TPMDC

White House Strongly Denies Reports Obama Has Decided On Afghanistan Troop Levels

2009-11-10T02:45:00Z

]]>The White House is forcefully denying reports that President Obama has settled on the number of troops to send to Afghanistan.

Several stories in recent days have suggested he has made a decision and cite specific troop levels.

Officials have dismissed those as inaccurate, but tonight the White House is sending out a rare statement from National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones:

"Reports that President Obama has made a decision about Afghanistan are absolutely false. He has not received final options for his consideration, he has not reviewed those options with his national security team, and he has not made any decisions about resources. Any reports to the contrary are completely untrue and come from uninformed sources."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today the president is holding another Situation Room meeting of his war council as he continues to gather information for his decision.

]]>The Wednesday session in the Situation Room is the eighth such meeting and comes right before Obama travels on Thursday for a more than week-long trip to Asia. Gibbs said he does not expect the president to make the decision - or the announcement - before he leaves.

Gibbs also had some snark for reporters asking about the troops decision:

Q Robert, as far as you know, has the President decided on number of troops, additional troops he'd like to send to Afghanistan?
MR. GIBBS: No, no. Despite the many chances to read otherwise throughout the weekend. Safe to say if he'd made a decision, I think we could free up at least part of his Wednesday.

WH: Obama, Netanyahu Talked Iran And Middle East Peace

2009-11-10T02:26:41Z

]]>President Obama tonight met privately with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office, and the White House isn't offering many details about what they discussed.

Here's the short readout the White House put out tonight:

"The President and Prime Minister Netanyahu discussed a number of issues in the U.S.-Israel bilateral relationship. The President reaffirmed our strong commitment to Israel's security, and discussed security cooperation on a range of issues. The President and Prime Minister also discussed Iran and how to move forward on Middle East peace."

Controversial Stupak Amendment Sows Anger, Confusion On Capitol Hill

2009-11-09T23:55:24Z

]]>When Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) authored an amendment several months ago to prohibit federal dollars from being used to pay for insurance policies that cover abortion, Democratic leaders and health care principals didn't take his proposal very seriously. As a result it was never subjected to the sort of rigorous analysis that controversial legislation is often treated to. That was a miscalculation. Liberals were forced this weekend to accept the amendment as the price of passing an otherwise progressive health care bill through the House. And now, everyone on both sides of the abortion issue is scrambling to try to figure out what the amendment's language actually means and the practical effect it would have if enacted into law.

As one House Democratic health care aide put it, "there are a ton of unanswered questions."

]]>The letter of the amendment itself suggests that women who want to buy an insurance plan that covers abortion must not also be receiving government subsidies, provided for in the bill, to help cover their premiums. However, the overwhelming majority of women in the health insurance exchanges will be receiving subsidies from the government, and if any of them decide they want abortion coverage, under the terms of the Stupak amendment, they'd have to buy a supplemental plan paid for out of pocket.

That could reduce private insurers' incentive to offer any comprehensive plans that cover abortion--a view articulated by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women's Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress, and adopted by some lawmakers on the Hill. Arons writes, "As the vast majority of Americans in the Exchange will need to use some of these credits [aka subsidies], it is highly unlikely any plan will want to offer abortion coverage."

But in an interview with TPMDC, Arons suggests it may be even more complicated than that. One of the pillars of reform legislation is a provision called "guaranteed issue," which holds, basically, that insurers in the exchange must sell consumers whichever insurance policies they choose. However, the Stupak amendment would explicitly forbid people who are provided government subsidies from buying policies that cover abortion--and that contradiction could run afoul of the promise of guaranteed issue from day one.

"It's a somewhat open question about how those two provisions would interact," Arons says.

For the two measures to work in tandem, she says, either every plan in the exchange would have to be prevented from offering abortion coverage, or the guaranteed issue provision would have to be modified. "I would think there would have to be some sort of specific exemption to the guaranteed issue provision," Arons says.

How that would happen, or if it would even be necessary, remains unclear. There is some disagreement with this interpretation on the Hill. And that's sort of the point. "It hasn't been thought through," Arons said.

Ergo, confusion. In the ensuing weeks, as progressives and pro-choice activists work to get the amendment stripped from the final legislation, these arguments will be hashed out further by members, activists, and policy experts. More than 40 liberal lawmakers now say they will vote against any conference report that includes the provision. That's more than a big enough bloc to kill health care reform altogether. And on the other side of them are 64 Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment, 40 of whom actually voted for the final bill on Saturday. Nancy Pelosi will have to get those numbers way down if she doesn't want the whole reform project to collapse in its final stretch. Stay tuned.

Nelson: I'll Filibuster A Health Care Bill That Doesn't Include Strict Abortion Restrictions

2009-11-09T23:32:11Z

]]>Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) wants Senate health care legislation to contain strict restrictions on abortion funding, much like the House bills now does. And he says he'll filibuster if he doesn't get his way.

"As a pro-life person, I believe that something like the [Rep. Bart] Stupak amendment should be included in the Senate version," Nelson told reporters this evening. "But if it isn't included to that effect, to make it clear that no gov money should be used for support, for the subsidies, or direct payments, or even tax credits, should be used to support abortions," he will oppose it.

"If it doesn't make it clear that it does not support abortion, does not pay for abortion, you can be sure I will vote against it."

I asked Nelson if his opposition extended to procedural supermajority votes. He had a one word answer: "Yes."

]]>To be clear, he did not go so far as to say that he will block anything less restrictive than the Stupak amendment in the House bill. "The [less-restrictive] Capps language, we'll continue to look at, but I think that there has to be some additional strengthening of that language," Nelson said.

Connecticut Gov. Rell Not Running Again

2009-11-09T23:00:33Z

]]>In a surprising piece of news, Gov. Jodi Rell (R-CT) announced today that she will not run for re-election in 2010.

Rell's Lt. Governor Michael Fedele, said that he will run for governor, and that Rell has committed to supporting him in the election.

Rell was previously Lt. Governor herself, and succeeded to the governorship in 2004 upon the resignation of Republican Gov. John Rowland, in a corruption scandal for which he later served prison time. Rell was easily elected to a full term in 2006, beating her Democratic opponent by 63%-35%.

Connecticut is a heavily Democratic state, but has not elected a Dem governor since 1986. The current field of active of potential Democratic candidates is a big one: Former state House Speaker Jim Amann, Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, businessman and 2006 Senate nominee Ned Lamont, state Sen. Gary LeBeau, and Stamford Mayor Dan Malloy.

Who Will Be The Next Hoffmania Victim In 2010 -- Or The Next Hoffman?

2009-11-09T22:23:34Z

]]>The NY-23 special election saw an amazing political phenomenon, with the right wing taking down a moderate Republican, as grassroots conservatives mobilize against a traditionally more cautious party establishment. So what are some other races out there?

We're not talking about any old crowded Republican primary -- for example, the fields right now in New Hampshire and Nevada are still taking shape -- though of course those races could potentially become Hoffmanized down the road. We're talking about races in which a push from the right can upset the balance of a race, pushing out an establishment-favored candidate due to insufficient conservatism.

Florida: Crist vs. Rubio
The Club For Growth, which heavily backed Hoffman, has made the Florida Senate race a new priority, endorsing the more conservative former state House Speaker Marco Rubio over moderate Gov. Charlie Crist, who had supported the stimulus and campaigned for it alongside President Obama. (Interestingly enough, Crist now says he didn't endorse the stimulus, but was simply working to get the best possible deal for Florida. The Rubio camp and his backers, as you can imagine, aren't taking that for an answer.)

]]>Utah: Incumbent GOP Sen. Bennett, And Potential Challenger TBD
Another race on the horizon, Club For Growth executive director David Keating told us, is the Republican race against GOP Sen. Robert Bennett. The Utah GOP nominations can actually be determined at the convention itself -- if a candidate gets over 60% of the state delegate vote then there is no primary at all, whether it would involve a challenger or even an incumbent being shut out -- and this convention and possible primary could be a heated race.

"He sponsored health care legislation that would greatly expand the role and scope of the federal government," said Keating. "Last time I looked, he voted for every single appropriations bill that implemented the Obama budget. So on fiscal issues, he's been pretty much a disaster."

There had previously been a challenger in the person of state Attorney General Mark Shurtleff. However, Shurtleff dropped out last week, because of a family health crisis involving his daughter. "We never met with him [Shurtleff], so I can't say whether we ever formed any opinion about him," said Keating. "But I'm confident that by the time this develops as a race, there'll be several good candidates to choose from."

California: Fiorina Vs. DeVore

The California Senate primary could be a big race, between former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and state Rep. Chuck DeVore. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has endorsed DeVore, while Fiorina has the establishment backing of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Minority Whip Jon Kyl, and 2008 presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) -- but she also has another big conservative name on board, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK).

Cao Off The Hook?
Interestingly, we found out that Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA), the only Republican to vote for the House Democrats' health care bill, may be immune to the threat of a primary challenge. His district is so Democratic, and he himself faces a tough time getting re-elected, that it would be difficult for a right-wing challenger to gain any money that could be spent elsewhere.

Ohio: Ganley Courting Tea Parties Against Portman
In Ohio, former Rep. Rob Portman is the Republican favorite for this open GOP-held seat, but he faces a challenge from auto dealer Tom Ganley, who in turn is openly courting the Tea Party vote. Polls still put Portman ahead -- though with very high undecideds so let's wait and see whether anything comes of it.

Mission Already Accomplished In PennsylvaniaThe Pennsylvania Republican primary was going to be a big race, of course, with former Rep. Pat Toomey running against moderate Sen. Arlen Specter -- who then switched to the Democrats this past April, and now faces a Democratic primary challenge from Rep. Joe Sestak. If anything, this GOP-primary-that-wasn't was a huge warning shot about things to come, and quite possibly the Democratic primary could end up sending the same message.

Pre-Emptive Tea Partying?

There are some key dogs that haven't barked, too, in the form of previously-moderate Republicans now behaving in a much more right-wing fashion, essentially preempting any threat from the right. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is running for President Obama's former Senate seat, and has changed his position on carbon emission, and voted against the health care bill. He's even been seeking Sarah Palin's endorsement, after he'd previously badmouthed her during the 2008 election.

Another example is former Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT), who is running in a crowded primary field to take on Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd. Simmons used to be much more moderate -- he had a strong pro-choice record during his time in Congress, for example -- but he now speaks at Tea Parties and even inserted a tea bag into his pocket Constitution!

The Maybes: Primary Campaigns Yet To Develop
There are other contested GOP primaries In, Nevada, New Hampshire and Connecticut. In Nevada, former state GOP chairwoman Sue Lowden is facing former UNLV basketball player Danny Tarkanian. In New Hampshire, former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte faces businessmen Jim Bender and William Binnie, and 1996 GOP gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontagne. In Connecticut, it's a five-way race: Former Rep. Rob Simmons, former WWE CEO Linda McMahon, stockbroker and financial pundit Peter Schiff, former Ambassador to Ireland Tom Foley, and state Sen. Sam Caligiuri. No right/middle divides have truly emerged yet in these races. But who knows, a lot can happen as the candidates set out to define themselves -- and each other.

MoveOn Starts TV Campaign Against Democrats Who Opposed Health Care, Planning More

2009-11-09T22:19:18Z

]]>MoveOn is targeting Blue Dog Democrats who voted against the House health care bill Saturday night with tough TV ads suggesting they are supportive of a "broken" status quo.

The "first round" of 30-second ads go after Reps. Mike Ross (D-AR), Jason Altmire (D-PA), Glenn Nye (D-VA), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Larry Kissell (D-NC), Heath Shuler (D-NC) and Lee Terry (D-NE).

(For more on these Dems check out Eric's smart post on their districts.)

"The health care bill that passed the House this weekend was a historic opportunity to fix our broken health care system," said MoveOn executive director Justin Ruben.

"MoveOn members will make sure that Representatives who did the right thing know they can count on the support of their base, and that those who stuck with the insurance companies and voted for the status quo will face real political consequences," he added.

They also are planning thank-you events and print ad campaigns in the home districts of members who voted for the plan.

]]>Here's the ad targeting Ross:

Presented By:

2009-11-09T22:19:18Z

RNC To Blanche Lincoln: Don't Make Us Turn You Into John Kerry

2009-11-09T20:30:20Z

]]>As the full focus of the health care debate shifts to the Senate, the GOP has a tough job targeting nervous moderate Democrats. The easy part is taking advantage of Democratic Party rifts. Explaining the rules of parliamentary procedure? That's hard.

To help, the RNC has turned to a tried-and-true method of shrinking complicated Senate protocol into convenient take-home size. In a new web video out today, the RNC tells health care reform fence-sitter Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) that unless she votes with the Republicans on cloture, they'll do to her what they did to John Kerry.

]]>Republicans want to attack Lincoln for supporting cloture, but also want to slam her for considering a no vote if and when the bill hits the floor. In a new web ad aimed at Lincoln launched today, the RNC raises the specter of Kerry, whose "I actually voted for it before I voted against it" statement about an Iraq War supplemental became the meme of the 2004 elections.

"Remember this?" The ad reads before a clip of Kerry's infamous "flip-flop" is played.

"Democrat leaders want Senator Blanche Lincoln to use the same tactic to pass President Obama's government-run health care experiment," a voice over says.

But Democrats don't want Lincoln to use the same tactic at all. In 2003, Kerry's "flip-flop" vote was actually a consistent appeal to the Democratic party's progressive wing. Kerry, who supported the war, voted the center-left line when it came to funding it: he supported a bill that would pay for the Iraq war by rolling back some of President George W. Bush's tax cuts, and against a bill that didn't. The bill he supported failed, and the one he opposed, which funded the war but didn't find a revenue stream to pay for that funding, passed.

Republicans at the time seized on the vote, calling it a "vote against our troops." Kerry, fearing that message would take hold tried to make it clear he was in favor of funding the troops with his "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it" line. Republicans said he was trying to have it both ways, appealing to hawks with the first vote, and doves with the second.

Democratic leaders are asking Lincoln to do something very different. Lincoln favors health care reform, and a vote for cloture is the only way to assure the entire Senate debates reform this year. If the bill that comes out of that debate includes a public option, she'll likely vote no, as she has promised all along.

Ironically, it's the left who'll say they'll actually punish Lincoln for "having it both ways" as Kerry did -- if she claims she's pro-health care reform but helps to kill any chance that the Senate will debate it this year, Democrats say they won't let her get away with it. Progressive groups like MoveOn.org are planning to target senators from the Democratic caucus who vote against cloture, and they say they'll have a multi-million dollar war chest with which to do it.

Republicans, on the other had, are promising to paint Lincoln's consistent position on health care reform as a "flip-flop" if she doesn't break with her party and vote their way on cloture. They're suggesting they'll do to her what they did to Kerry and claim her vote for cloture means she supports a public option -- when she actually doesn't.

Here's the ad:

A Closer Look At The Health Care Vote

2009-11-09T20:15:53Z

]]>Let's take a look at the breakdown of the vote on the health care bill -- the people who went against their leadership, or the people whose votes run seemingly counter to their districts' presidential votes in 2008 -- and in some cases, both.

Much has been made of the Democrats who voted no, and the fact that most of them come from districts that voted for John McCain. Thus, a vote against a major Obama policy initiative would certainly seem to be the safe thing to do -- just as Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) became the only Republican to vote yes, and his district voted 75% for Obama.

The single largest group, however, is one that hasn't been commented on very much: Republicans from districts that voted for Obama, and who voted no on the bill. There are 32 of them in all: Judy Biggert (IL); Brian Bilbray (CA); Mary Bono Mack (CA); Ken Calvert (CA); Dave Camp (MI); John Campbell (CA); Mike Castle (DE), currently a Senate candidate in an Obama state; Charlie Dent (PA); David Dreier (CA); Randy Forbes (VA); Elton Gallegly (CA); Jim Gerlach (PA); a candidate for governor in an Obama state; Mark Kirk (IL), a Senate candidate in Obama's home state; Leonard Lance (NJ); Tom Latham (IA), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Dan Lungren (CA), Donald Manzullo (IL); Thaddeus McCotter (MI); Buck McKeon (CA); Erik Paulsen (MN); Tom Petri (WI); Dave Reichert (WA); Mike Rogers (MI); Peter Roskam (IL); Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL); Paul Ryan (WI); Lee Terry (NE); Patrick Tiberi (OH); Fred Upton (MI); Frank Wolf (VA); and Bill Young (FL).

]]>There were 31 Democrats who voted no and came from McCain districts: Jason Altmire (PA); John Boccieri (OH); Dan Boren (OK); Rick Boucher (VA); Allen Boyd (FL); Bobby Bright (AL); Ben Chandler (KY); Travis Childers (MS); Lincoln Davis (TN); Chet Edwards (TX); Bart Gordon (TN); Parker Griffith (AL); Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD); Tim Holden (PA); Suzanne Kosmas (FL); Frank Kratovil (MD); Betsy Markey (CO); Eric Massa (NY); Jim Matheson (UT); Mike McIntyre (NC); Michael McMahon (NY); Charlie Melancon (LA), a candidate for Senate; Walt Minnick (ID); Colin Peterson (MN); Mike Ross (AR); Heath Shuler (NC); Ike Skelton (MO); John Tanner (TN); Gene Taylor (MS); and Harry Teague (NM).

There were 18 Democrats who come from McCain districts, but also voted yes on the bill: Marion Berry (AR); Chris Carney (PA); Kathy Dahlkemper (PA); Brad Ellsowrth (IN); Gabrielle Giffords (IN); Baron Hill (IN); Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ); Harry Mitchell (AZ); Allan Mollohan (WV); John Murtha (PA); Tom Perriello (VA); Earl Pomeroy (ND); Nick Rahall (WV); John Salazar (CO); Vic Snyder (AR); Zack Space (OH); John Spratt (SC); and Charlie Wilson (OH).

And here's another curious bunch -- the eight Democrats from Obama districts, who voted no on the bill: John Adler (NJ); Brian Baird (WA); John Barrow (GA); Artur Davis (AL), a candidate for governor in a McCain state; Larry Kissell (NC); Dennis Kucinich (OH); Scott Murphy (NY); and Glenn Nye (VA).

(District vote information was compiled from CQ.)

Gibbs: Policy On Settlements Hasn't Changed

2009-11-09T20:04:59Z

]]>White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said reporters should not read anything into the closed, off-camera meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu scheduled for this evening.

Gibbs said during his daily briefing the 7 p.m. meeting in the Oval Office will focus on
"a full range of issues," including the Middle East peace process.

Reporters asked if the Obama administration was backing down from its push earlier this year that all settlements on the West Bank should be halted. Gibbs insisted the policy was the same.

Obama initially had been scheduled to speak Tuesday to a major meeting of Jewish leaders, which Netanyahu plans to address. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is going in Obama's place.

The president's schedule changed significantly following the tragic shootings at Ft. Hood. Obama will spend most of tomorrow attending the memorial service at the base.

It was already going to be a packed week since Obama departs for a more than week-long trip to Asia. He is now scheduled to leave Thursday.

Two interesting exchanges after the jump.

]]>QUESTION: What is the White House -- well, one thing first, on the meeting with the Israeli prime minister tonight. Why is that closed, you know, no press avail, no statements? What is the thinking there?

GIBBS: Well, the president obviously is -- will meet later today with Prime Minister Netanyahu to discuss a full range of issues: Middle East peace.

QUESTION: It seems like he didn't really want to meet with him, this meeting...

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Well, again, as you know, our schedule since late last week has been up in the air. We were -- the president was supposed to speak on Tuesday to the same group that Prime Minister Netanyahu is speaking to. He obviously looks forward to sitting down with the prime minister tonight and continue to work together to address issues like Middle East peace and the threat that's posed by Iran.

QUESTION: OK, last thing on settlements.

Last week, Secretary Clinton was in Israel and suggested she wanted to praise the Israelis for some progress on settlements. And the Palestinians were upset because the U.S. policy has been a complete freeze on settlements.

(CROSSTALK)

GIBBS: Well, a policy dating back several decades, yes.

QUESTION: Right. But specifically, it was emphasized in the early days of this administration, and the Palestinians felt like maybe there was some back-pedaling.

Can you just clear up -- there was a sense that she seemed to be shifting last week.

GIBBS: No, no. Again, I judge from your question, the policy of the United States government for many decades has been no more settlements. That -- that's not something that is new to this administration. It's something that I think has gotten disproportionate media coverage, but it's not a policy difference in this administration and previous administrations.

Late update: Here's MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell questioning the late night meeting.

value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1P9ERPk0rxc&showinfo=0">
type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="340" height="280">

We're All Wonks Now: Huge Numbers Watched Health Care Debate Online, C-Span Says

2009-11-09T19:54:00Z

If your friends told you they were staying in to watch Saturday Night Live this weekend, chances are they weren't talking about that show on NBC.

According to an internal C-Span email obtained by TPMDC, the network's website served up 201,741 live streams of the House debate of the health care reform bill Saturday, the highest online viewership C-Span has seen since President Obama was inaugurated in January. (A C-Span employee told us the network doesn't track how many people watch its three cable channels on TV.)

In D.C., watching the day-long debate unfold became something of a social event for nerds. Twitter was alive with snarky comments about the Representatives speaking at any given moment and at least a few bars tuned TVs to the debate, running it alongside college football.

Lowden Facing Opposition From Group Of Ron Paul Supporters In Nevada GOP Senate Primary

2009-11-09T18:49:57Z

]]>Sue Lowden, a former Nevada GOP chair and currently a candidate for Senate, could face an interesting obstacle in her quest for the party's nomination to go up against Democratic Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Reno Gazette-Journal reports -- Ron Paul supporters.

A new group called the Fair Nevada Elections PAC, run by nuclear science consultant and Paul-supporter Robert Holloway, contends that Lowden unfairly used her position to prevent Paul delegates from being chosen at the state convention last year. "Sue Lowden basically stole the election for John McCain," said Holloway, a very strong charge to say the least. "We need to elect people who have respect for law and order, and our electoral process."

Lowden spokesman Robert Uithoven fired back, saying that Lowden had in fact allowed Paul to speak at the state convention, and had promoted his appearances around the state. "I think some people want to get stuck reliving the 2008 election cycle," said Uithoven.

Lowden is running in a contested primary against Danny Tarkanian, a former UNLV basketball player.

Do or Die: The Six Senators Who Will Decide the Fate of Health Care Reform

2009-11-09T18:46:30Z

]]>Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid faces a number of obstacles to passing health care reform but his main task is to keep his caucus united for not one, but two, supermajority votes, just to get the reform bill an up or down on the Senate floor. Failure to get 60 votes to push past either of those two procedural chokepoints could derail the reform bill. Here are the six key holdouts Reid must wrangle to reach the magic threshold.

]]>Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is by most measures the most conservative Democrat in the Senate. On almost all major legislation, Nelson digs his heels in and withholds his cloture vote until the bill moves to the right, and has a few Republican supporters. Health care is a bit of a sui generis issue for Democrats, so at the end of the day he may not be so intransigent. But for the time being, he says he wants Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) on board for whatever bill comes to the floor, and that means he's opposed to the the public option Reid is proposing. He also opposes the bill's likely funding mechanism--an excise tax on generous "cadillac" health insurance policies. Reid's first task is to simply get the bill on to the floor for debate. He'll need 60 votes for that, and Nelson says he won't commit one way or another until the CBO weighs in and the bill is unveiled.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)

As a rule, Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) may not be as ideological as Nelson is. But she's got a problem on her hands right now that Nelson doesn't. She's an unpopular senator in a conservative state and she's up for re-election next year. Unlike Nelson (or Joe Lieberman, who we'll get to momentarily) securing Lincoln's procedural vote is a nuts-and-bolts political problem. How do you get her into a position where she (and the Democratic party) feels her seat isn't particularly imperiled by votes for health care reform. Last week, she met with both Reid and President Obama. Those conversations will surely continue.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) is also from a conservative state. And, like Nelson and Lincoln, her preference is for a bill that has Snowe's support. But there's at least one reason to believe she may not be the hardest vote to get: She just won re-election. She has until 2014 before her votes for or against health care reform will come back to haunt or help her. In other words, it will be harder for her to make a straightforward political argument to party elders for standing in the way of a health care bill--and there may already be signs of softening. Though she says still opposes the public option without a trigger, last week, she conceded "The public option, because of the moderates, and because of what I've been helping to do and other moderates, has been shaped, in our view, 100 percent better than when it started out. It's already shaped to be a public option that is supported by premiums." And earlier in the week, she co-hosted a pro-reform event on the hill with a number of small-business owners. Still, like Nelson and Lincoln, she says she won't decide on her first procedural vote until the bill is unveiled and the CBO has weighed in.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT)

Reporters and pundits have been obsessed with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) since he first announced his intent to support a health care filibuster if the bill includes a public option. And with good reason. Unlike Nelson, Landrieu, and Lincoln, he's been crystal clear about his intentions. Reid says he and Lieberman haven't reached an understanding, but that he's not terribly worried about Lieberman in the long run. Maybe that's right. Maybe it's bluster. But if Lieberman is just showboating, he's digging himself a pretty deep ditch. "If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote because I believe debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today," Lieberman said on Fox News this weekend. That argument doesn't make sense on a substantive level--the public option is a big money saver, and the government would have to change the law (i.e. find 60 votes) to subsidize it in a way that adds to the debt. But even if his justification makes no sense, there's no wiggle room to his threat. However, Lieberman's constituents will be paying attention--unlike those listed above, Lieberman comes from a liberal state--and for the time being, Lieberman says he's likely to vote for the first procedural motion, but against the second one. That means Reid (and perhaps the White House) have a few weeks before they need to start twisting his arm.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) raised liberal hackles a couple weeks ago when he said he planned to treat procedural and substantive votes on health care equally--in other words, he would filibuster any bill he didn't agree with on the merits. But he quickly, though only partially, relented, when he said he would at the very least vote to move the bill to the floor for debate regardless of whether or not he likes the legislation itself. Bayh's main concern isn't the public option--it's the fiscal soundness of the plan. But he also says he objects to some of the fees the bill would likely impose on industry--particularly medical device manufacturers--and it's conceivable that he could use a filibuster threat to change, or attempt to change, some of those provisions down the line.

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)

It wasn't all that long ago that Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) was a public option scold. These days, he's not nearly so vocal. He made a concerted (and ultimately successful) push to prevent the public option from being tied to Medicare, and, since then, he's been careful not to speak out too loudly against the weaker public option Reid put in the bill. But, like Bayh, he will become a quick 'no' if the bill Reid unveils isn't deficit neutral, and a cost-saver in the long term. The Senate Finance Committee bill succeeded on that score. If the changes Reid made in the merger process make the bill a budget buster, he'd likely lose Conrad's support, and many others' as well. That's one reason to think Reid took care to make sure this doesn't happen.

It's worth remembering that there are liberal members of the Senate--most notably Roland Burris (D-IL) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT)--who could defect on procedural votes if the bill moves too far to the right. But for the time being, Reid's goal is to bring conservative Dems aboard. If by doing so, he puts the bill in jeopardy of being killed by liberals, we'll put together a similar list of progressive swing votes.

Club For Growth: Challenging Cao In GOP Primary 'Would Be A Waste Of Money' For His District

2009-11-09T18:21:44Z

]]>Rep. Joseph Cao (R-LA) may have an interesting built-in line of defense against Republicans who would want to seek retribution over his vote for the health care bill: His overwhelmingly Democratic district.

I asked Club For Growth executive director David Keating, whose group has often supported insurgent conservatives -- Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, Stephen Laffey and Doug Hoffman, just to name a few -- whether the group might support a primary against Cao. "Our PAC doesn't plan on backing any primary challengers to him," said Keating, "because it would be a waste of money, probably, for the general election."

Cao's district, centered around New Orleans, voted 75%-23% for Barack Obama in November 2008, by far the most Democratic district to be currently represented by a Republican. Cao won a shocking 50%-47% victory in a specially scheduled December election (due to hurricane damage) against Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, who was then under indictment and was later convicted on corruption charges.

]]>Keating said that he doesn't know of anybody currently working on a primary challenge against Cao. He said that while such a challenge could potentially be successful among Republican primary voters, the chances would be low for the new Republican nominee to win the district in November, and that Cao would have a much stronger chance as an incumbent.

"It's not a good place for someone to get involved there, it's such a tough district for a Republican to win a general election in November," said Keating. "The circumstances that he won the race under were unusual to say the least. It's not every day that a Congressman has tens of thousands of dollars in his freezer, and to have the money seized by the government."

New Hampshire GOPer Lamontagne Enters Senate Race

2009-11-09T17:54:02Z

The Republican primary field is getting more crowded in the New Hampshire Senate race, with long-time conservative activist Ovide Lamontagne officially entering the race.

Lamontagne was chairman of the state Board of Education from 1993-1996, and was the Republican nominee for governor in 1996, losing in an open-seat race to Democrat Jeanne Shaheen (now a Senator) by a 57%-40% margin.

Former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte is widely viewed as being the establishment favorite, but in fact it should be a busy primary. In addition to Lamontagne, other candidates include businessmen James Bender and William Binnie, who could both potentially self-finance. Lamontagne has less money coming into the race, but his long-time presence in state politics could make up for it.

Interestingly, Lamontagne explained to the Union-Leader why he won't be self-financing: "The lady of the house won't let it happen. She said that if the market is not there for me to raise the dollars, I ought to reconsider."