You can hear the defenses now, but they are coming from fewer and fewer quarters. And they are become feebler - consider this one:

[T]he latest collective freak-out is over the proposed discretionary spending freeze that Obama will explain in the State of the Union address and that his administration is rolling out tonight. [. . .] What progressives should be concerned about isn't a spending freeze that is more symbolic than meaningful. [. . .] This stupid spending freeze is peanuts that won't mean anything in the larger picture. Congress probably won't go along with it anyway. [. . .] The best I can say for this bit of triangulation is that it polls well and it doesn't mean anything. The fiscal problems in Washington are endemic and unsolvable in our present system, and pretending the amount of money we're talking about here is even a drop in the bucket is just silly.

When this is the best that even an aspiring cheerleader can muster, you have to wonder about the political value of the politics of weakness being practiced by the Obama team. Here is Obama stalwart Nate Silver:

It has sunk in - the House will not pass the Stand Alone Senate bill. That is a political fact. Proponents of the Senate health bill seem to have accepted this reality - here is Ezra Klein:

Obama, who isn't particularly connected to this deal, can demand the Senate pass a reconciliation bill stripping [the Nelson deal] from the legislation. That's actually a pretty good narrative for the reconciliation rider. And the neat thing about a reconciliation bill is that Nelson can even vote against it -- as can eight of his closest Democratic friends. [. . .] The other thing that reconciliation rider will have to handle is the excise tax. [. . .] The unions might want to think about negotiating a raised limit for everybody [. . .] instead of letting themselves become the next villain in this process.

I doubt the unions are much concerned about being the GOP "villains." The excise tax itself will more likely be the "villain" anyway. The best result would be eliminating it.

Speaking for me only

Steve Benen neatly encapsules the blinders of the Village Dems and bloggers regarding the the political toxicity of the excise tax contained in the Senate health bill:

[I]s there anything Dems can do to get the winds to blow back in the other direction? [. . . we talked earlier about David Plouffe's advice to the party, with suggestions that struck me as sound: "pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay"

In these two posts, Benen never mentions the political problem that is caused by the excise tax. Not once. Others have a better grasp of the problem:

E.J. Dionne:

[L]eaders of both Houses are considering: The House would pass a version of the reconciliation bill containing the various amendments and send it to the Senate. The Senate would change it slightly (in ways that the House agreed to), which would require the House to vote on it again. Only after it got the revised reconciliation bill would the House take up the Senate bill. The House could then pass both bills and send both to the president. Problem solved, health-care passes, and we move on.

Finally, someone is addressing the situation constructively.

The principal architect and proponent of the excise tax, Jon Gruber, is one of the signatories to the letter urging passage of the Stand Alone Senate bill sent to House leaders. As I explained before, whatever you think of the merits of the excise tax, it is the principal stumbling block for passage of the Senate bill in the House. But it also would be a principal obstacle to a populist message for the Dems in the 2010 elections. As I wrote about earlier, John Judis argues that the biggest problem with the Senate health bill is the perception that it harms middle class voters at the expense of corporation and the wealthy:

Where Obama invited a voter backlash was by letting the burden of reducing health care costs appear to fall on senior citizens and those middle-class workers who had acquired good health insurance through decades of union battles with management, and not on the insurance and drug companies. Obama ceded too much to the policy wonks who were devising intricate schemes to show they could cut the deficit. He took his eye of off the political imperative of keeping middle America in his corner.

The excise tax was a political poison pill. Ironically, there is a chance to fix that now. Dems should jump at the chance.

Speaking for me only

to the wrong people:

Nearly four dozen of the nation's leading health care luminaries [sent] a letter [to House leaders . . .] We have come further than we have ever come before. Only two steps remain. The House must adopt the Senate bill, and the President must sign it. [. . .] Some differences between the bills, such as the scope of the tax on high-cost plans and the allocation of premium subsidies, should be repaired through the reconciliation process[.]"

(Emphasis supplied.) Far be it from me to correct "four dozen health care luminaries," but that is 3 steps, not 2. And the third step is the point now. House Dems will not cross the unions. The third step has to happen with passage of the Senate bill. Unless the "luminaries" have GOTV operations as strong as the unions, they sent their letter to the wrong place. They need to send it to the OTHER side of the Capital - the Senate.

Speaking for me only

There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn’t materialize, insiders said. “The Senate moderates’ viewpoint is, ‘We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Senate is the problem. First they let Max Baucus waste 3 months last summer on health care. Then they let Max Baucus insert the poison pill excise tax. Now they refuse to agree to fix the excise tax. The Senate has always been the problem on the health bill.

Speaking for me only

A lot of people who championed the excise tax are very upset that the House Dems will not pass the Senate health bill stand alone. I've spent most of the past few days arguing that without a fix of the excise tax (via a companion reconciliation bill), House Dems will never pass the Senate bill because the unions, one of the most important constituencies in the Dem coalition, especially when it comes to electoral activities, will vehemently oppose passage. Of course, it is not clear that even with the excise tax fix, passage would occur. But without the fix, it definitely will not be passed. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi simply can not even approach the 218 vote number without an excise tax fix.

Which raises the question - was the excise tax worth it? If the health bill dies now, the main reasons for its death will be the decision to let Max Baucus hijack the process last summer and then allowing Baucus to insert the excise tax financing mechanism instead of using the House mechanism of a tax on the wealthy (those earning over $500,000 a year.) If the health bill fails, the overreach of Baucus, endorsed by most Village Dems, will be the main culprit. Was it worth it? I assume there may be some regrets on that score now.

Speaking for me only

WaPo:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that [. . .]"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters after a morning meeting with her caucus. "I don't see the votes for it at this time." [. . .] Aides said afterward that the best option would be for the Senate to pass a bill that fixes those and other issues under fast-track rules that require a simple majority. But the Senate has not agreed to do so.

This is the political reality. Whether Village Dems will accept that or not, that is where we are.

With the Democrats in political trouble, I think the Supreme Court's decision today in the Citizen's United case provides Democrats with a big political opening. The NYTimes is reporting that President Obama is favoring Paul Volcker's idea to limit the size and activities of banks:

The president, for the first time, will throw his weight behind an approach long championed by Paul A. Volcker, former chairman of the Federal Reserve and an adviser to the Obama administration. The proposal will put limits on bank size and prohibit commercial banks from trading for their own accounts — known as proprietary trading.

Republicans will support the banks. They will also support the Citizens United decision, which provides corporations free rein to spend lavishly on politicians. These developments provide the President and Democrats the chance to show some populist chops. Opportunity knocks politically. And not a moment too soon for the Dems.

Speaking for me only

Update: John Edwards is now in Haiti helping with relief efforts. Not a surprise given his trips to El Salvador to build houses last year. Gotta give him credit for trying to redeem himself.

John Edwards has released this statement admitting paternity of Rielle Hunter's child to NBC News:

“I am Quinn’s father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves. I have been able to spend time with her during the past year and trust that future efforts to show her the love and affection she deserves can be done privately and in peace.

It was wrong for me ever to deny she was my daughter and hopefully one day, when she understands, she will forgive me. I have been providing financial support for Quinn and have reached an agreement with her mother to continue providing support in the future.

To all those I have disappointed and hurt these words will never be enough, but I am truly sorry.”

Friends of John and Elizabeth say they are separated. Elizabeth has opened a furniture store.

Claiming the mantle of "political realist" has been the mantra of people supporting the Stand Alone Senate bill. In fact, political realists should have seen the fundamental political flaw of the Senate bill. John Judis describes it:

Where Obama invited a voter backlash was by letting the burden of reducing health care costs appear to fall on senior citizens and those middle-class workers who had acquired good health insurance through decades of union battles with management, and not on the insurance and drug companies. Obama ceded too much to the policy wonks who were devising intricate schemes to show they could cut the deficit. He took his eye of off the political imperative of keeping middle America in his corner.

(Emphasis supplied.) The Village Dems spent yesterday screaming "it's simple" - pass the Senate bill. This meltdown was revealing, the Village Dems have no connection to political reality. There simply is no doubt that, speaking politically, there is no worse feature in the health bill than the excise tax. It was an unproven policy that was sure to cause a political debacle. Indeed, it is the principal impediment to the House passing the Senate bill stand alone.

Speaking for me only