You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (853)

PLAYS: (2465)

Last night on Countdown, Eugene Robinson and Keith Olbermann agreed on the risks for Obama: If he doesn't come up with a viable public option, he will very likely face a challenger in the Democratic primary.

Olbermann: But what about the risk of passing some sort of interim measure here and we hear Congressman [Raul] Grijalva, who's the head of the Progressive Caucus having released a statement last night about grave concerns about these contacts supposedly from the administration to health care reform advocacy organizations they are going to cease supporting the public option. What good does it profit a man to win a bill and lose the base of his party?

Robinson: In the medium term and in the long run it doesn't strike me as a great idea. I mean look, you could say okay, this is the best bill we can get. Is the liberal Progressive Caucus going to thwart what is possible in search of the perfect? And so you could put them in that position and you could maybe wrestle them into going along with what they consider a bad bill, but there's a lot else on the table. He's, our involvement in Afghanistan is deepening, we're talking about Iraq, we're talking about Guantanamo. We're talking about a lot of issues on which the Progressive Caucus is going to have a lot to say and I don't think you want them to be in a foul mood.

Olbermann: No, no, no because he's compromised on everything so far and as self defeating as it might be, the Progressive Caucus and progressives would abandon him if necessary if this were to be the policy of this administration into 2012. If it's necessary to find somebody else to run against him, I think they'd do it no matter how destructive that might seem at face value.

Robinson: Well, I think that is possible. We are a more polarized nation right now and I think searching for a mythical center, a mythical compromise between doing something and doing nothing, ah... there's nothing in the middle there, you know. Either you're going to do something or you're not and I think you've got to choose.

Olbermann: The middle has been nothing all this time. This is just a different variant of it.

Meanwhile, the House Dems' Progressive Caucus has fired a return shot across the bow. Last night they delivered a letter to the White House: Not only will they not support a House bill, they will not vote for the final bill without it and asked for a meeting with the president:

We continue to support the robust public option that was reported out of the Committees on Ways and Means and Education and Labor and will not vote for a weakened bill on the House Floor or returning from a Conference with the Senate.

Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates-not negotiated rates-is unacceptable.(...)

A health reform bill without a robust public option will not achieve the health reform this country so desperately needs. We cannot vote for anything less.

To date, only six members have signed. If they get to 40, we have a very different ballgame.

I watch a video like this - thoughtful doctors pointing out the pressing need for health care reform - and I just have to shake my head at the travesty we have instead. I'm especially furious at the obstructionist role taken by the Blue Dogs, the quasi-Democrats.

The thing is, the Blue Dogs are not negotiating in good faith - that is, they are not trying to improve health care - or people's lives, unless that person is an insurance company lobbyist. It's about money and influence, and how much they're willing to do to get it and keep it. Nice to see prostitution pays off!

On June 19, Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas made clear that he and a group of other conservative Democrats known as the Blue Dogs were increasingly unhappy with the direction that health-care legislation was taking in the House.

"The committees' draft falls short," the former pharmacy owner said in a statement that day, citing, among other things, provisions that major health-care companies also strongly oppose.

Five days later, Ross was the guest of honor at a special "health-care industry reception," one of at least seven fundraisers for the Arkansas lawmaker held by health-care companies or their lobbyists this year, according to publicly available invitations.

The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.

At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

Most of the major corporations and trade groups in those sectors are regular contributors to the Blue Dog PAC. They include drugmakers such as Pfizer and Novartis; insurers such as WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual Life; and industry organizations such as America's Health Insurance Plans. The American Medical Association also has been one of the top contributors to individual Blue Dog members over the past 20 years.

Many liberal Democrats and advocates of health-care reform were angry about the compromise bill and view the Blue Dogs as being too cozy with drugmakers, hospitals and insurers, and they argue that the conservative Democrats should be more supportive of the agenda set by President Obama and Democratic leaders.

"The Blue Dogs are carrying water for the industry instead of their constituents," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, a liberal pro-reform group. "In effect, the Blue Dogs and the Republicans are taking positions that are closer all the time and further away from what most Americans want."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (748)

PLAYS: (924)

I'm very pleased to have Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House join us on C&L to live chat with all of you about the new health care reform bill that was just released. The House unveiled its plan yesterday entitled: America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. It's a comprehensive plan that does include what appears to be a very good public option. Speaker Pelosi will take as many questions as she can on this issue for an hour or so and I know you a have a lot of questions.

Today, the Chairmen of the three Committees with jurisdiction over health policy in the House (Energy & Commerce, Education & Labor, and Ways & Means) introduced America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 to curb out-of-control costs, encourage competition among insurance plans to improve choices for patients, and expand access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans.

Here’s what America’s Affordable Health Choices Act means for you...

TNR's Jonathan Cohen, who has been following the health care debate, is very optimistic about what is happening.

The three House committees writing health care legislation have just released the full text of their bill. And my immediate, admittedly tentative reaction is strongly positive. Once fully implemented, this reform plan will accomplish most of the goals on my mental checklist:

• Generous subisidies, available to people making up to 400 percent of the poverty line
• Expansion of Medicaid to cover people making less than 133 percent of the poverty line
• Guarantees of solid benefits for everybody, with limits on out-of-pocket spending
• Strong regulation of insurers, including requirements that insurers provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions without higher rates
• An individual mandate, so that everybody (or what passes for everybody in these discussions) gets into the system and assumes some financial responsibility
• A public plan, one that appears to be strong, although I'll reserve judgment on that until I hear from the experts
• Choice of public and private plan, at first just for individuals and small businesses, but later for larger businesses and--possibly--eventually for everybody
• Efforts at payment reform, if not necessarily as strong as they could be
• Investment in primary care and prevention, which is not sexy but potentially important for general health...read on

Scarecrow writes:

The House released its health care reform bill today and will begin three simultaneous committee markups on different provisions later this week. Video of Waxman's statement, courtesy of TPM.

You can access House Committee summaries and the actual text at the House Education and Labor Committee site. Help us read through the bill.

First impression from the summaries: it's an excellent reform package, with lots of very worthwhile features. But we'll be looking through the details in the next few days.

Here's Matt Yglesias on the new plan:

The House of Representatives is now prepared to unveil their health reform legislation with markup taking place tomorrow and Thursday. It’s a good bill (more on that later) but it’s worth also giving a tip of the cap in the direction of the House process. The chairs and members of the three relevant committees did a great mitzvah by putting egos aside, forming a unified “tri-committee” bill writing process, largely shutting up about their internal negotiations, and getting down to the job of writing a bill that fits the parameters Americans voted for in November.
So what’s in the bill?
--
Well, there’s a fairly strong public plan. It needs to be financially self-supporting and nobody will be forced to accept its reimbursement rates, but it will be open to anyone with access to the Health Insurance Exchange will model its payments on Medicare and they say the default assumption will be that anyone who serves Medicare clients will also take Public Plan clients.

I'm still going through the entire plan myself, but please, let's welcome the Speaker to the blogosphere.

Editor's note: Off-topic and rude/inappropriate comments are not welcome and will be dispensed with. Just a warning. Play nice.

FROM THE SITEMONITOR: Comments at this post are now closed. Speaker Pelosi is no longer here to read your comments, and sitemonitors must move on to more recent threads. Thanks to those who participated. If you wish to discuss healthcare some more, trust me, this blog will be posting on it again frequently, and you are also welcome to use the nightly open thread.

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.

Wolf Blitzer, on Sunday's Late Edition interviewed Pakistan's new President, Asif Ali Zardari about his nation's involvement in the War On Terror, and specifically clashes over incursions into Pakistan by US troops. Zardari provided a lesson in glib lying which could be required viewing for a certain type of Western politician (step forward John McCain and Sarah Palin). Not a single "tell" was in evidence as 'Mr. Ten Percent' wildly spun to make himself and Pakistan sound all things to all presidential hopefuls.

  Download | play Download | play

Many thanks to Heather for the vids.

In the interview, Zardari claimed that the US was being "over-indulgent" (I think he meant over-zealous) in its incursions on Pakistani territory and appealed to the Bush administration just to "give us the intelligence" and that Pakistan would then do what was needed.

When asked about allegations from the US and other allies that elements in the Pakistani military and ISI intelligence agency shielded or aided some anti-US militant leaders, he said that was all in the past and that his government had full control of Pakistan's military. "Our democracy is trustworthy" he said. Yet in recent months, Zardari's government have tried at least three times to exert more authority over the shadowy ISI, and have had to climb down each time after pressure from the military. The ISI was directly accused of involvement in the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul back in

On recent reports, from both Pakistani and American authorities, that Pakistani troops had fired on US helicopters at least once and perhaps as many as three times - completely in accord with military statements saying Pakistan would defend against incursions at 'all costs" and would unhestitatingly "open fire" - Zardari stuck to his own tale that "open fire" is just a warning and that "only flares" to warn US forces had been used.

(Later in the interview, Zardari also said that if Pakistan captured Bin Laden it would try him in Pakistan rather than extradite him for trial on 9/11 charges, before hurredly doing an about face when Blitzer pressed him on this matter.)

But the most fervent spin of all was when Zardari tried to square himself with Obama, in case the latter should become President. When asked about Obama's policy (the one that both Bush and Sarah Palin apparently agree with but John Mccain doesn't) that the US should act unilaterally inside Pakistan if it is unable or unwilling to take action of its own, he said:

ZARDARI: Senator Obama answers that, if the Pakistani authorities are unwilling, but in this case, Pakistani authorities and the president of Pakistan is more than willing.

BLITZER: Are you confident that you have control over all elements of the security forces, that you're all on the same page, as far as the United States and the war on terror is concerned?

ZARDARI: Most definitely.

BLITZER: Absolutely?

ZARDARI: Absolutely.

All done with hardly a flicker. It's easy to see why Mr. Ten Percent is now one of the richest men in Pakistan without ever running an actual business. But if American leaders trust him at his very changeable word then caveat emptor.

McCain: You know, that there's been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street and it is -- people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong. But these are very, very difficult times.

With the bad news hitting Wall Street about the demise of Lehman Bros and the sell off of Merrill Lynch---the financial markets are collapsing all around us and it's all because of conservatism. McCain's policies are the same as Bush and when McCain says that he is a reformer, well....that has no bearing on fixing the failing financial institutions. Republicans do not want regulations. Period. McCain will not fundamentally change anything regarding our economy except to come up with new talking points about how bad CEO's are. If nothing else, the last eight years have shown us that conservatism is dead. Update: McCain had to come back out today and quickly try to take back these remarks.This just proves the point that he does not understand the economy enough to lead us out of this quagmire.

Obama's camp:

Today of all days, John McCain's stubborn insistence that the 'fundamentals of the economy are strong' shows that he is disturbingly out of touch with what's going in the lives of ordinary Americans. Even as his own ads try to convince him that the economy is in crisis, apparently his 26 years in Washington have left him incapable of understanding that the policies he supports have created an historic economic crisis," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. 

They need to immediately produce a series of ads attacking McCain on conservatism and that puts the blame squarely on his shoulders for this latest Wall St. meltdown. This is a time when Obama can control the news cycle and make McCain respond to him.

Download | play Download | play

Former White House Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, appeared before the House Judiciary Committee this morning to answer questions about what he knew about, and his role in the treasonous outing of covert CIA operative, Valerie Plame.

McClellan recognized the enormous damage the Plame scandal caused our country and government, and continued his calls for an end to the permanent campaign and scandal culture in Washington D.C.. He criticized President Bush for failing to work in a transparent, and honest manner for the American people, and the media for glorifying people who perpetuate partisan politics, rather than searching for the truth. I, as many others, take issue with his lack of candor back when these crimes were being perpetrated against our country, but at least he's there, in front of Congress and doing the right thing now. You can stream the hearings live on CSPAN's website.

Good morning Mr. Chairman, Congressman Smith, and members of the committee.

I am here today at your invitation to answer questions about what I know regarding the Valerie Plame episode. Back in 2005, I was prohibited from discussing it by the White House ostensibly because of the criminal investigation underway, but I made a commitment to share with the public what I knew as soon as possible. That commitment was one of the reasons I wrote my book.

Unfortunately, this matter continues to be investigated by Congress because of what the White House has chosen to conceal from the public. Despite assurances that the administration would discuss the matter once the Special Counsel had completed his work, the White House has sought to avoid public scrutiny and accountability.

The continuing cloud of suspicion over the White House is not something I can remove because I know only one part of the story. Only those who know the underlying truth can bring this to an end. Sadly, they remain silent.

The result has been an increase in suspicion and partisan warfare, and a perpetuation of Washington's scandal culture, one of three core factors that have poisoned the atmosphere in Washington for the past two decades. The central message in my book is the need to change the way Washington governs. We need to minimize the negative influence of the permanent campaign, end the scandal culture, and move beyond the philosophy of politics as war.

The rest of the transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

from The West Wing--The Stackhouse Filibuster

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loves parliamentary procedure so much that he is essentially selling out his own party to allow the Senate to debate the FISA bill with the telecom immunity. As Glenn spells out:

The summarized version is that there were two competing bills which Reid could have brought to the floor -- the Senate Intelligence Committee version engineered by Jay Rockefeller and Dick Cheney which gives the administration most of what it wants, and the Senate Judiciary Committee, which does not contain telecom amnesty and contains far more extensive oversight protections. Reid could have brought the bill to the floor using whatever process he wanted, and he has decided -- contrary to weeks of assurances -- that the SIC bill will serve as the "base" bill, meaning that improving it (by removing amnesty and increasing oversight) will require 60 votes, rendering such efforts virtually impossible. In doing so, Reid is brazenly ignoring the demands of 14 Senators -- including all of the Democratic presidential candidates -- to have the Judiciary Committee bill be the base bill.

Worse still, Reid is completely disregarding the "hold" placed by Chris Dodd on any amnesty bill -- simply refusing to honor it, even as he respectfully honors literally scores of "holds" from GOP Senators such as Tom Coburn. And while Dodd is interrupting his campaigning to fly to Washington to lead the filibuster he vowed, Reid has ensured with scheduling manuevers that the filibuster will take place only over the weekend -- when all of the members are away raising money anyway and journalists aren't paying attention -- with the intent to try to force cloture once everyone returns on Monday.

So if that's the way Harry Reid wants to play it, Chris Dodd is going to use parliamentary procedure as well--to filibuster the SIC version of the bill. Thank the deity of your choice for a Democrat who not only represents Democratic values, but also acts like an opposition party leader. I don't mean you, Harry. And like the The West Wing clip above, Senators Feingold and Kennedy have promised to help by asking questions, to give Dodd a chance to rest or have a bite.

But Dodd needs things to say while filibustering on the Senate floor. Shall he read the complete works of Shakespeare? George Orwell's 1984? Every time I see Karl Rove's face, I can't help but think of Animal Farm, myself. Or perhaps Shock Doctrine? How about the transcripts to one of Olbermann's Special Comments?

All good choices. But how about if Chris Dodd speaks for the American public as well? After 7 long years of feeling left out of the political discussion, there are many things I'd love to have a Senator say out loud on the Senate floor. I've been communicating with his office and they have authorized me to put out this invitation to you, as well as readers of FDL and other blogs.

What would you like to hear Senator Chris Dodd say as part of his filibuster?

I am going to sticky this post at the top of the page today to get as many responses as possible. Obviously, we're making no guarantees other than his office will definitely be looking at your posts. Normal commenting policies still apply.

And Senator Dodd? Thank you, thank you, thank you.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tells WH Counsel Fred Fielding that Miers and Bolton need to come before Congress and be sworn under oath, or be held in Contempt of Congress. They've ignored eight such attempts in the past. I'd say that was pretty indicative of contempt, wouldn't you?

That's right.  Eleven zeros.  New estimates out this week by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office place the cost of the Iraq occupation through 2017 at 2.4 TRILLION dollars, or put another way, $8,000 for every man, woman and child in the US.  And that does not include the interest on the foreign loans being used to finance it so that the top 1% can still enjoy their tax cuts.

Remember Wolfowitz claiming that the war would pay for itself? HA!

The House Budget Committee held a hearing today to discuss the growing costs of this occupation.   Get this: the Republicans on the committee didn't even bother to show up.

Rep. Doggett from The Gavel:

Rep. Doggett: "I assume, by Mr. Ryan being here, that every member of this panel, including every Republican member on that side of the aisle where all the seats are vacant, received notice about this hearing about the cost of war in Iraq?"

Chairman Spratt: "I'm sure they did."

Rep. Doggett: "And when was this notice of the hearing sent out?"

Chairman Spratt: "Seven days ago, as required by the rules." 

The Gavel also provides these comparables:

$2.4 trillion is enough to:
· Provide every college freshman in the country with a free, four year education at a private college or university
· Provide health care coverage to every American for one year
· Pay off 26% of our current national debt  

And the Republicans want to tell us they're the Party of Fiscal Responsibility?  What are they smoking?

Marcy is liveblogging the House Oversight Committee's hearing on Blackwater over at FDL. Part One and Part Two available here. You can stream C-Span 3 here. More to come...

The Gavel is putting up videos as quickly as they can. Here are Chairman Henry Waxman's opening remarks:

AP is reporting that the FBI is asking the committee to curb questions on the Sept. 16th killing of 11 Iraqis so as to not inhibit their investigation. Or maybe they just don't want us to know...

On another note, Christy is liveblogging the Goldsmith testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

UPDATE: Here's Dennis Kucinich grilling Blackwater CEO Erik Prince. Download | play   QT Later.

I also want to remind you of a little fact that doesn't seem to make it traditional media: Blackwater's VP is advising Romney's campaign.

The hits just keep coming...another BushDog/LieberDem, Ben Nelson of Nebraska* is to be thanked for this.

*corrected--thanks to all who called our attention to it. 

TPM:

(T)he Senate Rules Committee met this morning about the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the Federal Elections Commission.

This morning's result: faced with the defection of a Democrat on the committee, later revealed to be Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) chose to agree to send all four nominees, two Democrats and two Republicans, to the floor without recommendation. In other words, the committee did not vote to approve von Spakovsky, but he got through nonetheless.

Next up is a vote before the full Senate, and how that vote will occur will be determined by negotiations between the Democratic and Republican leadership. Republicans are likely to seek a vote on all four nominees at once and have threatened to spike all the Democratic nominees if Democrats seek to block von Spakovsky.

Obviously, inside the Beltway Bubble, they're not so concerned with voter fraud.

Looks like the Senate Judiciary Committee has some 'splainin' to do. Wrong. Very, Very Wrong.

Media Bloodhound: NBC Ignores Kucinich's Grilling of Rumsfeld

(h/t Heather) Download | play Download | play

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) does an incredible job of questioning Bush's nominee for the White House Budgeting office Jim Nussle. Listen to him and please, if you're so inclined, let him know how much you appreciate him looking out for the average American.

$32 BILLION to the Walton family alone, but we couldn't come up with federal funds to fix the bridge in MN?