Nate Silver does the math:
Although Democrats can expect at least 7 defections among people who voted for the bill originally and possibly as many as 15-20, there are at least a dozen and possibly as many as 15-18 Democrats who could at least potentially be whipped in favor of the bill, although only a handful of these will be easy acquisitions.
Whip 'em!
A sample post – and an inspired satire.
David Roberts bets that the cap-and-trade is dead. The most likely path forward:
My prediction is that whatever [Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman] come up with will look more or less like energy policy over the last 20 years: a hodgepodge of subsidies and tax breaks for favored industries. At this point there seems little hope left of anything better. There’s much to discuss about the bill, the political fight that will take shape around it, and the best way forward for clean energy advocates in coming years. For now I just wanted to mark what looks to me like the final passing of the dream of an economy-wide price on carbon.
The US political system appears increasingly incapable of actually tackling any substantive problems.
Josh Marshall is trying to make sense of the bizarre O'Keefe story at the top of Memeorandum this morning:
[F]or the moment, as crazy as it may seem, I'm working on the assumption that O'Keefe really thought he'd get away with a major felony if he got recordings that would sound good enough on Fox and Drudge. Indeed, his very limited public statements still suggest he's thinking in terms of a justification defense. I still have a hard time believing that myself. But it's the only explanation I can square with the facts as we currently know them.
Conservatives have become used to the idea that their ideology allows them to break the law. Because their ideology is above the law. Just ask Cheney.
A graphic take:
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told Capitol Hill staffers on a private briefing call that in his speech tonight, Obama will leave no doubt that his commitment to addressing health care is as strong right now as it was in his September speech, a White House official tells me. The official also said Pfeiffer told Hill staff that Obama will offer “additional details,” suggesting it’s possible he may begin to outline a way forward.
Know hope.
Trevor Butterworth offers a sharp account of the factors that led to a nation of natural bloggers – "What was the blogosphere but a virtual pub where wits could clash, lubricated by sobriety" – into an online desert. But he notes one huge success story:
Imagine most of the leading economists in the United States banding together to create a blog to analyze and comment on what the President and Congress were doing each day. That, in effect, is what Irish Economy is for Ireland
As Carey notes, Irish Economy is "driven by the demand for qualified opinion. We are in an economic crisis, and newspaper editors suddenly discovered they had no economists on staff! The academics could write all the blogs they want–but the financial crisis created the audience." And the economist bloggers really work for their audience, too, she says. "They tend to notice things normal mainstream journalists don't that end up coming into the mainstream. Irish Economy is doing what everyone thought blogs would do. But–in Ireland anyway–this blog is unique. The fact that this one blog succeeds shows why the others have failed."
“There was a major blow to the head on the right side. There was evidence of torture on the upper torso, and on the palms of his hand. There were needle marks on his right arm and on his left arm. I am a law enforcement professional. I know what to look for when examining a body,” – Talal Al-Zahrani, father of one of the Gitmo "suicides" examining what was left of his innocent son's body after the US returned it to him. As reported by Harpers' Magazine.
None of these details were noted in the U.S. autopsy report. Attorney general Eric Holder refuses to investigate further. And so on the critical fundamental question of accountability for war crimes, the distinction between the Obama and the Bush administrations gets increasingly blurry.
Timothy Kincaid sums up yesterday's testimony. The defense's second witness was called:
[David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, a non-profit think tank that focuses on fatherhood, marriage, child rearing, child well being, and family structure] testified that research shows that the ideal family relationship for a child is a biological mother and father in low-conflict marriage.
Kincaid interjects:
[H]e’s likely correct. And a principled argument could be made that these are the only family forms that society should reward with marriage. But it doesn’t. It rewards remarriage of widows and widowers, divorced people with children, the childless, the elderly, and indeed absolutely every other less-than-ideal coupling provided that they are opposite-sex. The question is not whether biological parents are a smidgen better than two mothers (a position that could probably be made), but why two mothers (who are better than, say, a mother and stepfather) are not provided with marriage.
Talbot thinks that David Boies' cross examination of the defense's first witness "was a little like watching your cat play with his food before he eats it." The Prop 8 Trial Tracker informs us that today is likely to be the last day of testimony. There will be a couple week break before closing arguments.
Unlike many liberal blogs, I'm encouraged by the spending freeze and thrilled by the debt commission idea. But to my mind, none of this makes any sense unless Obama passes a core political test.
Does he have the courage to insist that healthcare reform is not dead? Does he use his clout to pressure the Senate to give the House some signs that the reconciliation strategy can work? Does he use every ounce of political capital to pass this bill, the cornerstone of his reform agenda, the failure of which will mean the end to any grappling with the health insurance crisis for another generation.
If he cannot do that, if he punts on this bill, or if he is passive and uncommitted, then those of us who placed hope in his leadership skills will have to acknowledge we hoped too much. The test of leadership is sometimes staying a course even when all the polls and pols have turned against it on a dime. There are times when a president should preside; but there are also times when he must lead.
I have one simple test: if the health bill dies from neglect and irresolution, Obama is no leader.
He is a follower. He cannot vote present on this one. He has majorities in both Houses and a landslide victory and he is unable to deliver on a core priority in his first year. That's a definition of a failed presidency and it is why the GOP – with nothing to offer the country – decided to make it his Waterloo. They knew and know how gutting this bill and killing reform and suffocating any serious change in this country is their way to a nihilist victory. And such a victory would not be a vindication of Republican policy right now. It would be a perfectly reasonable response to a Democratic party palpably incapable of governing and a president clearly unable to deliver.
If he cannot do this, he does not have the fortitude to be a successful president. And his weakness on this will be rightly interpreted as weakness everywhere else. That applies to foreign policy as well, with Netanyahu and Khamenei and Chavez and Sarkozy all watching to see what this guy is made of.
These are dark times as the forces of reaction and resistance redouble their efforts to prevent any reform on any issue. Obama was elected to break through that impasse. If he cannot deliver, he must cede to someone who can.
The Dish 