From a Politico email alert: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled a health reform bill Thursday that would cost $894 billion over 10 years and includes a public option. It meets President Obama’s goal of not adding to the federal deficit, cutting the deficit by about $30 billion in the first 10 years. And now it gets interesting. Full story here.

I like Steve Benen and used to read his blog, The Carpetbagger Report, regularly. I still occasionally read his posts at his current home, The Washington Monthly’s Political Animal — but I have to seriously question this post from earlier today, bemoaning Democrats’ perceived inability (unwillingness?) to enforce “party loyalty.” An excerpt: Political parties that expect loyalty from caucus members tend to be more effective and have more success advancing their agenda....

This quip is one for the archives, best appreciated if you read the entire (brief) story at NYT. “Kudo to the governor for his creative use of coincidence with his veto message,” the spokesman, Quintin Mecke said in an e-mail message. He added, “We will call it even and start with a clean slate with the governor from here on out.”

Per a breaking news email from Politico: Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) says he will join a Republican filibuster against the Senate Democrats’ health care reform bill unless the public option is removed. More here. From CNN: Also Tuesday, conservative Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska warned that his vote remains uncertain for a bill with a public option. From the same story: [GOP Sen.] Snowe has indicated her preference for a “trigger” provision that would mandate creation...

“This idea that we’re suddenly going to establish litmus tests and all across the country we’re going to purge the party of anybody who doesn’t agree with us 100 percent; that guarantees Obama’s reelection, that guarantees Pelosi as Speaker-for-life.” — Newt Gingrich, defending his decision to back GOP candidate Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 special election this year.

Courtesy of Andrew Sullivan. At the very least, that chart illustrates the trajectory of this individual’s journey through the swamp of the health care debate. That chart might also explain “the answer.” No need to add to more information if confusion already reins.

Q: Mr. President, do you prefer the “trigger” or “opt out” approaches to the public option? A: Yes.

“We’re always putting out these estimates: This is going to cost $1.042 trillion exactly. But you sort of want to add, you know, ‘Your mileage may vary.’ ” – Phil Ellis, senior analyst, Congressional Budget Office ————————- The WaPo article where I saw that quote earlier today is a fascinating read. It reminded me of a central argument of one of my favorite books. That argument: There’s too much to know,...

Look to Britain, per David Brooks. Where the Tories are headed is all very consistent with Barry Goldwater, who advised nearly a half-century ago, in The Conscience of a Conservative, that conservatives’ first priority on fiscal matters is fiscal soundness; that tax cuts should only be considered after spending is controlled. (For Goldwater’s exact words, reference pages 56-57 of this edition of his timeless tome.) British conservatives have apparently listened to Goldwater. Sadly,...

If you see a spade, call it a spade. David Brooks does. The money graph: Over the years, I have asked many politicians what happens when Limbaugh and his colleagues attack. The story is always the same. Hundreds of calls come in. The receptionists are miserable. But the numbers back home do not move. There is no effect on the favorability rating or the re-election prospects. In the media world, he is a giant. In the real world, he’s not. But why do so many Republican/conservative politicians...

Like this one: As a result of the right’s preemptive strike on the racial front, liberals have remained dangerously silent in the face of the most egregious acts of racism against Obama to date. It is for this reason that Representative Joe Wilson could heckle Obama during his Congressional address and only be challenged for his rudeness rather than his racism. Although he has received a formal reprimand from the House of Representatives (the political equivalent of an after-school detention)...

I despise news reports that mention how a particular vote was “almost exclusively along party lines,” but then fail to list the exceptions. Take, for instance, the over-reported “Joe Wilson slap-on-the-wrist” story. I had to dig through multiple reports like this one, before I finally found this one (and to be fair, this one and this one) listing the exceptions, i.e., the members of the House who did not vote the party line on the “resolution of disapproval” for...

After reading David Brooks’ column this morning, I had the same reaction Dave Schuler had: I agree with this Brooks column probably more than any other of his. And the line from Brooks’ column that most captured my attention was this one: [Obama] has opened up many opportunities for intelligent Republicans and moderate Democrats to constructively offer amendments to improve the bill and bring it closer to fiscal sanity. Among those “many opportunities,” Brooks’ identifies...

It appears Ezra Klein is not the only Progressive-inclined pundit who has semi-nice things to say about Sen. Baucus’ proposal. Here’s Matt Yglesias, via Andrew Sullivan: The status quo in the United States is really bad. Baucus’ plan would make it better. That line and this one from Yglesias — “even in its meager Baucusish form, the health reform currently on the table would be the biggest piece of progressive social policy in decades” — sound so much like...

So concludes Ezra Klein: The legislation really would protect millions of Americans from medical bankruptcy. It really would insure tens of millions of people. It really will curb the worst practices of the private insurance industry. It really will expand Medicaid and transform it from a mish-mash of state regulation into a dependable benefit. It really will lay down out-of-pocket caps which are a lot better than anything people have today. It really will help primary care providers, and it really...

A timely reminder about how both sides of the aisle politicize even the most routine matters.

Described by the NYT as “a veteran health care expert who oversaw the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs for the first President George Bush and advised Senator John McCain in his presidential campaign last year,” Gail Wilensky tells the paper: … the entire health care system should stop paying doctors an individual fee for each service they provide patients — something experts say encourages over-treatment and waste — and alternatively, for instance, persuade them to join...

Nicholas Kristof approaches the health care debate from a starting point that I and others have previously acknowledged, namely: We don’t leave everything to the free market. There are certain areas in which we commonly acknowledge that government is the better actor. Perhaps health care coverage is one of them. Granted, Kristof seems to suggest (upon first read at least) that we go further with government health care than even I’m comfortable conceding, but he also offers compelling...

Ezra Klein: “This is the irony of the health-care endgame: The bill becomes much more conservative if it loses its final Republican.”

Courtesy Blue Dog Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: We have to be pragmatic and forge some deal that moves us in a positive direction … We have expended unnecessary energy on elements of the plan that I don’t think are essential. I remain optimistic that when we come back in September, we will recognize how important it is to get half a loaf. Perhaps even more noteworthy is the following line from the NYT article in which that comment appeared; the emphasis is mine: With Republicans essentially...

While I’ll be among the first to acknowledge that members of the radical (and not-so-radical) left produce their fair share of questionable if not detestable rhetorical moments, it seems the members of the radical (and not-so-radical) right are, of late, churning out more than their fair share. Granted, that is not a unique observation, nor is it without bias. Regardless, these latest examples seemed egregious enough to warrant a particularly critical spotlight: Michelle Malkin’s hyperventilating...

Ryan Sager offers a tutorial, the content of which should probably be intuitive but, in the twisted present, is not necessarily so. H/t Patrick Appel.

If you’re in need of some starry-eyed optimism, don’t read this column, the latest from St. Louis’ Bill McLellan.

Within the last month or so, we had a string of comments and even a few posts wherein labels like “stupid” were attached to one or another derided group or individual. As the so-called “managing editor” of this blog, I sent a friendly reminder to our contributing writers that we (at the very least) should not contribute to the careless proliferation of such labels. I won’t flaunt that rule, since I’m generally expected to practice what I preach, but I really,...

David Brooks: We have been taught since, well, since the days of Camelot to admire a particular sort of politician: the epic, charismatic Mount Rushmore candidate who sits atop his charger leading transformational change. But the founders of this country designed the Constitution to frustrate that kind of leader. The Constitution diffuses power, requires compromise and encourages incrementalism. The founders created a government that was cautious so that society might be dynamic. Brooks goes on...