The Hill reports on developments in the House of Representatives:

Say hello to "Medicare Part E" -- as in, "Medicare for Everyone."

House Democrats are looking at re-branding the public health insurance option as Medicare, an established government healthcare program that is better known than the public option.

This plan is intriguing, but House Democrats would be well served to consider both the positives and the negatives associated with it.

Medicare is a widely popular program -- a Bloomberg poll from September of this year found that a whopping 79 percent of the country held a favorable opinion towards the program while just 16 percent viewed it unfavorably. If Americans believed what they were getting with healthcare reform was the choice of Medicare, which is understood and popular, instead of the choice of a public option, which is less understood and less popular (though by no means unpopular), they might be more willing to support the final legislation.

That said, the public option does not allow all Americans to buy into the existing Medicare program, at least not how it is currently devised. Instead, the public option allows those who cannot afford insurance the choice of a public alternative to private insurance companies. The difference isn't huge, but it is important. If all Americans believe that they are going to have this choice but then come to find out down the road that the choice is limited to only those who cannot afford private insurance -- a significant minority of the country, but still a minority -- they might not be too pleased.

Nevertheless, it's an interesting proposition.

John McCain is back on the pork barrel war path again, because apparently when you have a $1.8 trillion deficit, focusing on a cause that (by even the most outlandish definitions) has cost a grand total of $0.1 trillion over the last 18 years is clearly the most fiscally responsible thing a U.S. Senator can do. (To be fair, McCain used the phrase "wasteful spending," not the word "pork." So okay, it's really more about arbitrarily labeling anything he opposes as "wasteful" rather than finding projects that meet set criteria. Completely different, right?)

McCain Tweeted this morning, "Wasteful spending continues in Washington...so I've decided to resume the Top 10 earmarks of the day, starting w/ the DHS Appropriations Bill". Here are some of his entries:

#1. $325,000 to study seismic activity in Memphis, TN

#2. $125,000 to replace a generator in La Grange Park, IL

#3. $130,000 to relocate the residents of 130 homes in DeKalb, IL...

#5. $4 million for the Fort Madison Bridge in Fort Madison, WI

#6. $3.6 million for Coast Guard Operations Systems Center in West Virginia

#7. $900,000 for the City of Whitefish Emergency Operations Center in Whitefish, MT (Population: 6700)

#8. $300,000 to build a pier at the Coast Guard Academy in CT

So, according to the Republican Party's most recent presidential nominee, funding the U.S. service academies, ensuring fire and border safety in the the American west, expanding the branch of our military that performs S&R and stops drug runners, researching the potentially dangerous fault lines beneath the South and Midwest, and repairing our nation's crumbling infrastructure - even after the Minnesota bridge collapse - all count as "wasteful spending."

Calling his number 1, 5, 6, 7, and 8 projects "wasteful" is absolutely ridiculous. As for numbers 2 and 3, I need more information. Where is his generator? At a hospital? At a federal office building? Wouldn't those warrant replacing? And if elsewhere, why didn't McCain say so? And as for those 130 DeKalb homes, what's the reason for the project? Is this repayment for some sort of federal eminent domain? "Relocation" in and of itself isn't enough to get my hackles up... (Update: mcc notes in the comment section that this is flood-related relocation and suggests that McCain's true definition of wasteful spending is "the government spending some money now to save more money later." End update.)

At this rate, I'm surprised the number one project on McCain's list wasn't port security or defense satellites. John McCain and the new GOP: saying no to infrastructure, weather safety, and the U.S. service academies. Being the party of no only takes you so far when over half the true/false answers are actually "true."

Originally posted at Blue Moose Democrat.

The political climate is ripe for Republican gains, the Beltway elections watchers tell us. But those contributing to the 2010 campaigns disagree.

On the House side, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee more than doubled the money haul of its GOP counterpart, the National Republican Congressional Committee, bringing in $7 million to the $3.4 million raised by the NRCC in the month of September. The cash-on-hand numbers are similarly good for the Democrats, with the D-trip holding a net $10.7 million in the bank to the NRCC's $2.3 million.

On the Senate side, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee also handily outraised its GOP competitor in September, raising $5.9 million to the $3.2 million brought in by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The DSCC also leads the NRSC in net cash-on-hand by a $7.8 million to $5.2 million margin.

In addition, new reports show that for the first time since 2004, the Democratic National Committee has outraised the Republican National Committee for a quarter, $24.2 million to $22.9 million.

Must be great news for the Republicans, though!

Republicans may be sounding more bullish on their electoral hopes, and the Beltway media may be buying their optimism (notwithstanding the polling, like the latest survey from The Washington Post and ABC News (.pdf). showing the Democrats maintaining a healthy lead on the generic congressional ballot). But it might be a good time for the GOP to start thinking about what happens when their own voters, unhappy with the Obama administration but also unimpressed by their own party leadership, jump ship to third party candidates (.pdf).

There are also some warning signs in the Republican base. [GOP nominee] Chris Christie has the support of 81% of his fellow partisans, but this is down from 86% in the October 1st poll. Another 8% of GOP voters now give their support to [Independent candidate Chris] Daggett, up from 3% earlier this month.

The finding of Republican voters shifting their support from the GOP nominee to a third party or independent candidate with Republican or conservative background is not limited to the Monmouth University survey of the New Jersey Governor race quoted above. Take a look at the crosstabs from the latest Siena poll (.pdf) out of the special election in New York's 23rd congressional district, which has been in Republican hands since the Civil War era.

	ALL	DEM	GOP	IND
Bill Owens (Dem)	33	55	19	28
Dede Scozzafava (GOP)	29	17	40	24
Doug Hoffman (Con)	23	10	27	31

As you can see from the data above, more than one quarter of Republican voters in New York 23 are defecting from the GOP nominee to the candidate running on the Conservative Party line -- a split that is growing and in doing go is easing the Democrats' path to victory.

While Hoffman and Daggett are different types of third party candidates -- Hoffman is running to the right of Scozzafava as a conservative while Daggett, who has deep roots in New Jersey Republican politics, is running as a moderate alternative to Christie -- they are both drawing an increasing percentage of support from disaffected Republicans. And in each case, their presence on the ballot is making what would otherwise be tougher races for the Democrats much more winnable.

We are still a long way off from November 2010, and these two races are not necessarily the best harbingers of what is to come. That said, they do indicate that there remains a deep-seated dislike of Republicans that endures despite apparent declines in support for the Democrats -- a dislike that could seriously hamper GOP efforts to make major gains in the upcoming midterm elections. And unless the Republicans are able to address these sentiments, it's difficult to see them making anywhere near the type of gains some are projecting a little over a year out from election day.

David Rohde's riveting account of his captivity provides immense detail on the nature of life under the Taliban and the de facto Taliban state that stretches across southern Afghanistan and into northwestern Pakistan.

The trip confirmed suspicions I had harbored for years as a reporter. The Haqqanis oversaw a sprawling Taliban mini-state in the tribal areas with the de facto acquiescence of the Pakistani military. The Haqqanis were so confident of their control of the area that they took me -- a person they considered to be an extraordinarily valuable hostage -- on a three-hour drive in broad daylight to shoot a scene for a video outdoors.

Throughout North Waziristan, Taliban policemen patrolled the streets, and Taliban road crews carried out construction projects. The Haqqani network's commanders and foreign militants freely strolled the bazaars of Miram Shah and other towns. Young Afghan and Pakistani Taliban members revered the foreign fighters, who taught them how to make bombs.

Also the glimpses into the background and the world view of the Taliban are simply extraordinary.

Most of the guards were Afghan men in their late 20s and early 30s. Some had grown up as refugees in Pakistan. All had limited educations from government schools or religious institutions, known as madrasas. Some did not make it past junior high school. None had seen the world beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.

They all had relatives or friends who had been killed by Soviet or American troops. They grew up in a culture where teenage boys reached manhood and made a name for themselves by showing their bravery.

I tried to get to know one of the guards, who was preparing to be a suicide bomber. A young man in his 20s with a slim build and brown eyes, he said he had studied engineering in high school. He never attended college but was relatively well educated compared with the other fighters.

When I asked him why he wanted to die, he replied that living in this world was a burden for any true Muslim. Heaven was his goal, he said. Earthly relationships with his parents and siblings did not matter.

How does one combat the view that the Earth does not matter?  Or that Earthly relationships do not matter? Changing this world view is a project timed in decades.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal introduced me to a new right-wing fringe group, The Oath Keepers. With a motto of "Not on Our Watch", the group bills itself as a "non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." You can imagine who the domestic enemy is.

Founded in March of this year by Stewart Rhodes, a former staffer to Texas GOP Congressman Ron Paul and a former Army paratrooper with a Yale Law degree, the group is targeting law enforcement and military personnel for membership. The group, whose membership in the thousands, is to hold its first convention in Las Vegas beginning October 24th.

If former right wing Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo only spoke on subjects he had a certain expertise, we might never hear from him again. Unfortunately for us, Tom Tancredo is now on the lecture circuit speaking up storm on topics he knows nothing about. This past week, his traveling circus of insanity went to George Washington University to speak to rabidly right-wing group, Young America's Foundation. In his speech, Tancredo went for the jugular but succeeded only in slitting his own throat.

David Frum's New Majority provides the coverage:

Tancredo played some of his oldest hits for the crowd, repeating remarks he first made about nuclear retaliation in a July 2005 radio interview. Tancredo proposed that if an Islamic terrorist attack was launched on the United States, the best policy for the U.S. would be to use nuclear weapons on Mecca and Medina, because you have "to go for the jugular."

"Well, what if you said something like -- if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo argued.  The former congressman told students that mutually assured destruction was the best policy for preventing attacks from "Islamo-Facists." Tancredo insisted that Islamic terrorists would be greatly deterred from launching an attack on U.S. soil if they believe we are "crazy enough" to "take out" Mecca and Medina.

During the course of the event, New Majority also asked Tancredo his thoughts on the current state of the Republican Party. He replied, "Bipartisanship is overrated, we don't need moderates in the party, we need principled conservatives."Tancredo is looking for another Reagan, "a politician, who can inspire." However, he does not see anyone who currently fits that mold.

During the speech, Tancredo also played a new tune for the audience, addressing fears about global warming.  When asked if the G.O.P. needs to adopt a platform on climate change and current environmental issues his response was quite eloquent in its brevity: "We have a position, its bull**."

Tancredo's old hits about bombing Mecca were not well received.  Those statements were met with mixed reactions from the crowd. Many students' jaws dropped in amazement after he made the comments. Some looked around in awe and asked "Is he serious?" Others defended the need for such crazed action by saying "there is no other option."

I pity David Frum, I really do. There is no place for David Frum nor Olympia Snowe in today's GOP. Listening to Tom Tancredo talk about being "crazy enough" to "take out" Mecca and Medina and it becomes disturbingly clear that today's GOP is just plain insane and beyond redemption.

In case you're interested, Tom Tancredo has joined up with Bay Buchanan to form a political action committee, Team America, 'dedicated to securing our nation's border.' Can someone please form a PAC to secure Tom Tancredo's sanity?

"The Bush administration has spent years not only talking at very senior levels with one of the world's worst tyrants, who is responsible for genocide, but also reportedly offered the regime major concessions in exchange for minor steps and rolled out the red carpet for some of its most reprehensible officials." -- Susan Rice, May 2008

In March, President Obama launched a "high-level, urgent review" of US policy toward the Sudan. As a candidate, Barack Obama campaigned hard on toughening US policy toward the Sudan and bringing an end to the fighting in Darfur, which he described routinely as "genocide". As a Senator, Mr. Obama visited Darfurian refugee camps in Chad in 2006 and identified the issue as a priority. Today the Obama Administration in a stunning reversal unveiled its new Sudan policy. From the New York Times:

Laying out the basic outlines of his Sudan policy, President Obama said Monday that he would renew "tough sanctions" against the Khartoum government and increase pressure if it failed to improve the dire situation in Darfur -- but he also held out the possibility of incentives if Sudan cooperated.

"As the United States and our international partners meet our responsibility to act, the government of Sudan must meet its responsibilities to take concrete steps in a new direction," Mr. Obama said in a statement released by the White House.

The strategy, worked out after months of intensive debate, is meant to build pressure on Sudan to end the abuses that have left millions of people dead or displaced in its vast Darfur region. It places a greater emphasis on incentives than the Bush administration policy, but officials were quick to stress that there were also additional punishments on the table.

The president of Sudan, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, has been charged with crimes against humanity and war crimes by the International Criminal Court in the Hague for his role in human rights abuses in Darfur, and the new policy has come under criticism from some human rights advocates for its willingness to engage with his government.

A Sudanese presidential adviser, Ghazi Salahadin, said after the policy was announced that the new approach had some "positive points" and represented a "new Obama spirit," but he expressed disappointment that the president had referred explicitly to genocide, Reuters reported from the capital, Khartoum.

Washington officials offered few details on Monday about the policy beyond its general aims. The United States, Mr. Obama's statement said, would work to end gross human rights abuses, including genocide, in Darfur, seek implementation of the peace agreement that ended a war between northern and southern Sudan, and ensure that Sudan not serve as a haven for terrorists.

"If the government of Sudan acts to improve the situation on the ground and to advance peace, there will be incentives; if it does not, then there will be increased pressure imposed by the United States and the international community," the statement said.

Speaking at a news conference at the State Department, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, retired, the president's special envoy to Sudan, and Susan Rice, the ambassador to the United Nations, did not provide details on what incentives might be offered to Sudan. Mrs. Clinton said that the administration had "a menu of incentives and disincentives, political and economic, that we will be looking to," but added that it was in a classified addendum to the strategy document.

One does not does give "incentives" to Omar al Bashir. One arrests Omar al Bashir for crimes against humanity. The Administration's embrace of realpolitik is fast becoming a disgrace. This Administration is embracing tyrants while spurning meetings with the Dalai Lama.

The US Sudan strategy announced today includes, "A frank dialogue by the Special Envoy with the Government about what needs to be accomplished, how the bilateral relationship can improve if conditions transform, and how the government would become even more isolated if conditions remain the same or worsen. The dialogue must be based on a policy of 'verify, then trust.'" It goes on to say, "Backsliding by any party will be met with credible, meaningful disincentives leveraged by Washington and the international community." In other words, a slap on the wrist. By embracing Omar al Bashir and extending him a lifeline, the Obama Administration has condoned genocide against not just Darfurians but the numerous peoples of the South Sudan.

There are, no doubt, limits to American power. The reality is that the West has little to no leverage on the Sudan. But to offer "incentives" to a government that Obama himself once described as having "offended the standards of our common humanity" is a bridge too far for me. Though the Administration is describing the approach as pragmatic and driven by a sense of urgency, it is willfully naive to expect that Omar al Bashir is even interested in changing his behavoir. How does one even attempt to reform a genocidal maniac?

Well if you're General Scott Gration, the Special Envoy to Sudan, you start offering "gold stars and cookies". On his return from meeting the charming mass murderer al Bashir in Khartoum, General Gration said "We've got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries -- they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."

You have got to be kidding me.