2/17: A Renewed Push

Liberal bloggers are pleased that four Dem senators -- Michael Bennet (D-CO), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH) -- have written a letter urging Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to "improve" the Senate health reform bill by passing a public option through the reconciliation process. The netroots think it's great news that these senators have signalled their willingness to use reconciliation, as they believe that this as "the only way comprehensive reform can happen." David Dayen explains: "I think that the renewed push for the public option is nice, but the renewed push for using reconciliation to make the health care bill more palatable to pass the House actually might get this thing off the mat." Other lefty bloggers are urging their readers to contact their senators in order to find out where they stand on the possibility of passing a public option through reconciliation.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• A group of liberal bloggers (Sudbay, McCarter, Savage, Spaulding, Bink, digby) have launched a "blog swarm" intended to pressure the Human Rights Campaign into urging Pres. Obama to "take the lead in getting DADT repealed this year."
• Liberal bloggers (Klein, Cole, Fernholz, Schaller, Black) are pouring disdain on soon-to-be-retired Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN). The bloggers at Firedoglake (Hamsher, Levine) are joining IN SEN candidate Tamyra d'Ippolito (D) in accusing the Obama admin. of "conspiring with party officials to secretly draft Rep. Baron Hill to run against her." Meanwhile, conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Lane, Hengler) are promoting Bayh's claim that Congress hasn't created a single job in the past six months.
• Firedoglake editor Jane Hamsher is hitting back at the DCCC after it criticized her for polling the reelection prospects of vulnerable House Dems. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas defends Hamsher's polls: "If [the] DCCC has better polls than ones [Hamsher] commissioned, they should release them. Otherwise, they should STFU."
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey) are promoting a new Rasmussen poll showing that Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) support remains "stuck in the mid-40s...no matter which Republican she is matched against." Meanwhile, RedState editor Erick Erickson slams Senate GOPers for campaigning for CA SEN candidate Carly Fiorina (R).
• Liberal blogger Blue Texan is urging TX Dems to cast a strategic vote for Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) in the GOP primary for GOV.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: A Public Option? Why Not?

Liberal bloggers are pleased that four Dem senators wrote a letter urging Reid to pass a public option through reconciliation:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Bennet and Gillibrand are both in re-election races this year, so props to them for taking bold action when their political futures could be in doubt. Coupled with the news from earlier today that the Senate hasn't taken reconciliation off the table, this effort could gain some steam, if enough Senators are as brave as their new colleagues. [...] Passing reform that's actually popular would be a novel approach on this. The only way comprehensive reform can happen is through reconcilation in the Senate. Given that reality, making it as strong -- and popular -- as possible really only makes sense."
• Firedoglake's Dayen: "I think that the renewed push for the public option is nice, but the renewed push for using reconciliation to make the health care bill more palatable to pass the House actually might get this thing off the mat. It appears that the policy differences between the House and Senate are largely being ironed out; the process is more of a hurdle at this point. So if Bennet and his colleagues can actually calm the nerves of those skittish Senators who don't want to use reconciliation because it's 'icky' and 'partisan,' that would represent a significant step forward. It also happens to represent the only step forward; the House cannot do anything without reconciliation fixes."
• Oliver Willis: "This is good, but they need to do something."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "As a substantive matter, I don't think the public option is likely to make a comeback this late in the game. Things are too fragile to reopen that controversy, and most Democrats, for better or worse, want to show they're willing to make concessions to bring Republicans aboard. Resuscitating the public option is going in the opposite direction. This is, however, a reminder that reconciliation could be used to bring the public option up for a vote in the future. It's also a reminder of the power of primary challenges. Both Bennett and Gillibrand are facing challengers from the left, and so they're signing their names to liberal priorities you might otherwise expect them to avoid."

Conservative blogger Allahpundit offers his thoughts: "Here's the thing: As nutty as this sounds to fiscal conservatives, is it really that bad of an idea politically? The public option has polled consistently well, especially vis-a-vis the toxic numbers for the overall bill. That's due to several factors -- dumb poll questions, poor GOP messaging about the slippery slope of government-run health care, and the minor detail that most of the public doesn't understand what the public option is -- but that's beside the point. Anything Democrats can say or do to get some political traction for passing a bill, they'll say or do, and the public plan would certainly help bring House progressives around. [...] Also, with Bayh gone and pundits now speculating about the GOP taking back the Senate, increasingly November looks like a doomsday scenario for Democrats -- and if the asteroid's about to hit, why not throw caution to the wind and pass the plan you really want?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: How 'Bout Another Manifesto?

Allahpundit criticizes the recent proliferation of "right-wing manifestos":

"Let's count up the documents in the works: (1) The GOP's policy list; (2) tea partiers' 'Contract from America'; (3) the 'Mount Vernon manifesto' being drafted by conservative leaders; (4) [House Min. Leader John] Boehner's 'Contract with America' redux; and (5) whatever it is that Michael Steele and the RNC are reportedly drafting. On top of that you've got (6) the 2008 Republican Party platform, which the RNC recently reaffirmed as an informal litmus test for prospective Republican candidates, and of course (7) influential freelance statements of principles like Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project.

I understand the impetus behind all this -- grassroots conservatives don't trust the GOP and want to try to bind congressional leaders as best they can to core concerns -- but you're guaranteeing yourself the sort of disappointment that the left is now struggling with vis-a-vis the Blue Dogs. Progressives thought that 60 Democrats meant 60 liberals, or at least 50 liberals plus 10 weak-tea centrists who could be bullied, but of course it hasn't played out that way. The balance of power is in the center, which is why people like [CT Sen. Joe] Lieberman continue to be able to dictate terms to Harry Reid. When the GOP regains power (and even in 2012 or 2014, it's unlikely to be with a 60-seat majority), they'll face the same problem with [ME Sen. Olympia] Snowe and [ME Sen. Susan] Collins and [MA Sen.] Scotty B[rown]. Point being, you're going to have to water down conservative programs to keep moderates like them in the fold or draw off people like [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson, and watering down programs necessarily means compromising on core principles sometimes. Unless you think you can elect 60 hardcore Reagan Republicans -- which, I hasten to add, even [Ronald] Reagan couldn't do while the Reagan revolution was in full swing -- you're bound to see those principles betrayed. Which isn't the end of the world: It helps to stick a firm stake in solid conservative ground so that the Republican chieftains who are leashed to it don't stray too far. But they will stray, because they have to in order to pass legislation. We're all on the same page about that, yes?"

LEST WE FORGET: Tea Party Movement Hopelessly Divided Into Enraged, Apoplectic Factions

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- Organizers of the Tea Party movement, a group opposed to the federal government's attempts to alleviate the ongoing financial crisis through increased spending and taxation, announced today that their members have split down reactionary lines into those who are apoplectic in regard to the Obama administration and those who are merely enraged. 'This rift is absolutely irresolvable,' screamed red-faced events coordinator Daniel Hume, head of the movement's apoplectic faction. 'We believe that now is simply not the time to be irrationally furious about unprecedented economic policies that have had little more than a year to start showing any signs of effectiveness. Now is the time to be foaming-at-the-mouth, incoherently livid about them.' A third camp of angry protesters had reportedly emerged from the recent upheaval, but its entire membership tragically died from massive brain aneurysms shortly after the group formed."