Harry Reid is expected to announce that the "public option" in current healthcare reform legislation will have a state by state opt out clause. From the Times:

The Senate health care legislation will include a government-run insurance plan, but states would be allowed to “opt out” of it, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, will announce officially on Monday afternoon, Senate Democratic aides said.

How would states do this?

Mr. Reid’s office has not released any details. In theory, states that wish to opt out of the public plan would have to adopt a law to do so, which would require agreement between the state legislature and the governor.

I think that is a reasonable hurdle, or to put it another way, an acceptable compromise, because it is a hurdle. It puts the burden on state legislators to justify why they think their state shouldn't be a part of the plan.

That being said, I don't like The National Journal's take on it:

Reid's apparent intent to move ahead with a public option, including an opt-out, has led some Senate aides to suggest Reid is readying a strategy in which he might lose the cloture vote but then quickly bring to the floor a bill with a compromise public option designed to attract more centrists.
That approach would reduce the chance of attacks from liberals by proving that the votes are not there for a more robust public option, an aide to a centrist senator said.

That, on the other hand, doesn't surprise me and would be very typically of the Senator from Nevada. Is it an attempt to water the bill down and sell out progressives? Might very well be.

Dems connect 4 vertebrae, 20 more to go...

All Spin Zone writes:

Joe Wilson (R-SC) played the role of GOP street thug last night. Submitted for your consideration: low level hit men don’t go out and take a whack at the opposition’s “Don” unless the family Capo approves in advance.

Sounds about right to me.

Disgraceful. It's never happened. Until now. Republican vitriol has gone too far. Rep. Wilson should resign. Or Congress should censure him. Period. End. Of. Story.

In response to the question of whether support for any non-laughable health reform bill from "moderate" Republicans like Chuck Grassley was ever a possibility, Lindsay Beyerstein nails it:

"Simple answers to simple questions: No, there was never any realistic prospect of getting Chuck Grassley to support healthcare reform. Grassley is a Republican and, unlike Democrats, Republicans have party discipline. Scuttling health reform is the GOP's number one priority. It should have been clear from the outset that any plan that depended on the cooperation of Republicans was doomed."

When you get beyond the by-now reflexive timidity of most Democrats on hot issues, the Dems' second-biggest mistake is their having confused party discipline with goose-stepping anti-democracy. The two are not the same, and although they sometimes go together, they don't have to.

For instance: ironclad party discipline in the service of a dishonest war or the smearing of a popular idea such as a public health care option is indeed anti-democratic discipline. It is the closing of ranks to sabotage the public will or the public interest. But ironclad party discipline to hold together the votes needed for a bill that will give a majority of Americans the choice they want in health care is pro-democratic discipline. It is the force required to fend off reactionary opposition to giving non-wealthy Americans a slightly fairer shake. Stern party unity for the sake of greater social or economic equality is not a vice. It is a virtue.

Rep. John Conyers | Washington | July 17

Huffington Post - Today witnessed the landmark passage of the States Single Payer Amendment which would remove federal barriers to implementation of a single payer health care system at the state level. This bipartisan vote signifies the prominence of the single payer solution as the plan favored by a majority of Americans.

The amendment introduced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) during the Education and Labor Committee's consideration the health reform bill -- H.R. 3200 -- passed by a bipartisan margin of 25-19. The amendment would free states from Employer Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) regulations that have been used by insurance companies to tie down states with litigation, preventing them from implementing progressive health care solutions.

Washington, DC | July 9

BBC - CIA Director Leon Panetta has admitted that his agency regularly misled Congress, six members of the House Intelligence Committee have alleged.

The claims are echoed in a letter from the committee's Democratic chairman, Sylvestre Reyes.

Fredreka Schouten & Paul Overberg | Washington | June 8

USA TODAY - On a mild evening last September, Citigroup lobbyists mingled with South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn at a rooftop reception — complete with miniature putting greens — as the company hosted a party to honor the third most powerful Democrat in the House and raise money for one of his favorite golf charities.

Health insurers and hospitals, meanwhile, are donating millions to help build an institute in Boston to celebrate the career of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who is attempting to overhaul the nation's health care system.

Despite a ban on gifts to lawmakers and limits on campaign contributions, lobbyists and groups that employ them can spend unlimited money to honor members of Congress or donate to non-profits connected to them or their relatives. The public — until now — had little insight into the scope of this largely hidden world of special-interest influence.

Under ethics rules passed in 2007, lobbyists for the first time last year had to report any payment made for an event or to a group connected to a lawmaker and other top federal officials.

USA TODAY undertook the first comprehensive analysis of the lobbying reports and found 2,759 payments, totaling $35.8 million, were made in 2008. The money went to honor 534 current and former lawmakers, almost 250 other federal officials and more than 100 groups, many of which count lawmakers among their members. h/t Susie at Crooks & Liars

Staff Reports | Albany, NY | April 24, 2009

Albany Times Union - The race in the 20th Congressional District has ended: Republican Jim Tedisco has conceded the contest more than three weeks after election day.

Just before 4 p.m., Tedisco called Democrat Scott Murphy to concede, and Murphy has declared victory.

"This was a closely contested election that perhaps lasted a little longer than anyone may have expected or wanted," Tedisco said in a just-released press statement. "But it was important for our electoral process and for the hard-working people of upstate New York that it be resolved fairly and decisively."

This is explosive news:

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman’s help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Read the entire article. It's beyond sordid. And then ask yourself if you feel this is appropriate behavior from a nation we call 'an Ally.'

I would also add that there seems to be a lot of anti-AIPAC/Israel news coming out lately as well. First the leak about Rahm's conversations, then the note from Mitchel that Israel's demands were unacceptable and now this? Seems like a trend to me. It also looks like there is a lot of pressure being put on AIPAC and its supporters to fall in line behind and support Obama for the already pre-ordained confrontation between Obama and Bibi.

Nota bene: The always readable and excellent Cheryl Rofer at WhirledView is coming to the same conclusions as well.

Congress is spending nearly a trillion dollars on the stimulus bill. That’s about $3,000 for every man, woman and child in America, $12,000 for a family of four. This is on top of that family’s $126,000 share of the existing federal deficit, a debt of 3 times the median family income. The interest paid on that debt is money that cannot be used to fund college or vocational training, safe streets or a secure retirement. We are told that taking on this new debt will cure the economy, that if people spend their tax reductions on toys and the government spends on roads everything will be good once more. But some time in 2010 the toys will be in the trash and the road builders will be laid off again. What then? Another trillion? For the last decade our economy has been built on debt. Will our government now do anything to stimulate real organic growth, or will it perpetuate policies that stifle demand and maintain our dependence on artificial stimulants?

More after the jump.

Cliff Hanger in a Sea of Blue

California's 4th Congressional District, Republican since 1992, combines
vast regions, sparsely populated, and growing suburbs and exurbs.

Charlie Brown (D) Refuses to Give up in California's
4th Congressional District

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News

California turned blue with a vengeance in the 2008 presidential election. President-elect Obama's 61% majority plus a 78% turnout rate statewide were enough to strip the Republicans of all but one county with a significant population.

The "blue tsunami" started in San Diego County at the southern tip of the state and flowed up the Pacific coastal counties through Mendocino. The only county with a major population that remained loyal to the Republicans was Orange County, the former center of right wing politics in the Golden State, and that was by a mere 2.6% McCain margin.

Yet, the 4th Congressional District is still counting votes with a too-close-to-call election. John T. Doolittle (R) retired this year after holding the seat since 1992. Democrat Charlie Brown took a second run for the seat, having lost to Doolittle in 2006 by just 3 points. In 2008, Brown received nationwide support from high profile veterans and veteran's groups and was well funded from a variety of sources.

His opponent, Tom McClintock (R), hoped to maintain Republican dominance. McClintock was considered one of the most conservative members of the California legislature. His main issue in the campaign was fencing the border to keep out illegal workers.

On election night McClintock had less than a 1,000 vote lead with thousands of uncounted ballots. Rather than surrender, Brown issued the following statement on Nov. 5:

"We understand that there are still more than 40,000 ballots remaining to be processed, and we will not know the outcome of this election until all of those votes are counted.

More from Chris Nelson on the 'politics' of the bailout. Needless to say I disagree with him on his remarks about Pelosi (and Hoyer). The Democrats have a chance to bury the Republicans for a decade here and they aren't taking it. They can defy the president to veto a good bill and get Obama on board and win a smashing victory in November. But they just lack leadership, as Nelson says (albeit in a different context).

Here's Nelson's take:

SUMMARY: the only thing EVERY one agrees on today is that the US is suffering from a lack of leadership, and if that continues, the world will suffer also.

Paul Kane & Lori Montgomery | Sept 29

WaPo - In a narrow vote, the House today rejected the most sweeping government intervention into the nation's financial markets since the Great Depression, refusing to grant the Treasury Department the power to purchase up to $700 billion in the troubled assets that are at the heart of the U.S. financial crisis.

The 228-205 vote amounted to a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., and was sure to sow massive anxiety in world markets. Even during the Just 11 days ago, Paulson urged congressional leaders to urgently approve the bailout. He warned that inaction would lead to a seizure of credit markets and a virtual halt to the lending that allows Americans to acquire mortgages and other types of loans.

As it became apparent that the measure was heading to defeat, stock markets took a steep dive. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 600 points but then rebounded a bit.

Numerian posted this letter in the comment thread of another post, but I think it needs a full front page post. So here it is:

Dear Senator Obama-

Chances are most if not all of the major commercial and investment banks are insolvent. Not one of them is opting out of the do-not-short list, and they don't seem to have the confidence in their survival to opt out of the L3 asset swap program Secretary Paulson is proposing.

It is also very likely that acutely dangerous systemic risk already exists, not merely from direct lines of credit among the banks, but especially from credit default swaps, which if activated by more than one large bank default would probably bring down many others. Remember, though, that this systemic risk is highly concentrated in the top 25 or so banks in the world, and does not jeopardize the 6,000 other community banks in the U.S.

Third, it is also highly probable that as this recession worsens, and as housing values continue to sink, forcing more foreclosures, the large banks will be even closer to collapse.

Having worked for many years in the banking industry and been closely involved with risk management and derivatives, I can tell you that it looks like catastrophe is already here.

More after the jump.

In the last five years, the media has become the stomping ground for corporate mouthpieces that not only own most of the media outlets, but also control the advertising revenues that keep these television, radio and newspapers afloat. This is a direct result of the “fairness doctrine” being scrapped by the FCC and also the placement of Michael Powell (the son of Colin Powell) to head the agency. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 also added fuel to the fire. According to Network:

The Telecommunications Act of 1996. Under the 1934 Communications Act, everything was clear and precise - there was NO option but to regulate - and the Commission did what the Act instructed it to do. The 1996 Act, however, introduced the so-called forbearance doctrine, where the Commission could, on its own initiative, refrain from regulating an industry segment. That's when things began to collapse. In its haste to create local exchange competition, the FCC went either too far or not far enough in the early days. Three methods of local competition were introduced: (1) Local resale, but the discounts were not deep enough and so hardly anyone chose that option; (2) Unbundled Network Elements (UNEs), where discounts were probably too deep, so everyone jumped in; and (3) Facilities based competition, which has not taken off because of the UNE discounts. Chairman Powell, who strongly favors facilities-based competition decided to "fix" the problem by moving too far too fast in the opposite direction by essentially deregulating UNE price regulation for the Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. The result: Policy disarray and chaos!

M.R. Kropko | East Cleveland, Ohio | August 20

Associated Press - Democratic U.S. Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the first black woman to represent Ohio in Congress and a strong critic of the Iraq war, died Wednesday after a brain hemorrhage, a hospital spokeswoman said.

Tubbs Jones, 58, died Wednesday evening of a brain hemorrhage caused by an aneurysm that burst and left her with limited brain function, said Eileen Sheil, a spokeswoman for the Cleveland Clinic, which owns the Huron Hospital in East Cleveland where Tubbs Jones died.

"Throughout the course of the day and into this evening, Congresswoman Tubbs Jones' medical condition declined," Sheil said in a statement from the clinic and Tubbs Jones' family.

Good news: Pressure from Rep. Waxman to enforce Dr. Kaye Whitley's subpoena to testify on how the DOD is preventing and responding to incidents of sexual assault in the military have paid off: after first blocking her from attending a House committee's hearing, the Pentagon is allowing Whitley to testify. Bad news: the DOD continues to ignore a very specific responsibility they have been tasked with in order to fully address this issue.

I expect that people find it hard to deal with emotionally sensitive issues. I may even expect that many people would want to shield themselves from it.

But I won't tolerate elected and appointed officials who run and hide when they not only have the power to do something about it, they have the explicit responsibility of doing something about it.

And when that issue concerns protecting women in the military from sexual assault, it should be absolutely unacceptable for the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), to shirk their responsibilities of doing all they can to address what is a very serious issue, which includes participating in a congressional hearing on why so many alarming reports have been surfacing about the sexual assault rate in the military.

The answer of Federal District Court Judge John D. Bates to the Bushies argument for why Karl Rove, Harriet Miers et al. can blow off a subpoena to appear before Congress can be condensed as such:

"The Executive presents a litany of contrary arguments, all of which are unavailing."

Last June, Congress subpoenaed former Bush legal counsel Harriet Miers to answer questions about the political retribution firings of numerous United States Attorneys in the Justice Department. Even though Miers had left the Bush administration and was a private citizen, she said she was told by Bush that she could not testify before Congress. On what grounds? That the President had deciderered that all senior presidential staff have absolute immunity to refuse to testify before Congress -- forevah.

Devlin Barrett | Washington, DC | July 31

AP - House Democrats voted down a public reprimand Thursday that Republicans sought against influential Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., over a questionable housing arrangement that he insists violated no laws.

A measure offered by House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Rangel "has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House and merits the censure of the House for same."Before the House debate, Boehner said in a statement that "instead of keeping their promise to 'drain the swamp' of corruption in Washington, House Democrats are sinking in it."

Rangel tried to pre-empt the GOP effort by telling colleagues he would support the measure if they deleted the charge that he had discredited Congress and deserved censure.

The censure measure was voted down 254-138; two dozen Republicans voting with the Democrats.
 

This attempt to censure, an example of the National Republican strategy, is examined in depth by Ben Pershing of the Washington Post, linked in the first comment.

“Absolutely, 100%, Aye.” Such was the enthusiastic vote of Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) today, when the House Judiciary Committee voted to hold Karl Rove in contempt of Congress for failing to respond to a subpoena. The committee said that Rove broke the law by failing to appear at a July 10 hearing on allegations of White House influence over the Justice Department, including whether Rove encouraged prosecutions against Democrats.

Rove claims that Congress can't force him to testify because of . . . wait for it . . . executive privilege! Taking the Bush administration's already shopworn privilege claim to newly ridiculous extremes, Rove, who no longer works at the White House, is claiming executive privilege for allegedly illegal activity -- a claim that the Supreme Court ripped to shreds in the Nixon case some 30 years ago.

Bush Accused of Tyranny and Murder

Star witnesses, legal scholar Bruce Fein and former
LA District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi. M. Collins cc

House Justice Committee Hears Kucinich Resolution

Direct from the hearing

Michael Collins
"Scoop" Independent News
Washington, DC Part 1

Today's hearing on the abuse of presidential powers before the House Committee on the Judiciary turned into a devastating political ambush by Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), committee Democrats, and the extraordinary panel of witnesses.. At least 12 Democratic Committee members were present plus the Chairman while only four Republicans bothered to show up.

Belying their casual appearance in the committee chambers, the Democrats presented a well coordinated, hard hitting case against President George W. Bush. This led to a double climax in the form of surgically erudite testimony by conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration official, and former Los Angeles District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi's stunning summary statement. The best the Republicans could offer was inappropriate humor by Rep. Don Lundgren (D-CA) and a request to clear the chambers when the audience cheered Mr. Bugliosi's remarks.

The hearing resulted from the non stop campaign for the impeachment of President George W. Bush by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). That effort received an overwhelming endorsement last week with the votes of a 238 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The 229 Democrats and 9 Republicans voted to refer the single count impeachment bill to the House or Representatives Committee on the Judiciary chaired by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI).

The Kucinich Resolution - H.R. 1345 outlines the case for the impeachment of President Bush. Specifically, as president, Bush:

"Deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) to fraudulently obtain support for an authorization for the use of force against Iraq and used that fraudulently obtained authorization, and then acting in his capacity under Article II, Section II of the Constitution as Commander in Chief, to commit US troops to combat in Iraq."

There was speculation prior to the hearing that the Republicans might scuttle the entire process due to House rules that prevent disparaging comments about the president. Apparently they failed to read the entirety of House Practice, Sec. 25 which lists a number of negative comments that House members have used in the past and makes clear that they're available in the present.

"Few Issues More Important"

Chairman Conyers opened the hearing by noting that there are "few issues more important" than the actions of Congress to curtail the abuse of presidential powers. As a member of the House committee that heard the Nixon Impeachment case, he speaks with a certain authority. He listed the various abuses of presidential power by Bush laying out the case that his fellow Democrats would elaborate. The senior member of the committee, Republican Lamar Smith (R-TX) responded that he'd seen a lot from this committee but today's hearing was like "hosting an anger management class."

Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), a strong advocate for the hearings, responded by pointing out that given the evidence of high crimes, this isn't a Democratic or Republican issue, it's an American issue. The Democrats continued the theme of gravity with Cong. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) referring to Bush as "the worst president our country has ever suffered"

Cong. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-X) returned to what would lead to the most devastating and startling charges of the hearing - the basis for the invasion of Iraq and the disregard for civil liberties through the torture of foreigners and the domestic assault on privacy. Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) responded that the hearing was nothing but "a do-over that amuses our terrorist friends."

"If lying about casual sex" is an impeachment issue, "then certainly lying to the American people about invading Iraq" is, responded Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA). Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), another strong supporter of impeachment, continued the hard hitting attack

The Republicans were still not taking the hearing seriously when Cong. Don Lundgren resorted to nothing more than wise cracks in response.

Murder & Tyranny

The peroration came from conservative legal scholar Bruce Fein's testimony about the Bush administration's descent into tyranny. Had Bush showed up at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he would have been barred at the door by George Washington, Fein said with confidence. He made the comment in a fashion that betrayed contempt for any defense of the Bush administration's behavior. Bush was labeled a tyrant from one of the best and brightest of the United States' legal establishment.

The finale was the testimony of former Los Angeles District Attorney, Vincent Bugliosi. As DA, Bugliosi tired and convicted Charles Manson of first degree murder gaining a death sentence even though the state admitted that Manson was never at the seen of the murders. In the past, Bugliosi has said that preparation is the key to winning cases and that he knows that he's won after the opening statement. With only five minutes, he had a tall task but the syllogism he established was air tight.

On October 1, 2002, President Bush was told that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction (WMD). On October 7th, Bush clamed that Iraq was a threat to the United States due to the possession of WMD. He then used this claim to justify the war in Iraq making him guilty for the death of over four thousand U.S. soldiers and over 100,000 documented deaths of Iraqi civilians.

There were other members of the witness panel, including the author of today's hearings Dennis Kucinich (D-O), Republican Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), and Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC). But it was the patient and cagey Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, his supporting cast of Democrats and the two star witnesses, Fein and Bugliosi who made charges of rule by tyranny and murder - charges that will not be easily forgotten no matter how much the mainstream media and politicians choose to ignore this issue.

See Part 2 tomorrow

Link

Permission to reproduce in whole or in part with attribution of authorship, a link to this article, and recognition of image credits

In this article I am going to make an attempt to clarify my views on this presidential race, U.S. foreign policy, the economy and what we are experiencing in this new era as far as our civil liberties, the constant threats (real and perceived) to our “security” and the increasing gap between the rich and the not so rich in this country. One could write a book about each of these subjects, putting everything in one article is a daunting task. I’m not an expert nor am I an economist, diplomat or a military genius. What I am attempting to do is separate fact from fiction as I see it. I’m sure that many will take exception to what I have to say and that’s understandable, we all can’t be mirror images of each other. I ask your indulgence beforehand.

Someone once described courage as not never being afraid, but going on in spite of the fear. As a nation and as elected officials we seem to be running dangerously low on courage. Oh we have the tough talk down, we have the posturing, but do we really have true courage? Since 9/11 when at least 2,985 people died from the terrorists attacks I think that what has been lost in all the hype is some perspective. While this was surely a tragedy, the population of the United States in the year 2001 was somewhere around 290 million people. Based on those numbers the terrorist attacks killed less than .02% of the population, yet since the attack we have responded by invading sovereign nations, torturing our fellow human beings, and gutting our Constitutional protections.

I’ll bet that George Bush and Dick Cheney are tap dancing together today. There is nothing better than getting your way when most of the people in the country are absolutely disgusted with the FISA Bill and the immunity it gives for the telecommunication industries fir knowingly breaking the law Must be a sweet deal for AT&T that gave ALL of its telephone messages in the west coast to the government.

Barack Obama was a real patriot too. He flew in to Washington just so he could give a free pass to all those that broke the law! Some country we have here. Russ Feingold and Chris Dodd were magnificent in their caving in on their supposed filibuster. Yeah, kudos all around the Senate for showing that they believe in the rule of law, as long as it’s the citizens that break it. The Government apparently is above the law. This bodes well for Bush when (and if) he ever gets charged for breaking the FISA Statues.