Latest News

McCain Contradicts Himself With First GOP Health Care Amendment

2009-11-30T23:44:21Z

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) introduced the first Republican amendment to the Senate's version of health care reform on Monday. In doing so, he placed himself at odds with a position he championed both a decade ago and during last year's presidential campaign.

The Arizona Republican filed a motion on Monday afternoon to remove hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicare Advantage that Senate negotiators had inserted as a way to help finance health care reform. McCain insisted that the cuts were "unspecified" and, as such, would "directly impact the health care of citizens in this country" and even "eventually lead to rationing of health care in this country."

It was an attack that Republicans have levied against health care reform before. And one that Democratic leadership aides in the Senate expect will continue -- if not grow louder -- in the critical weeks ahead. A vote on the amendment could occur as early as Tuesday.

But, as pointed out by several Democratic sources, just last year McCain himself was looking to cut Medicare and Medicaid as a way to finance expanded health care coverage. During the campaign, the Senator reportedly targeted roughly $1.3 trillion in cuts from the two government-administered programs over the course of 10 years -- well more than the half trillion he says Democrats are pushing.

What's more: back in 1997, McCain voted in favor of raising the eligibility age for Medicare recipients (from 65 to 67) as a way of promoting cost containment within the health care system. In 2005, meanwhile, he backed a budget reconciliation bill that reduced spending on Medicare by $6.4 billion.

All of which constitute something of a political flip. Though the Republican Party as a whole has undergone a similar conversion when it comes to Medicare -- rallying around the taxpayer-funded health care program despite decades of opposition and criticism.

To be fair, however, during the 2008 campaign, then-Sen. Barack Obama whacked McCain for proposing Medicare cuts -- cuts which now comprise a major pay-component of his party's health care reform effort.

"If you count on Medicare," Obama said on the trail, making cuts "would mean fewer places to get care, and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You'll pay more for your drugs, receiver fewer services and get lower-quality care."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Austin Fenner, Ex-NY Post Employee, Sues The Paper, Charges Racism

2009-11-30T22:18:09Z

Another former New York Post employee is suing the paper, alleging that he was subject to unfair employment practices and that editors engaged in racially-motivated news coverage.

Austin Fenner, who was fired from the Post on the same day that former editor Sandra Guzman sued the paper over her own dismissal, claims that he was "routinely humiliated," "openly cursed at" and subjected to "Jim Crow"-style segregation while working as a city desk reporter.

Using the same lawyer as Guzman, Fenner alleges that he too was fired from the paper both for being a minority (he is African-American) and for complaining about racist coverage. Fenner, like Guzman, publicly expressed his disappointment with a Post cartoon that depicted the author of the president's stimulus package as a chimpanzee shot dead by befuddled cops.

A spokeswoman for the New York Post, in an email to the Huffington Post, said that the allegations were "totally false and the claims of discrimination completely baseless."

The complaint filed by Fenner doesn't deliver as many jaw-dropping allegations as Guzman's complaint earlier this month. The 27-page document mainly asserts that editors repeatedly yelled profanities at Fenner, made him travel further and more frequently than his "White" colleagues and denied him the same resources that other reporters received to cover events. Such accusations are occasionally levied in other newsrooms, though the Post has a lengthy history of poor race relations in the newsroom.

There are, however, certain charges that do stick out. Fenner alleges that the two defendants -- Michelle Gotthelf, the metropolitan editor of the Post and Fenner's direct superviser as well as Daniel Greenfied, the assignment editor and deputy metropolitan editor at the paper -- banned him from entering the Post's newsroom for a five-month period.

"Specifically," the complaint alleges, "they told Mr. Fenner that he was forbidden from coming into the newsroom anymore unless he got their permission in advance... Mr. Fenner's ban from the newsroom was an act of utter humiliation designed to strip him of his dignity and self-respect as a reporter and as a man and was based on his race and/or color and implemented to punish him for his opposition to Defendants' discriminatory practices. It was also a throwback to the days of Jim Crow segregation."

The complaint also asserts that after the Post published the controversial chimpanzee cartoon, New York's Governor David Paterson approached the paper asking for an interview on the controversial matter.

"[T]hey refused a request by Governor David Paterson, the first Black Governor of the State of New York, to be interviewed about the cartoon," Fenner's complaint alleges. "Specifically, after Governor Paterson made it know that he wanted to be interviewed about the nature of that cartoon and had also agreed to be interviewed about any other subject, the White editors at the Post summarily refused to interview him.... Such a rejection of a sitting Governor is unprecedented and practically unheard of in journalism."

In alleging "discriminatory treatment, harassment and/or unlawful retaliation" at the hands of the paper's editors, Fenner lists Gotthelf, Greenfield, as well as News Corporation and the Post itself as defendants. His lawsuit comes just weeks after Guzman's, in which it was alleged that she and others were routinely subjected to misogynistic behavior, unfair hiring practices at the paper and an unlawful firing.

Both former employees are being represented by Ken Thompson of the firm Thompson, Wigdor & Gilly LLP.

Asked about Fenner's firing several weeks ago, a spokesperson for the New York Post said that the paper had "no comment on Mr. Fenner's employment status."

READ THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE:

fenner -

Gibbs: Neither McChrystal Nor Eikenberry 'Lost' In Afghan Deliberations

2009-11-30T20:50:53Z

The deliberative process behind President Obama's Afghanistan strategy has produced public disagreements, both within the cabinet and war council, over the proper way forward. On Monday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters that, with the president ordering his plans carried out, those divisions have largely been worked out. Certainly, he stressed, no one felt they "lost" with the final proposal.

"I don't think anybody participated in this process thinking, 'If I offer something in the Situation Room and it is not adopted, then somehow I've lost,'" Gibbs said. "I know there is a Washington game of trying to pick winners and losers. I think when the people step back and look at what the president's ultimate decision will be, I think that everybody sitting in that room had a valuable contribution in making this a better policy for the men and women in our armed services and, quite frankly, for each and every American."

Gibbs's remarks seemed aimed at the disparity that emerged between U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal, whose memo calling for a 40,000-troop increase was leaked several months ago, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry, who warned against a troop buildup very late in the deliberations. Asked specifically about those two people, Gibbs insisted that, upon leaving the final discussions with the White House on Sunday night, "both of those individuals in Afghanistan and the president felt very good about our way forward."

A far more interesting fallout of the Afghanistan debate, however, relates to Vice President Joseph Biden, whose skepticism about sending more troops to Afghanistan was made public in a Newsweek article this October. By Biden's calculations, it made shaky strategic sense to invest more resources and troops to Afghanistan when "al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan and Pakistan has nuclear weapons."

Details of Obama's war plans going forward aren't fully illuminated at this point. And there may very well be a sufficient Pakistan component to the strategy. But if the two briefings Gibbs had with reporters on Monday provided any indication, the preponderance of attention seems likely to be on building up Afghani institutions to ensure that they aren't overrun by insurgents or terrorists.

"The threat from al Qaeda exists in very real ways," Gibbs said. "Not just emanating from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan but throughout the world. The reason that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan was because al Qaeda had the safe haven protection of the government run by the Taliban. What the president will discuss tomorrow is ensuring that we prevent the Taliban from being capable of controlling the government of Afghanistan as well as incapable of providing safe haven from which al Qaeda can plot and undertake terrorist activities like we have seen previously happen in the United States."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Reid Still Has Cards To Play As Health Care Enters Final Stages

2009-11-30T17:52:30Z

As health care reform enters its final stages in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) faces a paramount question: to what extent, if any, does he allow four conservative members of his caucus to trump the will of the 56 others?

The Nevada Democrat, up to this point, has sought to keep the debate moving forward with hopes that enough momentum would build behind reform to ensure its passage in a form acceptable to the overwhelming majority of his caucus. But as the finish line approaches, the schisms have only gotten more pronounced.

Over the Thanksgiving break, Reid talked to those four senators -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas -- to begin charting out compromise approaches to reform, a leadership aide said.

So far, however, the only issue closer to being resolved is which amendments will be considered in the days ahead. Negotiations have begun on the public plan -- with the latest variation being a system that would allow states to opt in to a federal program, while simultaneously establishing economic triggers that could force the plan on those states that don't opt in of their own will. But these conversations remain in their preliminary stages and have not been seriously considered by leadership.

"I don't know of any liberals or progressive in the Senate who would be on board with that," said one high-ranking Senate aide. Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) recently said that four Democratic Senators shouldn't determine a bill that 56 others support -- and the aide said "that was the same rationale that went into choosing the public option opt-out in the first place."

Still, at this juncture, there is a noticeable absence of panic among Reid and his Senate lieutenants - perhaps because Reid , aides and outsiders suggest, does have cards he has yet to play.

"Each of these Senators have things they may want in the bill and concerns beyond the public option that Reid and others can address," said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for the pro-reform group, Health Care for America Now.

And leadership aides don't consider it a given that conserva-Dem opposition to the public option is 100 percent concrete. Nelson, for one, has said he would consider the opt-in alternative and he has not definitively ruled out allowing a floor vote on the more robust proposal. The compromise that Democratic strategists hope can win his vote would be to insert language that prevents the federal government from bailing out the public plan down the road.

Landrieu, meanwhile, signed a "statement of common purpose" before the 2008 elections in which a public option for insurance coverage was one component. Her office has said the she was endorsing the spirit, not fine print, of the letter. Last week, as the Senate voted to bring health care legislation to the floor, she expressed her "concern" over "the current version of the public option included in this bill" and asked Reid to consider adopting the trigger approach.

Aides on the Hill say her hesitancy is based on pure political calculations. Obama lost the state of Louisiana by more than 18 percent in the 2008 election. But if Reid adds enough sweeteners to the legislation, it might make it worthwhile for Landrieu to vote for it - and hard for her to vote against it. The bill already includes $300 million in emergency Medicaid funds for her state. The addition was enough to make Landrieu the target of conservative vile -- something that Democrats say may actually make her more open to reform.

As for Lincoln, the Arkansas Democrat made a giant show of her opposition to the public plan during her floor speech last week even though, as progressive groups were quick to note, that contradicted the views on her own website, which listed the proposal as a desired aspect of health care reform.

An aide to the Senator told the Huffington Post that: "the website's page on health care was taken from a guest column that appeared in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on July 8, 2009, which posed various options that could be used to compete with private plans." The entry was updated late last week with Lincoln adding that back in September she had determined that "a robust, government-run public health care plan would expose taxpayers to too much risk."

The change of heart, observers say, is predictable but not irreversible. "What changed was millions of dollars of spending from pharmaceutical and insurance companies and Republicans in the state that turned the idea of universal health care into something evil," said Max Brantley, editor of the Arkansas Times. "But by dithering, she made the situation worse for herself. She became the dramatic final vote on something that used to be routine... If it was deliberate, it was one of the stupidest moves in political history.

"I think she early on should have said she recognized she would get some heat but said she would work to getting health care done in the end," he added. "Now, I don't think necessarily that her vote will be determinative... I think a lot of that depends on how successfully the Democratic leadership and the administration are able to sell the once-popular notion of better health care."

As Brantley noted, by moving further and further away from the public plan, Lincoln has only managed to enlarge the target on her back. It's coming to the point that the danger is not solely from the Republicans.

"Lincoln is going down for sure if there is no public option," former Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean said in an interview with the Huffington Post last week. "There is already talk of a primary for her. The question is just settling on the candidate."

The thorniest senator of the recalcitrant bunch may, in the end, be the one who technically isn't a Democrat at all. Sen. Joseph Lieberman was the first to express his opposition to the public option. To make matters more difficult for leadership, he has said he opposes the trigger compromise as well.

But Democrats both on and off the Hill are not giving up. One high-ranking strategist predicted that Lieberman's support could yet be won on by focusing on issues outside of the health care debate.

"It's not just health care goodies," the strategist said. "There are clearly issues that he really cares about. There are some issues, like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel [on which you could get his support]... This could just turn out in the end to be an old-style horse race about what happens."

There is also the potential for recriminations if he votes to uphold a Republican filibuster. One lawmaker hinted that Reid and others already have made it clear that Lieberman would risk his chairmanship on the Senate Homeland Security Committee if he were to do so.

"Nothing focuses the mind like a death sentence," the lawmaker said.

In the end, the cards that Reid still has to play -- limited but still potentially effective -- are enough to persuade Democrats that he has a shot at cobbling together the 60 votes needed to get a strong bill past the Senate.

But for some progressive, the history of leadership caving to the demands of those who hold out the longest -- along with the White House's desire to simply get some bill passed -- loom large over the debate's remaining weeks.

"They are going to do what they can to get the votes," said Joe Trippi, a long-time Democratic strategist. "It is really a question of who is going to blink first. And I have to believe that even if they earnestly, all-out fight for [the public plan] they are going to cave in the end."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Gibbs: Obama 'Delivered The Orders' On Afghanistan

2009-11-30T16:29:39Z

President Barack Obama has issued orders for the implementation of his Afghanistan strategy to military officials and cabinet members, spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Monday.

"The commander in chief delivered the orders," said Gibbs, adding that the calls went out from the Oval Office between 5 and 6 p.m on Sunday afternoon, communicating his strategy to allied world leaders. Obama is slated to meet with roughly 30 select members of Congress to discuss his plans on Tuesday. And the president is set to meet on Monday with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in addition to hosting phone conversations with French President Nicholas Sarkozy, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev.

Obama's strategy is believed to include an escalation of approximately 30,000 troops in the nine-year-long war. Gibbs added that in Obama's Tuesday night speech detailing the Afghanistan strategy to the American public, the president will stress that America's commitment to the war is not open-ended.

Gibbs did not get into specifics, including whether there will be timelines for removing U.S. troops, what will happen if benchmarks are not met by the Afghan government and how the war will be paid for.

"Obviously the president is going to reiterate a number of things that you have all had a chance to talk about: the limits on our resources, both from a manpower perspective as well as a budgetary perspective," said Gibbs. "And the president will talk about how... this is not an open-ended commitment. That the goal and the purpose of the strategy is to train an Afghan national security force comprised of an Afghan national army and a police that can fight an unpopular insurgency in Afghanistan."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Levin: There Would Be No Afghan Dilemma If Bush Had Caught Bin Laden

2009-11-29T16:33:00Z

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Carl Levin (D-Mich.) insisted on Sunday that, had it not been for the Bush administration's failure to catch Osama bin Laden in 2001, there likely would be no debate about sending more troops to Afghanistan.

Addressing a new Senate Foreign Relations Committee report claiming bin Laden was nearly captured by U.S. forces at Tora Bora, Levin argued that had the capture taken place, "there would be a good chance we would not have forces or need to have forces [in Afghanistan]."

"This has been kind of well known for some time," Levin added. "We took our eye off the ball instead of moving in on him at Tora Bora, the previous administration decided to move its forces to Iraq. It was a mistake then. I think this report of the Foreign Relations committee just sort of reinforces that."

Released on Sunday, the SFRC report [pdf] provides a harsh indictment of the Bush administration's actions in the early stages of the search for bin Laden.

"Removing the Al Qaeda leader from the battlefield eight years ago would not have eliminated the worldwide extremist threat," reads the executive summary. "But the decisions that opened the door for his escape to Pakistan allowed bin Laden to emerge as a potent symbolic figure who continues to attract a steady flow of money and inspire fanatics world-wide. The failure to finish the job represents a lost opportunity that forever altered the course of the conflict in Afghanistan and the future of international terrorism, leaving the American people more vulnerable to terrorism, laying the foundation for today's protracted Afghan insurgency and inflaming the internal strife now endangering Pakistan. Al Qaeda shifted its locus across the border into Pakistan, where it has trained extremists linked to numerous plots, including the July 2005 transit bombings in London and two recent aborted attacks involving people living in the United States. The terrorist group's resurgence in Pakistan has coincided with the rising violence orchestrated in Afghanistan by the Taliban, whose leaders also escaped only to re-emerge to direct today's increasingly lethal Afghan insurgency."

Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Levin also stressed that any increase in U.S. forces in Afghanistan had to be accompanied by an equal commitment within the country to bolster its own security.

"I think there's greater question on why the additional troops would help increase the size of the Afghan army," Levin said. "When I was in Afghanistan, I was told that the greatest need in Afghanistan is for more Afghan troops."

"I favor additional trainers, I favor a surge in equipment," the Michigan Democrat added, "but the key here is an Afghan surge, not an American surge."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

GOP Wages Internal Debate Over Tax Increase For Afghan War

2009-11-29T16:12:29Z

Two former advisers to George W. Bush had a spirited debate on Sunday morning over the possibility of a surtax to pay for a troop escalation in Afghanistan.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Dan Senor, a neoconservative war hawk who served as Bush's spokesman in Iraq, called proposals for taxing the rich to pay for the war a backdoor effort to derail any surge in forces. He was opposed by another Bush hand, former communications honcho Matthew Dowd -- a GOP traditionalist -- who said it was unfair to have an increase in troops without a shared social sacrifice.

The whole exchange is worthwhile, but the below portion was particularly illuminating:

SENOR: Let's be honest about what this is about. It's about a campaign against President Obama's troops surge. It's not really about paying for it. It's about arguing against it.

GEORGE WILL: And there's going to be no surtax. We all agree on that. So everyone, relax.

DOWD: I agree with you. There is not going to be a tax. But I think this goes to a fundamental value that I think we lost, which is that we can get things for nothing. That we can go to war and not have to pay for it either by cutting the budget or doing something else. We have a war; we don't have a draft. All of these sorts of things, that we think, 'Oh, by way, we can go fight the most important war in the history of our country, but we're not going to have a draft, we're not going to pay for it, we're not going to do anything that causes anybody to sacrifice.'

SENOR: If [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and [House Appropriations Committee Chairman David] Obey were being intellectually honest about this they would wage a war against the President's surge policy Wednesday morning. As opposed to doing this via some proposed surtax.

[Snip]

DOWD: David Obey's idea I think underlines the problem that we don't ask people -- when we say these things are important -- we don't ask the country to come together for them.

Coming days before President Obama is set to announce an increase in roughly 30,000 to 35,000 troops in Afghanistan, the debate between Senor and Dowd provides a window into the Republican Party's internal divisions. While Democratic opposition to a troop escalation is well known, the disagreement inside the GOP seems to be primarily along the margins. Elsewhere on Sunday, for example, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) argued that it was a "sham" to insist that Congress had to be cautious and concerned about the costs of the Afghan war. But on another show, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) -- the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- acknowledged the need to consider "the capacity of our country to finance this particular situation."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Dean: Obama Will Win In 2012, 'Going To Do Fine'

2009-11-29T15:26:58Z

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean urged progressives on Sunday to have patience with President Barack Obama, predicting that the White House would pass comprehensive health care legislation and touting stimulus package successes.

The former Vermont Governor, a respected progressive voice himself, told Fox News Sunday that he thought Obama was "going to do fine" and would "get re-elected" in 2012.

"But I think we'll have a tough election in 2010 unless we can start dealing with the job situation," Dean added.

"He's not in big trouble with his own base," the former DNC Chair said. "I think we need to give him time. If we are successful -- and I do think there's a better chance than not that we'll pass a decent health care bill at the end of the day. It's just a frustrating time right now. I think he needs some time and he'll have that time and we'll pass a decent health care bill that really is going to start reform... Jobs are the biggest concern right now. I will say this -- the stimulus package, which has come under Republican attack, has been unbelievably successful in saving jobs. Hundreds of thousands of teachers and police officers would have been laid off by the states. Now we have a big problem coming up. That money is going to be spent halfway through the next fiscal year and states are really going to be on the hook. These huge drops in state revenue as we go through this recession. But I'm more optimistic in that I think small businesses will be helped enormously by health care reform, small businesses with payrolls less than half a million dollars don't have to buy health insurance anymore for their employees. That's a big step forward."

Dean's positive take on the Obama presidency was echoed to some extent by his co-panelist, Fox News host Mike Huckabee. While the former Arkansas Governor scoffed at the idea that the stimulus had been, in any way, a success, he did caution fellow Republicans not to buy into the narrative that the president was in some sort of political malaise.

"The Republican Party needs to unite if it's going to win in 2012, and anyone who thinks Barack Obama is an easy mark off, just remember Bill Clinton was just labeled politically dead and came back to win a resounding re-election in 1996," said Huckabee.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Tony Blair Defends Obama On Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

2009-11-29T15:03:55Z

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair came to President Barack Obama's defense on Sunday after a scathing New York Times editorial accused the White House of losing legitimacy and strategic standing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," Blair urged, above all, patience in resolving a problem that has confounded so many previous administrations. noting, also, how long it took to resolve the discord in Northern Ireland. More subtly, he contrasted Obama's commitment to the issue to that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, arguing the importance of setting a "strategic objective" for the region at the onset of the administration.

Asked if he agreed with the NYT editorial, which claimed that "Obama's own credibility [on Israel-Palestine] is so diminished... that serious negotiations may be farther off than ever," Blair replied:

I don't, actually. I mean, it won't surprise you to know. I think that, first of all, let me tell you that I have worked with Senator George Mitchell on the Northern Ireland peace negotiations. We work together very closely. He is, in my view, one of the most skilled and strategic negotiators I've ever come across. Secondly, I think President Obama, Secretary Clinton are completely committed to doing this. But third and perhaps most important of all, I went through situations in times in the Northern Ireland process where people were convinced the thing was going to fail. Where even at times, I found it difficult to see a way through. But you know, the thing is, there is a way through here. Because in fact both parties want to achieve a two-state solution.

Actually, the Palestinians have made significant progress on security. in fact, the Israelis are prepared, in my view, to change significantly their posture on the West Bank. And if we can get [captured Israeli soldier] Corporal Shalit released, than a major change in the way that we view Gaza. It's not without hope. And here's the thing... There is no alternative but to keep trying. The alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution and that will, I assure you, be a hell of a fight. So I think when we look at the various strands of negativity there are around at the moment and there always are in these negotiations, there are, nonetheless, positives. We've got to seize on them, work on them, and make sure that we bring about a situation in which the central strategic objective of President Obama, which is right at the outset of his administration, to make this process count and work is achieved.

And I do emphasize that as well. The president set this at the beginning. This is, to my mind, the big difference from what has come before. At the very beginning of this administration, he set that as a core strategic objective. I have absolutely no doubt he holds to that and whatever the difficulties and the obstacles; we have to find a way through. And personally, although as I say I am optimist by nature, I believe we will.

HERE'S VIDEO OF BLAIR ON CNN:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Lugar: Let's Put Health Care On Hold To Deal With Afghanistan

2009-11-29T14:44:54Z

One of President Barack Obama's closest Republican allies in the Senate urged him to put health care reform on the backburner and focus on Afghanistan.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a trusted GOP voice on foreign policy matters, told CNN's "State of the Union" that in light of a forthcoming increase in troops to Afghanistan, Democrats should turn their attention to matters of war and money.

"[W]e're not going to do that debating health care and the Senate for three weeks through all sorts of strategies and so forth," said the Indiana Republican. "The war is terribly important. Jobs and our economy are terribly important. So this may be an audacious suggestion, but I would suggest we put aside the health care debate until next year, the same way we put cap and trade and climate change and talk now about the essentials, the war and money."

The remark seemed to fit in well with an overarching Republican strategy of delaying health care reform talks. And Lugar received immediate pushback from his co-panelist, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.).

"Absolutely not," said the Rhode Island Democrat. "I think we're in the midst of probably the most significant debate and conclusion with legislation that we've ever had. And the health care debate is essential to our economic future. There are businesses and individuals each year pay more and more for health care, it's become unaffordable. We have to go ahead and conclude this debate. To stop now would be stopping on the edge, I think, of significant reform, which is so important for the country. And frankly, I think, it's ironic. Under the Bush administration, there was no serious debate about Afghanistan. That was relegated to the sidelines. There was no attempt to pay for it. And suddenly, now, that becomes a critical need that we put aside health care. I don't think so. I think we have to push forward."

The two panelists did find some common ground on the question of whether the escalation of war in Afghanistan needed to be fully and properly funded. Both suggested that raising taxes on the American public should, at the very least, be considered.

"I believe there will be a separate accounting," Lugar said. "I think we will have to pay for it. I would just make this suggestion: that in the three weeks of debate we still have ahead of us, we really ought to concentrate in Congress on the war, on the overall strategy of our country and the cost of it. And we ought to be on the budget, passing appropriation bills in a proper way. In the course of that, we may wish to break out that. We may wish to discuss higher taxes to pay for it."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Dean: Lieberman Should Give Up Chairmanship If He Backs GOP Health Care Filibuster

2009-11-25T17:21:30Z

With Additional Reporting By Julian Hattem

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean called on Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn) to resign as chair of Senate Homeland Security Committee if he can't bring himself to oppose a Republican filibuster of health care reform legislation.

Appearing on "The Joe Scarborough Show" on WABC, Dean stressed that he had no problem with Lieberman opposing the bill on its philosophical merits, or lack thereof. But he insisted that it was irresponsible and unprincipled to not allow the legislation to come to an up-or-down vote.

"I think that [Lieberman] is a very complicated guy," said Dean. "He does [confuse me] because he says he's a principled guy but there's nothing principled about holding up a bill... If he was a principled guy he'd resign his chairmanship."

"If you are with a caucus you don't owe the leader any vote on any substance," Dean added. "I have no problem with him voting against the public option... You owe it to Harry Reid to allow him to run the Senate. And if you're not willing to do that the proper thing to do is to step aside."

Dean's remarks, which come after Lieberman renewed his pledge to filibuster health care reform that includes a public option, reflect an intense frustration among progressives over the ability of moderates to water down or stall legislation. They also suggest a growing demand for leadership to enforce institutional discipline and punish those who buck the party line. It was, after all, roughly one year ago that Dean applauded Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) and President-elect Obama for allowing Lieberman to retain his committee chairmanship and continue caucusing with the party.

Elsewhere in his Wednesday interview, the former DNC chairman urged the party to reconsider the use of reconciliation to pass aspects of reform. Such a parliamentary maneuver, he noted, would remove the "leverage" of the party's conservative members by allowing the bill an up-or-down vote.

"[Lieberman has] announced he's gong to be "stubborn" about this," said Dean, "and I think that means going to reconciliation. You can start it all over and that's going to take about six weeks, but there are a majority of senators who are not going to be in favor [a bill] without a public option."

Palin News Is Top Story For Only Two Percent Of Public, According To New Study

2009-11-25T15:20:27Z

The media is drastically overplaying former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's influence on the national political conversation, suggests a new study of the public's news-watching patterns.

The Pew Research Center released a public opinion survey on Wednesday showing that, of the recent news stories people followed most closely, the one-time vice presidential candidate and her book tour have garnered very little sustained interest.

Only two percent of respondents said that news of Palin and her new book, "Going Rogue," was the story they followed "most closely" this past week. Only ten percent said they were following it "very closely." Compare that to the 41 percent who said that the health care reform debate was their top story and 18 percent who said the same about the swine flu epidemic.

Pushing the point a bit further, Pew discovered that: "Most Americans (52%) say they have been hearing too much about Palin, while 26% say they have been hearing the right amount and 13% say they have been hearing too little about her. Far more say they are hearing too much about Palin now than in July, after her surprise resignation as Alaska's governor (38%)."

The findings reflect just how far apart the public and the press are when it comes to news coverage. Certainly there seems to be a greater appetite out there for substantive reporting on health care -- as well as less interest in wall-to-wall Palin coverage -- than conventional wisdom dictates.

That said, the numbers should be taken with some qualifiers. For starters, not all substantive news was of public interest. Only four percent of respondents said that President Obama's trip to Asia was their top story (though time differences may have had something to do with that).

Moreover, the findings are likely to be tilted by the fact that those surveyed may be more inclined to say they follow serious news rather than the tabloid-like material on Palin. Certainly, it has been widely documented that coverage of the conservative firebrand is doing wonders for the traffic of various news websites.

Will Biden And Kerry Support A War Surtax Again?

2009-11-25T13:27:13Z

Six years ago, when then-President George W. Bush requested an additional $87 billion from Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, several prominent Democrats called his bluff. If Bush wanted to continue funding the wars, he'd have to find a way to pay for it.

Sens. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced a joint amendment to the emergency war supplemental in September 2003 that would have funded Bush's $87 billion request by suspending the high-end portion of the tax cuts he had enacted two years earlier.

The pair said it was smart politics and policy -- something to satisfy both deficit and war hawks alike. "We can either pass on to our grandchildren the cost of meeting our security needs, we can cut deeper into the services middle-class taxpayers count on or we can face our obligations squarely and pay for them," Biden said at the time.

"What this is about is called fundamental fairness," said Kerry. "Is it fair in America to suggest that you can add to the deficit -- which it will this year -- to suggest all of the figures of this administration, which have been wrong, can be wiped away on the backs of the average American so that the wealthiest people in the country can keep their tax cut? That is the question. It is a pretty simple fundamental question."

Six years later, the notion of levying a tax on the wealthiest Americans to pay for an escalation of troops in Afghanistan is once again being considered. And the list of supporters includes some prominent House Democrats: Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey (D-Wisc.) and Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.). On Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) hinted she might join the chorus when she said there was growing "unrest" in the Democratic Caucus over whether the country could "afford this war."

There is no word yet as to whether the proposal has wider support in Congress. The Obama administration, meanwhile, has refused to comment on what it deems a hypothetical matter -- noting that the president has yet to announce a policy that reportedly includes a deployment of an additional 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan.

"I'm not going to get into how one funds a decision that's yet to be made," Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on Monday. "I don't doubt we'll have some time to do that."

Nevertheless, as the debate makes its way into the Senate and the White House, both Biden and Kerry find themselves in more powerful positions to affect the conversation than in 2003. Certainly, as vice president and chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, respectively, their stance on a war surtax could go a long way towards determining its passage as well as providing another barometer of the Biden's influence within the administration.

Both offices declined comment for this article. But observers say that while there are parallels between 2003 and 2009, the politics are different.

"There is some relationship between the [then and now]," said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "But I don't think the Democrats then were wanting to stop the war then so much as they were eager to go after the Bush tax cuts. They were aiming to make a point as opposed to pass legislation. Which is what Obey is trying to do. No one expects his approach to win even if it gets a vote."

Of course, both Biden and Kerry came up short in 2003. With the GOP controlling Congress and Bush in the White House, their amendment was defeated 57 to 42. Weeks later, the Senate passed an emergency supplemental that was not deficit-neutral. Biden voted for the measure; Kerry, along with 10 other Democrats, was in opposition. During the 2004 election, the Massachusetts Democrat famously argued that he was for the bill (when it was paid for by repealing elements of the Bush tax cuts) before he was against it. And the rest, as they say, is history.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Reid Sees More Problems Than Solutions In Using Reconciliation

2009-11-24T20:14:08Z

Despite mounting pressure to pass health care legislation through a parliamentary maneuver that would allow portions to be considered by an up-or-down vote, Democratic leadership in Congress insists that its best option remains regular order.

After several conservative Democrats in the Senate signaled their support for a Republican filibuster of reform that includes a public option for insurance coverage, a growing chorus of progressives called on Majority Leader Harry Reid to use reconciliation to get the provision passed.

The logic is simple: because the public option affects the budget it can be considered under reconciliation, which allows legislation to pass by a 51-vote majority.

The politics, however, are more complex. A Democratic Senate aide, speaking more candidly about strategy on condition of anonymity, said that the party still thinks its best shot to pass health care reform -- and, to a lesser extent, a public option -- remains through the use of normal parliamentary procedures.

For starters, leadership believes that more senators will be persuaded to vote for an entire health care package rather than individual bits and pieces. If Reid settles on the route of reconciliation, it would mean separating other aspects of reform, including caps on insurance premiums, the promotion of health and wellness and the elimination of pre-existing conditions as a reason for denying coverage.

"Right now the best thing we can do is to do everything at once, score everything at once, and build momentum for the bill," said the aide.

Maybe so. But such reasoning doesn't fly for advocates of reconciliation who argue that splitting up the health care bill actually makes political sense. The public option, after all, is the most hotly-contested part of the legislation. So an up-or-down vote may be the one avenue to ensure its passage. The private industry reforms, meanwhile, are largely non-controversial. So putting those provisions in a separate bill and passing them through regular order shouldn't be too difficult.

Again, however, aides insist that the devil is in the details. "The parliamentarian might tell us that, even if we have data on the public option being a budget utility, they might say we can't do it," warned the Senate Democratic aide. "Because you still have to create the exchange, you still have to have the force of law. And you may have to scale the public plan back for it to qualify."

There are other complications, added the aide. The House of Representatives, for instance, would have to go back to the drawing board after passing a full health care bill several weeks ago. And the concern on the Senate side of the aisle is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi could lose votes if she has to split up the legislation (though, if it meant ultimate passage, this seems unlikely).

The calendar presents another challenge. The White House has been pushing to get a bill to the president's desk before the new year. But reconciliation would likely push that time line back weeks, if not months, interfering with efforts to take up climate change and regulatory reform, running into the start of the 2010 campaign. "Where is the Senate floor time?" the aide asked.

Finally, the aide says, there is a question of votes. While leadership would have the flexibility to let ten Democratic senators vote against health care reform considered via reconciliation, there is enough parliamentary purism within the party to put its passage in doubt. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has repeatedly spoken out against the use of reconciliation. On Tuesday, meanwhile, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) told MSNBC that his preference was for regular order. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), one of the party's foremost champions of progressive reform, has stated a similar preference. Though, an aide tells the Huffington Post, "he has not made any statements about how he would vote on the bill if that were the case."

Most important of all, Reid himself has said rather definitively that he is "not using reconciliation." And an aide says that leadership has not had conversations with the Senate parliamentarian "in a while" to discuss what it can and can't do through reconciliation.

And yet, for all the hurdles, the push for Reid to go down this path just won't die. Jane Hamsher, a progressive health care activist who runs the site, FireDogLake, has put heavy pressure on the Majority Leader in recent days, writing: "It comes down to a simple question: will Harry Reid allow for majority rule? Or will he let corrupt members of his own caucus block a majority of the public and Congress who want a public option?"

Meanwhile, in an interview on Monday with the Huffington Post, Howard Dean insisted that, with the public option debate at a veritable stalemate, the use of reconciliation "looks better every time."

"Someone has to say, at some point, we need to pass a bill," concluded the former DNC Chair.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Dems To Vitter: Denounce Glenn Beck's Landrieu-Prostitute Analogies

2009-11-24T17:29:30Z

The Louisiana Democratic Party, in a rather humorous and bold press release on Tuesday, called for Senator David Vitter (R-La.) to denounce conservatives who have called his fellow Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) a prostitute for her support of health care reform.

Vitter, of course, has his own sordid history with ladies of the night. So the chance to tie him to recent claims from the likes of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh that Landrieu was whoring out her health care vote was just too inviting to pass up.

Landrieu was able to secure $100 million in federal Medicaid subsidies for her state, ostensibly in exchange for agreeing to allow health care legislation to come to the floor of the Senate. Glenn Beck called the senator a "high-class prostitute ... She may be easy, but she ain't cheap."

Rush Limbaugh echoed Beck's comment, calling Landrieu "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitutes."

The full press release:

Today, the Louisiana Democratic Party called on U.S. Senator David Vitter to publicly denounce comments from some conservative commentators referring to Louisiana's senior Senator as a "prostitute" for securing crucial federal funding needed to fill a gap in Louisiana's budget.

"David Vitter should immediately and publicly denounce the offensive accusations conservative commentators are making about our state's senior Senator," said Louisiana Democratic Party Communications Director Natalie Naquin Harvey.

As a looming budget crisis threatens to bankrupt Louisiana's state government, Senator Mary Landrieu announced Saturday from the Senate floor that she had secured $300 million in federal funding to help make up for shortfalls in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP), a formula used to determine the federal government's share in providing medical care to the poor and uninsured. A temporary spike in per capita income following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita could lead to a loss of $500 million in federal funding, according the Jindal Administration.

"David Vitter supported the FMAP fix, but it was Senator Landrieu who secured the much needed funds to help solve a looming budget crisis that threatens to bankrupt our state," Harvey said. "The least David Vitter can do is stand up for her when members of his own party call her a prostitute."

On his radio program yesterday, Glenn Beck referred to Senator Landrieu as a "high-class prostitute." "She may be easy, but she ain't cheap," Beck said.

Rush Limbaugh later echoed Beck's charge on his widely syndicated show, calling Louisiana's senior Senator "the most expensive prostitute in the history of prostitutes."

To date, Senator David Vitter has been silent on Beck and Limbaugh's outlandish and offensive insults of Senator Landrieu.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!