The Haunting Specter

By Carl 

I need to digest some of what he said yesterday, but Arlen Specter left a flaming bag of poop on the Senate doorstep:

Partisanship, a quest for ideological purity, and the "abuse" of procedural rules have bled collegiality from the U.S. Senate and mired "the world's greatest deliberative body" in gridlock, Specter said.

This was not the usual flowery goodbye and trip down memory lane. 

There's some merit to his point of view, and Specter lays out his case like the prosecutor he was, but is it correct? Is too partisan a bad thing?

Forget the chicken-egg argument. It really doesn't matter who started the partisanship ball rolling. We can track echoes of it back to the McCarthy hearings, to Watergate, to any number of incidents that brought us incrementally to where we are.

Is the legislative process compromised when, well, there is no compromise?

My first observation is that Harry Reid finally seems to have grown a set. So much legislation has been passed in the last few weeks, it's hard to keep track of it all, including the showcase piece, the repeal of DADT. Why he squandered this forcefulness over the past two years will go down in history as one of the greatest blunders a Senate majority leader could ever make.

(Side note: Imagine if Hillary Clinton had not accepted the secretary of state post, instead focusing on rallying the troops for the 2006 election and then lobbying for the Senate majority leadership job...)

In the next Senate, Reid will have to contend with a Republican House that will have a large element of combativeness in its arsenal. Reid squeaked out a win this year against a nutcase who put her foot in her mouth more times than a yogi with a toe fetish. Reid's Senate may not be so lucky next time around if Reid doesn't carefully extract the good from his dilemma while shirking the bad off onto someone else.

A formidable job even for a deft politician with muscle. For Reid, a real challenge.

The twin questions of ideological purity and abuse of procedural rules seem to go hand in hand, in my opinion, and I delineate them differently from simple party line distinctions. Voting along party lines is expected, which is why I'm not sure the last Congress, or even the Congresses under Bush, were "too partisan."

The difference, noticeable over the past twenty years, but in particular a problem during the Clinton administration, has been the severe punishments proferred to a maverick. It has gone from shunnings over minor quibbles, to outright hostility. I've never seen so many incumbents face primary challenges in which fellow Senators and other national party figures have actively campaigned to remove a fellow party incumbent.

This, in my view, is unhealthy, and guess what? For every Lisa Murkowski in the Republican ranks, we have a Joe Lieberman in the Democratic camp. It's not a right-wing problem only. There's a bubbling undercurrent in this pressure cooker that threatens to explode the entire process, causing entropy at best and chaos at worst, but of much more impact will be the quiet before the storm. The attempt to keep a lid on it.

It started in the 1990s, of course, when the GOP leadership suddenly decided to put a thumb on the scale of negotiation and compromise, forcing their Senators to toe a party line first, and only clear compromises second. It was aided and abetted by the right wing blast fax/talk radio Golem, which spewed venom left and right... ok, mostly left... and forced legislators to either deal with the voters (and others outside their districts) or deal with the leadership. The only way to keep things quiet was to memorize talking points, spew them on cue, and vote Republican only.

That wasn't enough, even though Republicans were generally pretty successful with this strategy. As the Congress did nothing through the first Bush administration, and people watched their savings and jobs drift away on this tide or that, Democrats started to put together two and two and actually come up with five when it came to winning an election or two.

The clamps in the GOP tightened. In response, clamps were applied in the Democratic Party as well. The Fifty State Strategy of Howard Dean's DNC tenure really had two effects: it welcomed moderates and even conservatives while at the same time tried to get them to come to some consensus on issues so that Democrats could present a unified front on issues that people wouldn't be too embarassed by in Wyoming or Utah.

This pissed off everyone, from conservative Blue Dog Dems to us liberals.

In Congress, procedural rules became a weapon, rather than a tool. The use of the filibuster is the most notable, and both sides have gone to that trough healthily. I include, however, reconciliation votes in this. It was used to shove Bush's tax cuts down our throats, and some aspects of healthcare reform also utilized this. Here, a bill is deemed passed already for purposes of making cosmetic budgetary amendments to it, which only require a 51 vote majority and no filibusters allowed.

I'm sure in caucus, worse abuses of procedures occured.

Specter comes off as a bit of a whiner in his speech, but he does point out the signal changes in protocol and custom over the past thirty years, mourning the loss.

But things change, Arlen. One can't expect the world to freeze just because you're in the Senate. And one might point out that there were plenty of moments when you could have shown great courage, opting instead to hew to the party line.

But among his "why mes?" he has made several very cogent and valid points. Go read his speech.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Quote of the Day: Arlen Specter on Justices Roberts and Alito

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ex-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania voted to confirm both John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but the outgoing Democrat, in his last speech on the Senate floor, rightly took aim at both:

The Supreme Court has been eating Congress' lunch by invalidating legislation with judicial activism after nominees commit under oath in confirmation proceedings to respect congressional fact finding and precedent.

Ignoring a massive congressional record and reversing recent decisions, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito repudiated their confirmation testimony given under oath and provided the key votes to permit corporations and unions to secretly pay for political advertising -- thus effectively undermining the basic Democratic principle of the power of one person, one vote. Chief Justice Roberts promised to just call balls and strikes and then he moved the bases.

Specter was referring to the notorious Citizens United decision, a 5-4 ruling (with the conservatives, including Kennedy, with the swing vote, in the majority) that essentially opened to the door to unlimited corporate spending on election advertising. As Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent:

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

In other words, the decision paves the way for the corporate takeover of American politics -- as if the system weren't already corporate enough.

Of course, Specter could not have known this when he voted for Roberts and Alito, but he knew full well that such right-wing judicial activism was likely. If nothing else, he should have known after Bush v. Gore that what drives conservative judges these days is not adherence to the letter of the Constitution, as they self-righteously claim, but adherence to a generally partisan right-wing agenda and to a view of the judiciary as a key instrument for enabling the implementation of that agenda.

Yes, Specter should have known this, and maybe he did, but at least he's saying the right things on the way out.

Am I the last person left with long-term memory?

By Edward Copeland

You will see me shedding no tears for Juan Williams' firing from NPR. It's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech gives you the right to say whatever you want, but when you are a paid commentator, it doesn't protect you from getting the heave-ho from your employer when you say something stupid and are being promoted as a representative of their brand. Besides, a $2 million consolation prize from Fox News is a nice consolation prize for someone who is Fox's idea of a liberal the way that Alan Colmes was. The only real liberal I ever saw was on the only show Fox ever aired that used to be truly fair and balanced, "Fox NewsWatch." His name was Neal Gabler but he criticized the boss and co-workers too often so he got shown the door as did the impartial moderator Eric Burns and the show turned into a propaganda fest like every other program. (One of the replacement "liberals" was Juan Williams.)

Before I move on to my other reasons for why I think his NPR firing was long overdue, just let me add that the comment that got him axed showed his ignorance. He admitted getting nervous when he got on a plane and saw people dressed in "Muslim garb." None of the 9/11 hijackers wore Muslim garb, brain wizard. If you saw people dressed in Muslim garb, that probably would be more of an indication of safety.

Of course, I've disliked Williams since long before Fox News even existed. No one seems to remember (and no one would probably have remembered this week if not for the fortuitous timing of that famous Teabagger, Mrs. Clarence Thomas, calling Anita Hill for an apology) that Juan Williams is a sexist moron.

Back during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, Williams, thought of as a "liberal" wrote scathing columns against Anita Hill, saying her story was full of holes. What he didn't say was that he was sympathizing with Thomas because at the time he was being accused of sexual harassment by 50 (you read that right, that's why I put it in bold) Post employees and was disciplined, though it amounted to a slap on the wrist, considering the numbers involved.

Of course, though Firedoglake remembered that and reported it today, I seem to be the only one that recalls that Williams scoured his copy of the novel The Exorcist to find a passage he remembered about a pubic hair and a drink and showed it to Arlen Specter who then brought it up in his questioning of Anita Hill to accuse her of having read the book and having it inspire her to make up the pubic hair on the Coke can incident.

One positive thing did come out of re-opening the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill can of worms: It inspired Thomas' former girlfriend to finally come forward and back up her charges of how he was obsessed with porn and would comment on female office workers' breast sizes. We've always known he committed perjury (I mean, he never discussed Roe v. Wade? Yeah, right), but this is more evidence of it. Still, nothing will come of it. They don't have the balls to pursue the last administration's far more serious crimes, you think they'd try to go after a Supreme Court justice for perjury? They wouldn't have even done that back in 1991.

To me, the most sickening display is watching all the talking heads on all sides of the political spectrum take to the airwaves to defend Williams because they all are on the same D.C. party circuit. Truth doesn't matter. Actions don't matter. No one remembers anything.

Things are looking up

By Greg Prince

It's the day after several primaries, plus a bonus election, and for the first time in a while thoughtful Democrats should have a spring in their step looking to November.

The media narratives will remain focused on the Republican't noise machine, according to which anything and everything is representative of "liberal" failure and is bad for Democrats and Obama, but the facts speak for themselves. Democrats had a good night, a very good night. And it was a particularly rewarding night for the Netroots, who saw their preferred candidates perform well against establishment candidates.

In fact, we see something at Politico that is seldom seen these days: "Republicans failed spectacularly." We'll come back to that.

First off, Arkansas is the gift that keeps on giving. Blanche Lincoln needed to come in over 50% to avoid a run off. She didn't make it. Lincoln is among the more brazen of the DINO conservadems and is owned by special interests. She's not particularly popular in Arkansas and re-election would be a challenge even without a primary. In other words, she's a prime target, and Bill Halter forced her to speak to Democrats for a change. Adele Stan observes:

When, during an appearance on "The Rachel Maddow Show" in the midst of the health-care debate, FireDogLake's Jane Hamsher threatened Sen. Blanche Lincoln with a primary challenge, people thought Hamsher was either full of bluster, nuts, or both. Tonight, nobody's laughing.

How you feeling about that public option now, Blanche?

Just having a primary challenger made a meaningful difference. Trying to bolster her progressive credentials, she went gung-ho in the Senate on derivatives reform under the current financial legislation. Thing is, Lincoln never was serious about derivatives reform. It was all for show, and amendments to weaken the proposals were to have been introduced as soon as polls closed in Arkansas. Inconveniently, Lincoln's problems didn't end when the polls closed, and the tougher language will have to be retained, for now. TPM reports:

A far-reaching proposal to regulate derivative trading will not be scaled back in Wall Street reform legislation, at least for now, multiple Senate aides confirm. The development comes as welcome news to an unusual mix of progressives, financial officials, and at least one conservative Democrat: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR).

Lincoln is the author of the derivatives title in the Senate's financial regulation bill, and for weeks has faced opposition from Wall Street, the White House, and members of her own party over a provision to force financial firms to spin off their derivatives trading desks into stand-alone entities.

It will be interesting to see what happens in two weeks, but typically supporters of the incumbent are less motivated to come out yet again for a special election. Stay tuned.

Pennsylvania gave us a twofer. Joe Sestak's victory over GOP defector Arlen Specter is something of a surprise given Specter's support from the Democratic machine, but he simply ran a better campaign and benefits from being a real Democrat instead of an opportunistic moderate who was caught on camera being very honest about changing parties primarily to avoid a spanking in the GOP primary.

The real news, of course, is PA-12. The GOP was hell-bent on winning this seat, and it seemed very doable for them. This district is not Obama-friendly, and economic stimulus and health-care reform don't poll well. In short, the race looked to be a very good opportunity for the GOP to nationalize the race, create a referendum on Obama's term, and establish momentum going into the midterms. Except for one pesky detail. Matthew Yglesias:

Mark Critz's win in the PA-12 House election is just straight-up embarrassing for Republicans. The Democratic strategy was straight out of the 2006/2008 playbook. Find a moderately conservative House district and run a somewhat heterodox Democrat. You don't win every race, but you win a bunch. You can't count on those guys' votes on all the key issues, but each of them is with you sometimes. Add up a shifting coalition of such members to the big block of solid House liberals, and Nancy Pelosi can put an effective governing agenda together.

This was supposed to stop working in 2010. The end of the Bush backlash and the rise of anti-Obama sentiment, combined with the reality of the legislation coming out of the Pelosi-era House is supposed to get Republicans back to baseline at least. To see a Democrat win an open seat in a district that went for John McCain will be a welcome sign to a large number of House Democrat incumbents from red districts.

Critz isn't a liberal, but a Democratic win here is great news for Democratic prospects nationwide and major egg on the face of the GOP establishment.

Kentucky also deserves some mention. Jack Conway will be fine as a candidate, but the real story is the victory of Rand Paul, the teabagging son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul. Spend some time listening to the son and you'll think the father is sane. Thing is, Paul ran on a platform that is pretty standard GOP fare, so it's hard to know just how strong the tea will brew for the general. But this is a best-case scenario for the Democrats. Paul can be beaten, and Conway is the strongest candidate on the Democratic side.

All in all, a very respectable evening for Democrats.

Still, there is a lot of voter anger. How will that translate into anti-incumbent, anti-establishment sentiment at the polls? That remains to be seen. The votes against Specter and Lincoln, as well as against Kentucky's GOP-favored candidate Trey Grayson, can be seen as defeats for the party machinery and traditionalists, but with the exception of Lincoln, the anti incumbent spirit is less clear. There is no incumbent in Kentucky, and Specter was not elected to his seat as a Democrat.

Similarly, wishes for a viable third party ring hollow. Being "not Democrat and not Republican" is not the same thing as a vision for governance and a platform to campaign on. The Independence Party of Minnesota is facing this challenge. A leftover from the Jesse Ventura days, they manage to attract a hardcore following but never reach critical mass to elect anyone to office – other than stealing enough DFL votes to keep sending Michele Bachmann to Congress, alas. But all they have going for them is being "other." Sometimes its candidates are liberal, sometimes conservative. There's no cohesive vision for voters to support. Even among the various incarnations of the Tea Party, there are few common threads around which to build a platform.

Minnesota primaries are in August. Then onward to November.

(Cross-posted from Greg Prince's Blog.)

Cutting a deal with Lieberman

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Following up on Creature's post from earlier this evening...

The White House is apparently behind the move to scrap the Medicare buy-in, pushing Reid et al. to cut a deal with Lieberman. Specifically, and not surprisingly, it's Rahm Emanuel behind it.

It's a flip-flop for Lieberman, who was for the buy-in just a few months ago.

Honestly, how is it that one senator, and specifically a moral vacuum like Lieberman (who's all about himself, and getting what he wants, and basing his policy positions on ever-fluctuating whims), is able to hold the entire reform process hostage? How is it that he gets what he wants while the majority party is forced to give in and compromise again and again?

Is Tom Harkin right that the bill would be good enough without the public option and the Medicare buy-in? It could be, yes, and Democrats seem to have resigned themselves to giving Lieberman what he wants. At least, that's the takeaway from their public utterances.

Arlen Specter ought to be praised for saying this at a Democratic caucus meeting this evening: "Don't let these obstructionists win. I came to this caucus to be your 60th vote." The problem is, those 60 votes include a vote for Lieberman, an anti-Democrat who has been allowed to caucus with the Democrats despite his Republican inclinations.

Is there no way to win over Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins while giving Lieberman the boot he deserves?

For more on Lieberman's threat to reform, see Jonathan Chait, who is extremely critical of Lieberman and yet:

I don't think that health care reform is in peril. If Harry Reid decided to submit to Lieberman's demands, the health care bill would basically revert to what the Senate Finance Committee produced. That's still a major piece of legislation. Expectations among liberals have risen since then, so the come-down is understandable. But this isn't the end of reform.

No, perhaps not, but it's a tough pill to swallow, not least when you have 58 votes (60 minus Lieberman and Nelson) and when you've already given in and given up a lot already.

Here's American democracy at work, the sausage-making of the legislative process. It's ugly, and it's stupidly unfair, and, ultimately, it's the American people who get screwed.

In this case, all because of Joe Lieberman and his enablers, including those in the Obama White House.

Quote of the Day: Arlen Specter on the GOP

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Full credit to Arlen Specter for speaking out strongly against his former party. I have been very critical of him in the past, referring to him on occasion as a quasi-Democrat, but, on the #1 issue of the day, health-care reform, he deserves a good deal of praise. Here's what he said on Fox News on Sunday:

On the Republican side, it's no, no, no. A party of obstructionism. … You have responsible Republicans who had been in the Senate -- like Howard Baker, Bob Dole, or Bill Frist -- who say Republicans ought to cooperate. Well, they're not cooperating.

No they're not, and, despite various grovelling Democratic attempts to reach out to them in hopes of forging a bipartisan reform package, they haven't been interested in compromise from the start, and hence haven't at all negotiated in good faith, and instead resorted to opposition and obstruction in hopes either of killing reform or watering it down to the point of meaninglessness.

There used to be sensible Republicans in the Senate, but where are they now? Well, Specter switched parties and the rest either retired or were defeated. The exceptions may be the two Maine senators, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, but they tend to be split-the-difference centrists who put centrism for centrism's sake well ahead of doing what's right for the country.

Specter went on to reiterate his strong support for a public option:

I'm not prepared to recede at all. I think the public option is gaining momentum. I am not going to step back a bit. I am going to fight for the best public option.

We need more Republicans, and ex-Republicans, like Arlen Specter.

**********

Allow me to repeat here what I wrote earlier this month:

Shouldn't [Specter's support for a public option] count, sort of, as bipartisanship? (Seriously, given how narrow the GOP has become, so much a party of the far right, shouldn't "bipartisan" also mean anything that receives the support of moderate Democrats, centrist Democrats, and former Republicans like Specter? I suppose a bipartisan reform bill with a robust public option would ideally also receive the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, but the Democratic spectrum in Congress is sufficiently broad these days that it cannot be written off as narrowly partisan. Indeed, it seems to me that any reform bill that receives support across the party, including from the likes of Specter, ought to be considered to be, in a way, bipartisan, even if no Republicans sign up for it.)

Yes it should.

**********

For other Reaction posts on Specter, from both me and the co-bloggers, see here.

Quote of the Day: Arlen Specter on the public option

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He may not support the sort of universal single-payer system that many of us would prefer, but his vocal support for a public option in any reform bill is nonetheless admirable, not least coming from a former Republican:

I urge my Senate colleagues to support a robust public option plan. It's important that the President's ideas on the public option be implemented to maintain a level playing field.

The public option will create competition in the marketplace and will help to provide affordable choices for American families. It will also allow us to greatly expand the number of Americans with health insurance, and that is an imperative.

Shouldn't that count, sort of, as bipartisanship? (Seriously, given how narrow the GOP has become, so much a party of the far right, shouldn't "bipartisan" also mean anything that receives the support of moderate Democrats, centrist Democrats, and former Republicans like Specter? I suppose a bipartisan reform bill with a robust public option would ideally also receive the support of moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, but the Democratic spectrum in Congress is sufficiently broad these days that it cannot be written off as narrowly partisan. Indeed, it seems to me that any reform bill that receives support across the party, including from the likes of Specter, ought to be considered to be, in a way, bipartisan, even if no Republicans sign up for it.)

**********

For more public option news, see Josh Marshall. I must say, I don't like this whole "opt-out" compromise being tossed around -- Chuck Schumer says it's being "very seriously considered," Howard Dean says he'd vote for it -- but Steve Benen may be right that states might only threaten to opt out:

I can't help but wonder exactly how many states would go through with the opt-out. When the stimulus debate was underway, plenty of right-wing governors said they had no intention of accepting the recovery funds. They changed their minds when partisan spite was overwhelmed by policy necessity.

The same could happen here, especially given the national popularity of the public option. It's even easier to imagine some states opting out, and then opting back in when they see other states benefiting from the public-private competition.

Of course, there would still be the possibility of millions of Americans, those unlucky enough to live in one of the opting out red states, would be left without a public option, and hence without health insurance. Which is reason enough to oppose it.

Specter v. Grassley @twitter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Seriously, who ever thought that twitter would become such a phenomenon? So much of one, in fact, and now so much a significant part of our culture and our politics, that two rather elderly men, Senators Specter and Grassley (both born in the early 1930s!), are using it to battle over those supposed "death panels."

Crazy. (And kudos to Specter, a quasi-Democrat, for telling Grassley, a Republican, to stop lying.)

By the way, I'm new to twitter, but I'm into it -- you can find me, and follow me, @mjwstickings. Come on, have a look. It's much more fun that I thought -- useless, in a way, but fun.

Town hall madness

By Creature

I know this question has been asked many times before but, after watching these town hall outbursts over government and how evil it is, I seriously wonder where were all these people when Bush was trampling the Constitution and letting his cronies loot the taxpayer? Now that it's a Democrat in charge, and a black one, no less, suddenly government is evil and must be stopped. I don't necessarily blame these people for being angry, but I do wish they would be more consistent.

Obama, take off the gloves -- against your own party

By Edward Copeland

During the lengthy 2008 primary season, I didn’t immediately rush to Barack Obama’s candidacy. I began with John Edwards, but the longer it wore on, the more Obama won me over. He did it with one simple fact. It wasn’t an issue. It wasn’t the chance to make history. It was because he was the first presidential candidate from either party that I felt spoke to voters, i.e. me., as an adult, without that air of condescension you get from most politicians who talk down to you or the ones who are so partisan or dumb you feel as if you are listening to first-graders.

Alas, while this makes me feel good as an American and is why I still admire Obama as a president, I think it explains a lot about the many bumps in the road his administration has faced and continue to face six months into his tenure: He’s not dealing with a nation of adults and, even more importantly, he’s not dealing with a Congress populated by adults. Perhaps his lack of experience really was a problem. He didn’t spend enough time in the Senate to realize that the culture of incumbency among both Democrats and Republicans have created a culture of nothing but spoiled, whiny rich kids.

Obama does have the nickname “No drama Obama,” but he’s going to have to lose that moniker and shove an iron boot up the ass of his own party in Congress. He’ll have the American people on his side: They hate Congress. He has the power to call them into special session in perpetuity. Piss them off. Find new progressive candidates that he’ll threaten to support in primary challenges to them. Separate the true reformers from those who are bought and think they are above it all.

There is a reason that progressives, deprived so long from any access to power, want it all and want it right now, but they need to be reasonable as well. There’s always an excuse from Congress. When the Dems took over Congress in 2006, they couldn’t override a veto or stop a filibuster. Now, when they have “60,” it’s not really 60 since they’ve had ailing senators and erstwhile seat-fillers such as Specter and Lieberman filling those ranks. The bigger truth is that very few lawmakers on Capitol Hill have any principles beyond their own re-elections and goodies. Just watch their own sense of entitlement when someone such as Barney Frank is asked semi-tough questions by a reporter and goes ballistic, throws a hissy fit and storms off a TV interview time and time again.

Obama must start treating them as the spoiled brats that they are. He’s paying a price by letting them screw up the stimulus package and now health care. I had my own concerns, since I actually was satisfied with my health insurance and extremely dissatisfied with the system itself, especially hospitals and their billing practices. Obama made the mistake again by letting Capitol Hill lead the way and the mess has grown worse as polls are showing that those who have health insurance, except for the horror stories or those without any, fear getting what they know and have figured out screwed up by vague promises by multiple gangs that can’t shoot straight but who are bankrolled by health insurers, the AMA and pharmaceutical companies. They should have led with reform of the system. Tough love, my friends.

This week, he even let Democrats in the House remove from a defense appropriations bill the first step to ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

The Republicans are flying around with lies and nonsense but they are doing it so incompetently that I think what the Democrats are doing is worse. Obama must stand up. He is the leader of his party. I noticed by a chance a few weeks ago the Senate voting on continued funding for Senate operations to the tune of more than $5 billion. Who knows what the cost for running the House is?

Obama needs his Sister Souljah moment and that Sister Souljah should be Democratic lawmakers. Don’t let them go home. Recruit fresh blood to run against the entrenched. Imagine if Obama backed Joseph Sestak against Specter in the Pennsylvania Senate primary. Specter only switched to survive and he’s 80 years old for God’s sake. Despite growing dissatisfaction with Obama’s policies, polls still find him personally popular and he only has popularity to gain by taking Congress to the woodshed.

Find someone to challenge Harry Reid as Senate majority leader, since he’s the worst we’ve had in quite some time. The last time a Democratic president let a Democratic Congress get away with whatever they wanted was during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. Barack Obama is too smart and skilled a politician to meet that same fate. He needs to embrace some of that Chicago-style politics to figuratively bust some heads for the good of the country and his party.

Specter gets points

By Creature

TPM:

Speaking moments ago to a large and animated crowd of union organizers and health reform advocates in a brewing house just North of the Capitol, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) said he supports a public insurance option.

"Schumer has it right about having a public component," Specter said.

Specter's is the ultimate political opportunist, but the public option needs all the senatorial help it can get, so good for Arlen. Now let's see how he actually votes.