Who Runs Gov

Does the GOP Senate leadership’s strategy to stall reform — bleed reconciliation to death by using the Byrd rule — have any prayer of succeeding?

I just got off the phone with a former Senate parliamentarian. Bottom line: The Byrd rule can be — and repeatedly has been — successfully used to strip individual provisions out of reconciliation measures, forcing them back to the House for additional votes. By all indications, Dems are prepared for this. But they should really be prepared.

Robert Dove, Senate parliamentarian from 1981-1987, declined to discuss the current GOP strategy. But he said that in theory, the Byrd rule is an effective weapon against reconciliation, allowing the opposition to strip individual measures out of such bills on the grounds that they are policy, not budgetary, fixes.

“I stripped 300 out of a 1995 reconciliation bill,” Dove said. He confirmed that if even one provision is ruled by the parliamentarian to be a violation and is successfully stripped from a reconciliation bill, “it absolutely has to go back to the House.”

Dove also confirmed that it requires 60 votes to waive the Byrd rule, as Republicans have argued, meaning that Republicans will be able to mount numerous challenges. “It’s impossible to waive it without 60 votes,” Dove said.

What of the Democratic argument that the chair of the proceedings — Joe Biden, perhaps — can ignore it if the parliamentarian does strip a provision from the bill? It’s theoretically possible, Dove said, but there’s no precedent for it: “It has not ever happened.”

What does this mean? Well, the Dem Senate leadership is going to have to produce a bulletproof reconcilation bill. They know this, are proceeding accordingly, and expect to succeed. And they very well may: The fact the GOP is telegraphing its strategy so aggressively — allowing Dems to prepare for it — suggests it’s entirely about sowing confusion and frightening House Dems into believing the reconcilation fix will fail.

Still, it’s not inconceivable that the GOP could gum up the works, if the parliamentarian agrees with them on a single provision and the chair for some reason is hesitant to override him. Probably a good idea for Dems not to be too smug about this.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

Looks like the entire Senate GOP caucus is all in on the strategy to bleed reconciliation to death with the “Byrd rule.”

I first reported here the other day that anonymous Senate GOP aides had developed a strategy to stall or derail reform: Invoke the “Byrd rule” to strip individual provisions out of the reconciliation fix, forcing it back to the House for new votes countless times.

For a refresher on that, go here.

Well, now the Senate GOP leadership is doubling down on the strategy, saying publicly that the entire GOP caucus is united behind it. All 41 GOP Senators have signed a letter to Harry Reid pledging to use this tactic:

In that regard, to endeavor to ensure that the reconciliation process is not used to fast-track an unpopular bill through Congress, we wish to inform you that we will oppose efforts to waive the so-called Byrd Rule during Senate consideration of any reconciliation bill concerning health reform. The Byrd Rule, as you know, was created by Senator Byrd to ensure that reconciliation bills were not used to enact policy changes, the primary purpose of which is not specifically related to the federal budget. As it takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule, we can ensure that any provision that trips the Byrd Rule will be stripped from the bill, which will require that the bill be sent back to the House for further consideration and additional votes.

This is a pretty striking move. There’s some debate about how effective this strategy will prove. GOP aides inisist that Dems will not be able to craft a reconciliation bill that’s bulletproof. Some Dems privately express similiar concerns, while others think whoever is chairing the proceedings — Joe Biden, perhaps — will be able to brush aside these procedural cobwebs.

But given the murkiness of Senate procedure, this doesn’t seem like something one can be certain about either way. And the question is whether this will succeed in spooking House Dems into believing the reconciliation fix will fail, leading them to be even more reluctant to pass the Senate bill in the first place. Full letter here.

The DNC — hoping to underscore the trivial nature of the argument between Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio over whether Rubio got an expensive haircut or a “back wax” or whatever — is going out with this new spoof video that, er, dramatizes what it might look like if Rubio did undergo the procedure:

The vid might not do much to help Dem candidate Kendrick Meek, but it’s not a bad way to lampoon the level of discourse on display in this particular “controversy.”

The footage of Rubio grimacing is, I’m told, from his campaign Web site.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* Okay, first up: Here are a few quick updates on where the House Dem whip count is on health reform, none of them great news for Dems as three former Yes votes are now undecided…

* There was some confusion today about the current position of New York Rep Michael Arcuri, a former Yes vote, and a spokesperson confirms to me that he’s Undecided.

That’s both good and bad news for Dems: The GOP today announced he was now a definite No, based on this local interview. But the spox, Jay Biba, assures us he’s still undecided pending what the reconciliation fix looks like.

Still, not great for Dems: A Yes is firmly in the Undecided camp.

* Reps Dan Maffei and Bill Owens of New York also move from Yes to Undecided.

* Dem Rep Dan Lipinski of Illinois, a former Yes, will now vote No if the Senate bill doesn’t have Stupak-like language.

* If any of these four become No votes, Dem leaders will need to make up for it by flipping a previous No to Yes. No movement in that direction today, at least not publicly.

* Indeed, Rep Larry Kissell of North Carolina, who was rumored today to be mulling a switch from No to Yes, is not changing his position, spokesperson Haven Kerchner confirms to me.

* Breaking: Another prominent Congressional Dem steps forward and calls on the Obama administration to stick with a civilian trial for KSM. Sayeth Chris Dodd:

“I for one wish they’ll stay with their principles.”

What is that, two now?

* Pete King says he might be kinda sorta open to Lindsey Graham’s effort to get Republicans to support closing Gitmo in exchange for a military trial for KSM. Which other GOPers are on board with this again?

* On second thought…after declining to say whether GOP Senate candidates should run on repeal of health reform, Rick Klein notes that NRSC chief John Cornyn has now clarified that indeed they should push repeal.

* Reassuring? House Dems are now enlisting the help of a “centrist” think tank to teach them how to talk about national security issues.

* Which prompts this barbed response from the NRCC:

“The fact that Democrats have to train their own candidates on how to talk about defending America is an indictment not just of their candidates but of their policies, as well. Our candidates’ message is simple: Stop treating terrorists like common criminals, don’t import terrorists into our communities and listen to our military and intelligence officials instead of attacking them.”

As you can see, the GOP has thought through their message on this already.

* And the snark of the day, from Matthew Yglesias, on the news that Sarah Palin traveled to Canada for health care:

She wasn’t rationed away? Her parents were’t sent to a death panel? She experienced socialized medicine and learned to tell the tale!

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

Striking findings buried in the new Democracy Corps poll:

When it comes to national security, do you think President Obama is doing better, worse, or about the same as President George W. Bush?

Total better: 39
Total worse: 31

And:

When it comes to combating terrorism and handling terrorism suspects, do you think President Obama is doing better, worse, or about the same as President George W. Bush?

Total better: 38
Total worse: 31

So Obama is rated better than Bush on national security and terrorism and the handling of terror suspects — despite the fact that the Cheneyites have been arguing for months that by undoing Bush policies, Obama has made us less safe.

The poll also finds that Obama retains a high 58% approval rating on national security and 55% on terrorism. Republicans in Congress, meanwhile, score 45% on national security.

What’s more, as Spencer Ackerman notes, this poll also has some numbers that drive home, yet again, one of this blog’s pet theories: That Congressional Dems, by skittishly refusing to have any kind of message at all on national security, are only hurting themselves.

To wit: Only 43% approve of Dems on national security — less than Republicans, and far less than Obama. Saying nothing on these issues doesn’t help, see?

Now, a few caveats. This is a Dem poll. But it’s a well respected firm. And there are some warning signs in this poll: Many voters have rising doubts about Obama’s handling of terror suspects, even if they do prefer him to Bush.

But overall, the poll shows clearly that there’s no justification whatsoever for the Dems’ strategy of receding meekly into the background on these issues, rather than vocally allying themselves with Obama on them.

*************************************

Update: I should have added that this poll was also done with Third Way, a centrist think tank.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

An interesting moment on MSNBC this morning: NRSC chief John Cornyn twice declined to say whether the platform for Republican Senate candidates this year should include a call for repeal of health care reform, should it pass.

This could irk some folks on the right, who have insisted that GOP candidates must campaign on a vow of a full repeal, or else.

Asked by Chuck Todd whether candidates would call for a repeal, Cornyn answered that “in one form or another” the election “will be a referendum on the health care bill, which as you know is unpopular across the country.”

After Cornyn reiterated the GOP position that Dems will be held accountable for passing the excesses of the Senate bill, even if it’s fixed via reconciliation later, he was pressed on the repeal question again.

Cornyn again declined to answer directly, saying that “one way or the other, whether you call it repeal or whether you call it a referendum,” health care reform “is going to be the issue on which the November 2010 elections will be decided.”

The Club for Growth and other leading conservatives, such as Senator Jim DeMint, have adamantly insisted that the GOP must campaign on full repeal. Democrats, too, have been pushing GOP Senate candidates to say whether they would support rolling back reform entirely.

Cornyn’s unwillingness to directly endorse this route highlights a split between conservative leaders, who want the party to maintain an uncompromising, hard-line opposition to the Obama agenda, and more pragmatic GOP leaders, who want a more nuanced approach in order to avoid playing into Dem hands and being tagged with the “Party of No” label.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* With Obama set to travel to Pennsylvania today to rally the public for his final health care push, the big, burning question is this…

Will his overall approach — remain mostly hands-off on the legislative details while Congress mucked its way through the process, only to take charge of the debate in the home stretch — be vindicated? Or will it prove too late for presidential leadership to salvage a victory from the wreckage?

* The Los Angeles Times notes that the final push gives the president a “chance to redeem himself among Democrats who have complained that he has been too detached from the nitty-gritty.”

* And: Leaning towards Yes? Dem Rep Brian Baird, a key undecided vote on health care, acknowledges that the Senate bill is preferable to the status quo, and that doing nothing is not an option.

* Dem leaders are mulling new ways to reassure worried House Dems that the Senate bill will, in fact, be fixed by reconciliation:

Possibilities include a letter pledging compliance, signed by 51 or more Senate Democrats, or a parliamentary move that essentially would suspend the House-passed bill until the follow-up Senate action takes place.

* Orrin Hatch keeps on pretending he never voted for multiple reconciliation measures that passed by simple majority.

* Dick Durbin takes a lead role in urging more confrontation with Republicans in order to position himself to be next Senate Majority Leader. Worth keeping in mind: Durbin is a supporter of filibuster reform.

* Eric Holder and the Department of Justice continue to remain on the defensive in the face of the Cheneyite smear of the “Al Qaeda Seven.” The latest: Holder allies are circulating a new letter signed by conservatives condemning such attacks as “shameful” (gasp!) without even naming the Cheneys.

* The air wars start up again: A conservative third party group is spending nearly $1,000,000 on a new ad that tries to dissuade vulnerable House Dems from supporting the Senate bill, depicting it as stuffed with backroom deals:

With spots like these, conservatives are signaling that they’ll hold House Dems accountable for the excesses of the Senate bill even if it’s fixed via reconciliation later — an effort to spook them into voting No now.

* This seems about right: Rahm Emanuel has become a lightning rod for those who hoped Obama would expand the realm of the possible, rather than capitulate to narrowly-defined Beltway “realities.”

* And Evan Bayh, whose word on what constitutes acceptable partisan behavior commands more respect than that of anyone who ever strode the halls of the Capitol, says he’s open to the use of reconciliation.

What else is going on?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* McConnell rips Republican National Committee: On ABC just now, Mitch McConnell took a hard shot at the RNC over that Joker/Cruella De Ville document urging the use of “fear” of socialism to raise cash.

“I can’t imagine why anybody would have thought that is helpful,” McConnell said. “Typically the way parties raise money is because people believe in the causes they advocate.”

“I don’t like it, and I don’t know anybody who does,” McConnell concluded.

* A bit more health care movement: Rep Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, who voted No the first time, strongly suggested on Fox News today that he’s leaning towards Yes on the Senate bill.

“I need to see the reconciliation package, but there’s no question in my mind the Senate bill was much stronger than House bill on cost containment,” Altmire said. He insisted he wasn’t leaning towards Yes, but added: “I think we have a much better product to work with.”

* But: Rep John Adler of New Jersey, also a former No, suggested he’s likely to stay a No. “I’m not sure the bills coming through the House and Senate really address health care reform,” he said.

* Also: HHS sec Kathleen Sebelius, on ABC News just now, suggested the White House might be open to passing a separate bill to address Bart Stupak’s abortion complaints.

Asked if a separate measure were possible, Sebelius said the White House would try to persuade Stupak that the Senate bill has no Federal funding for abortion. But she added: “If that doesn’t satisfy the Congressman, the conversations will continue.”

* Obama really does appear to be redoubling efforts to tell skittish Congressional Dems that if they pass reform, their constituents will see the benefits before Election Day 2010. It’s a case we’ll probably hear more of.

* Is David Axelrod really surprised that the opposition moved agressively to paint Obama as an old-style, big-government-worshipping liberal ideologue? Apparently so.

* The ACLU goes up with a full page ad in The New York Times calling on Obama not to proceed with a military tribunal for KSM. Money portion:

Check out the full ad here.

* The RNC loses a major donor over Joker/Cruella De Ville/socialism document mess.

* And Jim DeMint says he’s not crazy about the Joker doc, but says it still has “real substance.”

What else is up?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* With the debate continuing to rage over the possible trial of KSM in a military tribunal, David Dayen nails it: If the White House does reverse itself on this, blame it on the “timidity of virtually the entire Democratic establishment” and their “victim’s mentality on national security issues.” So true.

* Relatedly: Perhaps it’s time to show a bit of skepticism about Lindsey Graham’s ongoing claim that he can secure some Republican support for closing Guantanamo in exchange for a military trial for KSM. Which GOPers are on board for this again?

* Also in the above link: The Times says White House advisers are postponing a decision on the KSM trial and are showing signs of “sensitivity” to liberal criticism of the possible shift. That’s nice, but will they prove more sensitive to criticism from the right? We’ll find out…

* The White House keeps up its push to sell reconciliation: In his weekly address, Obama shifts the bullseye from the GOP to the insurance industry…

The insurance companies aren’t starting over. I just met with some of them on Thursday and they couldn’t give me a straight answer as to why they keep arbitrarily and massively raising premiums…

That’s why we have to act now. That’s why the United States Congress owes the American people an up or down vote on health insurance reform.

The closing argument is to move the debate away from process, and to cast the up or down vote as the best antidote to your soaring premiums, as our last and only weapon against the insurance companies.

* Also key in Obama’s weekly address: He said some aspects of health reform would “start to take effect this year,” which is a message to skittish Congressional Dems that voters will see gains from the bill before the midturms.

* Kudos to Dana Milbank for not falling for the B.S. spin that Karl Rove’s memoir made some kind of “concession” on Iraq:

His lessons learned are those of a job applicant who claims that his greatest weakness is being too conscientious. He doesn’t regret the Iraq war; he regrets that he did not attack the war’s critics more fiercely.

That’s what we’ve been saying!

* Kent Conrad tries yet again to set the record straight on reconciliation: It’s not being used to pass the whole bill. Too bad no one’s listening.

* Jane Hamsher calls for the resignation of Rep Lynn Woolsey as co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, partly because Woolsey told me she’d back the Senate bill with a good reconciliation fix even without the public option.

I want to clarify one point I should have made the other day: Woolsey also told me she’d introduce a bill creating a public option on the same day as voting for the Senate measure.

* Kate Pickert notes, rightly I think, that the GOP plan to bleed reconciliation to death is largely about spooking House Dems into believing this is possible, making them less likely to pass the Senate bill first.

* Jonathan Bernstein thinks the bleed-reconciliation-to-death strategy is a non-starter in any case.

* GOP Rep Joseph Cao, widely thought to be a definite No vote this time, is actually open to switching to Yes if the abortion language can be “fixed” to Bart Stupak’s liking.

* And here’s the dilemma of the day: Who to watch on the Sunday shows tomorrow, Kathleen Sebelius or Tom Delay? Tough call!

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

Senior Senate GOP leadership aides have settled on a new strategy that, they hope, will stall or kill the Dem health reform push: They are going to use the arcane “Byrd rule” to try to bleed the reconciliation fix to death and ensure that it never passes.

Senior GOP aides have been studying the rule book in recent days, and they think they have a game plan. Here’s how they hope it will work.

At risk of oversimplification, the Byrd rule is designed to ensure that reconciliation is used to only make budgetary fixes, not policy ones, to existing legislation. Presuming the House passes the Senate bill, the House will then pass a reconciliation fix to the bill, after which the Senate will then try to pass that fix, too.

At this point Senate GOPers will repeatedly invoke the Byrd rule to ask the parliamentarian to strip individual provisions (ones fixing this or that in the original bill) out of the fix, on the grounds that they are policy fixes. If individual provisions are stripped, it would change the Senate’s version of the overall fix.

That would force the House to vote on it again and again, stalling the process further.

“The bottom line is that it is incredibly difficult to craft a reconciliation bill on health care that isn’t subject to multiple Byrd rule violations,” says one senior Senate GOP aide, who was granted anonymity to preview their strategy. “House Dems are likely to be voting on a reconciliation bill multiple times.”

There’s a larger game plan here. By making it clear they will do their best to tie reconciliation in procedural knots, Republicans are hoping to frighten House Dems into believing reconciliation is doomed. If House Dems are persuaded that the fix later will fail, they will be less likely to pass the original Senate bill in the first place, pehaps killing it.

So that’s the GOP game plan. This stuff is enormously complex, and I’m hoping to get more from experts on how likely it is to succeed. Will keep you posted.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* The battle over national security is suddenly center stage today with the big news that Obama advisers may now opt for a military tribunal for the 9/11 plotters.

Behold the consequences of the decision by skittish Congressional Dems to completely abandon the White House over these issues and to let the GOP frame the debate. The Cheneyites will now claim victory, and they will simply keep up the national security attacks unabated on other fronts — the Mirandizing of terror suspects, etc. Ceding turf to the Cheneyites doesn’t disarm them; it only makes them more relevant.

* Along these lines: The New York Times opines that Republicans such as Lindsey Graham who want to nix civilian trials for terror suspects are actually trying to limit the array of tools at our disposal for fighting terrorism, compromising our security.

* It’s worth recalling that Robert Gates agrees with that assessment. So, a question: Why does a GOP Senator who would limit the anti-terror tools at the President’s disposal have more influence over a key area of national security policy than the Defense Secretary does?

* A Bush official who tangled in court with Gitmo detainees becomes the latest Republican to denounce the Cheneyites’ latest McCarthyite smear of the “Al Qaeda Seven.”

* A bit more movement on health reform: Blue Dog Dem Rep Bart Gordon, who voted against the health reform proposal last time, now moves to the undecided camp.

* Still more movement: Dem leaders identify new procedural hoops they may jump through to make Bart Stupak happy: Passing separate bill to resolve abortion impasse.

* It will be interesting to see if anyone at the RNC gets fired for the Joker/Cruella/Scooby Doo document. For now, Michael Steele isn’t saying.

* Headline of the day, from the Associated Press, on the Dems’ bungling of the Charlie Rangel mess: “Democrats mired in swamp they vowed to drain.”

* Tom Harkin: Republicans are not warning Dems against passing the health bill because they have our best interests at heart. They are afraid of it passing.

* And Mike Allen ferrets out some fascinating nuggets from Karl Rove’s memoir. Note the private confrontation between Rove and Obama.

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* The full court press begins: Obama to take his health care sales pitch on the road, with stops in Philadelphia and St. Louis next week.

* And: Tonight at the White House, Obama will woo House Dems who voted No last time.

* Ben Smith obtains an RNC fundraising document that reveals a plan to raise money by vowing to “save the country from trending toward socialism” and depicts Obama as The Joker.

It’s always worth recalling that it’s the official RNC position that Obama, while perhaps not a full-fledged socialist himself, is moving us “towards socialism.”

* Mitch McConnell had the foresight to see months ago that there’s a political upside in not putting out comprehensive GOP proposals: It makes it easier to make the story all about Obama’s proposals.

* A piqued Robert Gibbs wonders why Republicans “can’t take yes for an answer” and support a health bill with GOP ideas in it.

* Maybe wavering Blue Dog Dems should consider supporting the new health proposal and take credit for watering it down from its original, scarier version?

* Back on the Merry-Go-Round with Bart Stupak: He now says a dozen House Dems who voted Yes last time could flip to No.

* Which is interesting, because last week he put the number at 15 to 20.

* House GOPers are planning to make an issue out of Charles Rangel’s “temporary” relinquishing of Ways and Means gavel. Dems, who took back the House by running against GOP corruption, really are making a hash of this Rangel situation.

* Michael Moore, subtle and light-handed as ever: “Democrats are a bunch of wusses.”

* Question of the day, from Steve Benen: Why would Raul Grijalva threaten to “vote with far right Republicans to kill health care reform”?

* And Blanche Lincoln’s campaign claims opponent Bill Halter is supporting the public option to curry favor with the “national liberal establishment,” an interesting argument coming from a Democrat, especially one enjoying the support of the national Dem establishment.

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

Obama’s speech, which is now underway, is pretty tough and confrontational towards Republicans: He says the differences between him and the GOP are fundamental and can’t be bridged, and he sharply challenges them to vote against his proposal, suggesting that if they do, they’ll be revealing that they’re siding with the insurance industry against Americans.

And, as expected, he calls on Congress to pass reform via a simple majority vote.

Now, despite all that we agree on and all the Republican ideas we’ve incorporated, many Republicans in Congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. And if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal I’ve put forward.

Some also believe that we should instead pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we just tinker around the edges of this challenge for the next few years. Even those who acknowledge the problem of the uninsured say that we can’t afford to help them –- which is why the Republican proposal only covers three million uninsured Americans while we cover over 31 million…

So, no matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes.

And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts — all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.

I have therefore asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. From now until then, I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. And I urge every American who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well.

He’s all in. Full speech here. More soon.

Update: Link to speech fixed, apologies.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* It’s officially official: Obama and Dems will move forward alone on health reform. In his speech this afternoon, Obama will ask Congress to pass a version of the House-Senate compromise proposal he unveiled the other day, a senior administration official emails:

He’ll note that his proposal includes the best ideas from both parties, and he’ll restate his preference for a comprehensive bill that will reduce premiums and end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. He’ll urge Congress to move swiftly toward votes on this legislation.

There are still details to follow, but this will be a nonstarter for Republicans, meaning the House will have to pass the Senate bill, followed by a fix to the legislation via reconcilation.

* But: my understanding is Obama will not explicitly call for reconciliation, and will not call on House Dems to pass the Senate bill, leaving the legislative details largely to Congressional leaders to work out.

* Although: Multiple outlets are reporting that Obama will make it clear that he wants Dems to move forward with a simple majority vote if necessary. How he does this will be something to watch for today.

* And: Obama will announce that his proposal will include Republican ideas on tort reform and health savings accounts.

* More movement: Senator Mary Landrieu, an early opponent of reconciliation, signs on to the idea. The big story here is that unified GOP opposition to the reform proposals is persuading moderates to roll the dice and support a simple majority vote, despite the political risks they think it will entail.

* The New York Times gets to the heart of why Jim Bunning finally lifted his blockade:

Mr. Bunning’s about-face came after his fellow Republicans began to air their own concerns about how the Senate blockade had the potential to damage their political brand while also having a direct impact on their constituents.

* Thirty-four Senators and counting would vote for a public option via reconciliation.

* NRCC unveils new effort to pressure House Dems to say whether they’ll back reconciliation. Those who do, the NRCC says, will “face the electoral consequences in November.”

* A scalp for the GOP? Under fire from Republicans, Charlie Rangel throws in the towel, will temporarily relinquish the gavel.

* But: To the dismay Dems that want this behind them, Rangel is vowing to fight on, even though he may be losing Nancy Pelosi.

* Something to watch for: In his new memoir, Karl Rove apparently will “admit” that he failed to push back hard enough against “false” claims that Bush took us to war on false pretenses.

This will be widely portrayed as a “concession” when of course it’s anything but. You heard it here first!

* And ABC’s Rick Klein, in the Note, points out that Obama’s offer to include a few GOP ideas was good PR: “In embracing some Republican-offered ideas, the White House got the headlines it wanted on Wednesday.”

Indeed. Again, all this happy-talk about bipartisanship was never, ever, ever about anything other than laying the groundwork for Dems to move forward alone.

What else is happening?

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.

* Mitch McConnell has now fired off a letter to the White House responding to Obama’s offer to maybe put a few Republican ideas in his health bill, and suffice it to say that compromise looks farther off than ever.

McConnell reiterated his demand that Obama scrap his bill and start again, and insisted that he ditch the “highly partisan” tactic of reconciliation. Full letter here.

* And: McConnell warns that if Dems pass the reform proposal it will be at their peril, with the GOP making it an issue in “every race in America.”

* Which prompts Steve Benen to point out that McConnell perhaps can’t be counted on to be frank with Dems about what’s really good or bad for them.

* Eric Cantor, for his part, rebuffs Obama’s offer in a statement:

If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don’t support, it isn’t bipartisanship – it’s political cover.

* No end to the skittishness: Justin Elliott points out that Congressional Dems have been largely silent in the face of Republican claims that Justice Department lawyers may be terrorist sympathizers.

* Adam Sorensen has a useful look at the chronology Dems may use to pass health reform.

* Greenwald and Aravosis keep up the anti-Rahm drumbeat.

* More: Don’t miss Mike Tomasky on the meaning of Rahm.

* Chuck Todd says all the leaking about Rahm is roiling Team Obama, since this isn’t something you’d expect from his normally-disciplined crew, though Todd also says the Rahm story is being overplayed.

* Labor unions throw their weight behind Blanche Lincoln’s challenger, each pledge $1 million to his campaign.

* Ah, those Texas primary voters: Turns out Rick Perry’s talk of secession may have helped put him over the top.

* If you really like hanging out deep in the weeds, David Waldman has some very good follow-up questions for Kent Conrad about reconciliation.

* And Robert Gibbs confirms that Obama has been indulging in cheeseburgers and the occasional smoke, blames it partly on the stress of the gig.

What else is up?

Update: Links fixed, apologies.

Update II: And courtesy of commenter Ethan, a nice rundown on how the Bunning hold is playing in local press around the country.

This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.