10/15: Obama's Got His Finger On The Trigger

Liberal bloggers are growing increasingly critical of Pres. Obama's and Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid's (D-NV) approach to getting a health care bill out of the Senate. Now that all of the relevant Senate commmittees have passed their health care bills, the netroots believe that it's up to Reid and Obama to determine whether or not the merged bill includes a public option. However, lefty bloggers are growing increasingly frustrated with Reid's "inability to keep his caucus together" and ensure that all 60 Dems vote for cloture on a bill containing a public option. Furthermore, now that anonymous WH officials are telling The New York Times that the WH favors Sen. Olympia Snowe's (R-ME) trigger compromise, liberal bloggers are starting to doubt that the Obama admin. will push Reid to include a public option in the merged bill. Like many on the left, John Aravosis feels betrayed:

"The last few weeks we finally had momentum on our side. The 'opt-out' proposal took everyone by surprise, and even critics of the public option said they were intrigued. But, rather than use that momentum to get the kind of bill the President promised us during the campaign -- to get something better -- President Obama settled for a Republican proposal that was being discussed weeks ago, long before we had the momentum on our side. The White House never intended to try to get a better bill, regardless of whether we provided them with the political landscape to do just that."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lopez, McCarthy, Erickson, Lord, Hinderaker, DeVine) are outraged that right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh was dropped from a group trying to buy the St. Louis Rams due to controversy surrounding some of his past statements. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Cole, Thers, Willis) are mocking their conservative counterparts' devotion to Limbaugh.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, McCain, Thompson) are rallying behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman in the NY-23 race, and they continue to criticize GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava.
• Liberal bloggers (Singiser, Wheeler, Marshall) are buzzing about reports that NJ GOV candidate Chris Christie (R) "regularly spent beyond federal guidelines on business travel while U.S. attorney."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hawkins, Klein) are blasting Obama's proposal to give seniors and disabled Americans a one-time payment of $250 to help them get through the recession.

REID: Why Can't He Control His Own Caucus?

There's a growing consensus among liberal bloggers that it's up to Reid to determine whether or not the merged Senate health care bill includes a public option:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "[Ex-Senate Maj. Leader] 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 [CT Sen.] Joe Lieberman back into the fold, even though he had spent the previous year making common cause with [AZ Sen.] John McCain and [ex-AK Gov.] Sarah Palin, even speaking at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota. [...] So once again, Reid is complaining that he doesn't have 60 votes, which is why they need to anoint Olympia Snowe as de facto President of the United States. Maybe SHE will get us to 60! But we all know Snowe has no intention of voting for real reform, and yet Reid (with White House backing) continue to let themselves get played. It's all a farce. [...] 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 [NY Sen.] Chuck Schumer-run Senate with 57 Democrats (bye bye Reid, Lieberman, and [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln) than a Harry Reid-run one with 75 Democrats."
• Atrios: "A Republican filibuster is unpossible. And I'm tired of getting fundraising emails warning me about Republican obstructionism. Republicans can't obstruct crap without help... from Democrats."
• Firedoglake's David Dayen: "It's important to note that neither Snowe nor [ME Sen. Susan] Collins are necessary for cloture. All Reid has to do is hold his caucus, which [FL Rep.] Alan Grayson demanded on Wednesday. The Democrats need to make a decision on whether they support bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake, or a bill that works for people."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Stu Rothenberg said today that Reid 'is seen as Obama's guy in the Senate and he is.' The question is -- is Reid willing to sacrifice the approval of the Democratic base in Nevada to give [WH CoS] Rahm [Emanuel] and Obama what they want?"

OBAMA: Trigger-Happy

Liberal bloggers are angry that two anonymous WH officials told The New York Times that "the White House looked favorably on the Snowe [trigger] plan":

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Who are these 'senior administration officials'? And, why are they so eager to cede power to one GOP Senator? Is that what last year's election was about? [...] What's next? Changing OFA from Obama for America to Olympia for America?"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "I believe this and think it makes the point Glenn Greenwald and myself have been stating for months now -- pols are not your friend. As Glenn put it yesterday -- 'Shouldn't health care activists care more about the public option than Obama's political standing?' They should and they should send the message that the Snowe trigger is unacceptable and, progressive legislators should sat health care 'reform' without a real public option will not pass. [...] The only way Obama can put Snowe in the driver's seat is IF progressive let him do it. Just say no to the Snowe Trigger. Nonnegotiable. It really is that simple."
• AMERICAblog's Aravosis: "The White House isn't willing to fight for a better bill, isn't willing to fight for the President's own promises. Isn't willing to use the President's power -- which he most certainly has -- to cajole all 60 members of the Democratic caucus into voting the right way. So, President Obama caves, as he so often does when faced with the prospect of having to fight for his beliefs. [...] And keep something in mind. The last few weeks we finally had momentum on our side. The 'opt-out' proposal took everyone by surprise, and even critics of the public option said they were intrigued. But, rather than use that momentum to get the kind of bill the President promised us during the campaign -- to get something better -- President Obama settled for a Republican proposal that was being discussed weeks ago, long before we had the momentum on our side. The White House never intended to try to get a better bill, regardless of whether we provided them with the political landscape to do just that."
• Firedoglake's Scarecrow: "The public option is only 'divisive' or a hurdle/obstacle to those in the White House who have for months been trying to strangle the public option without leaving Obama's fingerprints. But this is his plot and it's time for him to take responsibility for misleading his supporters for over a year. [...] Obama's claimed indecision is inexcusable dithering or a cover. If he doesn't know what he wants, then we have a right to ask, what is his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel doing in Harry Reid's merger meetings? Either tell us what's been decided, and which faux Democrats are being shielded for their silent filibuster, or send Rahm back to his office."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Good Policy Is Always The Best Politics

Open Left's David Sirota:

"[T]he idea that Snowe's support is important because it will allow the final bill to be called 'bipartisan' -- and the idea that that billing will politically protect Democrats -- is absurd on its face. How do we know this? Because Democrats taught us that via the Iraq War. Recall that a huge chunk of Democratic legislators voted to support the Iraq War. Indeed, the Iraq resolution was far more 'bipartisan' than the health care bill can ever hope to be in this Congress. And yet, Democrats turned right around and used the Iraq War to criticize Republicans and the Bush administration -- and quite effectively, if the 2006 and 2008 elections were any indication. I'm not saying I was 100% happy with that -- I would have liked the Democrats to oppose the war from the get-go, but I am saying it's a pretty clear fact that even though Democrats supported the Iraq War, it didn't prevent them from attacking the Republicans/[George W.] Bush on the issue.

Thus, the idea that one Republican vote from Middle Earth will politically insulate Democrats from GOP attacks on health care doesn't make any sense. The only thing that will ultimately protect Democrats from those inevitable GOP political attacks will be a health care bill that actually delivers real results. In this way, good policy is the best politics and bad policy is the worst politics. Deliver real health care reform that improves the system and brings down costs (ie. one with a public option, regulation, etc.) -- that is, create a third-rail kind of program -- and, as even GOP strategist William Kristol admits, Democrats could be a permanent majority because Republican criticism of the legislation will be like Republican criticism of Medicare (that is, self-defeating). Deliver a bad health care bill that empowers insurance companies and makes the system worse (ie. a [Max] Baucus-like bill with no public option) and Republican criticism of the legislation will be extremely effective."

LEST WE FORGET: I Don't Think We're Quite At That Place In Our Relationship Yet

From Overheard in New York:

Girl #1, at school cafeteria: What is that?
Girl #2: Polenta.
Girl #1: I've never had it. Can I have a bite of your placenta?