12/9: Grading The Compromise

The netroots are divided in their reactions to the public option compromise reached by Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid and 10 other Senate Dems. Some lefty bloggers are angry that the opt-out public option appears to have been dropped, and they're urging House progressives to "vote this deal down." Others are pleasantly surprised about the concessions won by progressive Dems in exchange for dropping the public option -- especially the proposed Medicare expansion. Chris Bowers writes: "It is not the scope of victory we aimed for, but it is hard to call a significant expansion of public health insurance a total defeat for a campaign that was designed to expand public health insurance."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Cole, Willis) are criticizing Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) for trying to attach an anti-abortion amendment to the health care reform bill. Lefty bloggers (Benen, Black, Cole) are also criticizing Nelson for introducing a bill that would finance the Iraq and Afghanistan wars with war bonds.
• Most liberal bloggers (Singiser, Lemos, BooMan, Schaller) didn't have a strong preference among the candidates competing in the MA SEN Dem primary, so they're not saying much about AG Martha Coakley's victory.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Malkin, Hoft) are targeting Education Dept. official Kevin Jennings.
• Michelle Malkin met with ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R) during her book tour and thanked her "for her strong conservative voice, for her relentless optimism in the face of unrelenting attacks, and for her public service as a defender of life and advocate of the American dream." Meanwhile, Palin trounces all of the other GOP WH '12 candidates in John Hawkins' latest reader poll.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Public Option, R.I.P.

Some liberal bloggers are criticizing the public option compromise announced by Reid:

• MyDD's desmoinesdem: "An individual mandate to buy private health insurance would be terrible policy and terrible politics and wouldn't solve the big problems of our current health care system. I'm hoping (but not optimistic) that House Progressives will vote this deal down."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Well, no surprise, but it looks like a real public option is gone from the Senate health care bill. I'm not calling it a 'health insurance reform' bill anymore. When the insurance industry can crow 'We WIN,' they're not being reformed. Now, we'll be told that the public option is still in the bill -- but, we're not stupid. Let's see if those progressives in the House know how to flex their muscle."

Most liberal bloggers are blaming Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for the removal of the opt-out public option:

• Atrios: "AP says public option dropped, in exchange we will all get to bask in the glory of Joe Lieberman's jowls."
• digby: "I believe that had [Pres.] Obama and Reid really been committed to the public option they probably could have found a way to finesse Lieberman long before now. There is no doubt that the only reason Lieberman did this was to fuck the liberals. Hard. It's obviously become his life's purpose."

Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher blames Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): "Remember when Blanche said she won't vote for cloture on a bill with a public option? I guess she's getting her way. [...] So despite the fact that the country wants a public option, the President campaigned on one and [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid both promised there would be one in the final bill, the woman who took $763,000 from health care interests for her upcoming Senate race is allowed to dictate what happens. And Obama gives his seal of approval, desperate for anything he can call a 'win' in time for the State of the Union address. What a hideous, rudderless mess."

Meanwhile, Daily Kos' mcjoan writes: "The House should absolutely reject the effort to drop the conference of the bill and ping-pong it. Remember all those promises about 'we'll fix it in conference'? Yeah. We need to go to conference on this, however much the White House wants to have this passed by the State of the Union."

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Don't Make Perfect The Enemy Of The Good

Other liberal bloggers are offering mild praise for the Senate compromise:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "So: an OPM-administered national plan, a weak triggered public option, a limited Medicare buy-in between 55-64, and some new insurance regs. If this sticks, it's actually better than I expected. I always figured we'd get a triggered public option and nothing more."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "Call me overly optimistic, but lowering the medicare age, opening up the same options as federal workers have, stricter regulations, and a trigger should these fail seems to be a pretty good deal. [...] Hell, the medicare thing alone I thought would never happen."
• BooMan: "It's too early to say whether the bill will be good at expanding access to affordable health care or help the budget deficit. But it will be a very good bill for health insurance reform. And that is something."

Even though Senate Dems appear to have dropped the opt-out public option, Open Left's Bowers thinks progressives gained a lot by pushing so hard for it: "The expansion of Medicaid was included in the bill as an attempt to mollify progressives who wanted a new public option program. The Medicare buy-in was done to do exactly the same. This means that even if there is no new public option, the campaign for the public option still will have resulted in millions more Americans receiving public health insurance. It is not the scope of victory we aimed for, but it is hard to call a significant expansion of public health insurance a total defeat for a campaign that was designed to expand public health insurance. While it was not expanded in the way we envisioned, it was expanded nonetheless."

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Philip Klein argues that GOP senators have made it harder for themselves to oppose the proposed Medicare expansion: "I've been frustrated by the decision of Republicans to focus their attacks on the Senate health care bill on the fact that it would cut Medicare benefits. [...] After spending the first week of debate offering amendment after amendment reinforcing the idea of Medicare as a sacred institution, will Republicans be able to pivot and suddenly argue that those aged 55 to 64 cannot have access to this awesome program? Is the new GOP position that the government should provide individuals with unlimited health care benefits once they reach age 65, but not the option to buy in if they're 55 to 64?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Dick Cheney's Not-So-Big Prediction

NRO's Jim Geraghty:

"CNN headlines its story 'Cheney makes big 2010 prediction,' and I waited to see whether he was willing to predict the GOP winning the House next year, or any upset special in any particular race. But Cheney merely said, 'I think we'll pick up a lot of seats ... Prospects for the Republicans in 2010 are very good.'

That's a big prediction? I think at this point, it's conventional wisdom. Obviously, it's still early, but folks in the know think that the 'winnable' House seats come in bunches of 10 to 12; an 'average' year would mean the GOP picks up 10-12 of the lowest-hanging fruit; a good year puts it up to 20-24 seats, a really good year puts it around 30 to 36 seats, and the wild, look-out-here-comes-the-tsunami scenario is 40 to 48 seats. Keep in mind Republicans need 41 seats to retake the House.

In the Senate, Republicans have a lot of good candidates up against incumbents or appointees with relatively weak numbers in places like Delaware, Illinois, Colorado, and Connecticut. They've got a good shot at keeping their seat in Ohio and a near-lock at keeping Florida. Incumbents in North Carolina and Louisiana look pretty solid, surprisingly solid in the case of [David] Vitter. I don't know if I would bet the house on the GOP challengers quite yet, but the approval numbers for Reid in Nevada and [Barbara] Boxer in California look pretty miserable. [...O]verall, the GOP is getting good candidates against Democrats with vulnerabilities, in an environment that, for the moment, is good for challengers and good for conservatives. If anything, Cheney's being cautious..."

LEST WE FORGET: Uninformed Buffoon Barely Comprehends Conversation About Taylor Swift

From The Onion:

"PHILADELPHIA -- According to sources, local dullard Peter Merriam, 34, struggled pitifully Saturday evening to keep up with a simple conversation regarding popular international singing sensation Taylor Swift. 'I was aghast at his ignorance of even the most basic works of her oeuvre,' said partygoer Amy Singer, who remarked that the incurious Merriam 'didn't know or appear to care' about Swift's childhood in small-town Pennsylvania or that she's the youngest person ever to win Entertainer of the Year at the CMAs. 'He flailed around like some kind of caveman for something to say about the Kanye West incident, and then tried to steer the conversation toward the health care debate. I would have pitied the man were he not so unapologetically obtuse.' Sources reported that the unlearned Merriam almost redeemed his intellectual credentials by knowing the name of one of the contestants on Top Chef."