I wrote last night about the 24 House Democrats who not only voted against health care reform but had previously voted against cap-and-trade, as well. Today, Domenico Montanaro at First Read made a great point about such observations: For all the talk about vulnerable Democrats who voted AGAINST reform, there were also many vulnerable Democrats who voted FOR it.

A First Read analysis of Saturday's House healthcare vote finds that about 60 of the Democrats who voted for health care are either in vulnerable or potentially vulnerable districts, including 18 who represent districts that went for McCain. Another 10 are in districts where Obama got less than 55% and so did the member; six are from districts where Obama got more than 55%, but the member got less than 55%; 14 are in districts which Obama won by less than 55%, but the member won by more than 55%; and at least another 12 are in districts where both they and Obama got more than 55%, but either have been competitive in the past or could be competitive.

Health Care for America Now (HCAN) has been organizing welcome-home rallies at airports to make sure Members who voted aye receive a warm greeting the next time they return to their districts. Let's follow HCAN's lead. If your representative is on First Read's list, please visit their website to call or e-mail them and say thank you for their vote on Saturday night. These Members need to know that their votes will help them, not hurt them, next November, and that we'll be standing right behind them when they repeat their bravery in the post-conference vote. Positive reinforcement and encouragement matter every bit as much as angry threats.

After the release of the October unemployment data that reported a steeper than expected rise to 10.2%, I decided to revisit an old college text, The Zero Sum Society: Distribution and the Possibility for Change, the seminal work of MIT economist Lester Thurow. Written in 1979 and published in 1980, Thurow's work interprets macroeconomics as a zero-sum game and examines the American political environment to find explanations for the decline of the American economy. I thought it might offer some insights into our current predicament.

Just three pages and a mere seven paragraphs into the book, I came across this sentence:

And how do you evaluate vast expenditures, such as those we make on health care, where we are spending more than the rest of the world but getting less if you look at life expectancy (U.S. males are now sixteenth in the world)?

Twenty-nine years later, we are still grappling with the same question only now in terms of life expectancy US males now rank twentieth-fourth in the world. Clearly, we are not exactly making strides which only makes the eight paragraph of Thurow's classic all the more prescient and troubling.

But whatever our precise ranking at the moment, the rest of the world is catching up, and if they have not already surpassed us, they soon will. From many perspectives, this catching-up process is desirable. Most rich people find it more comfortable to live in a neighborhood with other rich people. The tension are less and life is more enjoyable. What is not so comfortable is the prospect that our rich neighbors will continue to grow so rapidly that we slip into relative backwardness.

Well, welcome to relative backwardness! We are not just being surpassed by European countries and East Asian tigers, on some metrics we are being surpassed by Latin American countries. The World Health Organization ranks the healthcare systems of Colombia, Brazil and Costa Rica as better than ours. If in 1980 we were worried about falling behind in relative terms, we should now be worried about falling behind in absolute terms. It is not just that other countries are leapfrogging us, it is the fact our living standards are being eroded. But our economic problem is really one of our politics. Where once success of the American economy was measured in terms of gains in living standards and the growth of the middle class, today only lip-service is paid to these. That the GOP long out sold the middle class should be obvious. This is, after all, a party that subscribes to an ideology where the individual trumps society and where inequality is a public good, not just an unfortunate consequence. But even much of the Democratic Party has long abandoned its New Deal principles with its Clintonian embrace of haute finance as the engine for growth. Everything else but perhaps for the pesky service sector, it seems, we outsource.

There is little doubt that macroeconomic shocks beginning in the early 1970s played a role in the erosion of American living standards. But the more fundamental factor since then has been the collapse of a political consensus that favors inclusive growth based on a broad-based prosperity. Instead our political economy, even today in the Age of Obama, favors a narrow elite. We can quibble about that size of that elite but when Representative Anna Eshoo, a liberal Democrat who represents Silicon Valley, has enough sway to insert an amendment into the healthcare bill that extends the patent protected income streams for biotech firms that produce a class of drugs called biologics from five to twelve years we should have no illusions about whom she actually represents. The interests she serves are that of her largest campaign contributor, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the lobbying arm for the biotech industry. It is a mockery to suggest that Anna Eshoo has the interests of the American people in mind when she serves a corporate master.

The growth of the lobbyist trade is astounding and as their power rises, our living standards have fallen. Here's a quick historical overview:

After World War II, and particularly starting in the 1970s, lobbying in Washington expanded to a degree unimagined in previous generations. As the nation grew larger it also became more pluralistic. Interest groups multiplied and often were in conflict. Traditional isolationism or general indifference to foreign affairs was replaced by heightened awareness of the global involvement and reach of the United States. The dissident political movements of the 1960s demonstrated the possibilities of group political activities and prompted the rise of new groups that felt government was not being responsive to their needs and interests. The rapid evolution of efficient and cheap mass communication promoted grassroots advocacy far beyond previous levels.

Perhaps the most important change was the quiet revolution in the fundamental nature and rules of the legislative process in Washington: the fragmentation of the power of the political parties and party leaderships; the promotion of individual candidates with special agendas at odds with party preferences and priorities; and the restructuring of election campaign spending in ways that allowed groups to support particular candidates. Changes in Congress in the early 1970s, which some have described as a revolt of a new generation of younger politicians against old-guard traditional leaders, resulted in a reorganization of power within Congress, including a reduction in the power of party leaders and committee heads and an increase in the role of subcommittee heads and individual members. Instead of several dozen committees guided by the party leaderships, there were more than 200 subcommittees, often run by individual congressmen free of leadership control. Congressional staffs grew from 2,500 in 1947 to 18,000 in 2000.

These changes opened the door for interest groups, lobbyists, public relations experts, and political consultants of all kinds. The number of interest groups expanded steadily, growing by one measure from 10,300 in 1968 to 20,600 in 1988. The number of registered lobbyists in Washington grew from around 500 during World War II to more than 15,000 by the early 1990s. The number of political action committees (PACs) that financed many of the more powerful interest groups increased from a handful in 1970 to more than 4,000 in less than twenty years.

By 2005, the number of registered lobbyists had topped 35,000 (the number of lobbyists who actually do the lobbying is less - about 13,400 up 30 percent since 1998; the balance is support & research staff). The lobbying boom was caused by three factors: rapid growth in government, a pro-business Republican Party that controled both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of Federal benefits. In dollars terms according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the amount spent on lobbying Congress between 1998 and 2008 has grown from $1.44 billion to $3.3 billion. That's a CAGR of 8.65 percent. Meanwhile over that time frame, US GDP had a CAGR of just 5.07 percent.

It needs to be noted that lobbyists don't always work to get legislation passed. They more often work to get legislation killed. And to do so, they engage in delay tactics. To delay is effectively to kill. The result has been a paralysis of our politics. That this weekend the House was able to pass a measure that begins to tackle our healthcare crisis is indeed historic but given that the overwhelming percentage of Americans have long desired a more equitable health insurance scheme, it is noteworthy that the measure passed with just two votes to spare. Even more astounding is that the passage of healthcare bill is by no means assured in the United States Senate. The underlying causes of our political paralysis could not be more evident.

Disclosure: I'm proud to be working with the American Association for Justice to protect patients' rights.

With the passage of Health Care Reform in the House, the stakes are rising by the day. As we saw this weekend with the adoption of the Stupak-Pitts amendment, changes to the bill can be made with blinding speed and millions of Americans can lose out in hours.

Thanks to a well-funded and decades long campaign by the insurance companies, "tort reform" -- the systematic denial of fundamental legal rights to patients harmed by medical negligence -- always looms when a heavily lobbied Congress talks about health care.

As Joanne Doroshow wrote on Huffington Post:

If you listened to the rants and harangues of those trying to kill the House health care bill on Saturday, you couldn't miss the endless blathering about tort reform, a term that almost no one really understands unless you happen to be a victim of medical malpractice or corporate wrongdoing. And then, you know.

Tort "reform" is a doozy of a misnomer. There is certainly nothing positive or beneficial about it. Tort reform laws, which now exist it nearly every state (although you'd never guess that after listening to those complaining how much we need it), make it more difficult for average people who have been injured, assaulted, or harmed in any way, to sue those responsible. The tort reform movement was created and funded by insurance companies, manufacturers of dangerous products, the tobacco industry, the medical profession, and other industries and professions. This movement is backed by enormous sums of money funneled primarily into conservative "think-tanks," public relations, polling and lobbying firms. Tort reforms always hurt patients, consumers and average people. They are also extremely dangerous for the rest of us.

The video at the top of this post is part of an effort to tell the stories of the real people whose lives are devastated by medical malpractice and "tort reform". Learn more at 98,000Reasons.org.

The Club for Growth has already gone after Charlie Crist in the Florida Republican Senate primary, making more difficult the path to the GOP nomination for the once-popular more moderate incumbent Governor. Now the group is officially staking its position behind Crist's opponent, Marco Rubio.

The Club for Growth made it official this morning, throwing its weighty endorsement behind former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio's (R) Senate bid and significantly complicating Gov. Charlie Crist's (R) path to the nomination.

Club president Chris Chocola praised Rubio as "one of the brightest young stars in American politics" and a "proven champion of economic liberty." Chocola also skewered Crist for repeatedly taking the side of "big government liberals on major economic issues facing America today."

While this news is good for Rubio in the primary, as Chris Cillizza (quoted above) writes, it's not good for the Republican Party overall (which Cillizza omits). As I noted last week, the Club has a remarkable record of electing Democrats (not a typo) in recent years, pushing unelectable Republicans through GOP primaries (see, e.g., Bill Sali of Idaho, Tim Walberg of Michigan, Andy Harris of Maryland, and Steve Pearce of New Mexico), unsuccessfully trying to do so and in the process weakening the GOP incumbent (see, e.g., Linc Chafee), or backing a conservative third party candidate to the detriment of the Republicans (see, e.g., Doug Hoffman). So if the Club wants to see Democratic Congressman Kendrick Meek move up to the Senate next year, they are doing exactly what they need to be doing.

Roxanne Conlin made her candidacy for U.S. Senate official today, releasing this two-minute video:

Conlin narrates the video herself, and it's mostly a biographical piece. Her parents lived paycheck to paycheck. She worked her way through college and law school.

Conlin was U.S. Attorney for Iowa's southern district from 1977 to 1981. In this video, she says that as a prosecutor, she "took on drug dealers, corrupt politicians, and corporations who violated the public trust." She then started a small law firm "to give a voice to everyday people who had none, like taking on the big banks to help family farms at risk of foreclosure."

Conlin tells viewers, "Taking on the special interests has been the cause of my life," and she is running for U.S. Senate "to take this fight to Washington." She promises to help small business and promote renewable energy and other strategies for creating jobs in Iowa.

She doesn't mention Senator Chuck Grassley directly, but she hints at the case she will make against him. Career politicians in Washington have lost their independence. Iowans were left behind when banks got bailed out and their top executives got huge bonuses. Grassley voted for the Wall Street bailout, which Conlin mentions twice in this video. No doubt we'll hear more in the coming months about Grassley's ties to various special interests and his votes for tax breaks companies use when they ship jobs overseas.

Conlin looks at the camera as she delivers her closing line: "Join me in taking on this fight, because the special interests have had their turn. Now, it's our turn."

Her campaign logo reads, "Roxanne for Iowa." I would like to hear from campaign professionals on the merits of branding women candidates with their first names, like the Hillary for president signs and bumper stickers.

I like that we hear her own voice, instead of an actor's voice-over, and her life experiences that many Iowans can relate to. (Republicans are already referring to Conlin as a "liberal, millionaire trial attorney" from Des Moines.)

What do you think?

I can understand Democrats who don't support the stimulus.  I can understand Democrats who don't support health care reform or the public option. I can even understand Democrats who don't support clean energy legislation. I cannot abide Democrats who oppose all three. I am not a purist and do not appreciate ideological litmus tests, but a politician must have at least some reason for belonging to their party and movement of choice if that label is to mean anything at all to their constituents.  

Earlier today, Jerome posted a list of the 39 Democrats who voted against the Affordable Health Care for America Act last night. I've compared the roll calls, and 24 of those Democrats also voted against the American Clean Energy and Security Act in June. Five of those 24 represent districts won by President Obama last November. Additionally, four of the 24 voted no on the final stimulus vote in January and four opposed April's overhaul of tobacco regulations. Only one man voted against all four pieces of legislation: freshman Rep. Bobby Bright (AL-2), whose district went to McCain by 26%. The full breakdown is below the jump.

We can't expect our Democratic majorities to vote in lock-step on every vote. Moderate Americans need a home, and with the Republican Party having abandoned its conservative-moderate coalition over the past two decades in order to become a more "pure" party of the fringe, we Democrats find more of those moderates joining our own party. These Americans need to have a voice in Congress too, and their Congresspersons need to be able to vote their own conscience. If not all Democratic voters are progressives, than we must expect and accept that not all of the Democrats they elect will be progressives, either.

Blue Dogs and other moderates should be expected and welcomed - but only to a point. They may not be progressives, but they are Democrats, and we have to ask them: as a moderate not fully represented by either party, why have you chosen to join ours? If they can't articulate a sincere reason, then we have a problem. If they vote against some of the party's major initiatives, fine, but if they vote against all of the party's major initiatives, then we have a problem. If nothing unites one member to the next, then what's the point in calling them a party?

People need to listen to their consciences. If your conscience tells you to vote against your party on a particular issue, then by all means, do so. But your conscience should also tell you to join the party with which you agree a majority of the time, or to not join a party at all.

Below the fold, the full list of 24, with special attention to three names: Charlie Melancon, Walt Minnick, and Dennis Kucinich. Minnick, in fact, was the prompt for this entire post. He is my Congressman, but while I was excited for his election in 2008, his twin nay votes on health insurance reform and cap-and-trade mean I will not support him again. As things stand, he's no different than a Republican. Again, I'm not a litmus test kind of guy and even hold some conservative positions myself, but Minnick takes things too far. If he reverses his post-conference vote on just one of those two bills then I will probably change my mind, but he hasn't given me any reason to hold my breath.

I've read the speculation about the planned troop increase that Obama is supposedly going to propose, but who knows who is telling that an increase is going to happen on the order of 20-80,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

I sure hope not. What a disaster this is becoming.

I came across The Afghan Trap by Saul Landau today, and what's remarkable about this article is how easily is shoots down all the nonsensical ideas for why we are warring in Afghanistan.

The argument for more troops because of its destability:

Dolting Joe certainly had himself a memorable Sunday morning, one that none of us should ever forget. On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the independent Senator from Connecticut said "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."

A matter of conscience? More like a matter of protecting the pockets of Connecticut's insurance citadel.

Then on the recent tragedy in Fort Hood that left 13 dead and injured another 30, Senator Lieberman seems to have all his facts in and drawn his own conclusions. The chairman of the Senate's Homeland Security committee said that the deadly shooting at Texas' Fort Hood military base was an act of "Islamist extremism."

Senator Lieberman said while it was too early to definitively state the motives of Nidal Hasan in very his next breath he notes that the clues pointed to terrorism. The Senator who heads the Senate's Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, said initial evidence suggested that the alleged shooter, Army Major Nidal Hasan, was a "self-radicalized, home-grown terrorist."

"There are very, very strong warning signs here that Dr Hasan had become an Islamist extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act," he told Fox News.

"It's clear that he was, one, under personal stress and, two -- if the reports that we're receiving of various statements he made, acts he took are valid -- he had turned to Islamist extremism," he said.

"If that is true, the murder of these 13 people was a terrorist act."

I would think that one would wait until all the evidence is in before making such pronouncements. He intends to launch a congressional investigation into the motives behind "the worst terrorist attack since 9/11."

Meanwhile the New York Times reports that there's little evidence of terrorist plot in the Fort Hood slayings.

After two days of inquiry into the mass shooting at Fort Hood, investigators have tentatively concluded that it was not part of a terrorist plot.

Rather, they have come to believe that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused in the shootings, acted out under a welter of emotional, ideological and religious pressures, according to interviews with federal officials who have been briefed on the inquiry.

Investigators have not ruled out the possibility that Major Hasan believed he was carrying out an extremist's suicide mission.

But the investigators, working with behavioral experts, suggested that he might have long suffered from emotional problems that were exacerbated by the tensions of his work with veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who returned home with serious psychiatric problems.

They said his counseling activities with the veterans appear to have further fueled his anger and hardened his increasingly militant views as he was seeming to move toward more extreme religious beliefs -- all of which boiled over as he faced being shipped overseas, an assignment he bitterly opposed.

Investigators have gleaned most of their findings from Major Hasan's computer use and from interviews with his family members, co-workers and neighbors. One significant investigative thrust has involved determining whether Major Hasan had contact with extremists who preyed on his increasingly angry and outspoken opposition to American policies in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But so far, investigators have unearthed no evidence that he was directed or steered into violence or ever traveled overseas to meet with extremist groups, as defendants in some recent terrorism cases are accused of doing, the officials said.

The officials emphasized that their findings were preliminary and that the investigation was fluid. New information could alter their perceptions of Major Hasan's motives. But the early conclusions are already influencing the course of the inquiry, including which law enforcement agencies lead it.

I think it is too early to draw definitive conclusions. The investigation remains fluid. But it is long overdue to act on Joe Lieberman. It is time to strip Dolting Joe from his chairmanship and oust him from the Democratic caucus.