Latest News

Mikhail Gorbachev Supports US Withdrawal From Afghanistan (Video)

2009-11-08T23:03:17Z

Mikhail Gorbachev supports a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The former president of the Soviet Union spoke to CNN's John King Sunday on State Of The Union and after talking about the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Gorbachev suggested that the US revisit the Kremlin's efforts to control Afghanistan as the US plans its next move.

"I think that what's needed is not additional forces," said Gorbachev. "This is something that we discussed, too, years ago, and we decided not to do it. And I think our experience deserves attention." McClatchy has reported that President Obama is leaning toward sending as many as 34,000 more US troops to Afghanistan. The Soviet Union fought for nine years in Afghanistan in a war to support Afghanistan's then-communist government. The USSR ultimately lost the war and 13,000 of its soldiers died.

Gorbachev concluded that for the US, "withdrawal from Afghanistan should be the goal."

Frank Luntz: Americans Are "Mad As Hell" (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T19:15:36Z

Republican pollster and communications guru Frank Luntz joined the roundtable on ABC's This Week today to discuss the significance of the House passing its health care reform bill last night. Luntz, who wrote a comprehensive memo detailing a strategy to defeat Democratic efforts at health care reform, said that his polling showed Americans won't take to the House's bill because they are increasingly worried about government spending. In general, his polling shows Americans "are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore," Luntz said.

You can watch that clip here, or watch the full roundtable discussion below.

Betsy Markey Shuns Party, Votes No On Health Care Bill

2009-11-08T18:43:30Z

Rep. Betsy Markey voted against a health-care reform bill backed by President Barack Obama and the House Democratic leadership Saturday night, citing concerns over the cost of the bill.

"It was a difficult decision because there's a lot of good things in the bill, as well, that I like, but in the end, I just didn't think that it did enough to control health-care costs," the Fort Collins Democrat said in an interview with the Coloradoan, calling it the most difficult vote she's cast in her 10 months in Congress.

Obama Remarks On Health Care Passed in House: LIVE VIDEO

2009-11-08T17:59:21Z

President Obama is giving remarks about the House of Representatives passing a health care reform bill.

Watch it live below.

JOIN THE LIVE CHAT

VISIT WHITEHOUSE.GOV

Ensign Moves Out Of C Street Home

2009-11-08T17:11:36Z

Sen. John Ensign has moved out of the C Street house, the Christian home he shared with other elected officials on Capitol Hill that came under scrutiny for its residents' beliefs and practices and their role in trying to end the Nevada Republican's affair with a campaign staff member.

Fat Pride Community: We're Being Scapegoated In Health Care Debate

2009-11-08T17:05:01Z

Marilyn Wann is an author and weight diversity speaker in Northern California who has a message for anyone making judgments about her health based on her large physique. "The only thing anyone can accurately diagnose by looking at a fat person is their own level of stereotype and prejudice about fat," said Ms. Wann, a 43-year-old San Franciscan whose motto in life is also the title of her book: "Fat! So?"

Hers has been an oft-repeated message this summer and fall by members of the "fat pride" community, given that the nation is in the midst of a debate about health care. That debate has, sometimes awkwardly, focused its attention on the growing population of overweight and obese Americans with unambiguous overtones: fat people should lose weight, for the good of us all.

Lieberman Pledges To Filibuster House Bill "As A Matter Of Conscience" (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T16:59:11Z

Joe Lieberman showed no sign of dropping his filibuster threat on Sunday morning, when he pledged to help kill any health care reform that includes a public option.

The Hill reported last week that the Connecticut senator had reached a "private understanding" with Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to let the bill pass. Both he and Democratic leadership denied the report, and publicly Lieberman is only increasing his commitment to the filibuster.

"A public option plan is unnecessary. It has been put forward, I'm convinced, by people who really want the government to take over all of health insurance," he told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday." "If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote."

Watch:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Supreme Court To Decide If Life In Prison For Juveniles Is "Cruel And Unusual"

2009-11-08T16:50:56Z

WASHINGTON — Joe Sullivan was sent away for life for raping an elderly woman and judged incorrigible though he was only 13 at the time of the attack.

Terrance Graham, implicated in armed robberies when he was 16 and 17, was given a life sentence by a judge who told the teenager he threw his life away.

They didn't kill anyone, but they effectively were sentenced to die in prison.

Life sentences with no chance of parole are rare and harsh for juveniles tried as adults and convicted of crimes less serious than killing. Just over 100 prison inmates in the United States are serving those terms, according to data compiled by opponents of the sentences.

Now the Supreme Court is being asked to say that locking up juveniles and throwing away the key is cruel and unusual – and thus, unconstitutional. Other than in death penalty cases, the justices never before have found that a penalty crossed the cruel-and-unusual line. They will hear arguments Monday.

Graham, now 22, and Sullivan, now 33, are in Florida prisons, which hold more than 70 percent of juvenile defendants locked up for life for nonhomicide crimes. Although their lawyers deny their clients are guilty, the court will consider only whether the sentences are permitted by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's latest look at how to punish young criminals flows directly from its 4-year-old decision to rule out the death penalty for anyone younger than 18.

In that 2005 case decided by a 5-4 vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion talked about "the lesser culpability of the juvenile offender."

"From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor's character deficiencies will be reformed," Kennedy said.

Yet Kennedy also acknowledged the possibility that for the worst crimes and the worst offenders, "the punishment of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is itself a severe sanction, in particular for a young person."

Both sides point to the same basic facts – the rare imposition of Draconian prison terms on people so young – to make their point.

The state of Florida, backed by 19 other states, argues it should retain flexibility in sentencing so that "particularly heinous acts that stop short of causing death" can be punished vigorously.

Life without parole "is appropriately rare and reserved only for the worst of the worst offenders," crime victims' groups said in court papers.

Most victims of juvenile violence also are young, the victims groups said, citing Justice Department statistics. "Softening sentences for juvenile offenders puts actual children in harm's way – innocent ones, not those who have committed violent crimes," the victims' groups said.

Opponents of such sentences said, however, that most states have in practice rejected life terms for juveniles when no one was killed. The 109 juveniles serving terms of life without parole are in Florida and seven other states – California, Delaware, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska and South Carolina – according to a Florida State University study. More than 2,000 other juveniles are serving life without parole for killing someone.

Only 9 people in the country are serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were 13. The number rises to 73 when 14-year-olds are added in.

No other country allows life sentences for young offenders, opponents say.

Beyond the infrequency of such punishment, lawyers for Graham and Sullivan argue that it is a bad idea to render a final judgment about people so young.

"They are unfinished products, works-in-progress," said Bryan Stevenson, who will argue Sullivan's case at the high court.

Actor Charles Dutton, former U.S. Sen. Alan Simpson and others who committed crimes as teenagers have weighed in against life without parole sentences. Corrections officials, psychologists, educators and even some victims also have taken Graham's and Sullivan's side.

"The crimes that these guys committed were grotesque," Simpson said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "I'm sure people will say Simpson's gone soft in the head."

The Wyoming Republican served 18 years in the Senate, but as a teenager, he pleaded guilty to setting fire to an abandoned building on federal property and later spent a night in jail for slugging a police officer.

Simpson said he sees no good argument for refusing even to review their sentences after the passage of time.

"When they get to be 30 or 40 and they been in the clink for 20 years or 30 or 40 and they have learned how to read and how to do things, why not?"

If a prisoner shows he is not fit to be released, "throw him back in," he said. "That's better than saying 'Sorry, we can't look at that file because you were sent here for life.'"

As their cases come to the court, Sullivan's and Graham's interests are not strictly aligned. The justices could, for example, decide that life sentences may be inappropriate for 13-year-olds, but allow them for older teenagers.

Such a decision could help Sullivan and another Florida inmate, Ian Manuel, who wounded a woman in a shooting when he was 13. But it could leave Graham with his sentence unchanged.

The cases are Sullivan v. Florida, 08-7621, and Graham v. Florida, 08-7412.

___

On the Net:

Filings in Sullivan case: http://tinyurl.com/yhkcgzw

Filings in Graham case: http://tinyurl.com/ygx3h2d

Strict Abortion Provision Included In House Health Care Bill

2009-11-08T16:16:35Z

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan House coalition voted Saturday to prohibit coverage of abortions in a new government-run health care plan that Democrats would establish to compete with private insurers.

The 240-194 vote on an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., was a blow to liberals, who would have allowed the Obama administration and its successors to decide whether abortions would be covered by the government plan. Sixty-four Democrats joined 176 Republicans in favor of the prohibition.

Stupak's measure also would bar anyone getting federal health subsidies from purchasing private insurance polices that included abortion coverage.

"Let us stand together on principle – no public funding for abortions, no public funding for insurance policies that pay for abortions," Stupak urged fellow lawmakers before the vote.

The amendment would bar the new government insurance plan from covering abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is in danger. The Democrats' original legislation would have allowed the government plan to cover abortions, if the Health and Human Services secretary decided it should.

The amendment also would prohibit people who receive new federal health subsidies from buying insurance plans that include abortion coverage.

The Democrats' original bill would have allowed people getting federal subsidies to pay for abortion coverage with their own money. Abortion opponents dismissed that as an accounting gimmick.

Abortion rights advocates called the measure the biggest setback to women's reproductive rights in decades. Anti-abortion Democrats forced House leaders to bring it up for a vote by threatening to oppose the underlying bill, and efforts to reach a compromise fell apart Friday night.

"Like it or not, this is a legal medical procedure and we should respect those who need to make this very personal decision," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo.

Some Republicans considered voting "present" in hopes that might unravel support for the underlying health care bill among anti-abortion Democrats, but only one did, Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz.

"If I felt that the (health overhaul) bill could be killed by not advancing the Stupak amendment then it seems it would be prudent to vote in such a way that wouldn't advance the bill, but it doesn't appear that that's a possibility," Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said before the vote.

The National Right to Life Committee and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied lawmakers in both parties on the abortion measure. The bishops said they would oppose the bill if it lacked a strict prohibition on any federal funding for abortions.

Stupak's language applies to policies sold in a federally regulated insurance exchange that would be set up in 2013. The overhaul bill envisions both private companies and the government offering policies in the exchange.

Under the Stupak amendment, people who do not receive federal insurance subsidies could buy private insurance plans in the exchange that include abortion coverage. People who receive federal subsidies could buy separate policies covering only abortions if they use only their own money to do it.

Companies selling insurance policies covering abortions would be required to offer identical policies without the abortion coverage.

Abortion-rights supporters say private insurers will not likely offer policies with abortion coverage in the exchange because many potential buyers will be getting federal subsidies and therefore wouldn't be able to purchase them.

Around 21 million people are expected to get coverage through the exchange by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The majority of Americans who get their insurance coverage from their employers would not be affected.

Abortion-rights supporters say the restrictions in the amendment go further than current law.

A law called the Hyde amendment – which must be renewed annually – bars federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger. The restrictions apply to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortions for low-income women to pay for them with state revenues. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and the military.

Currently abortion coverage is widely available in the private market. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002. A Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had abortion coverage. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results.

Abortions in the first trimester typically cost between $350-$900, according to Planned Parenthood.

A health overhaul bill pending in the Senate also bars federal funding for abortion, but the language is less stringent. Discrepancies between the House and Senate measures would have to be reconciled before any final bill is passed.

(This version corrects the third paragraph to correct the description of the amendment – people getting subsidies could not buy insurance packages covering abortion, instead of people could not get subsidies to buy abortion coverage.)

Graham: House Health Care Bill Would Die In Senate (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T16:11:47Z

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) declared on Sunday that the health care legislation passed by the House of Representatives would be "dead on arrival" in the Senate, in part because his friend and colleague, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), wouldn't go "anywhere near" it.

"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Graham told CBS' "Face the Nation." "Just look at how it passed. It passed 220 to 215. It passed by two votes. You had 39 Democrats vote against the bill. They come from red states, moderate Democrats from swing districts. They bailed out on this bill. It was bill written by liberals for liberals and people like [Sen.] Joe Lieberman are not going to get anywhere near the House bill... it is a non-starter in the Senate."

"Let me tell you why Joe feels that way and I do [too]," Graham added. "I think the public option will destroy private health care."

The Senate, of course, will never actually vote on the House's health care legislation. They still must consider a version of their own before going to conference committee with the House and voting on a revised version of the bill. All of which makes Graham's narrow point moot. Still, at some point down the legislative road, the chamber does seem likely to weigh in on a public option. And this is where the South Carolina Republican's "dead on arrival" pledge will be tested.

Appearing alongside Graham, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) would not say if the 60 votes were there to cut off a Republican filibuster on a public plan.

"We are far from the end of the debate in the Senate," he said. "It will take time. It will be careful, thorough and deliberate. I hope that the public option is part of the final bill.

"I think there is a discussion, about as Senator Snowe [R-Maine] suggested, a trigger to the public option, Senator Reid [D-Nev.] has suggested an opt-out by the states," he added. "There is a debate, an active debate about how the pubic option might come about."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Tom Friedman: "It Is Time For A Radically New Approach" Toward Israeli-Palestinian Peace

2009-11-08T15:36:23Z

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has become a bad play. It is obvious that all the parties are just acting out the same old scenes, with the same old tired clich�s -- and that no one believes any of it anymore. There is no romance, no sex, no excitement, no urgency -- not even a sense of importance anymore. The only thing driving the peace process today is inertia and diplomatic habit. Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian peace process has left the realm of diplomacy. It is now more of a calisthenic, like weight-lifting or sit-ups, something diplomats do to stay in shape, but not because they believe anything is going to happen. And yet, as much as we, the audience, know this to be true, we can never quite abandon hope for peace in the Holy Land. It is our habit.

It is time for a radically new approach. And I mean radical. I mean something no U.S. administration has ever dared to do: Take down our "Peace-Processing-Is-Us" sign and just go home.

Army Chief Of Staff Worried About Anti-Muslim Backlash (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T15:11:01Z

In the wake of the horrific massacre at Ft. Hood, Army command is beginning to express concerns about a potential backlash against Muslim members of the military.

Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey told CNN on Sunday that the last thing he would like to see result from this tragedy is anti-Muslim activity or the loss of diversity in military ranks.

"You know, there's been a lot of speculation going on and probably the curiosity is a good thing," said Casey of accused killer Nidal Malik Hasan. "But we have to be careful because we can't jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that come out. And frankly, I am worried -- not worried, not worried, but I'm concerned -- that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and I've asked our army leaders to be on the look out for that. it would be a shame -- as great a tragedy as this was -- it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well."

"What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy," Casey said, during a separate appearance on ABC's "This Week." "But I think it would be an even greater tragedy if it [affected] our diversity."

Speculation about Hasan's motives, he fretted, "could potentially heighten the backlash against some Muslim soldiers.

Asked whether he thought there was discrimination against Muslims in the military before the Fort Hood incident, he replied: "No I don't think so. I worry that the speculation could cause things that we don't want to see happen."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

TV SoundOff: Sunday Talking Heads

2009-11-08T14:02:58Z

Good morning. This is your weekly liveblog of the events soon to be transpiring on your teevees, while you, hopefully live your lives. My name is Jason. Ever get the feeling that an overheated sense of super deep-fried significance tends to get attached to everything, until we're all practically dying of glucose-induced, candy-flavored ball-lightning shocks of the brainstem? Because earlier this week was election day. Hardly any elections were held, at all! And the significance of said elections was pounded into my face by mallet wielding on-air sea lions barking over and over again about WOO GAMECHANGERZ 2010 MAYBE 2012 DOESN'T THIS HIT YOU MIND LIKE A DAISYCUTTER.

Well, no! In fact, at the end of the week, even buffeted by the latest fad of Tea Partying, the House went right out and did what they were going to do all along -- ALL YEAR LONG, REALLY -- and pass their health care bill. And even then, that was a story told with RAW EMOTION AND INTENSE ECTSTACY as the MOST IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL VOTE OF ALL TIME went down exactly as everyone predicted it would (with an added cushion of votes gained from those elections on Tuesday that were supposed to be read as the TOTAL PULVERISATION OF HEALTH CARE REFORM IN OUR LIFETIMES!

Where were you when the House did this? Me, I was girding myself, with liquor, in advance of the moment when that saggy and unloved sack of malted bile, Joe Lieberman, ruins everything. GOOD TIMES, AMERICA.

Anyway, yeah, I've been looking forward to the toxic shock of this Sunday for a few days now. As always, you should feel invited, but not required, to do any of the following: leave a comment, drop us an email, or follow me, as some do, on the Twittering. Et maintenant...

FOX NEWS SUNDAY

Chris Van Hollen, Mike Pence, Joe Lieberman, and Bob McDonnell? I could get hypoglycemic on all the charisma I'm about to be dosed with.

Well, hey, health care passed by five votes, but there was a contentious vote over an abortion measure offered by Bart Stupak. For more on that, hie thee to Ezra Klein. Then, the GOP mainly recited the same talking points again and again, except for John Shadegg, who dragged a baby onstage with him in an effort to get written about on Wonkette, for being preposterous. I think he was successful.

Anyway, la: Van Hollen and Pence. Van Hollen says the message of last night's vote is that "it's time to begin to fix a broken health care system." Also, some more pleasant sounding boilerplate. Pense says the message is that the Democrats weren't listening to the yelly, Hitler-mustache drawing children at town halls OR the election day results in the two races where the GOP fared well. Also: TEH LIBRUL ESTABLISHMENT! WHY DO THEY ACT LIKE PEOPLE VOTED FOR THEM TO DO THINGS. Also, some more angry sounding boilerplate.

Van Hollen suggests that the 2008 elections are relevant, and that in 2009, the Dems got two YES votes from John Garamendi and Bill Owens. On health care, last night's vote was "one very big step on a long journey." The "public option" by the way, seems to be being rebranded as the "voluntrary option."

Pence is like, NO YOU DIDN'T GET THE MESSAGE. He thinks that people should be impressed that a "third party conservative" almost beat the Democrat in the NY 23rd race. That would be impressive if it weren't for the fact that no Democrat has actually won that seat since Amerigo Vespucci first scrawled his name on a map.

Meanwhile, unemployment: Van Hollen says that the outgoing administration ate killed the world, remember! We just sort of haven't succeeded in arresting that free fall, and hey, along the way, we conducted some bank stress tests predicated on the notion that everything was going to be a lot better. Mike Pence says, "the first thing you do in a hole is stop digging," which is like, his favorite cliche. I'm sure that there are dry cleaners in his district that give out free collar starch whenever he says it. Anyway, from Pence, we get LOLZ SPENDING FREEZE PLEASE? Pence would like a strong no-growth, pro-cyclical set of policies to exacewrbate the downturn forever.

Anyway, the Nidal Hasan shooting. "For answers, we turn to Joe Lieberman." Lieberman says that Fox is going to have tamp down their anti-Muslim fervor, it's too early, it's premature, but, you know what? MAYBE IT WAS THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE TERRORIST ACT TO BE COMMITTED SINCE 9/11!! OKAY? DID I MAKE SOME NEWS TODAY!?

Wallace asks Lieberman a bunch of questions about warning signs, and I'm like, "Shouldn't we wait for investigators to tell us what's going on here?" Lieberman's read reports and stuff that makes his all a'scurred! He'll hold some hearings with Susan Collins. That's because he chairs the Senate committee that deals with Homeland Security. Lieberman says that he will vote against the public option by not allowing the bill to come to a final vote, and if he does so, he shouldn't chair that committee anymore.

I'll let Chris Blakeley get mad at Joe Lieberman, because why not?

Every time Joe Lieberman, self-serving, opportunist of the first order, opens his mouth to take care of himself, I am reminded that he was Al Gore's choice for Vice President of the United States. Although I still see Sarah Palin as the worst VP choice ever, I now must admit that Joe Lieberman has moved ahead of Dan Quayle on that list. While I am thinking there is nothing self-serving Joe could do to supplant Palin, his performance this morning on FOX News Sunday has made me less sure of this.

It is no wonder the Democrats are so ineffective when they reward self-serving Joe's active support of the Republican candidate for president in 2008 by allowing him keep his Homeland Security Committee chairmanship. Joe, ever the self-serving opportunist, now expresses his gratitude by vowing to filibuster the Health Care bill if it includes the public option (Joe has to take care of himself by taking care of those Insurance company donors) and this morning on FOX News Sunday, spewing forth unsubstantiated claims to fan the fear of terrorism (to propel his committee into the media spotlight) by saying "if" Major Nidal Malik were acting as an Islamic terrorist, this was the worst domestic terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Then, as an after thought, self-serving Joe noted that we need to let the investigation go forward "before" jumping to any conclusions. Way to illustrate John McCain's recent presidential campaign slogan, "Country First," self-serving Joe!

I think that Joe Lieberman does exemplify two of the three syllables in McCain's slogan very aptly, though, Chris!

And now! Bob McDonnell! His victory was STRIKING! Can his success be replicated? Maybe! If you run to the center, keep the teabaggers away, and run against candidates who voters don't like and who make tons of structural mistakes during the campaign, then maybe!

Anyway, Chris Wallace is like, WHERE DID ALL THAT GREAT SOCIAL CONSERVATISM GO? McDonnell says, uhh...hey, unemployment is bad, mmm'kay? Wallace is like, are you going to forget about the crazy people, though? McDonnell more or less says, uhhhh...please stay out of our state! I'm POSITIVE! EVERYONE STAY POSITIVE! SMILE!

Wallace wants McDonnell to commit to jacking over Planned Parenthood, and expand Virginia's death penalty (which is ALREADY the deathiest death penalty in the world). Then he asks McDonnell about the health care bill, and all the times the word "Shall" is in the bill (THAT'S THE MEME, BY THE WAY?). Know what McDonnell's number one problem is, Chris? TRANSPORTATION. All of your crazy concerns are secondary to fixing Virginia's transportation problems.

Chris Wallace asks McDonnell is he wants to be Vice President, he doesn't. He pledges four full years as Virginia's governor.

Now, Panel Time! With Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol and Kirsten Powers, filling in for Juan Williams.

What about the health care? Brit Hume says that maybe there's some Democrats who are vulnerable now! Unless of course the economy improves? Or maybe the voters in their districts are okay with their health care vote? Anyway, that's Brit Hume, doing the best he can to scare. Liasson says that the bill continues to become a reality, and it's becoming more centrist.

Kristol, who's predicted failure for the bill, aggressively attempting to engage hsi pea brain, and comes up with reverse-engineered hypotheticals about how maybe if people who no one knew months ago were asked questions that no one was asking about a future outcome no one could have divined, maybe the imaginary people would have told their imaginary interlocutors that they would have thought health care would have passed the House by a wider margin. Of course it's just as likely that someone would have said, "Oh, yeah. The Speaker probably managed her cushion so that those who felt like they'd be hurt politically signing their name to it could pretend to not support it in the final vote...that's how these things work."

Powers says Obama might be better off by spending the next year talking about big picture. Hume says that health care doesn't matter, unemployment does, and that's fairly correct. Liasson says, well sure okay, look for Obama to talk about the economy, forever, all next year, cosigning Powers' "big picture" notion.

Kristol says, "THIS BILL BURDENS THE ECONOMY!" But that won't be an issue in 2010! The bill won't go into effect until 2013.

Apparently, during commercial, everyone was arguing with each other. Powers was apparently attempting to defend the administrations' efforts on the economy. She notes that unemployment is a lagging indicator. Well, it's pretty lagging! One of the fundamental electoral points I'd make is that time is more on Obama's side than Congress'.

It's too bad that the best part of this discussion happened during commercial. Maybe Kirsten doesn't just sit there, inert and sad, when the camera is off, like Juan Williams!

Anyway, the panel is now asking if "political correctness" -- a media created bit of faddish fussery that was passe over a decade ago -- played a role in the killings at Fort Hood. If a cultural relic can be loaded into a firearm and shot at people, then yes. Kristol goes on to bizarrely scoff at the suggestion that the incident shows bases need additional force protection. "We need soldiers to protect soldiers from other soldiers?" he asks, mockingly. No, idiot! We need LESS SOLDIERS TO DIE IS SOMETHING LIKE THIS -- AND BY THIS I MEAN "GUY WITH A GUN ON A MILITARY BASE" -- HAPPENS AGAIN.

Powers says that it's wrong to extrapolate the incident into "act of Islamic terror" without any evidence that goes beyond the suggestion that this guy just snapped. Brit Hume starts to object, but Wallace calls the panel short, telling viewers that anyone who'd like to see Brit yell at Kirsten some more will have to do it online.

THIS WEEK

Anyway, Gen. George Casey is here, to talk about the Fort Hood incident. He says his trip to the base with John McHugh was both "gut wrenching" but also "uplifting" in that he got to witness the way the soldiers there bore up under the tragedy and supported one another.

Casey begs off making comment on matters pertaining to the investigation, like whether or not there were any other perpretators. He does suggest that early reports that their may have been accomplices may have been founded on bad premises. SURPRISE SURPRISE, to everyone who doesn't remember Balloon Boy.

As far as warning signs go, Casey cautions about speculation based on anecdotes. "Let the investigation take its course." As far as Muslims in the military goes, Casey says that "what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but it would be a greater tragedy if the Army's diversity became an additional casualty."

He goes on to say that the Army will "take a hard look at ourselves" to prevent similar occurences, and continue to take strides to improve the "mental fitness" of the force. I draw from this that while Casey feels obligated to leave all possibilities on the table, he's pushing the story in the direction of "guy who snapped" over "guy who was a stealth jihadist."

Meanwhile, Michael Steele and Tim Kaine. Will the health care bill wreck Democrats' electoral future? Kaine says no, this was AWESOME HISTORY, put it in the HISTORY CHANNEL, and the bill is amazing, and we should talk about it as if it didn't have to get reconciled with a Senate bill and survive another vote. BECAUSE: PRETTY.

Steele, of course, is all: GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE, BOOGAH-FOO! Why won't the White House meet with the GOP? What happened to all those days of fawning over Chuck Grassley, where did those times go? Kaine argues, Steele does his best "Bish, pls!" act. Kaine points out that the hastily offered bill didn't include rules getting rid of pre-existing conditions.

Steele says: "Where's your tort reform, where's your portability, where's your small business pools, where's your program for health savings accounts?"

Well, "health savings accounts" are an idea that would be mooted under a comprehensive health care bill, so the reason that's not in the bill is because it's unnecessary. As for the rest of those things, know what? They are IN THE BILL. Take it away, Igor Volsky:

3. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: "Interstate competition allowing people to buy insurance across state lines." [Sen. John Thune (R-SD), 9/8/2009]

HOUSE BILL - POLICIES ACROSS STATE LINES: Allows for the creation of State Health Insurance Compacts - permits states to enter into agreements to allow for the sale of insurance across state lines.

4. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM: "Why not bring about reasonable restrictions and limits on medical malpractice claims to end the era of defensive medicine?" [Rep. Mike Pence (R-IA), 9/9/2009]

HOUSE BILL - ENCOURAGES MALPRACTICE REFORM: The bill establishes a voluntary state incentives grant program to encourage states to implement "certificate of merit" and "early offer" alternatives to traditional medical malpractice litigation.

5. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - HIGH RISK POOLS: "Senator McCain has a proposal sometimes called high-risk pools at the state level...These are efforts I think we can have bipartisan agreement on and deal with the question of pre-existing conditions." [Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), 9/10/2009]

HOUSE BILL - HIGH RISK POOLS: To fill the gap before the Exchange becomes available in 2013, the bill creates an insurance program with financial assistance for those uninsured for several months or denied policy due to preexisting conditions.

[...]

8. REPUBLICANS ASKED FOR - PROTECT SMALL BUSINESSES: "Helps employers offer health care coverage to their workers by reducing their administrative costs through a new small business tax credit." [Republican Health Solutions Group]

HOUSE BILL - PROTECTS SMALL BUSINESSES: The bill exempts 86% of businesses from the requirement to provide coverage. Businesses with payrolls below $500,000 are exempt while firms with payrolls between $500,000 and $750,000 would pay a graduated penalty. Small businesses would also receive a tax credit that helps cover 50% of their health care expenses.

I don't know what Steele means by "small business pools," so I went ahead and guarded against whether or not he's conflating "small business protection" and "high risk pools." Read the rest of Volsky's piece for seven more things that the GOP requested...and GOT, in the House bill.

Steele says that the Democratic bill should be compared to the GOP bill. OKAY! Take it away, Matt Yglesias!

The good news is that the House GOP bill does reduce the deficit. CBO says adopting their plan would reduce the deficit by $68 billion over ten years relative to current law. The number for the Democratic bill, however, is $104 billion. So in exchange for that lesser deficit reduction, the Republicans must cover more people right? Well, of course not. Instead, under the Boehner Plan the number of people without health insurance will stay steady at 17 percent. The Democratic plan will see that sliced to just four percent.
The CBO also says that for most people the GOP plan won't lower premiums: "In the large group market, which represents nearly 80 percent of total private premiums, the amendment would lower average insurance premiums in 2016 by zero to 3 percent compared with amounts under current law." And insofar as their plan does reduce premiums, it's by making your coverage worse:

The second source of change in average insurance premiums is changes in the average extent of coverage purchased. Those changes can reflect both changes in the scope of insurance coverage--the benefits or services that are included--and changes in the share of costs for covered services paid by the insurer--known as the "actuarial value." With other factors held equal, insurance policies that cover more benefits or services or have smaller copayments or deductibles have higher premiums, while policies that cover fewer benefits or services or have larger copayments or deductibles have lower premiums. Provisions in the amendment that would reduce insurance premiums by affecting the amount of coverage purchased include the State Innovations program, which would encourage states to reduce the number and extent of benefit mandates that they impose, and provisions that would allow individuals or affiliated groups to purchase insurance policies in other states that have less stringent mandates.

To repeat myself from yesterday, this is basically a plan that works well for you if you never get sick.

There are days where I imagine a time where Sunday Morning interlocutors read things like the above and resolve themselves to be armed with actual information, should their guest attempt to glibly slide by some talking points they've been honing for a month. I think to myself: such a talk show would be neat.

Anyway, Tim Kaine is doing his pirouette around the election results. Steele is carving up statistics and inflating the results. "The Democratic Party had better pay attention!" he says. I'd like to extend some congratulations to the people of THIS WEEK. GREAT JOB, GUYS! This is precisely the sort of discussion you could have pre-scripted. It's all terribly terribly unpredictable.

Apparently, small business owners have "roosts" in their "back pockets." Maybe they should give tax credits for building aviaries.

Kaine says: "I am a governor!" Steele says, "I was a Lieutenant Governor." Kaine says, "We are building things!" Steele says, "That's government contract work" and it's not permanent. I say: Do you want it to be permanent? Temporary work until the private sector is growing seems like just the thing to keep people at work without adding permanent government jobs. Steele says "what about the brother on the corner by the grocery store." I think he just plugged the new Clipse album!

Kaine calls NY 23 the "gift that keeps on giving." At least for a year! Kaine is actually pretty hilarious, saying that Sarah Palin supported the Democratic candidate, by helping to drive out Dede Scozzafava. But that's that. Bye, you two.

Panel Time! We got Will, Luntz, Brazile, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts. George Will is concerned about TEH JOBS. Card check will kill jobs, as will health care! Sam Donaldson says that Paul Volcker will save us, and Obama is "odds on" for re-election, and someone needs to tell Sam that Obama isn't LISTENING TO PAUL VOLCKER, and that's uhm...what's the word I'm looking for? Oh, yeah, "PROBABLY STUPID." I guess that's TWO WORDS.

Frank Luntz says we are all teabaggers, except for the youngs, and that 1994 is going to rise again! Brazile says, it's not 1994, because there's not a bunch of crazy scandals and widespread retirements. Also, the GOP in 1994 had a plan, whereas the GOP in 2009 is deciding on whether or not they should band together with the crank faction. The lesson of 2009, by the way? NO! DON'T DO THAT.

Sam Donaldson agrees with me, so he gets a lollipop. Someone give him one.

Will says, OH YEAH? EVERYONE HATE TEH INFLATION. Donaldson says, "We have no inflation." Alex Tabarrok says: "I wish ...that inflation [was] around the corner. We could use some inflation to get back on track. Nominal wages are simply not flexible enough to get the job done in short order and there is much to fear from populist backlash."

Now the panel is sort of generically attempting to kick off 2010 coverage. It's going to happen, folks.

Sam Donaldson, meanwhile, is trying to fill in for the absent Paul Krugman: "More stimulus!" Frank Luntz is reeling off his version of Superfreakonomics. Roberts says, "Whatever, check your demographics, they are awful." Will agrees that it's a problem, and that the GOP needs to be the party of ideas...and, uhm...well, CHECK OUT FAIRFAX COUNTY! So many schoolbuses! So much McDonnell support! And Sam Donaldson is yelling about Glenn Beck and the poster comparing health care reform to Dachau.

And then, for no reason, we get Jon Voight, being totally mental. Luntz tries to make a point about how that comes from a lack of faith in "American exceptionalism." Cokie Roberts counters by saying that if people like Jon Voight are any guide, then American exceptionalism isn't too exceptional.

Donna Brazile explains to George Will how buying health insurance across state lines, like firecrackers, isn't the end-all-be-all he thinks it is. Frank Luntz is now wandering out of his crank-Sabermetric pocket to complain about how long the bill is, "LONG BILLS SCARE AMERICA." Whatever, Frank, I made it through INFINITE JEST just fine.

Sam Donaldson is like a Cialis commercial today! He can go all night long!

Frank Luntz feels sorry for Evan Bayh and Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu -- all they've done is stand in the way of fixing problems so that they can continue to run on a platform of the urgent need to fix those problems again and again!

MEET THE PRESS

Okay, so, let's get through this, shall we? Haley Barbour and Ed Rendell? Ugh, DO NOT WANT. Tom Brokaw has found Berlin! But first, here's General George Casey. This runs in the same direction as the earlier interview on ABC. Casey has to limit comments on the investigation, he's worried about "speculation based on anecdotes," there are professional investigations going on, they "will take a hard look at" themselves.

On the larger issue of combat stress, Casey says it's a matter that the Army is keenly aware of, and that they are working hard to restore the 'balance point." He highlights a number of programs to indicate that the Army is working hard to get help for people who develop post-traumatic stress disorder, and do more in advance so that soldiers have better coping skills ahead of trauma.

As far as a concern about backlash against Muslim soldiers, Casey says: "Yeah. I think those concerns are real. And...they're fueled, partially at least, by the speculation about-- based-- based on anecdotal-- evidence that people are presenting. I think we have to be very careful with that. Our diversity, not only in the Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

GREGORY: Do you have any reason to believe that having Muslims in the Army-- puts them in a very difficult position? Makes them more conflicted, fighting a war against Muslims in Afghanistan or Iraq?

CASEY: I think that's something that they have to look at on an individual basis. But I think we as an Army have to be broad enough-- to bring in people from all walks of life.

People should reflect on this matter in the way that David Frum encouraged, earlier this week.

Oh, my. Ed Rendell is not looking well.

Haley Barbour thinks health care is doomed. Rendell says it will. LET'S BATTLE!

Rendell points out that Arkansans LOVE THEM SOME PUBLIC OPTION, so Blanche Lincoln should vote for it. Barbour insists that the people who defeat the bill will be popular. There's nothing interesting being said, because these two guys are saying the same things that have been said for months.

Meanwhile, the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER happened right? Barbour thinks it was good for the GOP, Rendell thinks it's anti-incumbent but not anti-Obama. Barbour has got even more obscure election results to spin gold from. Rendell says, "A year in politics, is light years." This is like Mark Halperin's The Page got up and started talking. By which I mean, starting boring the bejeezus out of me.

Here's a great question formulation by Gregory: "Is the President going too fast on the economy, when unemployment is at 10%" No, no. Of course, slow down. Gregory is part of this new strain of moron who doesn't believe the president can do more than one thing at a time. This vision of management did not exist until it was clear that was how Obama was going to have to govern -- two wars and no health care and a decade-long employment crisis and a collapsing economy exacerbating all three -- and the media felt obligated to inveigh against MULTITASKING. On a long enough timeline, Meet The Press and David Gregory could potentially mount the case that almost everything we've settled as possible and doable is actually rimming with stupidity.

Let's watch Barbour run away from Sarah Palin:

DAVID GREGORY: Sarah Palin got involved in that race. She endorsed the independent conservative. What role does she play right now in the Republican Party?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: Well, she doesn't play any official role in the Republican Party, but a lot of people care about her. A lot of people are fond of her. And she's like a lot of voter-- politicians who are very well regarded in our party.

DAVID GREGORY: What do you think of her?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: I like her.

DAVID GREGORY: Is she--

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: Don't always agree with her, but, you know, my wife doesn't always agree with me, either.

DAVID GREGORY: But is she an important Republican leader in your book?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: Oh, I think she is. I think she's got somethin' to offer.

DAVID GREGORY: Right.

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: One of the great things--

DAVID GREGORY: Do you think she could be President?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: One of the great things about when your party's out of power, you don't have a spokesman. You have a lot of spo-- I don't want to say (UNINTEL) 1,000 flowers bloom. But you have a lot of different people. And that's healthy for your party.

DAVID GREGORY: Do-- do--

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: The Democrats do that when they're out.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you-- do you think she speaks for the party?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: I think she speaks for herself, just like I speak for myself.

DAVID GREGORY: Do you think she could be President?

GOVERNOR HALEY BARBOUR: Look, it's a long way away from there. Every time we-- every time people ask me about President, I remind them, David, any Republican who cares about the future of our country, they should be focused on the elections in 2010. Those are the elections that matter. We'll worry about President after 2010.

Gregory somehow restrains himself, limiting the number of times he asks Barbour if he's running for President to two.

Rendell says no to a second stimulus: "I don't think we need a second stimulus. I would like to see our transportation infrastructure spending, which is the best job producer, I would like to see that front-loaded-- and start in January or February of this year." He gives Obama a "solid B" on the economy, because of the stimulus.

Barbour says that regardless of what Obama does in Afghanistan, he's not going to criticize him, which is interesting: "But right now, if the President does the right thing here, I'm gonna applaud him. If he doesn't, I'm not gonna criticize him."

Okay: Panel time! Today we have David Brooks and EJ Dionne and Rachel Maddow and Ed Gillespie.

What is the state of the LOLSURGE? (34,000 troops, by the way, is the leak.) Brooks says Obama is wondering who he is supposed to partner with in Afghanistan. Maddow says that Obama is not going to find a magic troop level number that will stop the GOP from criticizing him.

Gregory, in a rare feat, points out to Gillespie that Bush 43 took a lot of time, dithering, before his own LOLSURGEOMGZ. He says sort of what Haley Barbour said as far as politicizing the war, but darkly reminds that Bush paid a price for Iraq.

Will there be momentun from the House health care bill? Maddow says that Bart Stupak's amendment is a poison pill that will lead to a "revolt" from female Democrats if it's not stripped in conference.

EJ Dionne does a great job retelling history, pointing out that all the dire warnings of TEH SOCIALISMZ came up when Medicare was being passed, and the GOP ended up not just not repealing Medicare, but defending it. He predicts that years from now, Ed Gillespie will be on MEET THE PRESS, telling viewers that the GOP would never cut the bill "he is now calling Pelosicare."

That's a bleak vision from Dionne: I had sort of counted on Meet The Press being off the air, 20 years from now!

Maddow points out that the more fiscally irresponsible choices are implementing the GOP bill or doing nothing, and predicts that anyone who votes against the bill will pay a price. That leads to Brooks, agreeing, but saying that the bill is "fiscal insanity" and that the "system" -- what system he refers to isn't clear -- needs to be fundamentally changed. Where that places the solution - beyond mere doomsaying - isn't clear. Perhaps Brooks has some fifth-dimensional health care plan he can only communicate to aliens.

Here's a hot scoop of conventional wisdom jizz on the MOST IMPORTANT AND FEARFULLY SYMMETRIC OFF-OFF YEAR ELECTION OF THE LATTER HALF OF THE FIRST DECADE OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY OF ALL TIME. Dionne says the "substantive lessons" for Democrats are in Virginia, not New Jersey. Gregory suggests that McDonnell kept his alienating social conservatism hidden behind a run to the center. Gillespie says, UHM, LET'S AGREE TO CALL THAT, "transforming conservative principles into practical solutions." So, I guess that means McDonnell will fix Northern Virginia's traffic infrastructure by fighting its homosexuality.

Maddow says, WHATEVS, CREIGH DEEDS WAS TEH SUXXORS. Reporting from Sam Stein backs this up:

A Research 2000 Virginia Poll conducted for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee reveals that 64 percent of Virginia voters who supported Barack Obama said that the party's gubernatorial candidate, Creigh Deeds, was "not progressive enough." Driving the point home even further, 58 percent of Virginia voters who are registered as Independent but supported Obama in 2008 election, likewise, said that Deeds was "not progressive enough."

The findings cut against the conventional wisdom that emerged from the 2009 gubernatorial elections, which held that Democrats lost in Virginia and (to a lesser extent) New Jersey by not pushing more moderate positions.

Only eight percent of Democratic Obama voters in Virginia and 16 percent of Independent Obama voters in Virginia said they thought Deeds was "too far to the left."

In its survey, PCCC also looks at how a public option for insurance coverage played in the Virginia governor's race. And it concludes that Deeds was hurt by his opposition to the public plan. Forty-one percent of respondents said that Deeds declaration that he would "opt-out" of a public plan as governor made them less excited about his candidacy. Only Six percent said it made them more excited.

Brooks mislays the voting shifts by independent voters. They aren't shifting away from the White House because they're worried the White House is spending too much, or "moving too fast." They are getting disillusioned by the White House's timidity and incrementalism.

Maddow says, "Job numbers are the holy grail of the next election," and points out that they should be aggressive in combatting unemployment, because there's no scenario in which the Democrats AREN'T going to get criticized for spending. It's a good point. I remember driving from Charlottesville to Ithaca, and going through Pennsylvania, and seeing all those threatening signs for how much the ticket was going to be if I got busted for going even 56 miles per hour. So I made myself miserable, driving the speed limit. On the way back, I realized that under those conditions, I could get a big ticket by ACCIDENTALLY speeding. Given those circumstances, it actually made more sense to just speed like the dickens.

That was the smart decision. If you are going to get damned no matter what you do, don't get damned having done nothing. Go big!

Dionne has this crazy idea that the Democrats should point out that government actually does good things. And then Gillespie all but proves Maddow's point: "HEALTH CARE WILL BE A JOBS KILLER." Well, the day is never going to come where Ed Gillespie isn't going to insinuate that the policies the Dems put forward are going to kill jobs, SO THEY MAY AS WELL BRAVELY PUT FORTH THEIR POLICIES.

Meet The Press ends with old footage from the show, and Tom Brokaw, revisiting the Berlin Wall, I guess because they wanted to remind us that the NBC News Division was once capable of vital news coverage or something?

Oh well, I guess we'll all remember where we were when NBC News remembered where they were when the Berlin Wall fell, unless the internet explodes! Have a great week, everyone!

Joseph Cao: Voting For Health Reform Was "A Decision Of Conscience" (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T13:46:29Z

The one House Republican to support health care reform said on Sunday that his decision to back the bill was driven by his conscience and the needs of his district and not back-room dealing with the White House or Democrats.

Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La), appearing on CNN, said that he cast his vote in favor of reform only after an amendment greatly restricting the coverage of abortions was allowed to come to a vote. Once that hurdle was clear, Cao said, "I called the White House and said I could possibly support the bill."

The subject of a fierce, late-in-the-game, lobbying effort between Democrats and Republicans, Cao ultimately voted yea because, as he put it, "I had to make a decision of conscience based on the needs of the people in my district."

"I had to make a decision and I felt that last night's decision was the right decision for my district," he added. "Even though it was not the popular decision for my party."

The first-term Republican, who hails from a very Democratic district in New Orleans, insisted that he did not consider possible electoral ramifications before casting his votes. Asked whether he had offered his support to the White House in exchange for additional help in Hurricane Katrina reconstruction, he similarly dismissed the charge.

"The president and I, we have had a very good relationship, and I thank him and his administration for their hard work in helping me to rebuild my district after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina," Cao said. "I'm pretty sure that if I were to vote no against the bill the president would still continue to work with me to address the needs of my district. But I felt it was important of me to support the president in this matter because, like I said before, based on my own conscience, it was the right decision for my district."

WATCH:

SNL Mocks Fox's Election Coverage, Glenn Beck's Spelling Problems (VIDEO)

2009-11-08T12:59:34Z

"Saturday Night Live" opened last night with a sketch lampooning Fox News's election coverage. Yes, the 2009 elections dominated cable news coverage consisted of exactly two gubernatorial races and two congressional seats, but that didn't stop Fox News from spinning it as a referendum on Obama's presidency.

SNL's sketch focused on a panel lead by Greta Van Susteren (aptly played by Kristen Wiig) of three conservative voices and Joe Trippi, representing all Democrats. The latter was not called on to speak once.

At one point, Greta threw to Glenn Beck--Jason Sudeikis's greatest role to date--who was crying, trying on hats, and having linguistic problems on a chalk board. "Oh, and Greta, I also realized you could rearrange the letters of your name to spell 'A Great' and it was a great night--a great great night for a great great nation."

WATCH:

Get HuffPost Comedy On Facebook and Twitter!