Barbara Boxer: "Every state is in play"

California Sen. Barbara Boxer with the ubiquitous Chuck Schumer*

It's nice to see that Senate Democrats agree with my analysis that in the aftermath of Scott Brown's explosive victory in Massachusetts, they are all in trouble -- at least those up for reelection in November. Politico reports:

The Republican victory in Massachusetts has sent a wave of fear through the halls of the Senate, with moderate and liberal Democrats second-guessing their party’s agenda — and worrying that they’ll be the next victims of voters’ anger.

“If there’s anybody in this building that doesn’t tell you they’re more worried about elections today, you absolutely should slap them,” said Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

So does that really mean everyone? Apparently, yes, it does:

Several Democratic incumbents said later that none of the 19 Democratic seats up this year are safe — and that fundamental parts of the agenda need to be re-examined to win over voters back home.

“Every state is now in play,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who faces the toughest reelection battle of her career — most likely against wealthy Republican Carly Fiorina.

What's the problem? At least one Senator is willing to say on the record that it's Democrats' own over-reaching agenda, particularly on health care:

Asked if red-state Democrats up in 2010 and 2012 should be nervous about the electorate, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) told POLITICO, “Oh, yeah.”

“I think part of the problem is the agenda itself,” said Conrad, who doesn’t face voters again until 2012. Instead of spending so much time on health care reform, Conrad said Democrats should have focused first on reducing the national debt and a bipartisan energy bill — and that President Barack Obama should have done a better job of explaining that the economic situation he inherited was “far worse” than he’d originally thought.

Well, at least Conrad got the message.

My take yesterday that the Democrats could be reduced to 51 seats after November got a boost from respected independent analyst Larry Sabato who says the Democrats would wind up with 52 seats if the election were held today. While the Democrats can take heart from the fact that the elction is nearly 10 months away, giving them time to get their act together, Sabato adds more gloom by suggesting that even such hitherto untouchable incumbents as Minnesota's Russ Feingold and Washington's Patty Murray (as well as New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and Indiana's Evan Bayh, both on my list of the newly endangered) could be in trouble.

* According to a recent Marist poll, Schumer may have his own problems with an approval rating dropping seven points in a few months as he's visibly fronted for health "reform."

What are your thoughts? Post a comment.

RELATED -- Stuart Rothenberg has moved Blanche Lincoln's Arkansas seat from a "Toss-up" to "Lean Advantage" to the GOP.

Massachusetts fallout: more endangered "blue state" Senate Democrats

NY's appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand may lose if she listens to Chuck Schumer

Even before Scott Brown's spectacular victory in Massachusetts yesterday, Democrats were already destined to play a lot of defense in the 2010 Senate elections. Now, more "blue state" Democratic candidates have good reason to fear losing -- as they surely will if they persist in driving tax, spending, health care and counter-terrorism policies that independent and moderate Democratic voters simply won't abide. Brown won an unbelievable 73% of independents, while taking a generous 23% of Democrats. Three is no state -- however supposedly "blue" -- where such numbers would fail to sweep away the Democratic candidate.

So today, for the first time, the prospect of the Democrats losing control of the Senate is actually a possibility. Here are my nominees for formerly "safe" Democrats who should seriously rethink their automatic support of foreign and domestic policies pushed by the left wing of their (and my) party:

1. New York's appointed Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

A former Blue Dog representative when she held an upstate House seat, Gillibrand has spent her year as a Senator flip-flopping to burnish her liberal credentials and head off a primary challenge. Other than that, she's been a cipher -- a nobody who follows Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer blindly. An astonishing 38% of New Yorkers still don't know enough about her to rate her, and those who do split 30-32 favorable-unfavorable. She may yet be challenged in a primary by former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (who gets my vote if he runs), and while she beats him handily in a recent poll, Harold hasn't even started yet. Worse for Democratic prospects, the poll shows tired old former GOP Gov. George Pataki crushing her by 14 points. Imagine if she had an exciting GOP opponent?) This is Hillary Clinton's seat in "blue" New York. But post-Brown, Gillibrand has a big target on her back.

2. Connecticut's Attorney General Richard Blumenthal

Next door to Gillibrand in Connecticut, Democrats were breathing easier after dead-man-walking Chris Dodd opted to retire, leaving the field to the state's popular attorney general, Richard Blumenthal. Unlike Dodd, polls show Blumenthal running way ahead of both of his possible GOP rivals, former Rep. Rob Simmons and wealthy businesswoman Linda McMahon. The trouble is that Blumenthal is another conventionally ideological Democrat, much like that other popular state attorney general, Martha Coakley. McMahon, who can finance an aggressive campaign, says she's staying in to challenge Blumenthal. And guess what? Connecticut voters are even more independent than their neighbors in Massachusetts. In the current toxic environment for Democrats, if I were Blumenthal, I'd tie myself to Joe Lieberman, not Harry Reid.

3. California veteran, Barbara Boxer

Out in California, where Obama cruised to victory in 2008, longtime Senator Barbara Boxer has been vexed by crummy poll numbers, which has drawn a well-financed challenge from Republican Carly Fiorina, who ran only three points behind Boxer in the most recent poll. And that was before Massachusetts! Fiorina is a tough opponent with money. Now, she also has on her side a climate in which Californians may want to throw out the bums in Washington.

4. Indiana's Evan Bayh

Indiana is more a reddish purple than a blue state. Still, Obama did squeak out a victory there in 2008. More to the point, Sen. Evan Bayh (also a former governor who won statewide five times) is as solidly established a Democrat as you can find in the nation (his dad, Birch Bayh, represented the state in the Senate from 1963 to 1982). So far, Bayh has been regarded as one of the safest Democrats running for reelection. But the Massachusetts result, combined with that reddish tint of the state, is bound to fuel GOP determination to unseat Bayh. Unlike so many of his colleagues, though, Bayh has hewed to a moderate course throughout his career, which might keep him safe. That said, all it might take to make this race competitive is a viable GOP candidate.

Apart from these four, Democrats were already in serious danger of losing seats in at least four other states that are often in the "swing" category. Harry Reid is in deep trouble in Nevada, where he has been running behind all of his possible GOP opponents. Byron Dorgan's decision to retire has all but handed his North Dakota seat to Republican Gov. John Hoeven. In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln is on life support, in part due to her mindless backing of Reid's deeply unpopular health "reform" bill. And Colorado's appointed senator, Michael Bennet, is widely expected to go down.

There are yet more currently Democrat-held seats that were on the endangered list before Massachusetts. In Pennsylvania, where Republican Pat Toomey has a good chance to defeat either erstwhile GOPer Arlen Specter or his primary opponent, Joe Sestak, Toomey's odds just got better. In Delaware, popular GOP Rep. Mike Castle was set to run a competitive race against Beau (son of Joe) Biden. Now, the younger Biden may consider other options, boosting Castle's stock considerably. And in the Illinois race for Barack Obama's old seat, GOP Rep. Mark Kirk, always a strong contender, is all the stronger.

Of course, the GOP must defend some seats this fall, too. But Republican hopes of holding most of them just got better, too. In New Hampshire, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina and Louisiana, GOP candidates now will be running in a generally more favorable climate.

Assuming the GOP holds onto all of its open seats and takes all those I've listed above from the Democrats, the Republicans would go from 41 to 52 seats. To be sure, that won't happen. But here's a scenario that might just: the GOP picks up eight of 11 for a total of 49, and Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman becomes the 51st vote to pass anything, not the 60th vote for cloture. How about that?

What's your take? Post a comment.

Massachusetts results: the "purple" center revolts

So how and why did Scott Brown win in Massachusetts, that supposedly deepest "blue" among "blue" states? Because the vital center of the American electorate -- the purple center -- is now in open revolt against Washington policies it simply cannot stomach.

The familiar blue-red depictions of election returns has grossly distorted the reality of the American electorate -- as a whole and in most states -- by ignoring the fact that most voters are independents or moderate-minded Democrats and Republicans. As it happens, most Massachusetts voters fall into one of those categories.

I use the image above (courtesy of the University of Michigan's Mark Newman) as the emblem of this blog because it provides a more accurate picture of the electorate by using shades of purple, not just red and blue, to indicate relative margins of victory by county. What you see in Massachusetts and across New England is a lot of purple. If Democratic Party leaders from President Obama down had this understanding of America voters, they would not have made the mistake of driving so hard to put in place left-leaning policies that may appeal to the 20% of voters who call themselves "liberal," but worry or even alarm the other 80%!

Unfortunately, there are no exit polls to give us breakouts of the Massachusetts, but if we use the independent polls taken over the final weekend as a rough proxy of the election, Scott Brown's winning coalition looked like this:

-- More than two-thirds of independents, who comprise about one-half of all voters, voted for Brown;

-- So did about one-quarter of the registered Democrats, who comprise about 35% of the electorate; and

-- He swept as much as 90% of the Republicans, who comprise about 12% of the electorate.

While Brown crushed Democrat Martha Coakley among independents, he would not have won without the support of a sizable chuck of Democrats -- the centrist Democrats who many Democratic Party leaders try to pretend don't exist.

This came together for Brown because the same moderate independents, Democrats and Republicans -- the purple center -- who repudiated Bush and gave Obama a huge 26-point victory in Massachusetts 14 months ago are now in open rebellion against arrogant, out-of-touch one-party rule in Washington. They want a check against that power. In particular, they have seen the monstrosity of a health care "reform" bill and reject it. No, they aren't ignorant of its supposed benefits and will feel better when they learn more about it. They know perfectly well that it slashes Medicare; raises taxes and premiums; endangers their current plans and health care quality; gives insurance companies big new profits by forcing people to buy expensive policies they don't want or pay stiff penalties; jacks up the huge federal deficit further; imposes enormous new burdens on the fiscally strapped states; is riddled with offensive special deals for special interests from Big Pharma to labor unions; and for all that, leaves millions uninsured.

Sure, Martha Coakley was a lousy candidate, but she would have won this election handily a year ago before the sheer radicalism of the Washington Democrats' agenda became apparent.

This was not just a "wake up call." There have been many of those. This was a last chance warning. Democrats who ignore it will do so at their peril. Many more Democratic-held seats in the House or Senate are no longer "safe." Fortunately, moderate Democrats like Evan Bayh, Joe Lieberman and Jim Webb do seem to get it and have already said publicly that Democrats have to step back and rethink what they are doing. The rest had better listen.

What are your thoughts about the Massachusetts revolt? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- Evan Bayh warns that Democrats risk "catastrophe" if they ignore Massachusetts and must avoid the "furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country." He's got that right.

RELATED -- Scott Brown's top strategist tells Politico that the campaign's polling showed terrorism was a bigger issue for Brown than health care. Brown campaigned against giving terrorists the rights of U.S. citizens, which resonated loudly with Mass. voters after the near-disatrous Christmas terror attack.

UPDATE 2 -- Rasmussen has a poll of how Mass. voters cast their ballots. Brown's margin was even higher among independents than I speculated above -- a whopping 73%! And he won 23% of Democrats, just about what I thought.

Desperate, panicked Coakley turns to repulsive gutter attack on Scott Brown

Click on image to enlarge

I knew before that Martha Coakley was a clueless party hack. Now she's desperate and panicked since Scott Brown is about to clean her clock on Tuesday. Still, her latest campaign effort is handily the lowest, most repulsive piece of lying crap I've seen in any campaign over the 30 years I've been involved in politics.

The above flyer, which is being mailed to voters by the Massachusetts Democratic Party, has utterly no basis. It's pure malicious crap that is beneath contempt. It's so outrageous that liberal blogger Greg Sargent and Politico's Ben Smith have already called it "brutal" and "over the top."

The good news for Brown is that everything the hapless, dim-witted Coakley does turns into good news for Brown. In this case, the charge against Brown is so vile that no one will believe it. Instead, even more Democrats will say to the themselves, "Wow, this Coakley is really a nasty, despicable loser. I'm voting for Brown."

Much more on the race here, here and here.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Massachusetts Senate race: Martha Coakley is toast

Martha Coakley: fading...fading...faded...

I'm calling this one right now. With four days to go to the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat, Democrat Martha Coakley is already toast, and GOPer Scott Brown is headed for an bombshell upset victory.

Here's why:

-- The latest public poll shows Brown with a a four-point lead over Coakley, 50% to 46%.

-- The only polling outfit that surveyed the race twice showed Brown surging from nine points behind 10 days ago to within two points of Coakley three days ago.

-- Reports are circulating that Coakley's own internal campaign polls show Brown nipping at her heals, which has set off a panicky feeling of looming disaster.

-- Coakley and company are sure looking and acting panicky, flooding the airwaves with negative attack ads designed to knock down the high favorable rating all the polls show Brown has with voters. Going negative a few days before an election rarely works and can alienate the very voters you want to persuade. It's a desperate Hail Mary.

-- On Thursday, taking all this into account, the respected non-partisan political analyst, Stuart Rothenberg, changed his rating of the race from "Narrow Advantage" for Coakley to a "Toss-Up."

In short, Coakley is in lousy shape and getting desperate. Brown is in great shape and has all the momentum on his side as he rolls into the final weekend. While the idea that a Republican might win Ted Kennedy's seat in "blue" Massachusetts seemed a bit crazy two weeks ago, it's now Brown's race to lose.

Why? Three simple reasons:

-- People are pissed. I mean, mighty pissed -- at the seemingly endless recession and unemployment, the whacky zillion-dollar bailouts, the stimulus that failed to stimulate anything, and that Frankenstein monster of a health care "reform" bill that plods on with a life of its own threatening to slash Medicare and raise taxes and premiums on everyone who already has health insurance (which includes, not incidentally, nearly everyone in Massachusetts) while not reducing health costs or the federal deficit.

-- Coakley is a perfectly lousy candidate. Apparently, she was deluded into thinking that she was a shoo-in by virtue of being a "popular" state attorney general who won a multi-candidate Democratic primary for Senate in a low-turnout special election. After her primary win, smugly confident of annointment on January 19 as the Democratic Party's choice for "Ted Kennedy"s seat," she went into hibernation while Brown was out on the hustings cleaning up. Since waking up the week before last, she has demonstrated a party hack's affinity for fat cat lobbyists, an unattractive thuggishness, and an amazingly impolitic capacity to say things that show distain for the little people whose votes she seeks.

-- Scott Brown is a smart, attractive guy, a pragmatic, hard-working state legislator, and a moderate, anti-tax and spending conservative who doesn't scare anyone with right-wing baloney.

The people of Massachusetts -- moderate Democrats and independents as well as Republicans -- are about to send Washington the message that they don't like untrammeled one-party power. They don't want a Coakley who will go to Washington and do what she's told (it would be a different matter if the Democrats had a candidate with both brains and backbone like this guy). They want Scott Brown to go down here and act as a check on runaway ideological government. I'm with them.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

UPDATES -- Another new poll, sponsored by Pajamas Media, has Brown ahead by an astounding 15 points. Even if you figure that conservative PJ is not an independent or impartial poll commissioner, it's really hard not to see the Brown-surging trend in this survey too.

Like Stuart Rothenberg, Charlie Cook, another independent analyst, looks at the signs of Brown's momentum in the Massachusetts race and moves it to a "toss up."

Byron York reports in the conservative Washington Examiner that a well-connected Democrat has told him that internal Coakley polls show her trailing by five points.

Steve Kornacki has heard inside dope too -- that Coakley's internal tracking poll Thursday night showed her trailing Brown by three, 47-44.

LOTS MORE smart blogging about the Brown-Coakley race at Legal Insurrection.

UPDATE - 1/16 - Brown moves ahead on Intrade.

RELATED -- Blogger Sissy Willis zeroes in on a key part of Brown's support -- Democrats.

Go for it, Harold! (Harold Ford, Jr. should run for Senate against Kirsten Gillibrand)

Former Rep. Harold F. Ford, Jr.

Harold F. Brown, Jr., who served five terms in the House of Representatives and narrowly lost a race for the Senate in his native Tennessee, now lives in New York and is seriously thinking about running for the Senate again -- this time in a New York Democratic Primary against the current appointed cypher, Kirsten Gillibrand.

As a New Yorker with a vote in that primary, I say, go for it, Harold!

Ford is a smart, tough, dynamic, young (39) guy with deep experience in politics and government and mainstream liberal Democratic views on most issues, anchored by his southern background and chairmanship of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. Ford says that if he runs, he would campaign as a strong independent in the mold of the late Daniel Patrick Moyhihan who would fight for New York and take no guff from his own party's leaders, including Harry Reid and New York's senior Senator, Chuck Schumer.

This would be in marked contrast to Gillibrand who, after being appointed a year ago by accidental Governor David Patterson at the end of an embarrassing process, seems to have disappeared except to phone in her vote for whatever Harry and Chuck want. Her juvenile deference to the preening Schumer is especially annoying to New Yorkers, since she's got the seat that was held by a series of tough cookies from Robert F. Kennedy to Moynihan to Hillary Clinton. Shouldn't a Senator from the Empire State at least be noticed for something in the course of a whole year? Not Gillibrand.

The knives are already out for Ford. It's said that he's not a New Yorker, which is true except for the last few years. But Bob Kennedy and Hillary Clinton had even less time in New York. For my money, Ford's experience and qualifications trump Gillibrand's, even if the latter's ancestors founded New Amsterdam.

Ford's moderate record in Congress in Tennessee is already being used against him by New York City liberals who have pledged their troth to Gillibrand. It's really laughable, since until last January, Gillibrand, as a member of the House from an upstate district, belonged to the Blue Dog Coalition, supported the NRA and held a host of conservative positions. She's flip-flopped on all that to head off a primary challenge from one of several downstate liberals who hoped to capitalize on her ideological deviationism. So it's hard for her to point the finger at Ford for making the same "adjustments" to some of his positions.

When push comes to shove -- and I think it has already come, with the recession, the terrorist threat and multiple wars, and all the other pressing problems we face as a nation -- I'd rather have a guy like Ford who's willing to step up to a fight as my Senator than an opportunistic tool like Gillibrand.

What's your take on Ford? Post a comment.

Elect Scott Brown to the Senate -- Put a vital check on the one-party monopoly of power in Washington

Scott Brown, running for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts

In the special election to fill the Senate seat left vacant by the death of Ted Kennedy next Tuesday (January 19), I hope Massachusetts voters will elect the GOP candidate, Scott Brown, for one compelling reason: to put a critically important check on the total monopoly of power now held by Democrats in Washington. By reducing the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof majority by just one, the Democrats will have to work with at least a few Republicans -- or even just one -- to pass major legislation. And that's a good thing for the country, Massachusetts and, I would argue, the Democratic Party.

I'm a Democrat. But over the past year, it's become clear that holding total power, with the White House and huge majorities in both Houses of Congress, has caused the Democratic Party to go off the deep end. Democrats in Washington have forgotten that to make real progress, they must attract and hold the vital center in American politics -- the moderate and independent voters who gave Barack Obama the Presidency and provided the margin of victory for scores of Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Wielding big majorities, the leadership of the party has pushed a lot farther to the left on many issues than those voters want to go. In the process, politics being what it is, they have dragged the more moderate Democrats on Capitol Hill along.

No where is this more obvious than in the case of the Senate health care "reform" bill. As it stands, this wretched mishmosh of a "reform" will slash Medicare by a devastating half trillion dollars, impose heavy new taxes on union workers and middle class families fortunate enough to have so-called "Cadillac" plans, force young people to buy expensive insurance they may not want, and stick states already facing huge deficits with massive new unfunded mandates. Meanwhile, it will leave millions of the uninsured still uninsured and won't reduce health care costs but increase them, notwithstanding the phony 10-year accounting designed to make it look otherwise. Plus, the bill is filled with dodgy deals for individual Senators. Driven by the fervent wish of the party's left to achieve "reform," Congress is on the verge of enacting this monstrosity.

If the Senate leadership had been obliged to negotiate in good faith with even a single Republican -- say, Maine's Olympia Snowe, a smart, responsible moderate -- that process would have resulted in the elimination of many of the bill's faults and in some added improvements. Snowe did work with Democrats early on and voted to report a bill out of her committee. Then, she was shunted aside and humiliated so that not surprisingly, she opposes the current bill.

Electing Brown next week may not change the outcome on health care, since the Democratic leadership may find a way to push the bill through before he gets to Washington (or in a pinch, the House could pass the Senate version, eliminating the need for another Senate vote). But it will change the dynamic on Capitol Hill for the rest of the current Congressional session. Isn;t the essential ingredient of responsible bi-partisanship in our politics to make sure that both parties are really needed to some extent to make a decision?

Of course, the Democrats will still wield enormous power. It just won't be quite so unchecked. That's' good for everyone, including the Democratic Party. The way things are going now, Democrats will suffer a huge defeat in the 2010 elections, possibly even losing their majorities.

Brown's Democratic opponent, state Attorney General Martha Coakley, is the adequate but undistinguished candidate of the all-powerful but stultifyingly dull Massachusetts Democratic Party machine. No "Liberal Lioness," that's for sure, Coakley seemed ready a week ago to accept coronation and head to D.C. to cast votes robotically in tune with Harry Reid.

Brown is a smart, attractive, seasoned state legislator. He's a moderate conservative, a tax-conscious Republican cut pretty much from the same cloth as Mitt Romney, Chris Christie and other northeastern GOPers. He's pro-choice with narrow exceptions. He's not about to launch any Tea Party revolutions.

But the main thing about Scott Brown is this: Harry Reid will not have Brown's vote in his pocket.

What's you take on the race to fill Teddy seat? Post a comment.

Related: A new Rasmussen poll puts Brown and Coakley withing two points.

Much more about the Brown campaign at Legal Insurrection and Sissy Willis.

Welcome Sissy Willis readers.

Leading Democrats Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan and Bill Ritter all duck tough reelection races in 2010, drop plans to run

Top Democrats bowing out are (from top) Connecticut's Chris Dodd,

North Dakota's Byron Dorgan and Colorado's Bill Ritter

Senator Chris Dodd, a Capitol Hill fixture whose popularity in Connecticut nosedived over the past year, is set to announce Wednesday that he won't run for reelection in 2010. Dodd has been running way behind both of his prospective GOP opponents for months and is finally stepping aside. That will come as a relief to Democrats, giving them a chance to hold onto his seat with a more formidable candidate, state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Just ahead of Dodd in the exit line was North Dakota's Byron Dorgan who surprised everyone Tuesday when he announced he would not run in 2010. Dorgan's retirement -- no doubt to the lucrative practice of Congressional lobbying -- isn't such good news for his fellow Democrats. More likely than not in the political climate shaping up for 2010, his seat will go to the Republicans, particularly if popular GOP Gov. John Hoeven decides to run for it.

And in a lamentable blow to the fortunes of the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter will announce Wednesday that he's not running again, after only one term. Ritter had been widely seen as the sort of Western centrist Democrat who could help build the party's appeal in the mountain states. But facing an uphill race against former GOP Rep. Scott McInnis, Ritter is cashing in his chips early.

Meanwhile, in Michigan, the Democrats' best hope to hold onto the governorship there, Lt. Gov. John Cherry, is dropping out. Gov. Jennifer Granholm is barred by term limits from running again. In any case, her popularity with voters has cratered, opening up an opportunity for Republicans that just got a further boost from Cherry.

And if that were not enough bad news in a couple of days for Democrats, a new poll shows the GOP contender in the special election to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts is running only nine points behind the Democrat!

With at least four House Democrats already retiring before the 2010 midterms, Democrats may have good reason to worry that the latest announcements by Dodd, Dorgan and Ritter will spur a flood of incumbent Democrats heading for the exits and persuade competitive Democratic candidates for open seats to stand down, as expectations grow for a big GOP gain next November.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Unexpected change from a blue state? GOPer Scott Brown could win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat

It's Scott Brown vs. Martha Coakley for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat

Talk about game changers. Pigs can surely fly, if a Republican can win Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in deep blue Massachusetts against one of the state's highest-profile Democrats, Attorney General Martha Coakley. It just might happen in the January 9th special election, if the one and only public poll of the race showing Coakley ahead by only 50% to 41% is right:

State Attorney General Martha Coakley holds a nine-point lead over her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, in Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided

Brown's surprising strength is coming mostly from independent voters:

Both candidates get better than 70% of the vote from members of their respective parties, but Brown leads 65% to 21% among voters not affiliated with either of the major parties. In Massachusetts, however, Democrats vastly outnumber Republicans and it is very difficult for the GOP to compete except in special circumstances. Eight percent (8%) of Democrats remain undecided while just 3% of Republicans are in that category.

Brown is a relative unknown, compared to Coakley, but that may be an advantage in stirring enough enthusiasm to get his voters to the polls:

Twenty-one percent (21%) of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley, while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.

For Brown, the numbers are 25% very favorable and 5% very unfavorable.

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.

If Brown wins, the Senate Democrats will no longer have the magic 60 votes to block filibusters. Naturally, that has the conservative blogosphere excited about his candidacy. Blogger William Jacobson has long been out in front pushing Brown's campaign. Now, it's gone viral on the right and the left, as you can see here, here, here and here.

Thoughts? Post a comment.

(Welcome Legal Insurrection readers)

Obama's Afghan decision took Presidential courage in the face of feckless left-wing and right-wing opposition

President Obama addresses the Cadet Corps and the nation at West Point

President Obama has made the right decision to commit 30,000 more Americans troops to the fight in Afghanistan -- on top of the 20,000 additional troops he approved early this year -- to "finish the job" of defeating al Qaeda and its essential ally, Mullah Omar's Taliban. Obama said last year as a candidate that this is the "necessary war" and that he would finish it. He said it again in the spring. He said it again last night at West Point. With the two troop increases, Obama is more than doubling the number of U.S. combat brigades engaged in this fight -- from three to eight. He is also ramping up a more aggressive U.S. strategy to deal with the al Qaeda-Taliban sanctuaries inside the Pakistani tribal areas, where he has already greatly stepped up the tempo of CIA-led drone missile attacks. It's hard to see what else Obama needs to do to demonstrate that he takes his Presidential responsibility for national security seriously.

It was also a courageous decision in light of the certain attacks it would draw -- and has quickly drawn -- from both the deeply unserious pacifistic left wing of the his own party and the comically aggressive right wing of the GOP.

Interestingly, a good deal of the barbs from both sides revolved around Obama's setting out a flexible 18-month time frame for the Afghan surge. Senate Democratic dove, Russ Feingold, found this wanting because it was not a strict deadline for withdrawal: ”I do not support the president’s decision to send additional troops to fight a war in Afghanistan that is no longer in our national security interest. While I appreciate that the president made clear we won’t be in Afghanistan forever, I am disappointed by his decision not to offer a timetable for ending our military presence there." Meanwhile, Senate Republican hawk, John McCain, undermined his standing as a national security guru by immediately leading a GOP attack on Obama over the time frame without even a feeble effort at demonstrating bipartisan unity behind a President making a hard choice to send young men and women to war: “Then it makes no sense for him to announce the date,” Mr. McCain retorted. In short, he said, “that gives the wrong impression to our friends, it’s the wrong impression to give our enemies.”

Beyond Capitol Hill, the attacks were far more intense -- and almost stupefyingly simplistic and irresponsible. MoveOn.org is already pushing a petition to Congress to set a binding deadline for a U.S. withdrawal. Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" right after Obama's speech, radical activist Michael Moore called the U.S. presence in Afghanistan "insane" and claimed, in effect, that "there is no al Qaeda in Afghanistan." On the right, columnist Ralph Peters would win if there was a prize for the most hysterical nonsense for writing that Obama's 18-month time frame was a " presidential declaration of surrender." It's a mystery to me how or why Peters, a former Army officer, thinks that adding the firepower of five Army and Marine combat brigades since last spring won't have any effect on the Taliban, while Obama's setting a target date to begin shifting security responsibility to the Afghans will lead to a U.S. defeat.

Obama's formulation is straightforward, clear and compelling: This is a fight we did not ask for but must win for our own safety and security. It has gone on for a long time because we did not apply the necessary resources to it. We're going to do that now. The Afghans and others must do their parts as well. It won't take forever, and as President, I won't let it.

I find it hard to take issue with any of that. Americans of every political persuasion should back the President. There will be more than enough time to find fault if he fails.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Democrats ready to commit suicide? Senate health bill will slash $491 billion from Medicare

Seniors back Medicare overwhelmingly, as do non-seniors!

The official analysis of the Senate health care "reform" bill on which Majority Leader Harry Reid wants the first vote tomorrow is out from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. The most important number in this "scoring" of the bill is this: it will cut Medicare by a whopping $491 billion.

As was the case with the House bill, most of the public debate and media attention to the Senate version concerns the "public option," the total cost and new taxes proposed, and whether or not federal money will somehow wind up paying for abortions.

The huge Medicare cuts are still largely hidden from view, because Democrats don't want to talk about them and most Republicans talk about the cuts only by way of accusing Democrats of using budgetary flim-flim to make the bills appear "deficit neutral."

But these cuts are a very big deal. They will affect some 46 million current Medicare beneficiaries and millions more who are past 55 and beginning to worry about health care coverage in retirement. As the full impact of these cuts becomes clear to this reliably voting segment of the population, the backlash against any member of Congress foolish enough to vote for the bills will be fierce and merciless.

It's as if Democrats in Congress are prepared to commit political suicide. They have backed themselves into a corner where the failure to pass a bill -- any bill -- is viewed as a blow to President Obama and an affront to labor unions and other powerful constituencies that back the changes. In my view, the backlash will not only strike House "Blue Dogs" and Senate moderates who vote for the bills. It will hit liberal Democrats running in Democrat-friendly states and districts, as long as the GOP is smart and nimble enough to put up strong, appealing candidates. For example, New York's appointed junior Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, may face Rudy Giuliani next year. If so, Rudy will not be shy about positioning himself as pro-senior and pro-Medicare, as Gillibrand tries to explain away her vote for some $500 billion in Medicare cuts.

That won't be easy, since the cuts will have a real and demonstrable negative impact, as the federal agency that administers Medicare reported a few days ago.

According to the CBO, these are the big blows to Medicare as we know it in the Senate bill:

• Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector to "save" $192 billion over 10 years.

• Cutting $118 billion from Medicare Advantage programs that now enroll more than 13 million seniors over the 2010–2019 period.

• Reducing Medicaid and Medicare payments to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients by $43 billion -- about $22 billion from Medicaid and $21 billion from Medicare.

In addition, the bill would create a new agency -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board -- that would be required to "recommend changes to the Medicare program to [further] limit the rate of growth in that program’s spending. Those recommendations would go into effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action." In other words, a panel of bureacrats, not accountable to anyone, would propose further cutbacks in Medicare that Congress would not have to vote on and the President would not have to sign into law, thus insulating the politicians from blame for the cuts.

All in all, if the Democrats pass either the Senate or the House bill with cuts of this kind into law, they have to be crazy if they think they will avoid the wrath of the senior voters.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Senate to seniors: Screw you!

Harry Reid claims cutting $400 billion from Medicare makes it "stronger"

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid finally rolled out his health care "floor" bill late Wednesday, and to no one's surprise, roughly half the claimed $838 billion cost over 10 years will be paid for by slashing more than $400 billion from Medicare.

Like the bill already approved by the House of Representatives, Reid's bill would gouge $118 billion from Medicare Advantage programs, which will virtually eliminate this popular managed care option chosen by some 13 million senior citizens. (How's that for keeping Obama's promise, "If you like your current insurance and your current doctor, you won't have to change"?)

Also like the House bill, the proposed cuts are presented as reductions in future cost increases. But commenting on the House version, a report issued a few days ago from the non-partisan Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid, confirmed that the cuts will reduce Medicare benefits and run a real risk of limiting seniors' access to care by reducing Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and doctors, driving up the numbers of providers who decline to accept Medicare patients. Now, Reid proposes that the Senate follow suit and screw seniors.

Of course, millions of seniors already have trouble finding primary care physicians in the midst of an acute shortage that will only get worse as the rolls of insured are expanded by the millions. And all too many top-notch specialists shun Medicare patients as it is. That's a big attraction of the Medicare Advantage programs that Congress wants to eliminate. They ensure access to a managed care network.

There is a lot of merit to the reform that Democrats are trying to push through. But there is nothing "progressive" about robbing Peter to pay Paul -- i.e., slashing Medicare in order to pay for fully half the cost of expanding coverage to others. Republicans are charging that the Medicare cuts will never be made, that it's all a sham to parade the bill as "deficit neutral," and that the Democratic Congress will keep deferring the cutbacks after the bill passes. Maybe, but for seniors, that would be betting their future care on the odd proposition that Reid, Nancy Pelosi and scores of other Democrats in Congress are all blatant liars. And what if the GOP retakes control of Congress by 2012? Republicans have been talking about curbing "entitlements" like Medicare and Medicaid for decades. Won't today's Democratic majorities have done their work for them?

What's your take on the Medicare cuts? Post a comment.

Fed report: House bill's $500 billion in Medicare cuts will reduce benefits and endanger access to care for seniors

Seniors: One super-voting bloc politicians mess with at their peril

For months now, it's been clear that the road to "deficit neutral" health care reform is a bumpy, maybe even dangerous, one for seniors. Ironically, in their zeal to extend health insurance to the roughly 40 million people who don't have any, President Obama and many Democrats in Congress appear ready to make deep cuts in Medicare, a program that is on the short list of the signal domestic accomplishments of the Democratic Party over the past 80 years, alongside Social Security, labor rights, and civil rights. What the 45 million seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medicare are going to think about this remains unclear, although it's hard to see why they would embrace it with resignation.

A new report from the non-partisan Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid, has now confirmed the $500 billion in cuts in the House health care bill that passed a week ago will reduce Medicare benefits and run a real risk of limiting seniors' access to care. From the Washington Post:

A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending -- one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system -- would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.

The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.

Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade.

More generally, the report questions whether the country's network of doctors and hospitals would be able to cope with the effects of a reform package expected to add more than 30 million people to the ranks of the insured, many of them through Medicaid, the public health program for the poor.

In the face of greatly increased demand for services, providers are likely to charge higher fees or take patients with better-paying private insurance over Medicaid recipients, "exacerbating existing access problems" in that program, according to the report from Richard S. Foster of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

[snip]

In its most recent analysis of the House bill, the CBO noted that Medicare spending per beneficiary would have to grow at roughly half the rate it has over the past two decades to meet the measure's savings targets, a dramatic reduction that many budget and health policy experts consider unrealistic. [Emphasis added.]

Whatever bill Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid takes to the Senate floor this week will also have to rely on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts to pay for it.

Most of the public debate about health care reform has focused on the issue of a public option and the overall cost, with the Medicare cuts usually mentioned only in passing. It wasn't long ago that more liberal Democrats were the fiercest defenders of of Medicare and Medicaid, as in 2007 when President Bush proposed cuts that were a fraction of those now approved by House Democrats. No more. Democrats want to pass a bill, so they are largely mum on this topic and talk only about generating "efficiencies" and tackling "abuses" in Medicare.

And the Republicans? Some Republicans may take it up as a talking point now and then, but the GOP's deep-seated objection to "entitlements" like Medicare and Medicaid eliminate them from serious contention as a defender of seniors in this case.

What about the supposed "seniors' lobby," AARP? It has thrown its support behind the House bill in a deal that will bring more customers to its lucrative insurance business.

So seniors are on their own. But here's the thing about that. Seniors -- and near-seniors -- are handily the most reliable group of voters. They may have to hobble on their canes to get to the polling place, but they do vote.

As early as last July, it was already noteworthy in many polls that opposition to health care reform was higher among seniors. That's still true -- but you ain't seen nothing yet. Assuming a bill that cuts $400-500 billion from Medicare is signed into law, the issue will no longer be hypothetical, or muddled by a constantly changing and confusing array of proposals, or hidden behind high-minded rhetoric and clever spin. When it becomes clear to seniors that their health insurance benefits actually have been reduced and that it's going to even harder to find a doctor who accepts Medicare patients (a growing number of physicians have already opted out of Medicare), anyone who voted for it is going to have a hard time convincing constituents over 60 that it's a good deal.

Anyway, it's not just about politics. What's so "progressive" about slashing health care benefits for tens of millions of older Americans -- a large majority of whom have low to moderate incomes -- to subsidize benefits for younger Americans, many of whom don't want insurance now and will resent being obligated to take on premium payments? Beats me.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Democratic Senators oppose Obama's decision to try 9/11 terrorists in U.S. court

Sen. Jim Webb (D.-Va.) calls Obama's decision "disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive"

National security-minded Democrats are beginning to speak out against President Obama's irresponsible decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other al Qaeda 9/11 terrorists in federal court in New York City.

Virginia's Democratic Senator Jim Webb had this to say:

Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants.

(Hat tip: Below the Beltway)

And Connecticut's independent Democrat, Joe Lieberman, called Obama's move "inconceivable:"

“The terrorists who planned, participated in and aided the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks are war criminals, not common criminals," Lieberman said in a statement. "The individuals accused of committing these heinous, cowardly acts of intentionally targeting unsuspecting, defenseless civilians should therefore be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States.”

[snip]

"I share the views of more than 140 family members of the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks who recently wrote to the Senate urging that the individuals charged with responsibility for those attacks should be tried by military commission rather than in civilian courts in the United States," Lieberman said. "It is inconceivable that we would bring these alleged terrorists back to New York for trial, to the scene of the carnage they created eight years ago, and give them a platform to mock the suffering of their victims and the victims’ families, and rally their followers to continue waging jihad against America.”

Not so "inconceivable to Obama and Attorney General Holder, it seems. But when something goes wrong with this move to appease left wing critics of the war on terror, Obama and Holder won't be able to say they had no choice. Congress created Military Commissions for this purpose, and Obama will continue to rely on those Commissions -- just not to try and punish the most important of the al Qaeda thugs we've captured.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

As right wing smashes "RINO" in NY-23, the Democrat wins! But another GOPer. Rob Astorino wins more a big race without right-wing help

Big Conservative loser, Doug Hoffman




Big Republican winner, Rob Astorino



Of course, the big stories of election night, 2009, are the Republican victories in Virginia, where Barack Obama's 2008 win had set up high expectations of that traditionally "red" state turning "blue," and in New Jersey, often regarded as among the deepest of the "blue." (Looks like purple is getting to be an even more popular color!)

In some ways, though, the most fascinating outcome of the night was in the special election to fill an historically Republican House seat in upstate New York's 23rd Congressional District. There, Doug Hoffman, a conservative candidate running on the Conservative Party line after failing to get the GOP nomination, ran a tough campaign against the Republican nominee, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava. Hoffman drew an outpouring of support from conservatives around the nation who regarded Scozzafava's nomination as an abomination, due to her having taken a wide range of moderate and even liberal positions. Hoffman was endorsed by Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Tim Pawlenty and a veritable who's who of the conservative movement. And he appeared so many times in recent days on Sean Hannity's and Glenn Beck's TV programs that it was a wonder he had any time to campaign in the district!

Hoffman did succeed in driving Scozzafava out of the race. She withdrew last weekend and then threw her support to Democrat Bill Owens. Conservative pundits, bloggers and "tea party" activists, along with Hannity, Beck and other on-air personalities, all whooped it up about this big victory over the detested "RINO," Scozzafava. On the eve of the election, the righties were throwing down the gauntlet to moderate Republicans everywhere, threatening a dozen or more challenges next year, based on their great success in NY-23.

Only one problem with that. Hoffman lost, and the Democrat, Bill Owens, won! It's hard to see that the whole Hoffman phenomenon amounts to anything more than a right-wing hissy fit that winds proving the contention of level-headed Republican leaders that their party needs to welcome folks into a "big tent" or risk losing more elections to Democrats. Not incidentally, Owens was chosen as a moderate Democrat who would reflect the mood and views of voters in a district that has been reliably Republican for a century but not necessarily all that conservative. Good call by the Democrats.

Meanwhile, in downstate Westchester County (population, about one million) -- running a race for County Executive that received virtually no media attention -- Rob Astorino, host of a Catholic radio show and a sometime politician, beat a three-term incumbent Democrat by a whopping 58-42 margin, despite the county's huge, two-to-one Democratic advantage in registration and its recent history of delivering big victory margins to Democrats.

Unlike Hoffman, Astorino did not have big national Republican and conservative names endorsing and campaigning for him: no Sarah Palin, no Fred Thompson, no Sean Hannity, no Glenn Beck. Astorino also had no upsurge of excitement in the right-wing blogosphere and no deluge of outside campaign contributions. Astorino's campaign also had basically one message: taxes in Westchester County are too high, and it's the long-time Democratic County Executive's fault.

So there was Hoffman moaning and groaning on Fox News about the nation going to hell in a basket due to those tax and spend liberal Democrats and their me-too RINO chums like Dede, supposedly to inspire the GOP "base" to new heights of enthusiasm and voting in a heavily Republican district. He lost. Meanwhile, Astorino ran a conventional campaign and delivered a simple, low-key message that resonated with voters in an overwhelmingly Democratic county. He won big.

I wonder which approach makes more sense?

What are your thoughts about Election 2009? Post a comment.

UPDATE: In New York City's other big suburb, Nassau County, the Republican challenger to the Democratic incumbent County Executive appears to have lost by only 237 votes. No word on any recount yet, but such a tiny margin is bound to be challenged.

Pelosi and House Democrats stick it to seniors with health care "reform" bill that will slash Medicare by $400 billion

Nancy Pelosi announces a bill to strip millions of seniors of their quality care

The House health care plan unveiled yesterday by Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a lot that is commendable in its 2000 pages. But it's not at all commendable that the bill, which will cost $894 billion over 10 years, is "deficit neutral" only because it slashes more than $400 billion from Medicare in that period. Senior citizens are to see a significant decrease in the accessibility and quality of their health care, in order to pay for nearly half the cost of extending coverage to others.

The Congressional Budget Office's scoring of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act -- which might as well be named the Medicare Reduction Act -- cites these "savings" to be achieved in the Medicare program:

Permanent reductions in the annual updates to Medicare’s payment rates for most services in the fee-for-service sector (other than physicians’ services), yielding budgetary savings of $229 billion over 10 years...

Setting payment rates in the Medicare Advantage program on the basis of Medicare spending per beneficiary in the fee-for-service sector and changing the way that payments to Medicare Advantage plans reflect differences in the health status of enrolees, yielding savings of an estimated $170 billion...over the 2010–2019 period.

The massive $229-billion reduction would drive hoards of doctors to refuse to participate in Medicare -- and there are already far too many who don't, due to reimbursement rates far below those of private health plans.

Oh, but Democrats are saying in stage whispers that no one should worry about the reduced fee-for-service payments, because they'll "fix" that in a separate bill. Of course, that makes the claim of deficit neutrality for H.R. 3962 duplicitous. But seniors also need to worry that the Democrats may not be able to keep their promise of a sly "fix." If the bill passes, as is, it becomes the law of the land, period. By the time that happens, who knows what the political environment will be like. How many people predicted early last summer that we'd be into November with no health care bill passed by either the House or the Senate? Seniors would be foolhardy in the extreme not to worry that H.R. 3962 will set the terms of their health care for a long time to come.

The Medicare Advantage plans from which $170 billion would be cut currently enroll 11 or 12 million seniors. These plans have been cast by Democrats as too generous to the insurance companies that offer them, because the companies get as much as 14% more from the feds than providers under the regular Medicare program. There are two things wrong with that argument: first, as indicated above, the regular Medicare reimbursement rates are lower than they should be to ensure that providers accept Medicare patients; and second, the whole point of the Advantage programs was to pay insurers more to induce them to offer managed-care (HMO) plans that would provide better overall quality of care for patients with multiple health problems, emphasize wellness and prevention, and eliminate the need for seniors to navigate through mountains of Part A, Part B and Part D insurance paper work. That's why a quarter of all Medicare enrolees prefer Advantage plans.

Anyway, didn't President Obama and other Democrats say over and over about health care reform that if you like your current plan and your current doctors, you won't have to change? Well, if this bill passes, Medicare Advantage plans will disappear and millions of seniors will be thrown into regular Medicare. Not incidentally, these millions will be chasing many of the same doctors and other providers who might opt out of Medicare anyway.

Medicare arguably is one of the signal achievements of the Democratic Party of the last 50 years. Why would Democrats want to eviscerate one of their great successes? Republicans may exploit the huge negative impact on Medicare of the House bill as a talking point -- but Republicans are not going to stand up for Medicare in the long run.

Democrats who support the House bill may think they can bob and weave around the issue of Medicare cuts and hope that seniors remain in the dark or confused about the impact of the bill (or distracted by minor additional benefits for Medicare recipients in the bill, such as an increase in drug coverage). If so, they would be wise to think again. Seniors are already well aware of the fact that they will get the short end of the stick under health care "reform." That's why only 36% of people over 65 support the proposal in a recent poll. Seniors are by far the most reliable voters. It will be tough to conceal the impact of the cuts when they actually happen, and seniors will be really, really pissed when they go to the polls.

What do you think? Post a comment.

Public option still dead after all, as Joe Lieberman says he'll filibuster it

Joe Lieberman to Majority Leader Reid: "Ha, gotcha that time, Harry!"

Wow, that was quick.

Yesterday, Harry Reid announced that the previously dead public option was alive and that he was bringing a health care bill to the floor that included a public option with an opt-out provision for states. Because Harry did not appear to have the 60 votes needed to pass such a bill over the unified opposition of every Republican, some cynics speculated that he was just trying to appease labor and other constituencies that matter in his own 2010 reelection bid.

Today, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman confirmed that Reid does not have the votes:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.

"We're trying to do too much at once," Lieberman said. “To put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt. I don’t think we need it now."

Lieberman added that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

Joe will get a lot of pressure to change his mind, but the guy is not easily swayed by mere pressure. What's more, Joe has staked out a position that makes it easier for other reluctant moderate Democrats like Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln to say simply, ditto that.

Reid may have screwed himself by alienating the one Republican who actually voted for one of the Senate reform bills. Maine's Olympia Snowe put herself out on a limb by doing so, with the clear stipulation that there was to be no public option except through a "trigger." Now, Snowe is ticked off at what seems to have been a humiliating bait and switch.

Nice work, Harry!

What do you think? Post a comment.

UPDATE: Hard on the heels of Lieberman's announcement, his 2006 opponent, Ned Lamont, said his was getting a lot of e-mails urging him to run again in 2012. Sure, the MoveOn.org-DailyKos crowd would love to knock off Joe, but Lamont wisely sidestepped. He managed to best Joe in the 2006 Democratic primary in a campaign fueled by the peak of liberal opposition to the war in Iraq. But Joe, running as an independent with a Republican also in the race, beat him soundly (by 10 points) in the general election. Besides, 2010 is a long way off.

UPDATE 2: Another Democratic moderate, Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas reiterates her opposition to a public option.

Eight Senate moderate Democrats urge go-slow approach to health care bill

Eight moderate Democrats in the Senate -- whose votes are crucial to passing any bill -- have urged Majority Leader harry reid to slow down, allow time for the independent Congressional Budget Office to score the Senate Finance Committee (Baucus) bill and publish it online 72 hours before any vote.

In a letter to Reid, the eight wrote:

"At a time when trust in Congress and the U.S. government is unprecedentedly low, we can begin to rebuild the American people's faith in their federal government through transparency and by actively inviting Americans to participate in the legislative process," the Democratic senators wrote to Reid."

The senators, led by Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said they wanted legislative text of the bill posted online, along with complete Congressional Budget Office cost estimates, 72 hours before the Senate takes its first procedural vote on the bill.

[snip]

Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., one of the eight Democrats that wrote the letter to Reid, said she is worried about the impact of the bill on the federal budget.

"Democrats are really good at expanding coverage and programs, not really that great at doing it in a cost-effective manner," she said. "We feel very strongly about doing this in the most cost-effective manner possible."

Gee, you'd think doing it "in the most cost-effective manner possible" would be a no-brainer for all 100 Senators.

Make no mistake: the health care "debate" is not between Dems and the GOP, which can only carp from the sidelines, but among the three factions of the Democratic Party -- the "progressives," the moderates and the rest.

In addition to Lincoln, Bayh and Landrieu, the Senators signing the letter were:

Joseph I. Lieberman, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Mark L. Pryor and Jim Webb.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.