probably not the sort of fiscal conservatism the 52-member coalition was hoping for.

Harry Reid's leadership has been about as bad as it gets. He complained that we needed 60 votes to pass anything and now that we have it, he still is complaining. We're not fighting the Republicans who have no power, but the Conservadems who are blocking real reform.

Markos writes:

Bill Frist never had 60 votes. Bill Frist never cared. Republicans ran the Senate as if they owned the place, even when enjoying razor-thin majorities.

Yet when Democrats took the chamber, the first thing Harry Reid did was complain that he couldn't do anything because he didn't have 60 votes.

Then voters delivered 59 votes. And Harry Reid whined that he still couldn't do anything. In fact, nothing would ever get accomplished unless they had 60, and to do that, they had to bring turncoat Joe Lieberman back into the fold, even though he had spent the previous year making common cause with John McCain and Sarah Palin, even speaking at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota. You see, we were told, Joe Lieberman is with us on everything except the war! So we need him for 60, and when we have 60, everyone will get ponies! And if Lieberman strays, why, Evan Bayh said Senate Democrats could punish him!

We're told that Lieberman needs to still be part of the action because he's with us on everything except the war. Now we have to include health care on his list of shit he's against us on. What next?

Kos continues:

And take special note of this sentence:

Senator Reid is focused on crafting a health care bill that will overcome a Republican filibuster.

Republican filibuster? Democrats have 60 votes. There is no Republican filibuster, just a Democratic one. The problem is Reid's inability to keep his caucus together. His office can't even be honest about Reid's leadership failures. Fucking liars.

I'll take a Chuck Schumer-run Senate with 57 Democrats (bye bye Reid, Lieberman, and Lincoln) than a Harry Reid-run one with 75 Democrats.

We need an up or down vote on health care. If Reid can't get his own party to vote for cloture, he should step down as leader. He's a joke.
And Holy Joe is definitely standing in the way of health care reform. Is he just a mean old man who just wants revenge because he was a warmonger that got booted out of the Democratic party by his own voters? Why take it out on America and oppose real reform? He had his chance when he bolted and supported Sarah Palin and McCain.

Harry Reid promised to keep Joe in line and on Cavuto he's actively working against him. Lieberman tells Cavuto that he's against reconciliation because it would kill bipartisanship. How much bipartisanship have you seen during this health care debate? And once again this bitter man is talking the Republican line of "we're doing too much, and we must slow down." If he can't even vote for a bill that appeases the Baucus Dogs, then what will he vote for?

David Waldman asks:

If one Republican vote for the Baucus health insurance "reform" bill makes it bipartisan, how many Democratic "no" votes on cloture does it take to make a filibuster of the public option bipartisan?
Maybe Glenn Thrush knows. Or maybe not. After all, he granted anonymity for this important observation:

"If there really is such a groundswell of support for the public option, perhaps senator Schumer would like to show the caucus, especially the centrist Democrats, how he can come up with the 60 votes necessary to overcome the [Republican] filibuster that he damn well knows is coming," said a senior Democrat.

In a full Senate, a "Republican filibuster" requires 41 "no" votes on cloture to sustain. There are only 40 Republicans in the Senate.

UPDATE: Mike Stark found Joe before he entered a car and asked him if he would filibuster a health care bill that had the public option.

Stark:

The first person I saw on the Hill tonight was Senator Joe Lieberman. He was exiting the House side of the Capitol and looking for his driver.

I tried to press him a little on his non-committal answer re: filibustering health care over the public option. Maybe I’m inclined toward optimism, but I’m thinking he’s hoping he doesn’t have to make that decision

.