4/27: I Love Me Some Reconciliation

Liberal bloggers are delighted that Dem congressional leaders bowed to the White House's wishes and agreed to take up health care reform under the budget reconciliation process, which would shield the legislation from GOP filibusters. The netroots view this agreement as a major development that dramatically increases the probability that health care reform will happen this year. Chris Bowers calls it "the biggest legislative victory for progressives in, well, about as long as I can remember," while Ezra Klein declares: "This could be the day that health care reform went from being unlikely to inevitable." At the same time, some liberal bloggers are concerned about the concessions that may have been granted to Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) "in exchange for [his] not standing in the way of reconciliation provisions."

Some liberal bloggers see this episode as evidence that Pres. Obama learned "the right lesson" from his experience with the economic stimulus bill (which received zero GOP votes in the House). Steve Benen echoes the views of many lefty bloggers when he writes: "If the White House really is done taking Republican outreach seriously, it's about time." On the other side of the blogosphere, Quin Hillyer urges GOP senators to make good on their threat to "use every parliamentary tactic in the book to really punish the Dems."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• While some liberal bloggers (Jaikumar, Partridge) are portraying Rep.-elect Scott Murphy's (D) win over Assemb. Jim Tedisco (R) as a big upset, others are urging Dems not to read too much into the results. Several lefty bloggers (Green, digby) are urging ex-MN Sen. Norm Coleman (R) to follow Tedisco's lead and concede to Al Franken (D). Meanwhile, some conservative bloggers are "bummed" about Tedisco's defeat, while others argue that "Murphy is likely to be vulnerable in 2010 against the right candidate."
• Liberal bloggers (Clemons, McCarter, Lakoff) continue to call for an independent "truth commission" to investigate the use of harsh interrogation tactics during the George W. Bush presidency. Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, hilzoy, digby, BooMan, Lemieux) are also hammering one of their favorite targets -- Washington Post columnist David Broder -- after he wrote a column urging Obama to "stand against" prosecutions of Bush lawyers who may have authorized illegal interrogation techniques. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (McCarthy, Erickson) are denouncing the idea of prosecuting Bush lawyers, while others (Liebau, Mirengoff) are defending the use of the harsh interrogation methods described in the OLC memos.
• Liberal bloggers (Hamsher, digby) are pleased that the CA Dem Party passed a resolution calling for a Congressional inquiry into Jay Bybee, the former DoJ attorney who wrote one of the controversial interrogation memos and who now serves on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Other lefty bloggers (Yglesias, Serwer, Black, Tim F., Benen) are criticizing the 4/25 Washington Post article which provides anonymous quotes from Bybee's friends who claim that Bybee feels "regret" about the controversial memo.
• Now that U.S. health officials have declared that the swine flu outbreak is a "public health emergency," liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Houle, Benen) are criticizing Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) for leading the effort to remove funding for pandemic preparedness from the stimulus bill. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Malkin, Geraghty) are arguing that the swine flu outbreak (which scientists believe originated in Mexico) demonstrates the need for increased border security.
• Several liberal bloggers (Rosenberg, O'Connor) are buzzing about a possible 2010 primary challenge for Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA).

HEALTH CARE REFORM: A Big Win For Progressives?

Liberal bloggers are delighted that Dem congressional leaders have agreed to take up health reform under the budget reconciliation process, which will "protect major health care legislation from Republican opposition by shielding it from last-minute Senate filibusters":

• Open Left's Bowers: "Without the filibuster available to Republicans, it is highly likely that in 2009 Democrats will succeed where they failed in 1994. This might be the biggest legislative victory for progressives in, well, about as long as I can remember."
• Klein: "It's hard to overstate the importance of this decision. This could be the day that health care reform went from being unlikely to inevitable. Without reconciliation, the incentives for the minority are very simple: Kill the bill. Do as [ex-Speaker Newt] Gingrich did in 1994 and hand the majority a failure. With reconciliation, killing the bill just means you're locked out of the final legislation. It's a death sentence for your involvement in the process. It is not, however, the end of the process itself."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "The agreement to use reconciliation for health care is huge -- it's arguably the single best development since Obama's inauguration. It not only means that health care reform will be much easier to pass -- it means that the ultimate legislation will also be much better (with a public plan, etc.). And that's how it should be. Obama ran on an ambitious health care platform and won convincingly. The American people put him and a 59-strong Democratic majority in charge. And they -- rather than Susan Collins and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson -- should get to decide whether and in what form health care gets passed."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "[This] certainly makes sense. The GOP is awfully unpopular, and the more the administration can pass its agenda without having to water it down for the right, the better it is for the president. [...] If the White House really is done taking Republican outreach seriously, it's about time."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "No unilateral disarmament. [...] If the Republicans want to compromise on health care, the door is open. If they want to obstruct, they won't be able to. Seems right to me. As to the Republican threat to throw a temper tantrum and tie up the Senate procedurally, I say: Bring it on."
• MyDD's Todd Beeton: "Sounds like the White House learned the right lesson from the stimulus debate and vote."

At the same time, some liberal bloggers are worried about the concessions that may have been granted to Sen. Conrad "in exchange for [his] not standing in the way of reconciliation provisions":

• Klein: "It says something about the state of American politics that the Democratic chairman of the Budget Committee has to be bribed so he doesn't stand in the way of efforts to ensure that 50 million people receive health insurance coverage. Obviously, his incentives are to maximize his own influence, but it's still weird."
• Beeton: "[T]there is a big question that's yet unanswered: what does Kent Conrad want for not blocking reconciliation[?] Some are speculating, disturbingly, that he's been promised the chance of, as Ezra Klein puts it, 'tinkering with Social Security.'"

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Hillyer hopes GOP senators push back hard: "Senate Republicans say they will use every parliamentary tactics in the book to really punish the Dems if the Dems push through health care nationalization via 'reconciliation' that unfairly limits debate, etc., utterly against all Senate tradition on what the reconciliation process is for. I won't believe it until I see it. They (GOP senators) have made such pledges many times before, but they always capitulate like emasculated chihuahuas when the time comes to really act. That's what they did in mulitiple failed battles (or non-battles, because they didn't really fight on judges. And, considering that it is dififficult for invertebrates to find spines, that's what i fully expect again: Craven capitulation without having achieved much of anything. I sure hope I'm wrong."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Case For More Waterboarding

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"The orthodox conservative position at this point, it seems to me, is that waterboarding is not torture. Nor is having someone dangle from his shackled arms in a manner so painful as to prevent sleep for a period of days. What's more, these non-torturous 'harsh techniques' are highly effective at gathering intelligence. But if that's true, and these are legal and effective means of securing reliable information, why are we doing so little of it?

After all, people doing organized crime investigations face a lot of challenges in terms of getting information from people. Maybe cops should do routine undercover drug buys, build a case against low level dealers, and then waterboard the guys they've arrested and move further up the food chain. Maybe waterboarding and 'stress positions' should become routine treatment for battlefield detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why not?

Well I would say because it's wrong. And also because it's very unlikely to work. And also because this is the mentality that gave us Abu Ghraib and abuses at Bagram and all kinds of other horrible problems throughout the system. But if you take the view that these 'enhanced techniques' aren't illegal torture, and that 'enhanced techniques' are highly effective, and that systematized approval of torture doesn't inevitably lead to abuse, then why not?"

LEST WE FORGET: FEMA Unveils Nationwide Phone Tree In Case Of Emergency

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- The Federal Emergency Management Agency on Monday unveiled its new $48.2 million Phone Tree Response System, a program designed to alert every American in the event of a large-scale disaster. 'The safety of our great nation is the responsibility of all 300 million of its citizens, so make sure you memorize the names and phone numbers of the three people you are supposed to call,' said acting FEMA administrator Nancy Ward, who assured reporters that, in the event of a chemical or biological attack, President Obama would be notified first so that he could inform Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Meredith Soto of Winslow, AZ. 'Remember: If they don't pick up, leave a message telling them there's a national emergency, and then call the next name listed in the 176,935-page, 253-volume directory until someone answers.' According to FEMA officials, regular tests of the phone tree will be conducted on a semiweekly basis to identify any numbers that are no longer in service."