Please read this first.

The thing about the Live Blog is that commenters comments do not go up on the Live Blog automatically. They only go up with moderator intervention -- that is, when we specifically click on a comment and tell the system "Post."

And we only do that for some comments.

First of all, we can't post every comment. We literally couldn't keep up if we did. We (all the cobloggers) post as many as we can without getting too duplicative.

For example, when (not if) Obama says "Let me be clear," there will be a lot of people shouting "LET ME BE CLEAR!!!" We'll post one of those -- randomly -- but obviously there is no point posting the two dozen comments pointing out he said "Let me be clear."

We look for funny stuff and we look for insightful stuff. Bear in mind, while we're doing this, we're also posting our own comments, and our own takes, so sometimes 40 or 50 comments will zip by without getting much notice.

During a particularly important part of this douchebag's speech (hypothetically -- should there be an important part), all of the moderators are going to want to get their own two cents in, so that means, alas, that in such patches, probably there are going to be fewer commenter's posts put up. It's just that you can't do three things at once. Two, yes. Three, no.

Personally, I tend to get pretty bored with this jackass pretty early, and I stop really posting about whatever nonsense he's gibbering about, and I just start posting readers' comments. But if I'm actually engaged with him and posting about the speech (hypothetically), I can't. I can listen/watch and write, or I can listen/watch and post readers' comments, but, again, I cannot do all three at once. Two yeah, not three.

Please don't take it personally. Usually we have, I dunno, 50-100 or so people commenting on one of these; tonight we will likely have 200-300. Hell, we could have 500.

There's no way even ten people (and tonight we will have a bunch of people moderating, including most of the cobloggers and some Special Guest Moderators) can keep up with all the comments.

And we do need to be choosy, again. A Live Blog that consisted of 300 people all talking at once would be pretty incoherent. Yes, everyone's comment would be "up," but, on the other hand, no one would be reading it at all, because there would just be too much to keep up with, and a lot of duplicative material.

Please -- no "Why aren't my comments getting up?" comments! I just explained, so... you know. Plus, obviously we don't want to post such meta-comments when we have a pretty big event to blog about.

Posted by: Ace at 03:48 PM | Comments (657)
Post contains 478 words, total size 3 kb.

Hmmmm...

Since everyone else is running with their smears, hopes, fears, rampant wild speculation (a lot documented at Patterico's site), etc., I thought I'd throw our what I think is a somewhat reasonable theory as to what James O'Keefe and company were doing in Sen. Landrieu's office.

Looking at the affidavit, I noticed an interesting fact on page 2, section 6:

BASEL requested to be given access to a telephone in the office, and WITNESS 1 allowed him access to the main telephone at the reception desk. WITNESS 1 observed BASEL take the handset of the phone and manipulate it. BASEL also tried to call the phone with a cellular phone in his possession. He stated that he could not get through.

Now. If Basel is telling the truth, then it lends credence to the fact that people calling the reception desk telephone at Landrieu's office could also not get through to the main phone.

As such, I am postulating that the group was trying to document (with video camera) that Landrieu's office had either disconnected or re-routed the phones to deflect incoming calls - hence, why they couldn't get through. There have been anecdotal reports that Landrieu's office has received complaints that it has been inaccessible by phone, particularly around the time when she was bought off by the Democrats for the now-infamous Louisiana Purchase.

I don't think that would even be "interference" with phone lines -- in as much as he wasn't trying to interfere with, or even change or even touch, anything. Just photograph how her phone lines were routed.

Could be a penny-ante trespassing charge or some kind of mischief beef. But if that's the case, if Jawa's right, then seems like a fairly minor misdemeanor.

Actual Intent: According to MSNBC...

the men, led by conservative videomaker James O'Keefe, wanted to see how her local office staff would respond if the phones were inoperative. They were apparently motivated, the official says, by criticism that when Sen. Landrieu became a big player in the health care debate, people in Louisiana were having a hard time getting through on the phones to register their views.

That is, the official says, what led the four men to pull this stunt -- to see how the local staffers would react if the phones went out. Would the staff just laugh it off, or would they express great concern that local folks couldn't get through?

Well... that's a problem for them, then, because that is a technical violation of the "interference" law, even if it's brief, even if it's for purpose of a stunt.

Even if it's for purpose of journalism.

Posted by: Ace at 03:38 PM | Comments (70)
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.

I love this shit so much. It's like Guys Night Out for my inner political geek.

Don't forget the live blog tonight!

Topic of discussion...how will Obama describe the State of the Union?

My guess...."The State of the Union is strong but challenged".

To maximize my enjoyment, I'll be watching (actually I am now) MSNBC. This is the first speech I can't guarantee Tingles and Olby will love.

Did I mention the live blog?

Posted by: DrewM at 03:25 PM | Comments (108)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Sorry, this story still is finished being written.

Politico found eight Democrats (including sorta-Democrat Lieberman) who were unsure if they'd go the reconciliation route, but today, Ben Nelson -- one of the eight -- is saying he's up for suicide.

Nelson told Nebraska reporters that he could support passing current health legislation using budget reconciliation as long as he believes the underlying bill is good.

"IÂ’ve been asked about whether IÂ’d support using the process known as reconciliation now," Nelson said. "So, I want to make it clear: If I support a bill, then I will vote for it regardless of whether it takes 50 votes to pass or 60 votes to pass. My position doesn't change just because the House or Senate decides to change the process."

The House wants the "fix" to the Senate bill passed before the Senate bill becomes law, which is... procedurally unprecedented, and may not be permitted. The CBO and parliamentarian are balking.

“Neither the House nor the Senate have figured out how to pass a reconciliation sidecar first,” one senior Senate aide says. “We are being asked to pass a piece of legislation that amends another piece of legislation which does not exist yet. We are having problems with the CBO and parliamentarian on that front.”

Apparently they want us to have a 60 vote filibuster-proof majority by 2012.

Posted by: Ace at 02:09 PM | Comments (171)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

Not sure of what his plan was, but sources say it wasn't wiretapping.

Allah notes that last night on Twitter, David Shuster -- Objective Journalist -- pronounced him guilty and gloated over him going, as Shuster predicted, to prison.

Like, you know, the way "reporters" do it.

@JamesOKeefeIII a) you are not a journalist b) the truth is you intended to tap her phones c) it's a felony d) you will go to prison.

Remember, in Shuster's world, the Panty Bomber is "alleged" but James O'Keefe is already convicted.

Posted by: Ace at 01:34 PM | Comments (142)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

Big update.

Update: In an interview with POLITICO, Nancy Pelosi says she doesn't have the votes to pass the Senate bill in its current form. It's unclear where the lines got crossed. But she does say it will get done some how

Ah.

Sorry for the heart pains. You probably know -- this got misreported like wildfire and is only being cleaned up now.

Thanks to Arhooey.

Posted by: Ace at 12:49 PM | Comments (157)
Post contains 105 words, total size 1 kb.

I wanted 60+% to be reasonably confident they'd finally stop.

Maybe we've got that.

Just when it appeared that the numbers for the Democratic health care proposals passed by the House and Senate couldn't get any worse -- they have. A new poll by CNN and Opinion Research, taken from January 22 to January 24, shows that 69 percent of respondents say Congress should dump the current Democratic health care proposals and either write an entirely new health bill or stop working on the subject altogether.

"What do you think Congress should do on health care?" CNN asked. "Pass a health care bill similar to the legislation that Congress has been working on for the past year, start work on an entirely new bill, or stop working on any bills that would change the country's health care system?" Thirty percent said pass a bill similar to the current ones, while 48 percent said start work on a new bill and 21 percent said stop working on health care. Add it up, and 69 percent say Congress should either write a new bill or stop working on health care altogether. (When CNN asked only about the existing bills, 58 percent said they oppose the bills, while 38 percent say they support them.)

But here's the thing: They don't care.

Despite those numbers, however, Democrats remain under pressure from the left to use their last remaining maneuver -- House passage of the Senate bill, followed by revisions passed by the Senate using the 51-vote reconciliation process -- to pass the existing bill. That pressure is continuing, and perhaps even stepping up, as some Democratic senators say they would not vote for a reconciliation measure.

Good Lord, I hope it's not true, but they may feel that they simply have no viable options left and may simply now only care about preserving their 30% voteshare.

Posted by: Ace at 12:28 PM | Comments (95)
Post contains 352 words, total size 2 kb.

Retracted By Pelosi? This isn't my correction per se -- but I may have passed on trumped-up, bullshit reportage.

EddieBear tweets that Karent Tumulty of Time reports Pelosi is denying she said this in the first place.

...

They've claimed and claimed this, and have only been telling the truth a couple of times. Granted -- those were important times.

I have nothing on this. Got it from Allah on Twitter, and he has nothing on it, either -- CNBC is just teasing it at the moment.

Sidecar? I think, based on what Allah saw on TV, that Spending Bitch Pelosi is talking about the "sidecar" option of reconciliation, which I understand not at all (or I would have blogged about it three or four days ago).

What would “Sidecar” Reconciliation look like?

Jon Walker sketched it out:

Passing the Senate bill first, and then fixing it with reconciliation, could also create strong political and policy pressure for reviving the public option or Medicare buy-in. Probably the only way they could jam the Senate bill “as is” through the House would be to get labor on board. To get labor, you need to promise to fix the excise tax, and probably the only way to do that is by using reconciliation. The unions agreed to a “fix” of the excise tax that would cost $60 billion. That money needs to be recouped through other tax increases or cost-cutting measures. Even a weak, “level playing field” public option would save $25 billion, and increasing Medicaid from 133% to 150% FPL should save another several billion.

The steps to get through “sidecar” reconciliation:

House passes the Senate bill
House and Senate pass a “fix” to the excise tax that they’ve negotiated
Find a way to pay for the “fix,” which costs $60 billion. The best way to pay for it without raising taxes means putting in a public option, expanding Medicare, passing Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment, or some combination of the above.
House and Senate then pass the “fix” through reconciliation, which requires a simple majority. 51 Senators have said they’d vote for Schumer’s “level playing field” public option, while 51 voted for Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment.

Other liberals seem to believe this is impossible:

Bloggers at Firedog Lake quickly picked up on his statement, and, in particular, Jon Walker and Jane Hamsher have written about the idea of “sidecar reconciliation,” or having the House pass the Senate's bill as it is now written, while getting a commitment from the President, and the Leadership of both Houses that measures favored by the House to “fix the problems” with the Senate Bill would be passed in the Spring using reconciliation. In this way, the excise tax might be modified or repealed, subsidies might be increased to make mandatory insurance more affordable, and even a Public Option like the one in the House bill might be passed. Is this idea of sidecar reconciliation feasible?

Just this evening, Lawrence O'Donnell, the well-known pundit with long Washington and White House experience provided some immediate objections. First, while reconciliation removes the need for 60 votes at the end of the legislative process, it can't get around the need for 60 votes to get past various parliamentary maneuvers which opponents can introduce during the reconciliation process. O'Donnell says that these situations occur even a few times per day during the legislative process, and that if the opponents are determined to tie up the reconciliation process in the Senate they can certainly do so.

But note what is impossible, and what is quite possible. It seems impossible to "fix" the bill to the liberals' content through this process -- but it still remains possible to pass the Senate bill without fixes.

The set-up here might be that House liberals pretend the bill can be "fixed" to be more liberal, knowing that it can't. So they pass the Senate bill -- just to "win" on something -- while promising the nutroots changes that are impossible and will never happen.

In this scenario, however, the Senate bill passes.

Karl Explains: In the Green Room.

My current fear, though, is that this "sidecar reconciliation" is pure BS PR for the nutroots. They know they can't do anything to change the senate bill this way -- but they'll pass it anyway, with empty promises to the lefties of future changes they know won't happen.

But we'll still end up with Nelson's Abortion.

CRITICAL CAVEAT: She can pass the bill, she says... "with Senate changes."

Ay, that's the rub.

And if I had some ham, I could have some ham and eggs for breakfast, if I had some eggs.

Karl says on Twitter -- nothing new, she's been saying that for days. Of course she could pass the Senate bill if it were the House bill.

Well, even that's not an "of course" anymore.

It seems this is in fact Spending Bitch Nancy just blabbering on as usual.

...

Requiem for ObamaCare: Maybe "Requiem" is premature. From the guys at Verum Serum, who did, I think, more than anyone to stop this abomination (or... pause it)... more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:00 PM | Comments (117)
Post contains 902 words, total size 7 kb.

A Stereotypical Flamboyantly Gay Dude just emailed me to say, "Awk-waaaard!"

TAVIS SMILEY: Finally, thereÂ’s already speculation about whether or not Secretary Clinton is going to do this for the full first time, and whether or not she has any interest if asked to stay on to do it for eight years? You see how tough the job is, can you imagine yourself doing all four years and, if asked, doing it for another four years?

HILLARY CLINTON: No, I really canÂ’t. I mean, it is justÂ…

TAVIS SMILEY: No to what? All four or eight?

HILLARY CLINTON: The whole, the whole eight, I mean, that that would be very challenging. But I, you know, I don't wanna make any predictions sitting here, IÂ’m honored to serve, I serve at the pleasure of the President, but itÂ’s a, itÂ’s a 24/7 job, and I think at some point, I will be very happy to LAUGHS pass it on to someone else.

TAVIS SMILEY: That opens the door for the obvious question, what would Hillary Clinton want to do when she is no longer Secretary of State?

HILLARY CLINTON: Oh, I, there’s so many things I’m interested in, I mean, really going back to private life and spending time reading, and writing, and maybe teaching, doing some personal travel, not the kind of travel where you bring along a couple of hundred people with you. Just focusing on, on issues of women, girls, families, the kind of intersection between what’s considered ‘real politique’ and real life politics, which has always fascinated me.

TAVIS SMILEY: And finally, just for the record, you have said before, emphatically, in fact, that you are not interested in running again for President of the United States, IÂ’m taking your answer now to mean that thatÂ’s still the same?

HILLARY CLINTON: Absolutely not interested.

And when Hillary Clinton says she's "Absolutely not interested" in achieving the dream she's been haunted by since age 4, you can take that to the bank.

You know what I'm absolutely not interested in? 1) Crazy blog-money, and 2) Val-U-Rite vodka, and 3) free-range hobo hunting, and 4) putting my mangerines into soft, yielding pudding.

Thanks to Gabe on Twitter.

PS: Not to be a persnickety dick, but I love that no one at The Politico apparently knows how to spell "realpolitik." They resort to a dumb homophonic guess without so much as a (sic).

Posted by: Ace at 11:10 AM | Comments (182)
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

But, he adds, don't get cocky or overconfident.

I would add "stupid." The GOP tends to get bad cases of the stupids from time to time, and by "time to time," I mean of course "all the time."

“Nothing is automatic in politics. Things change. Everybody needs to just run hard, hard, and take nothing for granted,” Barbour told The Hill shortly after he spoke to the conference.

“But the environment today is better for Republicans in January of 2010 than it was in January of 1994,” he added.

...

He avoided any predictions on whether the GOP could retake the House or Senate this November. But he said the partyÂ’s chances seem better than they were in 1994, the year Republicans took both chambers.

Barbour said recapturing the Senate would be harder than winning back the House “because the numbers are a little worse — but a month is a light-year in politics.”

Right... I know there is a down side to overconfidence, but personally I think there is a bigger upside in enthusiasm and belief in good outcomes.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (65)
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.