Daily Kos

Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 12:30:25 GMT

Sunday opinion. Today will be both historical and hysterical.

Frank Rich:

Far from being held liable for the chicanery and recklessness that would destroy their company and threaten their country’s economy, these executives benefited big time. In a study late last year, three Harvard Law School researchers examined public documents to assess whether one "standard narrative" of the crash was true — that "the meltdown of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers largely wiped out the wealth of their top executives." It turned out to be a fairy tale. "In contrast to what has been thus far largely assumed, the executives were richly rewarded for, not financially devastated by, their leadership of their banks during this decade," the Harvard Law team wrote. The top five executives at both Lehman and Bear collectively took home $2.4 billion in bonuses and equity sales — that’s nearly a quarter-billion dollars each — between 2000 and their 2008 demise.

Maureen Dowd:

Like that other troublemaking Bart (Simpson), Stupak, who wants to kill the health care bill because he thinks the language on abortion funding is not restrictive enough, should have to write on the blackboard a hundred times: "I will listen closely when the nuns tell me I am wrong. I will not be an obstinate lawmaker."

William Kristol: I'm still around, spouting more nonsense than ever. Today's ~~drivel~~ theme is that even if the health bill passes, it's not historic because Republicans don't like it.

Kathleen Parker:

Independents as a group outnumber either party, in other words. Yet, given the hyperpartisanship that began under George W. Bush -- and has accelerated during President Obama's first year, thanks in large part to the enabling mechanism of the Internet -- one would think that America were divided into hard left and hard right.

We're not. We're a vast middle, slightly right-of-center nation. How is it that so many feel so disenfranchised by so few?

Uh, Kathleen, the fading and fractious tea party movement is neither centrist nor important, except as a threat to Repubicans in primaries. It's great you called out Erik Erickson for the jerk that he is, but you're still missing the big picture. The center has moved sightly left since the Bush era, and if you can't bring yourself to call moderates "fiscally conservative, socially liberal", which is what they are, you still have issues to work out.

David Broder: If only Democrats would embrace Republicans like Clinton embraced Gingrich, the world would be a better place. You see, McConnell and Boehner are reasonable people, who are simply forced to be intransigent by those nasty Democrats.

Chris Cillizza: 5 myths about health reform.

This could have been a bipartisan bill.

Very unlikely. Bipartisanship in politics is built on two pillars: trust and mutual benefit. And from the start it was apparent that both were in short supply in the 111th Congress.

Thank you for the reality check.

Sunday Talk - The Final Countdown

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 05:53:03 GMT

With a showdown set to begin at 1 pm in the House, President Obama and Democratic leaders have been considering using every trick up their sleeves to ensure that they have enough votes to pass the HCR bill.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Republican leaders and their teabagging allies have been scraping the bottom of the barrel in an all-out effort to prevent the bill's passage.

As tensions continue to rise, some Confederates are openly wondering whether we're on the verge of a second Civil War.

Maybe... or it could all just be an illusion.

Open Thread and Diary Rescue

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:18:04 GMT

This evening's Rescue Rangers are YatPundit, shayera, mem from somerville, Got a Grip, and vcmvo2, with watercarrier4diogenes at the wheel of the Editmobile, the Robes of Objectivity flapping wildly behind him (in Gryffindor colors, of course).

The rescued diaries tonight are truly the gems for which we search every night. The Rangers are secondary to what they present to you, some of the best writing available on Teh Great Orange Satan, if some of the less noticed initially. Read these, rec and comment in them, let the diarists know that you appreciate their efforts and their viewpoints (even if you don't happen to completely agree with them).

Villagejonesy wonders Is the World Now Too Nuts for Traveling In? (shayera)

Continuing Patric Juillet's series, Tales from the Larder: "Ancient" Grains, Part 2 brings a delicious look at these grains with vegetables. Give your salivary glands a workout with this one! (watercarrier4diogenes)

rserven discusses the challenges of LGBT Aging: Still Out, Still Aging. (Got a Grip)

Spencer Troxell explores another aspect of what he deems political "hardware" in The Virtue Of Pragmatism. (mem from somerville)

Where have they been hiding this secret? juliewolf answers with Whee: Friday night open thread: minor tales of awesomeness and some numbers that go with them. (watercarrier4diogenes)

Ripeness Is All celebrates a life lived large by a true force of nature in RIP Liz Carpenter, LBJ's press secretary 1920-2010 updated with photos. (Got a Grip)

Setrak updates us with the latest on the War: Fighting Rages In Pakistan's Tribal Areas: Taliban vs. Militia. (vcmvo2)

With An open letter to Congressional Democrats: that other guy provides some historical context about having courage for difficult decisions. (mem from somerville)

Musing on how the music we grew up with affected us, Panurge explores Rush (not Limbaugh), Rock'n'roll, Reagan, and Rand--and what to do now. (watercarrier4diogenes)

efraker brings some facts to the table for World Water Day, such as the fact that For Lack Of It, 10,000 People Die Daily. (Got a Grip)

Mean Mr Mustard unleashes a few thoughts on Corporatists vs. the People. (mem from somerville)

jotter serves up High Impact Diaries: March 19, 2010, while carolita graces us with Top Comments - 3 - 20- 10 – Media Mess Edition.

Enjoy and please promote your own favorite diaries in this open thread (even if you're the author! Here's where that's actually appreciated). And, of course, since it's an open thread, PLAY NICE, OK? 8^)

Republicans Need Health Care Too

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 03:40:05 GMT

From the folks at AFSCME, a little health care reform for Republicans:

Among other goodies, the kit includes:

Hand Sanitizer: Much-needed protection from handling the $34 million the GOP has received from the Insurance industry.

Glenn Beck Tongue Depressor: Because Americans deserve to hear the facts about insurance company abuses, not demagoguery and fake indignation.

McCain Eye Drops: To remind Americans that, contrary to their crocodile tears of concern for seniors, Republican leaders from John McCain to Mitch McConnell to Newt Gingrich have bashed and trashed Medicare at every turn.

Any more ideas on cures for what ails the Republican party?

S.E.G.O. - More Science Fiction You Should Be Reading

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:56:04 GMT

One night last week I fell asleep listening to Carl Sagan talk about the thought experiments of Albert Einstein. Not a bad way to be rocketed into dreamland. And sure enough, I dreamed of space, relativity, and an idea as big as the cosmos.

In my dream, humanity had completed the measurements and determined that the universe did not contain enough matter to slow an eternal expansion. Because of this, the deep future would be one where space grew ever darker, ever cooler, ever emptier. Eventually there would be only the cold iron remnants of stars stretched at growing distances over an expanding infinity. Some final flickers of light could pop into the starless night as lumps of matter were ripped apart on the event horizon of slowly evaporating black holes, but eventually even that would end. It was a universe doomed to be utterly barren, utterly without activity, lightless, lifeless, and cold for an unmeasurable forever.

To hold back this ultimate doom, a great engineering project had been launched. A fleet of interstellar ramjets -- ships that could run on the scattering of hydrogen atoms found between the stars -- had been commissioned to a singular purpose. These vast craft would accelerate until they approached ever closer to the speed of light. 99%. 99.9%. 99.99% Relativity says that the ships would never close that final gap. They could get nearer and nearer the speed of light, but never reach it. But as the ships drew the string of decimal places ever longer, a strange thing would happen. Less and less of their energy would go into acceleration. More and more of it would turn into mass. Eventually each ship in the fleet would become as massive as a star, as massive as a galaxy, as massive as many galaxies put together. Circling around the universe, this fleet would use this mass to herd the scattered stars back together and gather up galaxies like sheep dogs bringing in a flock. They would halt the expansion and pull the universe into a form that would keep it viable for trillions of years.

As I settled into my position on one of these ships, I knew that the journey ahead of me -- one lap of the known universe -- would take decades from my point of view. Likely I would not live to see the journey's end. Even if I did, the faces of those taking up their places on board were the only human faces I would ever see again. Travel near the speed of light would not only do counter-intuitive things to energy and mass, it would also have a drastic effect on time. Decades would pass for those of us aboard the ship, but it would be tens of billions of years for those left behind. The great project might save the universe, but it could not stop the effects of time on those left behind. If the ship completed its route, it would return to find the Earth a burned out cinder, the sun long ago gone dark.

When I woke up, I thought through the dream as I was eating breakfast. Thirty or forty years ago I read the short story "To Outlive Eternity" by Poul Anderson which features a runaway interstellar ramjet. That was surely the inspiration for my universe-mangling fleet. Frankly, I don't believe it would work. Even if the engines on that ship were 100% efficient, you'd not get more relativistic mass than what you originally had as fuel. There was no way to really halt expansion or make up the missing mass. Of course, if you could somehow use some of the many massless particles that exist in the universe to add to the energy source... Hmmm...

In any case, I'm not going to hold the universe together this evening, but I am hoping to get you to make an orbit of your bookstore to pick up a few volumes you may have missed.

The Sparrow by Mary Doria Russell.

Only days before a SETI project is slated to end, the massive dish at Arecibo in Puerto Rico picks up a signal from another world. However this signal isn't some mathematical formula or any sort of technical information. It's music -- singing of a literally unearthly beauty. Inspired by the signal, Jesuit priest and unmatched linguist Emilio Sandoz convinces the church to fund an expedition. While the rest of the world debates what to do, Sandoz pulls together a team of scientists and his fellow Jesuits to travel to the distant planet of Rakat. The journey itself will take years, and they know nothing about what they will find at the other end, but Sandoz is certain that he is being guided by the hand of God. What follows is a story of wonderful intentions and horrible outcomes, friendship and loss, faith and doubt, amazing beauty and profound horror. Don't worry if you don't like books about religion. Hell, don't worry if you don't like books about science fiction. This is a book full of rich characters and serious discussion of deep ideas both sacred and secular. Halfway through this novel, I found myself turning to the author biography and actually becoming angry to find the words "first novel." No one, but no one, should be this good right out of the gate. Whether Father Emilio Sandoz is guided by the hand of God or not is open to debate. But something certainly had a grip on Mary Doria Russell as she was writing this book.

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

The central character of Collins' dystopic tale is in turns immensely brave, wise, sympathic, and insightful. She's also painfully naive, bone-headedly stubborn, and sometimes as dense as a box of rocks. In short, she's sixteen. Born into a nightmare version of North America where a ruling capital forces children from the provinces to battle to the death (both as amusement for the elite and to remind the yokels of the cost of rebellion), Katniss grows up poaching game just to keep her family from starving. When her younger sister is selected for the deadly games, Katness steps forward to replace her in the arena. A good bit of the world building in the book doesn't hold up well to close scrutiny, and... it doesn't matter a bit. Well before Katniss is dropped into the to-the-death combat, you'll be completely bowled over by both her strength and her flaws. Katniss is a force of nature, a "girl on fire," and the flames she kindles during the games are hotter than she knows. I'm less enthralled with the second volume, as Katniss' story seems much less in her own hands and she's required to be, well, dumb at several points. But middle books of a trilogy are always a tough chore and I'm certainly going to be there for book three. Propelled along by a first-person narrative that locks you into Katniss' skull, this is a book that manages to combine adventure and horror with some substantial thoughts on politics and justice. Deserving of the praise it's been getting.

Archangel by Sharon Shinn

Just looking at the cover, you could be forgiven for thinking that this book is a fantasy. Once you start into the liquid, elegant prose the true nature of the world of Samaria and its people can only be teased free a bit at a time. Here are angels -- actual, flying angels -- that sing their praises to god, and a god who responds with rain, or sunshine, or an end to disease. But angels aren't alone in this world. They are tied (intimately) to the humans of Samaria in a relationship that is rarely without tension. This is world-building at its best, a world that has different cultures, a history, an economy, and its own legends. It's also character building at its best with complex characters limned by their own inner lives. By the time you realize that it's actually science fiction, you'll be past caring about such fine distinctions. On top of the rich background and lush prose, Shinn drapes a romance that's fire and ice, a political struggle that's life and death, and a love of music and language that shines from every page. I have to confess that I've known Sharon Shinn for longer than either of us would like to admit (in fact, I warned her last night that I was going to praise her book today), but that doesn't mean that this book shouldn't be on the top of your "books to give to people who think they don't like science fiction" stack.

The Many-Colored Land by Julian May

When a gateway leading six million years into the past is found, it's scientifically interesting but practically useless. After all, this time doorway is strictly one way -- you can step through, but you can never return to the present. What the scientists and government studying the gateway fail to anticipate is the attraction this holds for all sorts of misfits, malcontents, and romantics. Equipped with camping gear that's designed to fall apart over time (to minimize the chance that their exploits will affect history) a steady stream of would-be settlers step through the door, anticipating starting a new life in the unspoiled Pliocene wilderness. The novels joins the story as a group of travelers prepares to step through this one-way door (and the little background we get on each of them is the slowest part of otherwise fast-paced book). Each of them has an idea of what they're going to find on the other side. All of them are wrong. Waiting for them is a kingdom of the most unlikely sort: one run by telepathic aliens that have taken over the past Earth. Chockablock with colorful characters and insane ideas, May's first volume of the "Pliocene Exile" is a wild ride that has a few bumps and threatens to derail at several points, but it's held together with a deft hand and strong writing. By the time you reach the end, you can't help asking yourself: would you step through that door?

A quick note: I very much appreciate the great response that this little feature received during the first couple of weeks. The discussion and the suggestions that have come up in comments have been terrific, and at least two of the books in this week's group were ones whose names popped up in comments -- prompting me to do a forehead slap and a loud "man, that should have been in the first list!" So don't stop reminding me of volumes I've forgotten. My intention is to pick books that aren't necessarily at the top of every list of "ten best science fiction novels of all time," but don't let that stop you from singing their praises -- after all, even the best known books have been read by only a tiny percentage of the public. And I promise, fantasy and alternate history will have their days.

Oklahoma Seeks to Ban Sharia Law

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:10:06 GMT

Well, thank god someone's finally looking to solve this problem:

OKLAHOMA CITY (March 15, 2010) – State lawmakers have voted to allow Oklahoma voters to prevent judicial rulings in foreign countries from impacting local court decisions through approval of the "Save Our State" constitutional amendment.

...

The proposed amendment declares that courts "shall not consider international law or Sharia Law."

With the judicial activists of the Oklahoma bench apparently out of control in their reliance on foreign and Sharia law instead of good ol' Amurkan precedent, the brave legislators in Oklahoma are now seeking to solve this completely non-existent problem with the same vigor with which they fought the hard battle in 2004 to ban already illegal gay marriage.

The only question is whether there will be an exception to allow judges to use Sharia law to discriminate against homosexuals.

WellPoint Reneges on Pledge to Help Uninsured

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 01:30:05 GMT

In the middle of the health insurance reform debate, comes news that WellPoint breaks it's promises. Via Think Progress, the LA Times has the story

In 2007, just as Democrats took control of Congress, WellPoint pledged that its charitable foundation would spend $30 million over three years as part of a "comprehensive plan to help address the growing ranks of the uninsured."

But according to tax filings, company promotional material and former executives familiar with the initiative, WellPoint never came close to fulfilling that pledge. A company spokeswoman disputed that Wednesday.

However, WellPoint's public records indicate that from 2007 to 2009 the foundation gave less than $6.2 million in grants targeted specifically at helping uninsured Americans get access to coverage and care -- barely one-fifth of what was promised and just 11% of the charity's total giving over the last three years.

Meanwhile, as TP points out:

An investigation by Congress earlier this year found that WellPoint’s Chief Executive Angela F. Braly had a salary of $1.1 million last year and stock options valuing approximately $8.5 million, meaning that the company couldn’t spend anywhere near what it spends on just one of its own employees to help the uninsured it claims to care about.

The Vote Count and Courting(?) Stupak

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:46:04 GMT

Here's the latest. Stupak "curious" Chris Carney will vote yes. Jim Costa and rabid Blue Dog Henry Cuellar, a long hold out, will vote yes, as will Jerry McNerney. That puts dday's latest count at "204 Yes, 205 No, with now 12 undecided and 10 assumed in the Stupak bloc."

The executive order approach to peeling off Stupak might also include Stupak, he hints.

Stupak said that he was "going to think about" what would need to be included in an executive order to convince him that no federal dollars would go towards funding abortion.

Further, Stupak said that he had not talked to the White House about such an executive order.

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) confirmed Stupak's whip count of at least six holdouts.

The group met on the House floor as the presiding officer gaveled to recess while the president addressed Democratic lawmakers in the Captiol Visitors Center.

But, Stupak, Kaptur, Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper ( D-Pa.), Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.V.) and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) continued to discuss the recent talk of an executive order.

So those seem to be the six holdouts on that list that Stupak says he keeps in his coat pocket. According to dday's counting, if these are the only six--or if he has only five with him, and it's not entirely clear who those would be--staying with Stupak, leadership just needs to flip one or two.

Let me be very clear: if Stupak only has six members in his bloc, this is basically over. Democrats already hold 7 votes who flipped from No to Yes; Stupak’s 6 plus Joseph Cao, Lynch and Arcuri would equal 9, and if you do the math (I have) you get to 215. That would mean basically one more No to Yes flipper would put you over the top, and I simply believe that Pelosi could get that.

A complication, though: Zach Space has flipped from "yes" to "no."

But going after the previous "no" votes is a better long term move than agreeing to any language that Stupak would accept in an executive order. It's going to be a bad bet to put anything in writing that Stupak demands, because it would likely make enough of the 50 pro-choice members who threatened defection over the Stupak enrollment corrections resolution would probably be willing to bolt again.

Any executive order that would be acceptable to the pro-choice caucus must not essentially codify Hyde, which has to be renewed annually, and make it permanently impossible to ever try to end it. But if he's going to go the executive order route, it'd be helpful to have a few things clarified, like making it clear that the onerous "two check provision" that will pass in the Senate bill can be handled by internal bookkeeping on the insurance companies' part, rather than requiring the offensive and stigmatizing process for the subscriber--or the subscriber's husband or father--to have to write two checks.

Update: Capuano has now said yes, Matheson still a no.

Late Afternoon/Early Evening Open Thread

Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:00:04 GMT

Coming up on Sunday Kos ….

DavidNYC will lead a sight-seeing tour through the wilds of New York's surprisingly influential third parties. With the Working Families Party in particular exercising its muscle in favor of healthcare reform, the question is, what kind of difference can they make?

exmearden will explore the year-old Washington State Death with Dignity Act and other related assisted dying news.

Dante Atkins will publish his recent interview with Michael Moore, which focused on the DVD release of his new film, the health care bill and financial sector regulation.

Angry Mouse will discuss why morale and unit cohesion in the military is only important when it's about discriminating against gays and lesbians, but apparently irrelevant when it comes to the increasing rates of sexual assault against women.

As Bad as the Banksters

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:16:04 GMT

This is just obscene.

The insurance giant Cigna last year gave compensation packages worth more than $120 million to two executives who left the company, according to a filing with the SEC on Friday.

The vast majority of that total went to former chairman and CEO H. Edward Hanway who left his post with a retirement package worth $110.9 million -- which included $18.8 million in executive compensation for 2009, as well as a healthy pension plan, deferred compensation and stock options.

While, as Sam Stein notes in that article, Cigna hasn't made headlines recently for huge rate hikes, as many of its competitors have, it's still pretty damned galling. The next stand-alone insurance reform bill introduced should prohibit the funds insurers receive as a result of the mandate from going to executive compensation.

Community Power! Saturday Election Digest

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:15:46 GMT

Welcome to Community Power!'s third Saturday Election Digest. It was a hot week, as the campaigns gathered momentum, with over 125 diaries, far more than last week. The usual suspects – that is, those with high profiles and primary challengers, such as Bart Stupak – caught the most attention – but backers of candidates we haven't yet heard much about made appearances, too. Cal Cunningham in North Carolina, Doug Tudor in Florida, John Barrow in Georgia.

With the health care reform vote fast approaching, Kossacks naturally focused on fence-sitters, and we had a flurry of diaries designed to get some needling action on Congresspeople who had yet to make up their minds or who had just changed their minds. While these were not, strictly speaking, candidate diaries, a list of them is included after the regular list, which appears below the fold.

Before going there, however, I'd like to talk a little more of a few things diarists should think about before they click "publish" and to look briefly at an excellent on-line tool – the Swing State Project – which can provide original insight into some of the races we'll be following most closely in the next few months.

As noted in last week's Saturday Election Digest, remember that headlines matter. Succinct and informative, clever but not too clever. What also matters are those first few paragraphs. That would be the case even if diarists weren't constrained by Daily Kos software in how much they can say in their introduction. If you're backing a candidate, that introduction ought to include a link to a campaign web site, a link for financial contributions and, obviously, a clear statement of what office the candidate is seeking.

That last may seem obvious. But one diary last week went on for two dozen paragraphs without ever mentioning that the office being contested was a governorship. Yes, there are a lot of political junkies here, but we're not clairvoyant. Also, newly registered arrivals appear every day. Have mercy on them. Don't make them guess what you're talking about. It may seem like old hat to you, basic information that everyone already knows, but believe me, the basics will be news to some readers. Something you also should think of including in your introduction is a photo of whoever it is that you're spotlighting.

Don't forget the tags. If your favored candidate is running in Michigan's first district, your diary should include the tag, MI-01. If s/he's running for Senate from Florida, it should read FL-Sen. Our volunteer team of tag fixers will bless you for this.

The Swing State Project provides some terrific breaking news as well as background information about candidacies on the edge. One of the names you may recognize there is SSP's publisher, DavidNYC, who is also a veteran Contributing Editor at Daily Kos. A couple of helpful features at SSP are the Presidential Results by Congressional District, 2000-2008 and the 2010 Sortable Congressional Filing Deadline & Primary Calendar.

The linked list of diaries can be found below the fold.

On Motions to Recommit and their danger to health care

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:16:04 GMT

Here's the thing about motions to recommit.

When Dems were in the minority, they used them with varying degrees of success to set up tough votes for the majority Republicans, forcing them to go on record voting against stuff they would ordinarily perhaps want to vote for, but couldn't because to do so would either kill the bill they were working on or create some kind of a poison pill. It was a strategy that made the most of the tools afforded to the minority, but it rarely worked in terms of making substantive changes to legislation that actually inured to the political benefit of Democrats.

It wasn't a new invention, but it was one that minority Democrats used as part of a comprehensive effort of framing differences between themselves and Republicans, with an eye toward the elections that would one day let them retake control of the House, and in that incarnation, the plan's architect was then House Democratic Caucus Chair Rahm Emanuel.

It was a fine plan for Democrats in the minority, but there was never any effort made to remind Members that things might have to change once Democrats were in the majority. In fact, what Emanuel carried over through the transition was the sense of fear that he believed motions to recommit could create in the minds of the majority. It therefore became House Democratic Caucus policy that Members in marginal districts (or who could make the case that they were otherwise endangered) would be allowed to vote with the Republicans on their motions to recommit, so as not to be "trapped" in bad votes that would lead to nasty campaign attack ads (as if those could be avoided). Perhaps a good campaign strategy, but a terrible strategy for governance.

Why? Because it gives away to the minority the power to substantively rewrite or even completely derail substantive legislation, which is something you should never give away. It's what having the majority means in Congress. The only reason to have it is because majority status confers the right to control the substance of legislation. Giving it up in order to avoid attack ads means you're surrendering the right to do anything, in order to avoid being attacked for doing things. Not only does that not work in an age when political opponents feel perfectly free to attack you whether you've done something or not, but it leads to absurd situations that cause your base to call into question just why the hell they ever voted for you in the first place. Witness the Democratic majority's collapse on FISA in 2007, or if you prefer, their inability to escape the anti-choice chokehold even on the one piece of legislation Democrats say they've been working toward for 50+ years and finally have clearly in their sights: health care.

Right now, we have to hold our collective breath and hope that House Democrats can hold together as a party rather than a loose-knit collection of freelancers just to avoid having abortion sink what's supposed to be their crowning achievement. Yes. Democrats. Abortion. You read that right.

As you know, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI-01) has been scheming to find a procedural back door to shoehorning his anti-abortion language into the health insurance reform bill. And though all reports now indicate that there will be no deal for an enrollment corrections resolution, we're still in danger of seeing the Republicans offer the Stupak language as a motion to recommit. Can we count on Democrats whose views on abortion are in sympathy with Stupak's to be Democrats first and abortion activists second? That is the question the motion will frame.

That that is even a question represents a fairly serious problem with House Democratic Caucus discipline. That it is a carryover from Democrats' days in the minority represents a fairly serious problem with transitioning to the responsibilities of governance. That it is a holdover from Rahm Emanuel's days in the House is a good illustration of why I was pleased to see him take the job of White House Chief of Staff -- meaning I was glad to see him out of the House. But most important, that this process continues to be regarded as framing substantive votes represents a fairly serious problem in the way House Democrats view the legislative process.

What I mean is this: by rule, motions to recommit are debated for a total of 10 minutes on the floor. Ten minutes!

What Democrat believes that even as a member of the majority -- and therefore supposedly connected to the wheels of real power -- they would ever get the opportunity to rewrite the substance of a bill, especially one as important as this, on ten minutes notice? Even if you're the chairman of a powerful committee, if you want to amend an important bill on the floor, you need to slog through the tedious process of a committee markup, and possibly a Rules Committee markup, plus some not-insignificant time spent debating your amendment on the floor, if it hasn't won the day at some earlier point in the process.

With a motion to recommit, however, the minority -- the out of power party! -- gets to come to the floor with an amendment that need not be printed beforehand, need not be shown to anyone, need not be carefully combed-over and debated in committee, nor subjected to any of the rigors which a member of the majority must overcome to get this privilege, and then gets a vote after just 10 minutes of trading prepared speeches on the floor, which almost no one who watches C-SPAN still thinks passes for debate.

And yet Democrats continue to shatter all records for allowing this to happen, and joining in the effort to pull the rug out from underneath their own agenda. All for what? To avoid attack ads? How's that working?

Keep in mind, by the way, that over on the Senate side -- where Democrats are even more notorious as freelancers -- Democrats (and independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont) are so far complying with the unbelievably ironic request from the leadership that they refrain from offering amendments seeking to reinsert the public option into the bill. Whether or not offering such an amendment is only so much calculated window-dressing, the point is that leadership claims that such an amendment, given the procedural posture of the legislation, endangers the ultimate passage of the program, and Democrats with every incentive not to comply regardless of these pleas are in fact falling into line for what they believe is the greater good. Meanwhile, on the House side, what do we see? Democrats who have grown all-too-comfortable with freelancing on motions to recommit possibly finding themselves unable to exhibit anything near the same control over themselves.

You don't think Bernie Sanders is dying to offer that amendment every bit as much as Stupak's allies are dying to vote for a motion to recommit that would add Stupak's language? And yet here's a guy who isn't even a Democrat putting the centerpiece of the Democratic agenda first. But we get no such loyalty from certain House Democrats.

That's an outrage.

What's worse, by going this route, Stupak's allies threaten to send a reconciliation bill to the Senate that contains an anti-abortion provision that by itself stands virtually no chance of surviving a Byrd Rule challenge, and will have numerous enemies in the Senate who'll want to see the rule enforce and the provision excised. But doing so would amend the reconciliation bill, which means that upon passage in the Senate, it'd have to head back to the House, where we'd be back at square one, and undoubtedly facing... yet another motion to recommit to add the same damn thing back in. Meaning we're stuck in an endless loop that ends only with the defeat of the motion to recommit or the engineering of 60 votes in the Senate to waive the Byrd Rule and actually accept the Stupak language -- a move that would still require at least one Republican vote.

Could the Senate find that Republican vote if necessary? Maybe. After all, allowing the Stupak language into the bill would, according to pro-choice forces, impose a very significant restriction on access to abortion services. So wouldn't Republicans want that? Sure. But if they agree to it, they pave the way for passage of the health insurance reform bill they hate more than anything. So would they make that trade? Probably not.

In other words, Senate Republicans would be put in the position of casting the "tough vote" against an anti-abortion provision if they want to preserve their ability to block the overall health care bill. That's essentially the mirror image of the position Stupak's allies will be in on the House motion to recommit, and yet everyone's expectation is that Senate Republicans will hold their line for political purposes, whereas it's a nail biter as to whether House Democrats will be able to do the same.

How sad is that?

House Democrats need to get their heads in the game, realize that as the majority you simply can't treat motions to recommit the same way you did when you were in the minority, and that "tough votes" are what being in Congress is all about. If you're really thinking that you're fighting to keep your seat in Congress, then think for a moment about what it means to fight to keep a seat from which you can't even use the power that supposedly comes with it, for fear of... eventually losing it. If you find yourself voting from this position, you've already lost your seat.

Midday open thread

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:16:23 GMT

A festive Vernal Equinox to you all. Consider this thread the opening salvo of the War on Easter. To the links.

Politico actually reports a true fact: The National Organization for Women (NOW) is mobilizing to defeat Bart Stupak in the primary by supporting challenger Connie Saltonstall. NOW President Terry O'Neill calls defeating Stupak her "highest priority."

In case you were wondering what was on Bill O'Reilly's teleprompter when he had his legendary freak-out on Inside Edition: here's your answer.

The Large Hadron Collider in Geneva just broke its own record by charging a particle beam to the tune of 3.48 trillion electron-volts.

Glenn Beck is using his staff to do opposition research on a minister who is daring to challenge Beck's utterly uncharitable version of Christian theology. One wonders how the Christian right will feel about NewsCorp using its payroll to destroy the professional and private life of a Reverend.

Saving the whales: a choice L.A. area sushi restaurant is shutting its own doors after being caught illegally selling whale meat.

"As you wish." Fiction takes a sharp turn towards reality, as researchers at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology in Germany have apparently developed a tiny cloak of invisibility. (Kudos to anyone who recognizes the movie/book that spawned the initial quote... --exmearden

As much as half of the migratory North American Monarch Butterfly population may have been destroyed this year due to the torrential storms in Mexico.

The monarch loss is estimated at 50% to 60%, which means the breeding population is expected to be the smallest since the Mexican overwintering colonies were discovered in 1975, said Chip Taylor, a professor of entomology and director of Monarch Watch at the University of Kansas.

--exmearden

The EPA is embarking on a two-year study of hydraulic fracturing, or "hydro-fracking", a technique used in drilling for natural gas and oil. Hydraulic fracturing forces a whole lot of liquid (water and other chemicals) into rock to create fractures that open up areas of gas and oil for further drilling and capture. The technique raises concerns that groundwater and other resources are permanently polluted through widespread fracturing. A previous EPA study in 2004-2005 during the Bush administration was widely criticized as biased in favor of companies such as Halliburton who use this process. --exmearden

Dems may drop self-executing rule plans, can still pass reconciliation first

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:49:24 GMT

WaPo reports and many diarists have noted that House Democrats appear ready to drop plans to deem the Senate health insurance reform bill passed with a self-executing rule.

That won't make much of a difference at this point. Everybody knows what's at stake, and which votes mean what. Members have by this time steeled themselves for what needs to be done.

But the option to pass the reconciliation bill first, at least in the House, should still be available to them if they want it. The original plan for using the self-executing rule contemplated just that, anyway. That is, the Senate bill was only going to be deemed passed once the House had passed the reconciliation bill. So clearly the House parliamentarian had no particular problem allowing the reconciliation fix to be brought to the floor before the language it would amend (contained in the main Senate bill) was signed into law.

That's possibly because it only takes a majority vote to waive points of order and other procedural objections to reconciliation in the House, whereas the Senate most often requires 60 votes to do the same. And if a majority exists for passage, then it's presumed that a majority would exist for any necessary waivers. In fact, there need be no presuming at all, since the rule for consideration of the reconciliation bill can explicitly waive them.

So that preserves the House's ability -- if they want it -- to vote on the fixes before voting on the less popular Senate bill, and doing so with separate votes puts the House at no disadvantage versus the result that would have obtained with the use of the self-executing rule. You still pass the fix through the House first, before completing work on the Senate bill.

And again, if they do that, that helps settle the question so many people had about whether or not you could vote on language amending a bill that hadn't yet become law. You can, and up until a few minutes ago, the plan was to structure procedure such that that was the only possible outcome. House Dems now have a choice about what order they approach things in. And really, the Senate likely bill won't have been signed by the President at the time that the reconciliation bill is passed in the House, even if they opt to take it up second. I suppose they could opt to wait a few days to vote on reconciliation, but I doubt they'll want to.

Saturday hate-mailapalooza

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 18:30:03 GMT

Below the fold.