Meanwhile, liberal bloggers are doing what they do after every Tea Party protest, which is posting photos of the more offensive signs being displayed by the protesters. Lefty bloggers are also contrasting yesterday's anti-health care reform rally with the endorsements that the House bill received from the AARP and the AMA. Steve Benen writes: "It created an interesting bookend -- on one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, right-wing activists were having yet another rally based on paranoid fears and debunked nonsense; on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House was welcoming support from the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors and the nation's largest organization of medical doctors."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Lane, Reynolds, Erickson, Klein, Geraghty, Morrissey) are buzzing about the news that that U.S. unemployment rate has climbed to 10.2%, which is the highest it's been in 26 years. Liberal bloggers (Dayen, Aravosis, Scarecrow, Yglesias, Fernholz) are calling for more economic stimulus legislation.
• Liberal bloggers (Cohn, McCarter, Drum, Cole, BooMan) continue to ridicule the House GOP health care reform bill -- which, according to the CBO, "would leave about 52 million people uninsured." On the other hand, Andrew Sullivan thinks the GOP bill contains some good ideas, and Ed Morrissey praises the bill.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Morrissey, Geraghty) are ridiculing FL Gov. (and SEN candidate) Charlie Crist (R) for denying that he ever supported Pres. Obama's stimulus bill.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Hanson, Hengler, Erickson, Johnson, Hawkins) are buzzing about the Muslim background of the Army psychiatrist who killed 13 people at Ft. Hood yesterday.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: The AMA & AARP Get On Board

Liberal bloggers are delighted that the AARP and AMA both endorsed the House Dem health care bill yesterday:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The AARP is behind the House Bill, and what's more, is going to lobby Members for it. [...] And the AMA. [...] Whoooo, pretty radical groups there. The Blue Dogs better be careful deciding whether or not they want to join forces with such questionable allies on an idea as unpopular as healthcare reform. Seriously, check out all the fringe groups supporting the bill. Seriously, those wacky pediatricians on on there, and the American Medical Colleges, hotbeds of radical politics that they are. And you know that the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons are communist cells. Don't even get me started on the Consumers Union or Easter Seals."
• Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "The endorsements should help ensure that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will be able to whip the votes to pass the bill on Saturday. The strong endorsements should also help strengthen the House Democrats' hand when their bill is eventually merged with the Senate bill in conference."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "Two days out for the forthcoming House vote on healthcare reform, I'm feeling more [and] more confident that the Democratic leadership will be able to round up the 218 votes in favor of their legislation."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "It created an interesting bookend -- on one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, right-wing activists were having yet another rally based on paranoid fears and debunked nonsense; on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the White House was welcoming support from the nation's largest advocacy group for seniors and the nation's largest organization of medical doctors."

In other health care reform news, liberal bloggers (Bowers, Protzman) are angry and disappointed that Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC) -- who raised a lot of money from netroots activists -- will vote against the House bill.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Meaninglessness Of Shootings

The Atlantic's James Fallows:

"One consequence of having been alive through a lot of modern American history is remembering a lot of mass shootings. I was working at a high school summer job when news came over the radio that Charles Whitman had gunned down more than 40 people, killing 14, from the main tower at the University of Texas at Austin. I was editing a news magazine during the schoolyard killings in Paducah, Kentucky in 1997 and sent reporters to try to figure out what it all meant. I can remember where I was when the live-news coverage switched to the shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, and the shootings at the one-room schoolhouse in the Amish country of Pennsylvania, and the Virginia Tech shootings two years ago. And all the rest.

In the saturation coverage right after the events, the 'expert' talking heads are compelled to offer theories about the causes and consequences. In the following days and weeks, newspapers and magazine will have their theories too. Looking back, we can see that all such efforts are futile. The shootings never mean anything. Forty years later, what did the Charles Whitman massacre 'mean'? A decade later, do we 'know' anything about Columbine? There is chaos and evil in life. Some people go crazy. In America, they do so with guns; in many countries, with knives; in Japan, sometimes poison.

We know the emptiness of these events in retrospect, though we suppress that knowledge when the violence erupts as it is doing now. The cable-news platoons tonight are offering all their theories and thought-drops. They've got to fill time. I wish they could stop. As the Vietnam-era saying went, Don't mean nothing."

LEST WE FORGET: 1999 Collaboration Between Carlos Santana, Rob Thomas Somehow Standing Test Of Time

From The Onion:

"LOS ANGELES -- Sources reported Monday that 'Smooth,' the 1999 collaborative effort of guitarist Carlos Santana and singer-songwriter Rob Thomas, has somehow persevered against all odds and continued to receive regular radio airplay this week. 'While the projections of most experts suggested "Smooth" would fade from the national consciousness within its first year, the song has actually proved surprisingly resilient over time,' noted musicologist Sidney Brown said of the No. 1 single's inexplicable staying power. 'Though it seems not to have any musical or cultural relevance whatsoever, many people, myself included, find themselves humming the track's guitar lick at least once every other week.' At press time, the triple-platinum, Latin-tinged rock record was heard emanating from an estimated 780,022 open car windows and 2,300 department store sound systems."

However, things are still tense between the NRSC and conservative bloggers. This morning, Erickson accused the NRSC of "send[ing] out a big memo to NRSC donors and others highlighting all of the up coming opportunities for them to give Charlie Crist money." Erickson mockingly describes the NRSC's position on the FL SEN primary as "we're staying out, so please send money."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Malkin, Hoft, Bandes, Geraghty, Hawkins) are heavily promoting today's rally against health care reform on Capitol Hill, which is begin led by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN).
• Conservative bloggers (Hinderaker, Henke, Mirengoff) are still analyzing Doug Hoffman's (C) loss to Rep.-elect Bill Owens (D) in the NY-23 race. One righty blogger (Spruiell) thinks conservatives ought to support Hoffman if he runs as a GOPer in '10, but others (Hawkins, Ponnuru) disagree. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (Moulitsas 1, Moulitsas 2, Benen) are urging Dem congressmen to work on motivating their base if they want to avoid heavy losses in '10.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Black, Marshall, Benen, Fernholz) are mocking IL SEN candidate Mark Kirk (R) for trying to secure an endorsement from ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin (R). A conservative blogger predicts that Kirk "[will] have to do a lot more groveling on the cap-and-trade issue" before he receives Palin's endorsement.
• Several liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Chart, Greenwald) are criticizing the anonymous WH official who suggested that Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) "should have manned-up and run against [NYC Mayor] Michael Bloomberg" after Weiner criticized the WH's handling of the race.
• Liberal bloggers (Klein, Dayen, Benen, Singer, Willis) are mocking the House GOP health care reform bill after the CBO determined that the bill "would leave about 52 million people uninsured." In other health care reform news, lefty bloggers (McCarter, Benen, Hamsher) continue to criticize the public option "trigger" proposal.

FL SEN: Is The NRSC Throwing Crist To The Wolves?

After Cornyn announced that the NRSC would not be spending money to help Crist in the FL GOP SEN primary, RedState's Erickson was delighted: "Well, the one Republican in Washington, D.C. today who seems to have had a realistic assessment of what took place yesterday is John Cornyn, the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. [...] Make no mistake about it, the only reason that endorsement happened was not to help Crist, but to stop donors from giving money to Rubio. Now that this is no longer a reality or possibility, the NRSC is throwing Charlie to [the] wolves. The message from John Cornyn to everyone seems very clear, 'We're not as screwed up as the NRCC and will not be playing in Florida.' See? Just one of the very many reasons NY-23 was a victory for conservatives."

However, Erickson subsequently accused the NRSC of trying to help Crist in other ways: "Funny. The NRSC's Chairman John Cornyn says the NRSC is sitting Florida out and won't spend a nickel there. That's fine. Of course they did just send out a big memo to NRSC donors and others highlighting all of the up coming opportunities for them to give Charlie Crist money."

The Atlantic's Sullivan was disappointed by Cornyn's announcement: "John Cornyn's statement that the NRSC will not fund its own candidates in disputed primaries seems to me to be a surrender to the base activists. What it means is that the same forces that purged Scozzafava will have free rein to purge others. They are already interpreting a Democratic victory in a super-safe red-state seat as a win for ... conservatives. And the threat of third party candidates against the GOP across the country has obviously spooked the national party leadership."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, generally support Cornyn's move:

• Moulitsas: "NRSC, spooked by NY-23, is backing away from directly engaging in Senate primaries. Actually, that's not a bad thing. Democrats should be no different. The D.C. party shouldn't be propping up candidates from afar. Let the voters choose their nominee. Of course, I'm confident that our primaries generate electable candidates (like [VA Sen.] Jim Webb and [MT Sen.] Jon Tester), while theirs generate candidates like Doug Hoffman. So for Dems, such a policy is a win-win!"
• Firedoglake's David Dayen: "If this were happening in the Democratic Party, I would praise it, so let me briefly do the same here. People on the ground should decide who they want to be their nominee, not Senators playing favorites from back in Washington. Committees like this should respect their base and allow them to pick the candidates, and primaries are generally healthy events for parties. I certainly wish [ex-DCCC Chair] Rahm Emanuel heeded this."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Governors Matter, Not Elections

TAPPED's Mark Schmitt:

"It's governance, not elections, that will matter. If Republican governors like Chris Christie in New Jersey, Robert McDonnell in Virginia, or others elected in 2008 or earlier are seen as successful governors, that's the path back to power for Republicans. The Republican surge in the 1990s owed far more to big-state Republican governors who were perceived as successful than to the congressional majority. Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, John Engler in Michigan, George Voinovich in Ohio, Christine Todd Whitman in New Jersey, Tom Ridge in Pennsylvania and others implanted in those swing-state voters a sense that Republicans could be responsible stewards of government, cutting taxes without cutting services. ('Perceived' is the key word; there were often colossal gimmicks involved.) When voters looked at [Geoge W.] Bush in 2000, they quite reasonably saw him as cut from the same cloth, and very different from the deeply unpopular Republicans of Congress. Governors present a face of the party as solving problems, not stirring conflict around social issues or obstructing progress on health care.

I'm not too worried about Christie being perceived as a big success. New Jersey ran out of gimmicks a long time ago, and I think the Christie administration will dissolve quickly in scandal. [...] But McDonnell takes office on a foundation of eight years of responsible government by [Mark] Warner and Tim Kaine. The state has one of the most resilient economies in the country (thanks, big government!), and it won't take much for him to be seen as a good governor who can also cut some taxes. Such success could make McDonnell a presidential candidate someday, or more likely a challenger for one of the two Senate seats, and it will potentially restore Virginians' comfort with the Republican Party. Those are the only national consequences of yesterday's gubernatorial elections."

LEST WE FORGET: Barack Obama Names Alan Moore Official White House Biographer

From The Onion:

"WASHINGTON -- At a press conference Monday, President Obama announced that he had appointed legendary comic book writer Alan Moore as the official biographer of his time in the White House. 'As evidenced by his epic run on Swamp Thing #21–64, Moore's deft hand with both sociopolitical commentary and metaphysical violence makes him an ideal choice to chronicle my time in office,' Obama said of the author of Watchmen and From Hell, whom he reportedly chose over others on a short list of potential biographers that included Warren Ellis, Grant Morrison, and Bob Woodward. 'I look forward to seeing the kinds of subplots he will surely weave throughout the main narrative of my presidency, and how he'll tie them all back together at the end in a way that just elevates the thing to a whole other level. God, that guy is the master.' Although Obama has not yet settled on a publisher for his White House biography, he is reportedly leaning toward DC's Vertigo imprint for its creator-friendly ethos, high production values, and willingness to publish content for mature readers."

Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are arguing that yesterday's election results have little national significance, noting that Obama has positive approval ratings in both VA and NJ. Several lefty bloggers are pointing out that Dems actually increased their majority in the House last night by winning the NY-23 race. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas writes: "Reminder: Democrats GAINED in the House tonight. So much for the anti-Democratic Congress teabagger wave." Chris Bowers adds: "Whenever a party gains seats in congress, the voters simply are not rebuking that party."

Not surprisingly, the NY-23 race was the one that generated the most commentary in the blogosphere. While righty bloggers were disappointed that Dem Bill Owens narrowly defeated Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman, they're still portraying Hoffman's performance as a victory, since he forced GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the race. Erickson calls the NY-23 result "a huge win for conservatives" and explains: "I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy." Michelle Malkin agrees: "Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in elephant's clothing making a complete ass of the GOP." Liberal bloggers, on the other hand, are mocking the role that the conservative movement played in the NY-23 race. Moulitsas snarks: "Let's all give a hearty round of applause to the teabaggers, who took what would've been a very good night for Republicans and ruined it by helping Democrats pick up a seat they hadn't held since the Civil War."

ELECTION DAY RESULTS: Yes, This Was A Referendum On Obama

Conservative bloggers are portraying yesterday's election results as a rejection of Obama and his agenda:

• Glenn Reynolds: "The Obama magic has faded."
• Malkin: "Glenn Reynolds says the 'Obama magic has faded.' The glow is gone. The swagga has sagged. Indeed. [...] Yes, reality is finally settling in."
• Erickson: "[I]t looks like the love affair is over. In 2008, the American public voted for Barack Obama to prove they weren't racist and in [2009] the same public is voting for Republicans to prove they aren't socialist."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Obama will still be president for another three years, but the mystique is gone. New Jersey just taught Democrats in Congress a big lesson -- Obama can't get them re-elected. Being the President's 'partner' on his radical agenda is not a winning position; it wasn't for Corzine in what should have been a secure blue state, and it certainly won't be in moderate or conservative districts and states held by Democrats in the House and Senate. That is a huge blow to Obama and his agenda, as Democrats now have to consider unpopular bills for ObamaCare and cap-and-trade in an entirely new light. If they fall in behind Obama instead of listening to their constituents, they will find themselves in retirement after the 2010 midterms. That's the big lesson, and it will not be lost on moderate Democrats."

RedState's Dan McLaughlin: "The record turnout among racial-minority and youth voters generated by the 2008 Obama campaign was not replicable in 2009 without his personal presence on the ballot. And of course, the same will be true in 2010, when Obama himself is not personally on the ballot and will again make every effort to explain helpfully to other Democrats that they lost their jobs for reasons unrelated to his precious historic personal popularity. The revelation that Obama cannot help other Democrats get elected is, of course, bound to affect his ability to govern; he can't convince wavering 'Blue Dog' Democrats that supporting him in return for his campaign appearances in their districts will do any more for them than it did for Jon Corzine or Creigh Deeds."

ELECTION DAY RESULTS: No, This Was Not A Referendum On Obama

Liberal bloggers are arguing that yesterday's election results don't have much national significance:

• Moulitsas: "This is not a nationalized election. Democratic special election victories in early 2004 had no bearing on the beating we took that November, while a solid Republican showing in MA-05 in 2007 had no bearing on the trashing they took in November of 2008. These were not nationalized elections, and focused mostly on local issues. Republicans will spin any gains as a repudiation of Obama, but they risk the same level of delusion that I suffered when I thought winning special elections in South Dakota and Kentucky meant anything more than 'good Democratic candidates running on local issues beat shitty Republican ones.' In Virginia, [Bob] McDonnell (R) was by far a better candidate than the Democrats' Deeds. And while NJ Gov. Jon Corzine continues to suffer from approval ratings in the 30s, the race is only competitive because the Republican has turned out to be a horrendous candidate. Incumbents with approval ratings in the 30s have no business winning reelection."
• Balloon Juice's DougJ: "There's not much of a lesson to be learned from a bunch of low turn-out races in an odd year. But if you didn't already know that running to the center in a state your party lost last time (I'm referring to McDonnell in VA) is smart and running to the far right in a swing district (NY-23) is dumb, this is more evidence."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "My election post mortem -- um, it's the economy stupid? Don't run crazy people in New York? Old people in Maine are bigots? I dunno, I suppose you can force a narrative out of this but I do not see one here. 2010 will be decided by what happens between now and Election Day 2010. I think there is nothing to be garnered from last night's results."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "The temptation is to analyze the results in the larger national picture. That's almost certainly a mistake. In November 2001, George W. Bush's approval rating was in the 80s, and Democrats nevertheless won the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia. Was it a hint of shifting political winds? Hardly -- the 2002 midterms didn't go especially well for Dems."

Most liberal bloggers are attributing the anti-incumbent mood to the bad economy:

• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "The electorate was pretty tough on incumbents tonight. Democrats got kicked out in Virginia and New Jersey, Republicans got kicked out in NY-23, and [NYC Mayor] Michael Bloomberg, who was expected to win reelection in a rout, only barely squeaked by. [...] I guess that's not too big a surprise considering the lousy economy and the generally sour mood of the voters."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "I think you can see from the unexpected closeness in the NYC mayor's race that an economic catastrophe is not a good time to be an incumbent elected official."

Several liberal bloggers are pointing out that Dems actually increased their majority in the House yesterday:

• Moulitsas: "Reminder: Democrats GAINED in the House tonight. So much for the anti-Democratic Congress teabagger wave."
• Open Left's Bowers: "Democrats now have 258 seats in the House, up from 257. Whenever a party gains seats in congress, the voters simply are not rebuking that party. With the teabagger vanquished and an upgrade from [ex-Rep. Ellen] Tauscher, that is a pretty solid night in the House."

NY-23: "A Huge Win For Conservatives"

Although Hoffman lost, conservative bloggers are still proud of his campaign -- especially his success in forcing Scozzafava to withdraw from the race:

• Malkin: "Hoffman may have lost narrowly, but NY-23 is a much broader victory for conservatives who believe the Republican Party should stand for core limited government principles. [...] Better a donkey in office that acts like a donkey than a donkey in elephant's clothing making a complete ass of the GOP."
• Erickson: "The race has now been called for Democrat Bill Owens. This is a huge win for conservatives. [...] I have said all along that the goal of activists must be to defeat Scozzafava. Doug Hoffman winning would just be gravy. A Hoffman win is not in the cards, but we did exactly what we set out to do -- crush the establishment backed GOP candidate. [...] So we have demonstrated to the GOP that it must not take conservatives for granted. The GOP spent $900,000.00 on a Republican who dropped out and endorsed the Democrat. Were we to combine Scozzafava and Hoffman's votes, Hoffman would have won. Secondly, and just as importantly, there has all of a sudden been a huge movement among some activists to go the third party route. We see in NY-23 that this is not possible as third parties are not viable. Third parties lack funding and ability for a host of reasons. Conservatives are going to have to work from within the GOP. The GOP had better pay attention. For all intents and purposes, NY-23 is a trial run for Florida. And in Florida, the conservative candidate is operating inside the GOP. If John Cornyn and the NRSC do not want to see Florida go the way of NY-23, they better stand down."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[A]s I said over the weekend, the actual result of this race is unimportant. The point in torpedoing Scozzafava and swinging the GOP behind Hoffman was to send a message to the Republican leadership that only fiscal conservatives will be tolerated henceforth, and that message has been sent even with Owens winning a squeaker. The loss is disappointing but it's a detail on an otherwise great night."
• NRO's Yuval Levin: "Isn't it a little strange to argue that the NY-23 result should take the wind of N.J. and Va. out of Republican sails? It seems to me that that result makes exactly the same point as the two governor's races: A Republican running as a conservative alternative to the party in power at the moment, reasonably attuned to the tone and mood of his constituents, and reasonably unafraid to embrace his party and its conservative identity, can win. It seems pretty obvious that if the GOP had run such a candidate in NY-23 (for instance, if they had run Doug Hoffman rather than forcing him to run as an independent), that candidate would have won handily."

Most conservative bloggers are looking on the bright side:

• Morrissey: "It's never a best-case for the GOP when a Democrat wins, but by keeping Dede Scozzafava out of the seat, the GOP has the chance to win this seat back in a year with a better candidate -- perhaps Hoffman, perhaps another Republican who shares core principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism. Dislodging an incumbent Republican would have been considerably more difficult, and a unified GOP should win this district -- especially given the signals sent everywhere else to Democrats."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "Hoffman has no charisma and the 'Republican' in the race endorsed the Democrat, yet he only lost by 3 points. Combined, Hoffman and Scozzafava pulled in more votes than the Democrat as well. What that means is that in 2010, when there is another election, there will be a stronger Republican candidate in the race and that person will be highly likely to knock off Owens. So, given how it played out, were conservatives right to challenge Scozzafava? Absolutely. Setting aside the fact that it was far from clear that she'd have won, the worst possible outcome would have been for her to win the seat because in a district like that, even a mediocre Democrat with an R beside of her name like Scozzafava might have been able to stay up there for 20 years."
• Geraghty: "Winning 46 percent of the vote, and coming 4,000 or so votes short, is nothing to be ashamed of. But there are primaries for a reason. In less than a year, Doug Hoffman will have his chance to win a Conservative and/or Republican nomination the old-fashioned way."
• NRO's Stephen Spruiell: "If Hoffman decides to run in 2010, he will probably be running against a Bill Owens whose party has forced him to take tough votes on monstrous health-care, energy and card-check bills. This is still a Republican district. Plus, Hoffman won't have to worry about zombie Scozzafava taking 5 percent of the vote."

NY-23 II: Schadenfreude On The Left

Liberal bloggers don't like Owens, a centrist Dem who opposes a public health insurance option. However, liberal bloggers were still happy about Hoffman's loss because they believe that it reflects a growing split within the GOP:

• Moulitsas: "Let's all give a hearty round of applause to the teabaggers, who took what would've been a very good night for Republicans and ruined it by helping Democrats pick up a seat they hadn't held since the Civil War. Glenn Beck? Thanks! [Ex-AK Gov.] Sarah Palin? Thanks! [MN Gov.] Tim Pawlenty? Thanks! Club for Growth? Thanks! Ironically, the NRCC, the RNC, [ex-Speaker] Newt Gingrich and the smartest Republican in the world, Tom Davis (former NRCC chair) were right -- the Republican Party needs to be more of a big tent to successfully compete in the Northeast and other non-Southern parts of the country. So let's sit back and watch the teabaggers go to war against the GOP establishment, even though it was the national and local GOP that knew how to best hold the seat."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "On behalf of the President, I'd like to thank [ex-AK Gov.] Sarah Palin for ruining what could otherwise have been a very good night for the GOP."
• Oliver Willis: "TEABAG FAIL. [...] This is a +30% seat they should win easily, but they were so damned concerned about purity control they kicked themselves in the nuts."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Will Republicans do Obama a big favor by nominating a crop of Hoffmans for 2010?"
• Big Tent Democrat: "Now, if we can only get the Teabaggers to win all the GOP primaries, Dems might be sitting pretty in 2010. It is always easier to run against someone than be run against."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "Tea Party conservatives see themselves as the base of the GOP when really they are just a fringe, and a lunatic fringe at that. But what matters in this case is their own perception of the situation. They are, I think, only more embolden to take on the GOP establishment who is frankly spineless, cowering in fear and out of ideas anyway. I suspect that the battle of the GOP's soul will continue."
• Bowers: "While I would much rather have had Corzine...this win by Owens will cause even more damage in the ongoing Republican civil war. Owens won because he was endorsed by Scozzafava, who was herself torpedoed by most of the Republican establishment. Lots of finger pointing, and no clear result. This is going to get even bloodier."

NJ GOV: Take That, Obama!

Conservative bloggers were particularly happy about NJ Gov.-elect Chris Christie's victory:

• Allahpundit: "The One can spin Virginia but he can't spin this."
• Geraghty: "The Republicans had a good, but not great night, but only one result made me leap out of my chair in the NRA News studio and dance around the room: Chris Christie's win in New Jersey."
• Power Line's Scott Johnson: "Given New Jersey's status as a heavily Democratic state, this may be the most surprising result tonight. The Democrats can spin the result away, but the Obama folks thought this race was winnable and that Obama's involvement would make a difference. Christie was heavily outspent by Corzine. Christie had Corzine's unpopularity going for him, but didn't run an impressive campaign and had to overcome the drag of a third-party candidate who siphoned off anti-Corzine votes. The result of this race has to sting Democrats."
• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "Even if we don't see the New Jersey election results as a rejection of Obama, at the very minimum what they show is that his campaign appearances can't carry a Democrat across the finish line, even a candidate with a huge money advantage in a solidly blue state. And if Obama -- with all of his star power and highly-touted political organization -- can't deliver in New Jersey, then why would a moderate Democrat running for re-election next year in a red district where Obama is unpopular to begin with tie himself to Obama? Why would a red state Democrat vote with the Democratic leadership on issues such as health care legislation and 'cap and trade'?"

On the left side of the blogosphere, Lemos suggests that Obama bring Corzine to DC: "Corzine is now available to [be] Secretary of the Treasury. Dump [Tim] Geithner and replace with Corzine, who is not only more experienced but an actual progressive. A Corzine appointment at Treasury would change the dynamics of the department after over eight years of lightweights in the post."

VA GOV: See? This Is What Happens When You Ignore Your Base

Liberal bloggers argue that the big lesson from Deeds' crushing defeat is that it's foolish for Dems to ignore their base:

• Bowers: "I guess Deeds just didn't swerve far enough to the right. After all, the under-30 vote was only cut in half. He could have done better than that. Another great victory for Blue Dogism."
• Firedoglake's David Dayen: "The Virginia race really looks like a case of a depressed base. Conservatives turned out at basically the same numbers as they did in 2008. The Democrats didn't turn out. And Deeds distancing himself from Democratic agenda items like health care reform and climate change is the reason."
• Willis: "Lesson for Dems: Put up candidates with guts. Deeds ran a squish campaign and got squish results. He opposed cap and trade and said he would opt out of the public option. Way to suppress the base vote, dude."

Moulitsas:

"[P]reliminary numbers (at least in Virginia) show that GOP turnout remained the same as last year, but Democratic turnout collapsed. This is a base problem, and this is what Democrats better take from tonight:

(1.) If you abandon Democratic principles in a bid for unnecessary 'bipartisanship', you will lose votes.
(2.) If you water down reform in favor of Blue Dogs and their corporate benefactors, you will lose votes.
(3.) If you forget why you were elected -- health care, financial services, energy policy and immigration reform -- you will lose votes.

Tonight proved conclusively that we're not going to turn out just because you have a (D) next to your name, or because Obama tells us to. We'll turn out if we feel it's worth our time and effort to vote, and we'll work hard to make sure others turn out if you inspire us with bold and decisive action."

MAINE: This One Hurts

Liberal bloggers were very upset that ME voters repealed the state's same sex marriage law:

• Open Left's Adam Bink: "I don't really have much else to say except this one hurts, in my gut, a lot."
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "The Bishop of Maine, Richard Malone, must be quite pleased with himself. He ran a campaign of lies, hate and distortions -- and convinced enough Maine voters to vote with him. It's going to take me a couple days (or more) to get my head around this one. But, for now, suffice it so say: HATE was the winner in Maine. Hate and the Catholic Bishop. But, this isn't over. Time and justice really are on our side."
• Bowers: "[This is] enough to make your blood boil. The only bright side I can offer is that, once again, we are getting closer to winning these elections. Also, once again, we probably won them among voters under the age of 65."

Several lefty bloggers are discussing whether Obama should have gotten involved:

• Drum: "From a purely practical political perspective it's easy to understand why Obama didn't want to get involved in this, but it might have made a difference. I don't have any doubt that California and Maine will both flip within a few years anyway, but sooner sure would have been better than later."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "There's going to be an effort by many on the left to blame Barack Obama for his lack of leadership on gay rights issues; I think the criticism is correct on its face, but I don't know how much it has to do with the defeat in Maine. A more popular Democratic governor, for instance, who had been a bit quicker on the trigger in his support of gay marriage, might have helped more."

On the other side of the blogosphere, conservative bloggers celebrated the ME results:

• NRO's Maggie Gallagher: "The People have exercized their veto. This is huge. I am so happy."
• NRO's Thomas Peters: "Proponents of same-sex marriage, unlike in California's Prop 8, can't blame Maine on Mormons, on African Americans who turned out for Barack Obama, or on confusing ballot wording. Their issue loses when the people decide. And it loses every time."
• Malkin: "Socially liberal Maine rejects a gay marriage initiative -- making it the 31st time (out of 31 tries) that voters have torpedoed such proposals. How long until gay marriage proponents start decrying America's 'climate of hate?' 3, 2, 1...."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "The vote preserving marriage in Maine sends a clear message: Democrats will repeal DADT at their own peril."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: So What If He's Personally Popular?

NRO's Jonah Goldberg:

"After the election, we were told this is the dawn of a new progressive era. Now liberals (but the MSM even more) say everything's okay because Obama is still personally popular, even as the country is rejecting the progressive era he's supposed to be ushering in. Wah-frick'n-hoo. I for one will gladly make that trade. I am perfectly happy to have a popular Democratic president unable to push a liberal agenda, than an unpopular Democratic president with a country hungry for a liberal agenda.

Yesterday was a severe blow to healthcare reform and cap and trade. But yes, Barack Obama is still popular. But if all Barack Obama's personal popularity is good for is getting gushing profiles of his wife in supermarket magazines, 'buck up camper' essays in Newsweek and the Nobel Prize for bring hope to Norway and Sweden, that's okay with me."

LEST WE FORGET: Obama Says He Has Fulfilled Campaign's Vague Catchphrases

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- Marking the one-year anniversary of his historic election to the presidency, Barack Obama delivered a major speech today in which he said he had 'fulfilled the vague and diffuse catchphrases laid out in my campaign.'

Underscoring his point, Mr. Obama said, 'When I was running for President, no one knew exactly what "Change You Can Believe In" meant. One year later, I am proud to say that that is still the case.'

The President said he was particularly proud of the way in which he had delivered on his 'Yes, we can' slogan.

'One year later, can we say that we have change we can believe in?' he said. 'Yes we can.'"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Lane, Knight) are accusing NJ Dems of trying to "steal the election" for Corzine, and they're buzzing (Morrissey, Gardner, Geraghty) about allegations that NJ Dems are "using gangbangers for GOTV." Liberal bloggers (Roth, Black, Schulman) are accusing their conservative counterparts of making phony voter fraud allegations.
• Liberal bloggers (Hamsher, Benen) are criticizing Blue Dog Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) for claiming that centrist Dems would benefit from GOP victories in today's elections. Lefty bloggers (Benen, Sudbay) are also blasting Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) for declaring that health care reform poses a bigger threat than "any terrorist right now in any country." Finally, several liberal bloggers (Klein, digby, Rosenberg) spent yesterday raising money for Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL).
• Liberal bloggers (Black, McCarter, Lemos, Benen, Drum) are mocking Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) for claiming that passage of the Dem health care reform bill will keep Dems in power for years.

ELECTION DAY: Preemptive Spin From The AP?

Conservative bloggers are criticizing Liz Sidoti's AP article, "GOP Victory Tuesday Won't Erase Party's Problems":

• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "AP pre-spin: These elections mean nothing and the GOP is doomed."
• Ace of Spades: "It's hard to read the AP as anything other than a DNC spokesman."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "This whole article is wishful thinking and editorializing disguised as news. With almost no attribution to other sources, either. For shame."
• RedState's Erick Erickson: "The Obama administration and the media are together going to downplay today's electoral victories for the GOP. They will, to the mainstream media, not be relevant to or any sign of a rebuke against Barack Obama and his far left agenda. In fact, the media is already beginning the narrative that we cannot see today as a referendum on Barack Obama. [...] Don't believe it. The facts speak for themselves."
• Townhall's Matt Lewis: "To be sure, there are various factors at play here; there always are. Still, how can anyone say that Tuesday's elections don't reflect -- at least, to some degree -- Obama's unpopularity? He may not be to blame for the bad candidates, but it's also fair to say that his coattails don't seem to be long enough to lift them ..."
• Michelle Malkin: "Democrats and their media water-carriers got a head-start with this preemptive AP piece downplaying anticipated GOP wins. So: Tea Party movement? Doesn't mean anything. Nationwide government health care takeover revolt? Doesn't mean anything. Gallup poll showing 'Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group?' Doesn't mean anything. [...] If they plug their ears, stamp their feet, and say it often enough, maybe they can wish tomorrow and the conservative surge all away."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Remember, whatever happens on Election Day, no result could possibly ever suggest that Barack Obama and his administration is not as popular, as persuasive, as well-liked or as influential as he was a year ago. Never, ever, ever."

Several liberal bloggers are concerned about the impact of today's elections:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "On Wednesday, Democrats will be tempted to brush off these results as lacking in national meaning. There are undoubtedly local factors at play in all of these elections, and candidate / campaign quality always makes a real difference in the outcome of any election. However, as a group we should not delude ourselves. Compared to one year ago, Republicans have made measurable gains."
• MyDD's Jerome Armstrong: "[W]ho thought it was a good idea to wait till after the election to try and close the deal on healthcare reform? Without a doubt, this will give the [Joe] Lieberman's all the talking points they need. We could be strong-enough along the public option path to make it happen still, but a election-night sweep like the above would nuke our chances at big progressive climate bill changes, pro-immigration reform, and a pro-labor bill."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Republicans' Branding Problem

Nate Silver echoes Patrick Ruffini's argument that Doug Hoffman's success in the NY-23 race suggests that more GOP candidates should abandon their party label:

"The Democratic brand is marginal in about half the country, but the Republican brand is radioactive in about two-thirds of it. The biggest story of the cycle is that a non-Republican conservative, Doug Hoffman, might win. Counterfactual: if Hoffman had in fact been the Republican nominee in NY-23 all along, would he be in the same strong position that he finds himself in today? Methinks not: it would have been easier for [Dem candidate Bill] Owens -- who isn't much of a Democrat -- to identify himself as the moderate in the race.

You can actually make the argument -- although maybe it's not a good one -- that Republicans should in fact find a way to pull a Blackwater and switch their party ID when nobody is looking, from Republican to capital-C Conservative. This would probably involve at least some degree of bona fide structural change, and undoubtedly some near-term trauma: an orchestrated chaos. But the 'conservative' brand is just as powerful as it ever was in America, whereas the Republican brand is as weak as it has been."

LEST WE FORGET: ...I Just Can't Read Yet

From Overheard in New York:

Mother: What do you have there?
Five-year-old daughter: My schedule.
Mother: Do you know what class you have first?
Five-year-old daughter: Mom, I'm not retarded.

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Erickson continues to target FL Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) SEN campaign. Meanwhile, Erickson and his fellow RedState blogger Leon H. Wolf are accusing the NRSC of generating spam Twitter followers for CA SEN candidate Carly Fiorina (R) (the NRSC denies the allegation).
• Liberal bloggers (Aravosis, Benen, Waldman, BooMan) are criticizing Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for declaring that he would prefer "nothing" to health care reform that includes a public option.

NY-23: Bloggers 1, Establishment 0

Conservative bloggers were thrilled when Scozzafava quit the race:

• Malkin: "Finally: The spoiler exits the race. [...] Hey, GOP elites: Can you hear conservatives NOW?!"
• RedState's Erickson: "We PWND The NRCC. Dede Scozzafava Drops Out. GOP Establishment Dies on Our Hill."
• Townhall's Jillian Bandes: "This is a huge victory for conservatism."

Righty bloggers were subsequently disgusted (but not surprised) when Scozzafava endorsed Owens, and they're rubbing the endorsement in the NRCC's face:

• Erickson: "The Republican Party spent $900,000.00 to help her and this is how she repays them. And Pete Sessions, Chairman of the NRCC, and Guy Harrison, Executive Director of the NRCC, still have their jobs and are failing to take responsibility for this disaster, instead blaming conservatives."
• Malkin: "Hey, how did that six-figure RNC donation to the NRCC plus $85,000 to the New York GOP plus nearly half-million-dollar investment in advertising and other independent expenditures on behalf of radical leftist Dede Scozzafava work out? She repaid the GOP by endorsing Democrat candidate Bill Owens. Some gratitude, eh? [...] I repeat: One thing is guaranteed at the conclusion of the NY-23 special congressional election: The Beltway Republicans who endorsed radical leftist Dede Scozzafava are going to have indelible egg stains on their faces. And GOP establishment fund-raising organizations will be the poorer for it. Suckers."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "There are two ways of looking at this. Either Scozzafava doesn't mind throwing Republicans under the bus for a little dog-in-the-manger revenge, or she's a lot closer in policy to the Democrat than the conservative candidate. Neither of those commends Scozzafava, nor the county party leaders who handpicked her to replace [ex-Rep.] John McHugh. In fact, it makes it clear that conservatives were right all along to point out Scozzafava's unsuitability for the endorsement -- and should result in replacing the GOP bosses in NY-23 who bungled it."

NY-23 II: What Does It All Mean?

Righty bloggers are talking up the significance of a Hoffman victory:

• Power Line's John Hinderaker: "[I]f Hoffman can win on Tuesday, it will be viewed as a watershed movement in the resurgence of conservatism."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "[A] Conservative party candidate eking out a plurality in a three-way race is one thing. A Conservative candidate winning head-to-head against a Democrat, with the endorsement of the Republican... well, the potential reverberations from this potential earthquake just got even bigger."

Hot Air's Allahpundit argues that conservatives have already won, regardless of whether or not Hoffman wins: "As gratifying as it would be to see Hoffman win, the guy didn't become a conservative grassroots cause celebre because people are dying to see Doug Hoffman in Congress. He's a cause celebre because conservatives wanted to send a message to the GOP about the future of the party, and that message has now been sent -- and received, to the tune of $900,000 down the toilet -- regardless of what happens on Tuesday. The party can still get away with putting up socially liberal Republicans in select purple districts next year, but fiscally liberal nominees are going to earn them either a primary challenge, a third-party challenge, or a disaffected base spending election day at home. And a Hoffman defeat will do nothing to change that."

Meanwhile, liberal blogger DougJ accuses his conservative counterparts of preemptive spinning: "It goes without saying that whatever happens in NY-23 on Tuesday, it will be good news for conservatives. If teabagger Hoffman wins, it will signal a profound political realignment, the likes of which have not been seen since the days of Ronaldus Magnus. If the Democrat Owens wins, it will still be amazing that Hoffman came out of nowhere to make the race so close; this will probably be true no matter what the vote totals are, though there is also the possibility that Hoffman will lose by so much that it will turn out that he wasn't a true conservative."

NY-23 III: So Much For Being A Big Tent Party...

The #1 talking point in the liberal blogosphere is that the conservative movement is hurting the GOP brand by rejecting moderates like Scozzafava:

• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "There is no room for different ideas in the modern day GOP. The teabaggers rule their world."
• Daily Kos' Jake McIntyre: "The Republican establishment that at least pretended to speak to all Americans is deeply, deeply wounded, and a wild-eyed, exclusionist, birther religio-beast is taking its place."
• The Reality-Based Community's Mark Kleiman: "Obviously, I hope [Scozzafava's] endorsement helps pull the Democrat in the race over the finish line. But even if the Conservative wins -- now with the full support of the RNCC -- the message to centrist Republicans is clear: you're not wanted. Whether by skill or by luck, Obama's bipartisan gesture in appointing a Republican to a senior post has helped his opponents self-destruct."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "In today's Republican Party, it is the Jacobin wing that is seemingly ascendant. The Tea Party set are today's sans-coulottes and like those of yore, they are set on purging their party of any and all who do not subscribe to their rabid orthodoxy. Even former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is deemed too moderate."
• The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "When Newt Gingrich is too moderate, and trying to pull the Republican Party closer to the American mainstream, it's safe to say there's something deeply wrong. It's also safe to say the national Republican Party, which has suffered consecutive electoral failures and has seen its brand deteriorate further this year, has a problem for which there is no obvious solution."
• Balloon Juice's John Cole: "You know the thing that I find most amusing about the NY race is that what they are basically telling every moderate Republican across the country is that it doesn't matter if you've been a loyal Republican for decades, it doesn't matter if you know the district and the people, it doesn't matter if you fit the district, and it doesn't matter that you have given decades to the party. It just doesn't matter. If the teabagging wingnuts and the shrieking lunatics like [Michelle] Malkin don't like you, high profile crackpots like [ex-AK Gov. Sarah] Palin and [ex-Maj. Leader] Dick Armey and others are going to swoop in and back some clown who doesn't even live in the district and then shit all over the area's voters, telling them their interests are 'parochial.' Now that is how you build a sustainable party!"
• BooMan: "As far as I am concerned, the Democrats have already won. Either their candidate will win a seat that has been held by Republicans for something like a century or they will lose it to a teabagger. [...E]lecting teabaggers isn't a good sign for the health of the Republican Party in the northeast or any place else. Being crazy and out of touch is what got the party in all the trouble they're in. Seeing all the heavyweights of the national party swoop in and gang up on a reasonably moderate candidate for the House is going to scare off a bunch of prospective Yankee Republicans who might have thought of running for office."

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan agrees: "Within the GOP whatever nerve anyone had to resist the imprimatur of Erickson, Malkin, RS McCain et al is surely gone now. If a moderate cannot survive even in up-state New York, it's over."

Not every liberal blogger is rejoicing over Hoffman's surge, however:

• digby: "[I]t appears that the teabaggers are gaining steam. And lest we think they are just a funny joke, it would probably pay to recall instances in history when radical, paranoid right wingers got legitimate political power. The joke can easily turn into a nightmare."
• FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver: "[D]o Democrats really want to be celebrating if an extreme conservative like Hoffman -- who, by the way, is not an especially good candidate -- is able to win a very middle-of-the-road district like NY-23? Sure, Hoffman would be very vulnerable as an incumbent (which might be a moot point anyway since NY-23 is liable to be redistricted out of existence.) But if a Glenn Beck-ian conservative is able to win a district that shares a frontier with Vermont and Canada, ought that not be at least a little bit worrying for Democrats in terms of the mood of the country?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Real Story

NRO's Jonah Goldberg:

"I'm writing about this for my USA Today column, but the Frank Rich hissy fit is a perfect example of the real story of the election. The story is not that the GOP is self-destructing, it is that the conventional wisdom is being shown to be ludicrous. For some time now Frank Rich, Sam Tanenhaus and countless others (including David Frum) have been arguing that the GOP is a rump party and the only way for it to survive is for it to embrace me-too Republicanism of one flavor or another. The story of all three major races (VA, NJ, and NY-23) is that this conventional wisdom was incandescently wrong and ill-advised. Hoffman and [ex-VA AG Bob] McDonnell owe their success to the support of independents (the independents all of these people said wanted moderate, Democrat-lite policies) and to Republicans determined to stay true to conservative principles. Not only was the conventional wisdom wrong, the idea that there's a 'civil war' within the GOP revolving around this argument is nonsense. The GOP is an unapologetically conservative party, providing a choice not an echo, and -- horror of horrors -- it's working."

LEST WE FORGET: Retiree Gearing Up For Errands With Lady Friend

From The Onion:

"POMPANO BEACH, FL -- Following a breakfast of shredded wheat and grapefruit juice, 76-year-old Martin Schoenfeld shaved, tied his shoes, and put on a fresh shirt in preparation for an afternoon of errands at the Pompano Citi Centre with his new lady friend, Marcy Larroway, 73. 'I've got the car warming up outside,' Schoenfeld said while working a dab of Brylcreem through his hair and deciding whether the two would purchase stamps at the post office first or go straight to the Hallmark store. 'Maybe we'll have time for a matinee after the pharmacy. It's right nearby.' At press time, Schoenfeld was calling to confirm his 5 p.m. dinner reservation for two at the HomeTown Buffet."

(If you're looking for Friday's edition of Blogometer, click here).

Where did you grow up?
New Jersey, please remind Republicans that [Ronald] Reagan won it in 1980 and 1984. I know, I was there. A libertarian/conservative coalition can win it, again.

Where do you live now?
In Northern Virginia just off the Beltway on the "right" side of it -- the outside.

If you have an occupation other than blogging, what is it?
Occasional blog consulting of a political nature.

What's on your iPod right now?
I don't own one, most independent full-time Right-side political bloggers can't afford luxuries.

What book do you think every person should read?
Best to ask Katie Couric, I hear she's big on that, though I will suggest One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez as the best book I've ever read.

Please finish this sentence: "When I'm not blogging, you'll probably find me..."
Asleep, watching a movie, reading primarily political news items on the Internet, or some combination of the above.

What has been your favorite blog post, or your favorite story to write about?
Natalie Holloway for purely technical reasons -- it ran for over a year and allowed for true investigative reporting with depth, often breaking stories ahead of the mainstream media that received national attention before blogs were taken more seriously for their journalistic capabilities.

Which blogger(s) do you consider indispensable, if any?
The fundamental concept behind blogging is that none should ever be indispensable. As a democratic media form, they have power and importance because of mass. If one becomes too important it has failed to support the ideal.

Who's your favorite non-conservative blogger?
Who has time to read blogs?

Who's your favorite active politician? Least favorite?
Fav = Sarah Palin for the energy, but the jury remains out. Least Fav = Barack Obama.

What would you realistically like to see Republicans accomplish before the 2010 midterms?
To genuinely stop being a party of DC and return to being a party of the people, again.

If you could give President Obama advice, what would it be?
I'd say work on your resume but as the experience section has always been so light, maybe the UN after 2012 is your only hope.

What keeps you up at night?
That the fundamental principles and ideals that made this country great have been betrayed by two political parties and their respective professional political classes that are too powerful and too far out of touch to save it now. If so, then Euro-socialism here we come.

Please feel free to ask and answer your own question.
Were you serious here, or are you just a crazy blogger?
Yes, and No.

"Sitting on the sidelines in this race is not an option for [ex-MA Gov. Mitt] Romney or [ex-AR Gov. Mike] Huckabee. Neither is qualified as a leader of conservatives when they will not support Doug Hoffman. It is as simple as that. And we will remember in 2012."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Dayton, Hinderaker) are accusing NJ Dems of trying to commit absentee-ballot fraud in order to pad Gov. Jon Corzine's (D) vote totals.
• RedState's Erickson continues to accuse FL Gov. Charlie Crist (R) of creating an anonymous website attacking his SEN primary rival, ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R).
• Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) held a conference call with liberal bloggers (McCarter, Bowers, Aravosis, Amato) after introducing the House health care reform bill yesterday. Other lefty bloggers (Yglesias, Benen, Walker, Hamsher) are discussing the House bill and comparing it to the Senate bills. Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (digby, Cole, Benen, Willis) are still hammering Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) for his comments about health care reform.
• Liberal bloggers (Benen, Drum, BooMan, Kleiman) are praising Pres. Obama for succeeding in his effort to eliminate expensive weapons programs from the defense appropriations bill.

Finally, please check back later today for our interview with Riehl World View's Dan Riehl!

NY-23: Scozza-who?

Conservative bloggers see the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll as evidence that it's now a two-man race between Hoffman and Owens:

• Erickson: "This is an Owens-Hoffman race now. [...] With a race this close and Hoffman's base profoundly fired up, he could realistically win this race."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Of course, this [poll] doesn't mean Hoffman isn't winning; it just tells us that it's a close race, and that Scozzafava is, as mentioned earlier, turning into an afterthought."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "Remember...that the campaigns have been whispering for the past week that internal polls show a two-man race now with Scozzafava fading. Consider this confirmation."

Allahpundit continues: "R2000 did miss an opportunity, though, by failing to poll Scozzafava voters on who their second choice is. That would have finally given us a sense of how things are likely to break if her supporters decide she's a lost cause next week and force themselves to choose between Owens and Hoffman. Instead, they polled Hoffman's supporters on that question, which was stupid given that he's vaulted past her and thus is no longer the one playing spoiler. What's fascinating about this election is that not only has the nominee of one of the major parties been relegated to the traditional third-party role of bleeding votes from a more popular candidate, but because Scozzafava's essentially running in the center, between Owens and Hoffman, there's no telling who she's bleeding more votes from. Are supporters of the liberal Republican more inclined to break for a Republican or for a liberal?"

NY-23 II: The View From The Left

Liberal bloggers agree with their conservative counterparts that Hoffman appears to be surging:

• Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "If Scozzafava's fade continues, Hoffman will win this thing. Democratic chances hinge on halting the Hoffman surge, which is why the DCCC has trained its guns on the conservative party candidate."
• MyDD's Jonathan Singer: "With support for Hoffman growing 9 points over the past week or so, he clearly has the momentum. That said, the race remains very close and still could go either way."
• TPM's Josh Marshall: "With the surge in support for Doug Hoffman in NY-23 and the news that outside groups have dumped $3 million into the race, could it now be that Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava is the spoiler and spoiling it for Dem Bill Owens?"

Moulitsas explains why he isn't rooting for any of the candidates: "It's clear now that Scozzafava, were she victorious next week, would have to turn hard-right to survive the inevitable primary challenge next year. In fact, it's hard to see how she doesn't lose a 2010 primary to Hoffman. She's pretty much toast -- if not next week, then next year. So the chances of being a [Susan] Collins/[Olympia] Snowe-type Republican are non-existent. Unlike what I wrote a month ago, there's no longer any upside to her winning. [...] So I'm no longer rooting for a Scozzafava victory. That gets us nothing. And I'm not rooting for a Hoffman victory, and I'm certainly not rooting for Owens because I'm over Lieberdems."

Although he isn't invested in the outcome of the race, Moulitsas is still critical of NARAL for spending money on Scozzafava's behalf: "Assuming they don't want conservative party teabagger Doug Hoffman to win, this is beyond stupid. First of all, Scozzafava is dead-woman walking. Her numbers are tanking and she's been effectively marginalized out of the race. Her role now is that of spoiler -- can she take enough votes away from Hoffman to give the Democrat, Bill Owens, a plurality victory? This NARAL effort is indistinguishable from the conservative dirty tricksters. When your messaging and tactics are indistinguishable from the right-wing dirty tricksters, you know you've screwed up. Nice waste of donor money."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: NY-23 Across America

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini:

"The key fact that sticks out in my mind about Doug Hoffman's incredible momentum in NY-23 is that his election would not have been possible had he been the Republican nominee. The fact that we may be about to elect a non-squish from New York has everything to do with the fact that he is running as a third-party independent, and not a Republican (even if the Conservative Party is an auxiliary of the Republicans in most elections).

Hoffman as a Republican would have been too obvious a target and the subject of a relentless barrage of negative TV, websites, mail, and phones branding him as outside the mainstream, anti-choice, anti-worker, etc. But politically, Hoffman has managed to avoid all that until five days out, when it's now clear he's the frontrunner. And as Chris Cillizza points out this morning, Hoffman's success in the polls is built on the back among strong support among independents and (primarily) not Republican regulars disgusted at Scozzafava.

This got me thinking: How many points is an Independent party label worth, assuming you're able to vie for Republican votes in a general election? 5? 10? We know that in races with a plausible third party, that candidate automatically tends to earn more independent and moderate support even if they are ideologically indistinguishable from a Republican (Hoffman) or a Democrat (Chris Daggett in New Jersey). [...] In a handful of races, perhaps in places where we can't win with the Republican label alone, it might be more useful for the general election to be a strong Independent versus a Democrat rather than a Republican versus a Democrat."

LEST WE FORGET: Lieberman Announces Formation Of A**hole Party

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman has switched parties again, announcing today that he is forming a new political party called the Asshole Party.

'Across this great land of hours, there are many, many assholes who have been ignored by the two major parties,' Sen. Lieberman told reporters. 'The Asshole Party will speak for them.'

Sen. Lieberman added that 'for years, assholes in America have had no voice, and I want to be that whiny, nasal voice.'"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• RedState editor Erick Erickson is accusing FL Gov. Charlie Crist (R) of creating an anonymous website attacking his SEN primary rival, ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R). Erickson thinks the website "potentially violate[s] federal law." Other conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Hillyer) are also piling on Crist.
• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Goldberg, Brookhiser) continue to rally behind Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the NY-23 race. Other righty bloggers (McCain, Malkin, Erickson) are buzzing about Dan Riehl's allegation that the NRCC had a hand in selecting Dede Scozzafava as the GOP nominee. Meanwhile, at least one righty blogger is disappointed that Hoffman skipped last night's debate.
• Several liberal bloggers (Bink, Willis, LeGendre) are praising Pres. Obama for signing a bill that "expands the definition of violent federal hate crimes to those committed because of a victim's sexual orientation." However, Andrew Sullivan is blasting the bill and criticizing Obama's record on gay rights -- prompting liberal blogger John Cole to declare that Sullivan has "lost his damned mind." Meanwhile, conservative blogger Greg Hengler complains that the bill "champions the leftist value of partisan tolerance."

DODD: There's A Limit To Loyalty

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Dodd for calling the idea of punishing Lieberman "ridiculous":

• Daily Kos' Moulitsas: "We also know 2010 will be a base election. If Connecticut Democrats decide they don't want to turn out, then Dodd is toast. His path to victory requires strong Democratic turnout. And I can guarantee that there's no better way to dampen support for any Democrat than to get Joe Lieberman's back -- especially when Lieberman is in the middle of one of his patented hissy fits. Dodd has been doing well on substantive matters (like his strong support for the public option), so it's a bit annoying seeing him take an unnecessary hit in order to defend that ungrateful ass. Because, as we all know, it's only a matter of time before Lieberman hits the campaign trail for [GOP candidate] Rob Simmons."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "As tparty says over at MLN, Dodd is demonstrating a 'forgiving attitude towards his junior colleague' that I understand. But it's one thing to say 'Joe's being Joe.' It's another to assert his authority within the caucus as a powerful committee chair to say Lieberman will face no penalty for abandoning the caucus on a critical procedural vote. He went too far. [...] Now Dodd's opponent Rob Simmons is applauding Lieberman's bold move to derail health care. Before this gets out of hand, Dodd needs to man up and say Joe -- and every Democrat in the Senate -- should insist on caucus unity on an 'Upper-Down Vote.' Because even [PA Sen.] Arlen Specter is calling for that. [...] If Chris Dodd has more loyalty to an 'old boy's club' notion of the Senate than he does to an issue he was tasked to lead on by both the President and [ex-MA Sen.] Ted Kennedy, I think he firmly moves into 'part of the problem' territory."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "Of course there's nothing 'ridiculous' about [reprimanding Lieberman]. It's quite standard in legislative bodies for members who defy the party position to face various kinds of reprimands. A political party, after all, isn't supposed to be a mutual aid society for incumbent legislators. At their best, parties are vehicles for advancing a somewhat coherent vision of national policy. It is true, however, that it would be an unusual step for the Senate Democratic caucus to engage in discipline-enforcing behavior. That, however, is because Senate Democrats are outliers in their behavior, not because the idea of enforcing discipline is somehow nutty. Now it should be said that in the particular case of Dodd it's probably not in his interests to pick a fight with a home state colleague in the midst of a re-election campaign. Consequently, he probably shouldn't be the go-to guy to ask about this issue."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "I think [Dodd's position is] backwards. Political parties that expect loyalty from caucus members tend to be more effective and have more success advancing their agenda. And as a rule, party loyalty isn't the result of polite pleas and gracious appeals -- politicians tend to be more loyal to their party when they know their party has the means and the will to punish them. If those who are disloyal face no consequences -- indeed, if they're rewarded despite their recalcitrance -- it encourages less fidelity. [...] Is it really so 'ridiculous' to think Lieberman might face some consequences from his party in response to his conduct?"

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (McCarter, Marshall, Scarecrow) continue to criticize Lieberman's comments about health care reform. Moulitsas thinks Lieberman's posturing is damaging his reelection prospects:

"There are two possible options looking ahead to 2012: 1) [Lieberman] will retire, and if so, we have zero leverage with the guy. He will either vote for cloture after getting the proper feting (or behind closed-door threats) from [Senate Maj. Leader Harry] Reid and Obama (hence the tame and diplomatic reaction to Lieberman's intransigence), or he'll deliver for his insurance industry pals in Connecticut by making common cause with Republicans. But if he 2) plans on running for reelection (the likelier choice), then his leverage is reduced dramatically. [...] Given that Lieberman already trailed badly in hypothetical matchups against Attorney General Dick Blumenthal [D] and Gov. Jodi Rell [R] while suffering from a negative approval rating (47-50 favorability before these latest antics), Lieberman can't afford to oppose his constituents on an issue of this magnitude and expect to have any hope of surviving reelection."

BAYH: Doing What He Does Best

Liberal bloggers are also criticizing Bayh for echoing the GOP argument that voting for cloture on health care reform is tantamount to supporting the bill:

• Benen: "Got that? Evan Bayh is undermining this once-in-a-generation chance at health care reform and helping advance the Republican message at the same time. [...] Remember, this is total nonsense. Senators voting to end debate on a bill, only to ultimately vote against the same bill, happens all the time. Joe Lieberman has done it repeatedly. Of course there's a difference between procedural and policy votes. Bayh is helping Republicans for no reason. It couldn't be simpler -- if legislation Bayh doesn't like comes to the floor, he can vote against it. Before that, he can offer amendments, give speeches, and encourage others to agree with him. Just let the Senate vote."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "SEIU compiled some compelling examples of how Democratic Senator Evan Bayh (D-OH) has voted for cloture (i.e., against a filibuster) numerous times, even though in the end he voted against the Democratic legislation itself. [...] And this makes sense. It's one thing to vote against a bill, especially if the Dems already have the votes to pass it without you. It's an entirely other thing to vote to sustain a filibuster killing the bill."
• Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Evan Bayh."

Other liberal bloggers are discussing whether Senate Dems should take Bayh up on his dare to use the reconciliation process if they're "adamant" about passing a public option:

• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Bayh opposes all forms of a public option. So when he says that, he is laughing in the face of President Obama, Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi and Senate Leader Reid. When Evan Bayh is calling you a wimp, you know that you are weak."
• BooMan: "I find it unconscionable that [Bayh], or any other member of the caucus, would hold reform hostage. If he wants to dare Obama to use reconciliation, there isn't much I can do about it, but I think it is a pure dick move on Bayh's part. Since Reid and [IL Sen. Dick] Durbin are openly calling Bayh's bluff, I hope they are willing to play some serious hardball. I know Bayh wants to strip out the tax on medical device manufacturers, and [LA Sen. Mary] Landrieu wants more Katrina-aid, and [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln and Lieberman want to keep their committee chairs. Maybe they can get what they want in return for their cloture votes, and lose it if this has to go to reconciliation."
• Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "The option of using reconciliation does provide Congressional progressives with some leverage. If they determine that the most conservative Democratic senators are demanding too much, they can always bypass them and still get a bill passed. The question may come down to whether a bill that would be watered down by the strange Byrd rule would still end up a better bill than one watered down to fulfill the whims of Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, or [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: I Don't Need Your Civil War

NRO's Rich Lowry:

"There's been a lot of focus on NY-23, for understandable reasons -- it's a great fight in a year with only a few races to pay attention to. But there's a lot of wild over-interpretation going on. Among more excitable folks on both the left and the right, there's a tendency to think this heralds some broader GOP civil war. Not likely. The circumstances of the race are entirely unique. In most districts of the country, the Republican nominee is going to be acceptable to conservatives (most Republican primary voters are conservative, after all), and certainly almost never as noxious as Dede Scozzafava. What is happening in NY-23 is a product of how bad Scozzafava is coupled with the fact that New York has a long-standing conservative third party. I think Newt [Gingrich] has made the wrong call in this race -- Hoffman is not only much better on the issues, he can win -- but his broader point shouldn't be lost in the uproar over his misbegotten Scozzafava endorsement: Congressional candidates have to be tailored to their districts, and conservatives have to reconcile themselves to 75 percent candidates in some of them. So, let's hope that Hoffman pulls it out, which looks increasingly plausible, but no one should make apocalyptic extrapolations based on this one race.

Meanwhile, the campaign that potentially has the most applicability nationally for Republicans is Virginia's gubernatorial race. There, you have a candidate who has united and energized his base and his party, is winning on just about every issue, and may well lead a stinging defeat of Democrats up and down the ballot in a purplish state that is increasingly suburban and diverse. It's Bob McDonnell that Republicans around the country will look to for lessons on how to make their comeback happen when the electoral rubber hits the road."

LEST WE FORGET: U.S. Continues Quagmire-Building Effort In Afghanistan

From The Onion:

"KABUL, AFGHANISTAN -- According to sources at the Pentagon, American quagmire-building efforts continued apace in Afghanistan this week, as the geographically rugged, politically unstable region remained ungovernable, death tolls continued to rise, and the grim military campaign persisted as hopelessly as ever. In fact, many government officials now believe that the United States and its allies could be as little as six months away from their ultimate goal: the total quagmirification of Afghanistan.

'We've spent a lot of time and money fostering the turmoil and despair necessary to make this a sustaining quagmire, and we're not going to stop now,' President Barack Obama said in a national address Monday night. 'It won't be easy, but with enough tactical errors on the ground, shortsighted political strategies, and continued ignorance of our vast cultural differences, we could have a horrific, full-fledged quagmire by 2012.'

Added Obama, 'Together, we can make Afghanistan into a nightmarish hell-scape Americans will regret for generations to come.'"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Klein) continue to criticize ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) for defending his endorsement of GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 race. Other righty bloggers (Erickson, Morrissey) are promoting ex-Sen. Fred Thompson's (R-TN) new ad for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Meanwhile, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) became the latest conservative GOPer to give an exclusive statement to RedState announcing his endorsement of Hoffman.
• Several conservative bloggers (Stevens, Riehl) are criticizing CA SEN candidate Carly Fiorina (R) after the Chuck DeVore camp released a video of Fiorina discussing regulation of the web at a recent conference. However, Townhall.com is defending Fiorina. In other SEN news, liberal bloggers (Bowers, Black) are accusing Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) of flip-flopping shamelessly on the Defense of Marriage Act.
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lane, Jessup, Allahpundit) are criticizing Obama for praising Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) at a recent fundraiser.

LIEBERMAN: We Warned You, Dems

Liberal bloggers have never trusted Lieberman, but they're still disgusted by his behavior:

• digby: "I kept hearing in private conversations that everyone was sure that good old Lieb wouldn't join the filibuster. No way, no how. After all 'he's with us on everything but the war.' But it always seemed absurd to me to trust good old Lieb since he's become a bitter, angry, resentful, creepy, arch conservative, vengeful old fuck (which isn't all that different than he always was, but he used to be a little bit constricted by his religious image.)"
• Hamsher: "Joe Lieberman said he 'feared' the 60 vote Democratic majority shortly after the election. Well, sure is a good thing we gave him oversight over Homeland Security, allowed him to use it as a power base and let him have his gavel without any agreement whatsoever to support the caucus on procedural votes. [...] Nice going, Senate Majority Leader Reid. Well, you trusted him, you fought for him -- now you own him."
• Atrios: "He's With Us On Everything But The War. Reid said that to me personally. We tried to warn them..."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "One of the main criticisms progressives had of Lieberman leading up to the 2006 primary was that he often joined with Republicans on prominent issues ([Bill] Clinton impeachment, Iraq war) in order to garner huge media attention for himself. Again, that pattern holds."

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen: "[I]t's worth appreciating how extreme Lieberman's position really is. For some reform advocates, the starting point was single-payer. Then there was a compromise to a robust public option. Then there was another compromise to a negotiated public option. Then there was yet another compromise to a negotiated public option with a state opt-out. Lieberman is saying these compromises aren't enough -- his opposition to competition and giving consumers a choice is so intense, he'd rather kill health care reform then let senators even vote on the bill. It will be a vote decades in the making, giving policymakers a once-in-a-generation opportunity. And as of today, Lieberman would rather let reform die than give some Americans in some states a choice between a public and a private insurance plan."

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas: "I live in mortal fear that Lieberman will retire before we get a chance to crush him in 2012."

LIEBERMAN II: Stop Making Sense

Many liberal bloggers are complaining that Lieberman's stated reasons for opposing the public option make no sense:

• The New Republic's Jonathan Chait: "[Lieberman's position] literally makes no sense whatsoever. A public plan does not provide a new entitlement. It just doesn't. It's a different form of providing an entitlement. Nor is it more expensive. In fact, the stronger versions of the public plan would cost less money. Lieberman is just babbling nonsense here."
• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "It's...worth emphasizing that while only the House-style public option will save a lot of money, even the relatively weak public option from the Reid draft would save money relative to doing what Lieberman wants. He's talking about filibustering a deficit-reducing bill in order to try to remove a cost-reducing provision, and doing so on grounds of fiscal probity. It's ludicrous, and the political reporters covering him need to point this out."
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "A public insurance option will make health-care reform cheaper. It is less expensive. It's not even a proper entitlement! The only people who stand to lose money on the proposition are insurance companies, who would lose their monopoly status and be forced into actual competition. That Lieberman would stand up and claim to be acting in a fiscally responsible manner is simply intellectually dishonest. Lieberman represents many insurance companies in Connecticut, who have funded him very well in the past. Hey, maybe he's not just schilling for the insurance industry, but the fact that he can't come up with a coherent reason for his opposition doesn't help him make the case that he has any principles whatsoever."
• MyDD's Charles Lemos: "Joe, you ignorant war-monger, you. Don't lie to us pretending that you care about the deficit when you support a war in Afghanistan that as of August was running a cool $4 billion a year and that's before we consider sending more troops."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein doesn't take Lieberman's filibuster threat too seriously because "[his] argument against the public option is simply false" and "Lieberman won't be able to hang onto this argument for very long, and then what?" In contrast, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver takes Lieberman's threat very seriously "because the usual things that serve to motivate a Congressman don't seem to motivate Joe Lieberman."

LIEBERMAN III: Your Move, Obama

Several liberal bloggers are calling on Obama to pressure Lieberman:

• Hamsher: "Obama called [WV Sen.] Jay Rockefeller and twisted his arm to vote for the Finance Committee bill. So, a call to Lieberman really isn't too much to ask. And if the President lets Senate Democrats know he wants Lieberman's gavel to get yanked, they probably will go along at this point -- especially if the Majority Leader is calling for the same thing. I doubt many in the Senate will be happy about having him undermine the caucus like this. All of Lieberman's power in the Senate comes from his chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee. Without it, he's nothing. And since he's not going to vote with the Democrats on procedure anyway (and why should he -- they've coddled him all along, given him everything he wants, and gotten nothing for it) having him in the caucus is meaningless. [...] If Obama truly does support the public option, he'll be twisting Joe's arm. Likewise, Harry Reid. If they don't, if Reid and Obama protect his chairmanship -- or water down the bill to get his 'support' -- we'll know it was all just a nice bit of theater."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "Two things here: (1.) Lieberman needs to be told that he's out of the caucus and loses his committee chair if he does this. (3.) President Obama can switch Lieberman's vote. It was Obama, after all, who campaigned for Lieberman when everyone else deserted him, and it was Obama who intervened to save Lieberman's position in the Democratic caucus last December. Lieberman owes Obama. Currently, Lieberman is making a mockery of Obama by letting Obama save him, and then knifing the president every step of the way. It's time for the President to call in his chits with Lieberman, or destroy Lieberman - Obama has the power to do both. And after all, the White House endorsed Reid's plan yesterday, and we take them at their word that they're on board. So this is a perfect opportunity for them to show how on board they are."

Other lefty bloggers are calling on Senate Dems to use reconciliation to pass a public option:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "Let's use reconciliation for the good parts of the bill, like a robust public option that [NY Sen. Chuck] Schumer says would be most effective, and use the regular legislative process for the insurance company refroms, etc. And, while the Senate is at it, they should be stripping Lieberman's chairmanship and removing him from the caucus."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "In a way, this is good news. [...] Since Lieberman is there, then [AR Sen. Blanche] Lincoln, [LA Sen. Mary] Landreiu and [NE Sen.] Ben Nelson will go there too. No health care reform through normal procedure. Notice especially Lieberman says he will filibuster even Snowe's Trigger (so much for Rahmbo's grand deal with the Princess from Maine.) Reconciliation it is. Oh by the way, that means we go back to the ROBUST public option with NO opt out. That's the good news."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers (BooMan, Cole, Bellows) are blasting Reid for his handling of the politics of health care reform.

LIEBERMAN IV: The GOP Loves Joe

Conservative bloggers were thrilled by Lieberman's announcement:

• Townhall's Meredith Jessup: "Go Joe!"
• NRO's Tevi Troy: "Go Joe! Kudos to Joe Lieberman for his announcement that he will oppose a Democratic health bill if it includes a public option."
• The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb: "Joementum 2012? Is he the greatest senator ever? He fought for victory in Iraq, he's fighting for victory in Afghanistan, and he's fighting to save us all from Obamacare. Who needs Olympia Snowe when you've got Joementum?"

Several righty bloggers are suggesting that Dems can only blame themselves for Lieberman's behavior:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "Thank you lefty bloggers so very much for primarying Joe Lieberman and helping him be bold enough to shaft you."
• NRO's Rich Lowry: "Maybe Democrats can try to purge Lieberman in a hateful campaign of vituperation. Oh yeah -- they already tried that."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Shifting CW On Afghanistan?

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum:

"Mainstream hawkish pundits rarely have a change of heart that leads them fully into the withdrawal camp. They'll often get to the point where they hem and haw a bit, explaining all the downsides of continued engagement and the longs odds against success, but then they'll conclude with either a reluctant insistence that we have to keep on fighting anyway, or else a murky affirmation that there's no good choice to be had, just a least bad one.

But Afghanistan is changing that. Tom Friedman has now joined George Will in flatly recommending that we leave. 'China, Russia and Al Qaeda all love the idea of America doing a long, slow bleed in Afghanistan,' he says today. 'I don't.' The conventional wisdom is slowly but surely shifting before our eyes. So who will be the next bigfoot pundit to jump ship?"

LEST WE FORGET: YouTube Comment Or e. e. cummings?

McSweeney's contributor Francois Vincent:

1. loog a his lirow nose
2. there is some shit I will not eat
3. LISN bud LISN
4. this i bad sorry to saY
5. leave her alone
she's not your gal
6. She is Lucifierian !
7. THuNdeRB
loSSo!M iN
8. aThe):l
9. stunned. i. am. stunned. every question speaks to us
10. What is nothing?

YouTube comment: 1, 4, 6, 9, 10

e. e. cummings: 2, 3, 5, 7, 8

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Morrissey, Hinderaker) are buzzing about the new Club for Growth poll showing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman leading both Bill Owens (D) and Dede Scozzafava (R) in the NY-23 race. That said, liberal blogger Nate Silver is skeptical of the poll.
• Last week we noted that RedState editor Erick Erickson criticized MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) for declining to endorse Hoffman. Well, it appears that Pawlenty got the message, as he emailed Erickson yesterday to announce that he was endorsing Hoffman. Now Erickson is urging two other potential WH '12 candidates -- ex-MA Gov. Mitt Romney (R) and ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) -- to "man up and stand with the base of the GOP" by endorsing Hoffman.
• Conservative bloggers (Morrissey, Bandes) are criticizing Scozzafava for receiving the 2008 Margaret Sanger Award from the Family Planning Advocates of New York State.

REID: So He Has A Spine After All!

Liberal bloggers were surprised and pleased when Reid announced his plans to include a public option with a state opt-out clause in the merged Senate health care bill:

• MyDD's Nathan Empsall: "This is probably the boldest thing Reid has done as Majority Leader."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "All the right moves and all the right noises. Still a fight ahead, but good on the Dems today."
• BooMan: "Congratulations to everyone who has been working tirelessly to see that a public option is included in the Senate bill. Harry Reid listened to you. Apparently, the Democratic members of Congress listened to you, too, because they seem to be willing to vote for cloture to start debate on a bill with a public option. And, despite some skepticism, the White House is now convinced that they can get a public option through the Senate on the first pass. This is better than anything that was realistically imaginable in the spring."
• digby: "I think Reid deserve some credit here. He's been under tremendous pressure to essentially bring the Finance Committee bill to the floor and have a flurry of various failing kabuki amendments on the public option so the Villagers could say 'I told you so.' But he's been under a lot of pressure from his left as well, and not just from the netroots, but from his own caucus, which is a hopeful sign. [WV Sen.] Jay Rockefeller, for instance, has been surprisingly tough. Reid went the right way today and took reform another step in the right direction. Having said that, it's premature to get too excited. There are many shoals ahead."
• Open Left's Mike Lux: "Okay, folks, we progressives got what we wanted. A comprehensive health care reform bill with a reasonably strong public option will be going to the floor as part of leadership bills in both the House and the Senate. We don't yet know whether we will get the best version of the public option in the House bill, and the Senate version is not as strong as progressives have been pushing for. But strengthening the form of the public option can be negotiated over in conference committee, once we get there."

Atrios offers a characteristically sarcastic take: "I'm all for there being a decent public option, but am still disturbed at the apparent coup which has removed President [Olympia] Snowe from office."

REID II: But Does He Have The Votes?

Several lefty bloggers believe that Reid must be confident in his ability to get all 60 Dems to vote for cloture, or he wouldn't bring this bill to the floor:

• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "Given this news, it certainly seems as though Reid has managed to acquire 60 votes for cloture on a health care bill with the opt-out public option. [...] This certainly seems like a very, very big victory."
• MyDD's Josh Orton: "[W]hile people have said many bad things about Harry Reid, I'm pretty sure no one's ever accused him of being a legislative show horse. Or dramatic. He's just not going to announce a base bill that he doesn't reasonably expect will win 60 cloture votes. Can you imagine what a huge defeat that would look like? Reid can too."

Balloon Juice's DougJ isn't so sure: "TPM has a great interview with [NY Sen.] Chuck Schumer about the discussion between Harry Reid and the White House on the opt out public option versus the triggered public option. It certainly sounds like the White House doesn't trust Reid to count votes. And I don't either."

PUBLIC OPTION: Pat Yourselves On The Back, Netroots

Several lefty bloggers are arguing that the netroots played a big role in ensuring the public option's survival up to this point:

• Bowers: "Quite a few Democrats did not like it that Congressional Progressives were threatening to defeat a health care bill without a public option. However, without that threat, there is simply no way that the public option would still be alive, much less near victory. Making that sort of threat on a piece of must-pass legislation was necessary both in order to make the legislation better, and also to finally make Congressional Progressives as relevant to the legislative process as Blue Dogs and Conservadems."
• The Huffington Post's Peter Daou: "Although it's far from clear what the final health care bill will look like, especially the public option (opt-out, trigger, etc.), there's absolutely no doubt that it is alive primarily because of the vigorous efforts of online progressive activists and bloggers on Huffington Post, Firedoglake, Daily Kos, TPM, Think Progress, Media Matters, Salon, AmericaBlog, Crooks and Liars, and hundreds of smaller sites (not to mention MoveOn)."
• FiveThirtyEight's Silver: "[N]one of this would have been possible without the yeoman effort of a relatively small number of bloggers and activists -- they know who they are -- who were tired of taking 'no' for an answer. They wanted this fight because of the paradigm-shifting implications it could have for how business gets done in the Democratic Party. And, somewhat to my surprise, they're having it."
• Firedoglake's Jane Hamsher: "Pressure on Reid from progressives when his poll numbers are flagging made him defy the White House. More importantly, he ratted them out to the press. [WH CoS] Rahm [Emanuel] thought he could continue to push for triggers in the background and satisfy the base by mouthing gibberish about 'the President supports a public option' until it was too late. It didn't work out so well."

PUBLIC OPTION II: More Information, Please

Some liberal bloggers want more information about the state opt-out clause that Senate Dems are attaching to the public option:

• Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias: "One point I'm not clear on with regard to the idea of an 'opt-out' public option is who does the opting? If the way it works is that you need concurrent affirmative action by both houses of the state legislature and the governor, then it strikes me as very likely that the public option that emerges from an opt-out process will be very strong. If governors can do it unilaterally, then you'll get something with more of a swiss cheese quality to it. Similarly, if a state has opted out and decides four years later that it wants in, who gets to decide?"
• Bowers: "Some claim that virtually no state will opt-out, because the public option is so popular. Others claim that many red states, plus Florida, will opt-out pretty quickly. Figuring out how states will be able to opt-out will be key to knowing whether it is worth pushing for a better opt-out, or a weaker national public option."

Several lefty bloggers are expressing skepticism about the opt-out clause:

• Hamsher: "Having a state opt-out that will make corporatist Democrats happy is quite likely not to be 'available nationwide from day one,' and thus does not meet the the definition of a 'robust public option' by anyone's terms. Depending on how an opt-out was written, it could potentially disenfranchise large parts of the population. [...] Providing health care for the nation is a moral issue, it's not about getting a 'political win.'"
• Daily Kos' David Waldman: "Only Harry Reid knows for sure, but it's still unclear to me just whose votes were put in play with the inclusion of the opt-out. I've heard it said that Olympia Snowe (R-ME) says that the so-called 'trigger' is her tipping point. But has anyone ever heard anyone say the name of a Senator known to be a 'no' vote on a straight-up public option, but a 'yes' vote if you include the opt-out?"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Presidency And The Rise Of The New Partisan Press

Yale Law prof. Jack Balkin:

"The irony of the Administration's response to Fox News is its declaration that Fox is not a 'legitimate' news organization. It is not a legitimate mid-twentieth century news organization. But it is a legitimate nineteenth century news organization and it could well be what twenty-first century news organizations increasingly look like. The concept of 'legitimacy' in news gathering and reporting is not timeless and forever fixed; the point is that it is now very much up for grabs. What the Obama Administration is trading on in its attacks is the notion that 'legitimate' journalism is 'objective' twentieth century journalism, and since Fox is not that, it is not legitimate journalism. Fox, for its part, actually plays into this framing because it insists that it is fair and balanced and objective, when it is anything but. Fox has been trying to have it both ways since it began; the Obama Administration is now calling its bluff, and attempting to redefine it as not legitimate according to a previous (but increasingly challenged) conception of legitimate journalism.

In the long run, it will probably be better for the Administration and future Administrations not to say that Fox and its successors are not 'legitimate' journalists, but that they are not actually objective journalists; instead they are members of a new party or partisan press. That model of the press may be legitimate in the twenty-first century, but politicians have no obligation to treat it as they treated an earlier model of journalism."

LEST WE FORGET: Travel Channel Blows Its 'Bed And Breakfasts Of New England' Wad

From The Onion:

"GARRETT, MD -- After airing four consecutive days of programming devoted to mulled cider, antique weather vanes, and changing foliage, the Travel Channel effectively blew its New- England-bed-and-breakfast wad Monday with 8 weeks of autumn still to go. 'I guess we just got a little too worked up over these charming rustic retreats, and ended shooting our whole damn load,' said Travel Channel president Patrick Younge, admitting that for the rest of the season the network will rely primarily on warmed-over Bermuda and Bourdain. 'The whole thing's pretty embarrassing. I was sure we'd last a lot longer this year.' According to media analysts, no one has shit the bed this bad since the Weather Channel went balls out with its hurricane-season coverage in 2006."

Although the WH quickly issued a statement denying the report that it opposed Reid's strategy on the public option, the netroots were not satisfied. Adam Green sums up the views of many in the lefty blogosphere when he writes: "Here's what the White House needs to understand: Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Erickson, Bandes, Lopez) continue to unload on NY-23 candidate Dede Scozzafava (R). Righty bloggers (Erickson, Geraghty, Jessup) are also criticizing the NRCC for refusing to abandon Scozzafava and throw its support behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
• Various WH '12 GOP hopefuls are taking their lumps from conservative bloggers for not endorsing Hoffman. Several righty bloggers (Malkin, Morrissey) are criticizing ex-Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) for standing by his endorsement of Scozzafava. Meanwhile, RedState editor Erick Erickson is disappointed that ex-AR Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) hasn't endorsed Hoffman.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Is Obama Selling Out The Public Option?

Liberal bloggers reacted with exasperation when The Huffington Post's Sam Stein and Ryan Grim reported that Obama "is actively discouraging Senate Democrats in their effort to include a public insurance option with a state opt-out clause as part of health care reform":

• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "It's time to be pissed."
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "It is quite remarkable it seems to me that whether Obama will support a public option is an open question. It's one thing to be a bystander, quite another to wade in in favor of Snowe's trigger. And yet, it appears that privately that is what the President is doing. Harry Reid is going to bring a public option to a vote. Will Obama lobby against it [publicly]? I think he might. Amazing."
• Obsidian Wings' publius: "Despite its new momentum, the public option has a powerful new opponent -- the White House. It's incredibly frustrating. Although Reid is close to getting 60 votes on cloture, Obama and Rahm (who, for all his bluster, is politically timid) are pushing for the 'trigger,' which is the same as nothing. [...] I'm wondering if the White House's shorter-term political calculations (for themselves) are making them more timid than they should be on this issue. I'd like to have Snowe's support too, but I don't think it's worth sacrificing an opt-out policy that seems to have wide Democratic support (and would have more if Obama showed some spine)."
• digby: "It seems that the administration believes that it's better to deliver a bill that will not work than to take a chance on losing some seats. Since it's nonsensical to think that that Republicans would take those seats because of the public option but not health care reform over all, they must believe that they must deliver a devastating blow to the majority of their own party in order to prove their bipartisan bona fides and give Rahm's Blue Dogs a tea bag to take home with them. (Certainly, nothing would make the villagers happier...)"
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "The Snowe Trigger is not a substitute for a public option. Harry Reid needs to hear that, [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi needs to hear that (though I don't think we really need to convince her), and everyone in the White House needs to hear that."

While most liberal bloggers have been very critical of the WH, it should be noted that some (Silver, BooMan) share the Obama admin.'s apparent concerns about getting 60 Dem senators to vote for cloture on a bill with a public option.

HEALTH CARE REFORM II: Damage Control

Liberal bloggers were not satisfied when the WH issued a statement denying that "the White House and Senator Reid are pursuing different strategies on the public option":

• Aravosis: "The White House has issued yet another general statement saying how much it likes the public option. That's nice. So what exactly has the President done to lobby individual Senators to get Harry Reid the remaining 1, 2, or 3 votes he needs to include the public option in the bill?"
• Green: "Here's what the White House needs to understand: Expressing a preference for the public option is not the same as fighting for the public option. Telling Harry Reid 'good luck with that' is not the same as the president saying, 'I am there helping Reid fight for those final votes.'"
• Big Tent Democrat: "Certainly this [statement] makes it tougher for Obama to [publicly] support triggers. That's a good thing. His earlier dithering has done plenty of damage to the public option cause, not just in the Senate, as Jon Cohn reports, but in the House, as Roll Call reports. Hopefully this will stop the bleeding. At least until Obama and his team try to gut the public option again."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein: "I'm...hearing a lot of irritation from congressional Democrats at the mixed signals being sent by the White House. If the White House wants to advocate for the trigger, fine. If the White House wants to advocate for the public option, fine. But for the White House to host one meeting where they signal that they're uncomfortable with Reid's decision to push the envelope on the public option and then make a big effort to walk that meeting back after the left gets angry is confusing everybody. No one wants to be left in the cold here. If the public option is going to pass, plenty of people want to be seen as its champions. If it's going to fail, others want to be out ahead of that failure. Politicians need to know whether to begin managing the disappointment of their base or amping up their expectations. But since the administration is considered the most important actor here, no one knows quite how to structure their strategy so long as the White House refuses to fully show its cards."

Meanwhile, several liberal bloggers (BTD, Dayen) are buzzing about Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) criticism of Snowe's trigger compromise.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: "Democratic" Versus "Liberal"

NRO's Jonah Goldberg comments on the recent Gallup poll which found that "conservatives continue to outnumber moderates and liberals in the American populace":

"...I do think one plausible theory as to why the Democratic party is having some of its problems these days is that they misread their pre-election unity. I think this is understandable. Lots of polls suggested that America was becoming more liberal under [George W.] Bush (at least on a bunch of issues). The differences between centrist and leftwing Democrats seemed trivial. Barack Obama won handily without ever tacking back to the center in the general election. In short, those eager to find evidence that the country was poised to lurch leftward had lots to go on.

But perhaps that had more to do with the fact that country was (again understandably) fed up with the Republican Party. The Democratic Party's leaders are a lot more liberal than their voters (the dynamic is even more true when it comes to committee chairs who are to the left of the average Democratic congressmen). The Democrats came into power in 2008 thinking they had a huge mandate for liberalism, when they really had a huge mandate for competence (for want of a better word). Obama and his coterie misunderstood this. They used a lot of 'pragmatic' rhetoric, but they governed from the left, starting with the calamitous stimulus bill. Obama's personal popularity is still sustaining him, but it seems to me that the Democratic Party missed an enormous opportunity. I don't think they're doomed or anything like that. But, they've managed to rebrand themselves as a very liberal party again, and that's a problem when 80% of Americans don't describe themselves as liberals."

LEST WE FORGET: Iran Trying to Install Microsoft Windows 7

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"TEHRAN (The Borowitz Report) -- Tensions between the United States and the Iranian government have risen over the weekend amid intelligence reports that Iran is trying to install Microsoft Windows 7.

Spy-satellite photos reveal a shipment of Windows 7 software, as well as a dozen IT professionals from Redmond, Washington, arriving early Saturday morning in Tehran.

While intelligence analysts warn that Iran's acquiring Windows 7 is a matter of grave concern, a Defense Department spokesman, Tracy Klugian, was careful not to overstate the danger: 'Even under optimal conditions, Windows 7 will probably take at least two to five years to successfully install.'

Mr. Klugian underscored his remark by reminding reporters that Iran attempted to install Microsoft Vista over three years ago: 'They still haven't gotten that to work.'"

The second choice of most liberal bloggers is the so-called "opt-out" compromise favored by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), which creates a national public option that states can opt out of if they wish. Most (but not all) liberal bloggers consider this compromise acceptable, if not ideal. What virtually no liberal blogger supports is the "trigger" compromise favored by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), which would call for the creation of a public option in states where private insurers fail to provide enough affordable insurance options. Now that Snowe is threatening to filibuster a health care bill that includes an "opt-out" public option, some lefty bloggers are urging Senate Maj. Leader Harry Reid to "dust off the reconciliation procedures book."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Conservative bloggers (Lewis, Jessup, Malkin, Allahpundit) are buzzing about ex-AK Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) endorsement of Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate in the NY-23 race. After praising Palin, RedState editor Erick Erickson slams MN Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) for declining to endorse Hoffman, arguing that his decision "further bolsters the Pawlenty stereotype as milquetoast establishment." Meanwhile, Michelle Malkin is the latest righty blogger to call on GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava to withdraw from the race.
• Conservative bloggers (Geraghty, Lane, Reynolds) are buzzing about the news that a former Dem official who received donations from NJ Gov. Jon Corzine (D) was found guilty of corruption.
• Liberal bloggers (Yglesias, Benen, Sudbay) are blasting Sen. Mary Landrieu's (D-LA) criticism of the public option.

HEALTH CARE REFORM: Snowed In

Now that Snowe is threatening to filibuster a health care bill that includes any form of public option other than her trigger proposal, some liberal bloggers are urging Senate Dems to use the reconciliation procedure pass health care reform:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "AHIP is working Republicans, backing up any effort they might make to obstruct healthcare reform, and particularly the public option. It's looking like they got to Olympia Snowe. [...] All these months [MT Sen. Max] Baucus and the administration have been courting her for this, she's waving her own veto pen. Presumably, it will be her trigger or nothing, but with momentum gaining behind a much stronger opt-out option, she's threatening to take her marbles and go home. It's time for Harry Reid to dust off the reconciliation procedures book. If Snowe is going to side with AHIP and the rest of the Republicans, they're going to have to do this without her.
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "If I was playing the Dem hand, I would start talking about reconciliation in response to this. To wit 'if Republicans do not want to grab a mop on health care reform, then we will do what we have to do to fix it ourselves.'"

The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen doesn't understand Snowe's behavior: "This just isn't rational. Snowe has demonstrated a genuine interest in health care reform, and that's admirable. But she's willing to defeat a bill she would otherwise consider based on a single provision that most Americans wouldn't be eligible for anyway? Is the popular policy idea really so offensive that it's worth killing the entire initiative, decades in the making, and letting this once-in-a-generation opportunity pass?"

TAPPED's Dylan Matthews tries to look on the bright side: "[O]ne major caveat is that it would be more politically and historically difficult for Snowe to filibuster a complete health-care bill with a public option than to merely threaten to do so. Plus, it would be more than possible for the Senate leadership and the White House to pass a Senate bill without a public option and then add the House's during conference committee. The bill presented before the Senate then would have an even greater finality to it, making it even more difficult for Snowe to give a no vote."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: The Wrong Line Of Attack

The Washington Independent's David Weigel (h/t Andrew Sullivan):

"The Democrats are in worse political shape than they were a year ago because unemployment is at 9.8 percent, the war in Afghanistan has grown less popular, and the bailouts of struggling banks are seen as wastes of money that haven't worked. Republicans benefit when they talk about this stuff. But [Glenn] Beck and the others don't let them talk about this stuff. For the past few months, they have moved the discussion onto fantasy terrain, accusing the president of reaching for dictatorial powers and surrounding himself with 'radicals' who want to destroy capitalism. [...]

This isn't to say Republicans have been distracted or unsuccessful in Congress. They've certainly scored victories during this period. And by paying attention to these conservative witch hunts, they've definitely kept their base revved up. But in the current political context, it seems like they're missing the forest for some shrubs. It's as if Democrats tried to press their advantages in 2005 not by going after the Iraq War or the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina, but by spending weeks attacking mid-ranking members of his administration and claiming that President George W. Bush was driving the nation toward fascism. And remember, one of the huge political mistakes of 2005 was the Republican decision to do a full-court press on an issue that had come from conservative activists and pundits: the fate of Terri Schiavo."

LEST WE FORGET: "Lowest Priority H1N1 Vaccine Groups"

McSweeney's contributor Sarah Garb:

• Lighthouse keepers
• Christian Science reading room employees
• The Maytag repairman
• Philosophy post-docs
• Psychic Friends Network operators
• Donkey Kong world record seekers
• Detroit Lions food vendors
• North Korean tour guides
• Both residents of Twombly, Maine
• Dodge Caliber salesmen
• Writers

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Today at noon, in a coordinated effort, a host of conservative bloggers (RedState Directors, Geraghty, Hillyer, Faughnan, Huston, Dave in Texas) called on NY-23 candidate Dede Scozzafava (R) to withdraw from the race and throw her support to Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman. Meanwhile, other conservative bloggers (Malkin, Lane, Lawler, Allahpundit, Reynolds) are mocking Scozzafava after she held an event outside Hoffman's campaign office, only to find herself surrounded by Hoffman supporters holding signs.
• Liberal bloggers (Moulitsas, Bowers, Walker) are accusing VA GOV candidate Creigh Deeds (D) of alienating his base by distancing himself from the public option during the 10/20 debate.
• Liberal bloggers (Marshall, Benen, Heather) spent the past few days criticizing Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) for refusing to condemn the LA judge who denied a marriage license to an interracial couple. Although Vitter's spokesperson eventually released a statement addressing the issue, lefty bloggers (Benen, Aravosis, Morrill) are still not satisfied.
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Morrissey, Gaffney, Rubin) loved ex-VP Dick Cheney's attack on Obama's foreign policy.

SENATE: A Blow To Health Care Reform?

Conservative bloggers are celebrating the fact that the Senate blocked "a 10-year freeze of scheduled cuts to doctors' Medicare payments, legislation that was considered important to getting a broader healthcare bill through later this year":

• RedState's Erickson: "We, RedState readers, have defeated Harry Reid today and delivered a significant blow to the potential passage of Obamacare. We held every Republican Senator including [ME Sen.] Olympia Snowe and [NC Sen.] Richard Burr. Harry Reid just ran to the Senate floor and cried that he cannot get enough votes to pass the doctors' bribe to support Obamacare. He blamed the AMA for misleading him. He might actually want to look to RedState. Our readers have generated hundreds and hundreds of phone calls in 24 hours to pretty much every Republican Senator. Several who had considered voting for cloture backed down. And now the end run around Obamacare costs has been defeated. This makes it much more difficult for Obamacare to pass and virtually impossible for it to pass without significant deficit blowing cost additions. Well done activists!"
• Malkin: "It looked like the fix was in. The 'Doc Fix,' that is. As the Heritage Foundation has been reporting, the White House and Dem leaders scurried today to try and pass a $247 billion payoff to doctors groups as an enticement to support Obamacare. Surprise: The fix failed. The cloture voted on S. 1776 failed by 47-53."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "What's next? The [MI Sen. Debbie] Stabenow bill will have to get attached to the ObamaCare proposal -- which means the CBO will rescore it with the additional $250 billion cost. That will make the deficit hit overt and create what The Hill calls a 'poison pill' for the bill, and that's before the progressives try to jam a public option into it. Without it, Reid loses the AMA. It's a disaster for Reid and the Democrats."

In other health care news, liberal bloggers (McCarter, Black) are delighted that the CBO projected that a robust public option would reduce the cost of health care reform. The netroots (Bowers, Dayen) are praising Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) for trying to bring a bill with a robust public option to the House floor.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Good Trade/Bad Trade

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias:

"In lieu of another boring post about health insurance excise taxes let's talk raw politics. At the moment, there are two big disagreements between the moderates and the liberals on health care. On the one hand, the moderates want to finance a large amount of the subsidies through an excise tax on expensive health insurance plans. Liberals don't like that idea. On the other hand, the liberals want a robust public option while moderates are looking for ways to kill or defang this.

There are two ways you can imagine these problems getting logrolled away. One is to 'level up' in which both sides get something that they think will be a transformative tool to change America for the better -- the excise tax and a robust public option. The other is to 'level down' in which both sides force the other to back now -- no excise tax, and weak or absent public option. Either would be a compromise, but leveling up would be a much better outcome than leveling down. Which happens will tell us a lot about the health of our political institutions."

LEST WE FORGET: Contrarianism Is Alive And Well

Yglesias:

"The Economist wondered the other day if the negative reaction to SuperFreakonomics represented the end of contrarianism as a popular journalistic trope. The answer, it seems, is no. Slate is doubling-down on contrarianism by offering the case for Creed. This is ridiculous. Creed is a good band like solar panels are black. Your memory is correct. Absolutely everything about this is terrible. I bet al-Qaeda plays this to recruits in order to whip them into an anti-Christian fervor."

Although the rightroots have been attacking Scozzafava for weeks, this incident has clearly emboldened them, and they're now going all out for Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman (who is rumored to have moved past Scozzafava in the latest polls). Many righty bloggers are explicitly urging the RNC and NRCC to abandon Scozzafava -- either by "concentrating their fire" on Dem candidate Bill Owens, or by going even further and "cut[ting] their ties" to Scozzafava.

NY-23: What An Embarrassment!

Conservative bloggers are hammering Scozzafava for her camp's handling of the McCormack incident:

• Michelle Malkin: "As if there weren't enough reasons to oppose radical leftist Dede Scozzafava's GOP candidacy in the NY-23 special election, add one more to the list: She's a liar."
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "What an embarrassment, especially for those national Republicans who went out of their way to endorse Scozzofava like [ex-Speaker] Newt Gingrich. Hopefully, Douglas Hoffman can take advantage of the situation."
• NRO's Mark Steyn: "Since the cop-calling and its aftermath, the candidate has demonstrated that there is no case for her whatsoever. At this stage in the nation's affairs, Washington doesn't need another incoherent buffoon insulated by a phalanx of thin-skinned twerps already guarding her like a 30-year incumbent for whom routine questions are an outrageous form of lèse-majesté. By any reasonable measure, this candidate is unworthy of a seat in the national legislature."
• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "Just as a simple, objective observation having nothing to do with who should or should not win that special election, it's safe and fair to say that Ms. Scozzafava has had two extremely, amazingly, incontrovertibly awful days. For that matter, so have [NRCC Chair] Pete Sessions and the NRCC gang who can't shoot straight and who have wasted tens of thousands of dollars of ad money attacking the Conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman, rather than attacking the Democrat, whatshisname Owens, all on behalf of a candidate so far out of the Republican mainstream that she is to the left of Owens and whose dealings with respected conservative media are decidedly gauche."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "How Beltway dumb does the RNC and NRCC have to be to set up a situation where everyone from the Weekly Standard to Michelle Malkin to Redstate are bombing not only Dede Scozzafava, but the RNC and NRCC?"

NY-23 II: Time To Abandon Ship, NRCC

Many righty bloggers are now urging the RNC and NRCC to abandon Scozzafava -- either by "concentrating their fire" on Owens, or by going even further and "cut[ting] their ties" to Scozzafava:

• RedState's Erick Erickson: "The GOP does deserve to wander in the wilderness for another few generations if Scozzafava wins. The NRCC and House Republican leadership needs to focus on crushing the Democrat now instead of building up Scozzafava. Sinking with the ship is not a viable option."
• NRO's Jim Geraghty: "Earlier this week, I was noting that it was unrealistic for conservatives to expect national Republican committees, like the RNC and National Republican Congressional Committee, to do anything but back the Republican in New York's special congressional election. But the situation has changed. It's not just the inanity of Dede Scozzafava's campaign calling the cops on a reporter; it's doubling down and calling McCormack a liar. With audiotape now exposing the Scozzafava campaign as the liar in their account of the candidate's interaction with John McCormack, it's a different ballgame. [...] It's time for the NRCC and RNC to cut their ties, and more. It's embarrassing enough when a candidate won't answer reasonable questions from reasonable press and her campaign attempts to smear them in order to cover up their mess. Forwarding McCormack's e-mails to Talking Points Memo just shows how upside-down the Scozzafava campaign is. The time has come for the RNC and NRCC to ask for their money back. This goes well beyond any reasonable difference on policy. There's room in the party for pro-choice Republicans and pro-gay-marriage Republicans and maybe even the odd pro-card-check Republican. But not this kind of arrogance, this kind of clumsy dishonesty, this kind of reckless hostility to a reporter and a publication that need not be an enemy."
• RedState's Moe Lane: "It's time for the national GOP to -- reluctantly, and I understand their reluctance! -- drop Dede Scozzafava and go with Doug Hoffman. This isn't a situation where the national party is overriding the will of local primary voters; it is a situation where a particular choice of candidate turned out to be the wrong one. Bad choices may be reversed. It's also time for Ms. Scozzafava to act in the best interests of first the voters of NY-23; and second, the Republican party; by dropping out of the race. As it stands she is helping the Democratic candidate, whose presence in Congress and support of the current ruling party would certainly hurt the former."

NY-23 III: Newt Dooms His White House Chances

Several conservative bloggers are criticizing Gingrich for defending his endorsement of Scozzafava:

• Steyn: "Newt really needs to re-think his support for Dede Scozzafava. This isn't RINO but DIABLO -- Democrat In All But Label Only. It's not one of those 'socially liberal, fiscally conservative' bi-swinger deals -- not when you're pro-'stimulus', pro-cash-for-clunkers. And the reductive argument that her sole redeeming value -- a willingness to vote for [Min. Leader] John Boehner as Speaker -- is reason enough to support her is silly in a special election. If he's ever Speaker, Boehner won't be till January 2011, and it's 12 months premature for Newt to be telling voters they need to suck it up and accept that a handful of Jim-Jeffords-in-embryo-form are necessary for the Republican tide."
• Malkin: "So, Newt Gingrich is invoking Reagan to defend his endorsement of radical leftist Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 special congressional election? Triple-gag. Perhaps it is time to go your own way, with [Rev.] Al Sharpton and [Speaker] Nancy Pelosi."
• Hot Air's Allahpundit: "[Gingrich is] treating this race as a litmus test to prove how big-tent the GOP can be. But...why? There's no good reason to make this district, which should be a safe Republican seat, into a bellwether. Get a conservative elected and then find some socially liberal libertarians in purple districts to champion next year. Like Ace says, Scozzafava is so questionable that it's not clear whether she'd be better than the Democrat, and since this is a special election, she's probably looking at another challenge from Doug Hoffman a year from now anyway. I don't get why Gingrich is digging in here: If he runs for president, this'll be used against him by [ex-MA Gov. Mitt] Romney et al., and if he doesn't run for president, it'll hurt his standing among conservatives as a senior statesman/spokesman for the party. Mystifying."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Perceptual Problems For Dems

Public Opinion Strategies' Glen Bolger sees bad signs for Dems in a recent Democracy Corps poll:

"These data put a dent in the conventional wisdom that individual Republican incumbents are not getting some bounce off the Democratic Party's problems. This is NOT a pox on both your houses of incumbents -- instead, there are very real concerns with the Democratic party. For their 40 key swing seats to be having perceptual problems on being too liberal, too likely to raise taxes and spend too much money, and putting their party in DC ahead of the local folks is a real opportunity for Republican challengers.

There is currently a debate on whether the GOP is well-positioned enough to take advantage of the Dem problems. It's a lot easier for the GOP to fix our fading problems than it is for the Dems to fix their growing problems. Elections aren't about the past, they are about the right now. And, right now, it is going to be difficult for Dems to beat many GOP incumbents. The key question regarding GOP pick-ups is -- what will 'right now' look like in a year? If it looks like this -- or better, the Dems will find that it isn't their birthright to win congressional elections."

LEST WE FORGET: Karzai Declared Winner Of Next Month's Runoff

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"KABUL (The Borowitz Report) -- In a stunning victory, Afghan president Hamid Karzai today was declared the winner of the runoff election scheduled to take place November 7.

Mr. Karzai's victory was particularly impressive since the runoff election is still three weeks away, aides to Mr. Karzai observed.

A jubilant Mr. Karzai thanked his supporters, saying, 'By voting for me so convincingly in an election that has yet to happen, the Afghan people have cast a vote for the future.'"

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Sudbay, Wheeler) are buzzing about today's New York Times article alleging that one of ex-U.S. atty Chris Christie's (R) former aides used her U.S. atty's office to assist his campaign. Other lefty bloggers (Singiser, Singer) are promoting an '07 video of Christie discussing his support of George W. Bush. Conservative bloggers still argue that Christie is likely to defeat NJ Gov. Jon Corzine (D).
• Conservative bloggers (Malkin, Erickson, Johnson, Reynolds, Macomber, Geraghty) are mocking NY-23 candidate Dede Scozzafava (R) for calling the police on Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack after he pressed her to answer several questions following a campaign event. Meanwhile, righty bloggers (Erickson, Ruffini) continue to rally behind Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman.
• Liberal bloggers (Greenwald, Drum, Cole, Dayen, Black) are praising the Obama admin.'s new legal guidelines regarding medical marijuana. Several conservative bloggers (Reynolds, Adler, Morrissey) are also offering qualified praise for the new guidelines, although others (Lawler, Smith) are more critical.
• Conservative bloggers (Johnson, Hanson, Vadum) continue to criticize WH comm. dir. Anita Dunn for citing ex-Chinese leader Mao Zedong as one of her "favorite political philosophers."

HEALTH CARE REFORM: It's All About Cloture

Liberal bloggers weren't too impressed by Burris's threat to vote against a health care bill that doesn't include a public option:

• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "If Burris really wants to be relevant to this debate, he needs to take a page from his progressive colleagues in the House, who've drawn their bright line -- no public option, no vote. He needs to recruit a dozen of his 30 colleagues who've demanded a public option in the final bill to stand with him."
• Firedoglake's Jon Walker: "The important question is what does Burris mean by his support? Harry Reid does not need Burris's vote to pass a bill without a public option as long as Burris still votes for cloture. Reid would need Burris's vote for cloture unless he can convince [ME Sen. Olympia] Snowe to vote with the other 59 members of the Democratic caucus to end a filibuster. If Burris is willing hold firm to a refusal to vote for cloture unless the bill contains a public option, he could really affect the final outcome. If he is only going to withhold his vote for final passage, but not for cloture, Burris is just talking tough and blowing smoke. So far, Burris has not yet made his exact position clear."
• Open Left's Chris Bowers: "[O]ne Democratic Senator opposing any health care reform bill without a public option is not enough to defeat any such bill, even in the 60-vote culture of the Senate. Given that President Snowe is still dangling the prospect of her support before the Democratic leadership, it would take two Senators (and, given [ME Sen.] Susan Collins, arguably three) for this to be an effective block. So, Roland Burris isn't enough, but if he were joined by another (hopefully more credible) Senator, then maybe we would really have something."

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers (McCarter, Klein, Sudbay, Benen, Walker, publius) are buzzing about the new Washington Post-ABC News poll showing that "support for a government-run health-care plan to compete with private insurers...wins clear majority support from the public." Most conservative bloggers are ignoring the poll, although some are complaining about the way that the pollsters phrased the public option question.

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Promoting Electability At The Expense Of Ideology

The Next Right's Patrick Ruffini criticizes the recent endorsements by the NRSC and NRCC:

"...Naturally, the national party is going to go for the 'W' wherever it can in order to bolster its number of seats. And if this were the only thing that mattered, electability alone would be king. The problem, as we are finding out in the health care debate, is that it's not enough to have 60 Democrats to break a filibuster, or 41 Republicans to sustain one. How your members vote in that process matters to the outcome. In deciding which candidates to support, the national party committees -- not just activists -- should be looking at whether the candidates are likely to support leadership on key floor votes. If [ex-FL House Speaker Marco] Rubio is just 10 or 15 percent better than [FL Gov. Charlie] Crist on key votes, Crist's electability advantage is nullified from the perspective of Leader [Mitch] McConnell and the Senate Republican Conference. [...]

The same would go in California. [Ex-HP CEO] Carly Fiorina does not have a particularly strong electability advantage over [Assemb.] Chuck DeVore, and her celebrity CEO past renders her vulnerable to rookie mistakes and greater scrutiny of her private sector activities. It would be one thing for the NRSC to support Fiorina if she were polling 10 to 15 points better than DeVore against [Sen. Barbara] Boxer, but she's not.

In deciding whether to support conservatives like [NY-23 candidate Doug] Hoffman, Rubio, and DeVore, there is a reasonable middle ground between craven winnerism and a kamikaze strategy that ignores electability. The committees should factor in adherence to core Republican principles (in addition to electability) because the job of a political party is not just to win elections, but to win votes on the floor. And though the impact of an errant member is much less in the House than it is in the Senate, Scozzafava's not-so-veiled threats to switch parties if she isn't treated nicely should render her completely unacceptable to [RNC Chair] Michael Steele and [NRCC Chair] Pete Sessions, who should make it clear that they won't be blackmailed."

LEST WE FORGET: Mayan Calendar Warns Of Cataclysmic Roland Emmerich Film On Nov. 13

From The Onion:

"CHICHÉN ITZÁ, MEXICO -- Scholars of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar warned Monday that, according to ancient Mayan calculations, a devastating film by German director Roland Emmerich is set to occur on Nov. 13, 2009. 'On this date, near the end of the 13th baktun cycle, when the sun will converge with the centerline of the Milky Way, we will see the release of an overblown ensemble epic by the man responsible for Godzilla and 10,000 BC that could very well end John Cusack's career as we know it,' said Thomas Haney, an independent researcher specializing in pre-Columbian cosmology. 'At this point, all we can do is hope and pray that the high priests were wrong and the running time is less than 143 minutes.' Hastening fears of an unstoppable late-fall disaster has been the discovery of a tablet depicting Mayan king Pacal storming out of a Loews cinema in disgust."