We’ve seen and heard President Obama at town halls, press conferences, interviews, Saturday radio chats, industry summit meetings and delivering the keynote speech at medical conferences. All focused on health care reform, all covered breathlessly by the new and traditional media. No one can accuse this president of being AWOL in the health care debate.

Some might suggest that yet another Obama presentation on health care reform is as welcome as watching another Sham-Wow! commercial. Exposure has its risks as well as rewards.

Yet, despite his popularity, despite his much vaunted communication skills, despite his persuasive logic, despite his ubiquitous presence in the media, when the needle of popular sentiment has moved at all, it has moved in the wrong direction for the President’s version of reform. The Salesman in Chief can’t seem to close the deal with the American people. Moreover, the pundit class across the political spectrum are assessing the President’s sales skills, and finding them wanting:

Presidential Sales Job on Health Care Falling Short
Doug Bandow – Cato

It’s not working. The president enjoys the use of the executive branch’s bountiful resources, control of Congress by his party, and aid of a sympathetic media. Yet support for expanding government control over health care is falling the more people learn about it.

Sell Me!
Kevin Drum – Mother Jones

Obama’s sales pitch still needs work
Concord Monitor

Sales Pitch…
Steve Benen – Washington Monthly

Obama is failing on health reform
Clive Crook – Financial Times

One More With Feeling
The New Republic

In many ways, this is puzzling. The President is justifiably known for his oratorical skills and power to persuade. What is going on here? Even the President seems confused. From a Time interview…

Ah… there it is. There’s the problem. He’s not selling. He’s making a case. I guess that should not be surprising. The President has never been in sales. He has never been in business. The president is trained as a lawyer. He is not selling health care reform, he is trying a case on health care reform. Now there are some superficial similarities between a lawyer trying a case and salesman closing a deal – both involve crafting and presenting a persuasive proposition. But there are big differences.

Case in point. If a lawyer overwhelms his opponent with a brilliant, persuasive and unassailable argument in front of a jury, he is going to win the argument, and likely win the case. On the other hand, if a salesman overwhelms a prospect with a brilliant, persuasive and unassailable argument, he is going to win the argument, but lose the sale.

Most people who have never been in sales, do not really understand sales. They think they do, but what they understand is a caricature of sales.

I can help. I was in sales and sales management for a lot of years, selling big complex and expensive enterprise software solutions to large organizations. I can’t help much with the policy specifics of the health care reform legislation, but I can help diagnose the sales problems of our president and offer a prescription.

First, by way of disclosure – my current take on the plan itself. I am still trying to get my arms around the various, sundry and generally bad policy permutations presented so far. If I had to put a stake in the ground, I’d lean toward the Wyden-Bennett bill, which is apparently not getting any serious consideration. E.D. Kain offers an effective pitch and the subsequent discussion at Ordinary Gentlemen has been persuasive. The president could learn something about presenting a complex sales from those boys.

I am dead-set against the H.R. 3200 hairball that is apparently the bill of choice being pitched by the President. Partially because I don’t understand it all (not for lack of trying), partially because I do understand it and don’t like it, and partially because it is clear the President does not fully understand it and is selling smoke. I am seeing a used car salesman pitching a Shelby Cobra Mustang, but when I ask for test drive, he puts me in a car seat mounted in a frame without an engine, tires or steering wheel. And it’s wildly expensive. And I think he is offering predatory financing. Guess what? I’m not buying.

Let’s get back to salesmanship.

This is a teachable moment Mr. President.

Welcome to Sales 101.

There are some other choices in the legislature besides H.R. 3200. You may want to reconsider which product will have the best chance of selling to the American people. As you found out, it is possible to be successful selling a lemon (like the stimulus porkfest), but it hurts your credibility and makes the next sale a lot tougher. If the prospect is not buying the Lincoln Town Car you are selling, you have two choices. You can keep pitching that Lincoln, convinced that you know better than the prospect what they really need. That always ends badly. They’ll just leave the showroom never to return. Alternatively, you can forget the Lincoln, start pitching the Fiesta, and you might have a sale by the end of the day.

A professional salesperson works to match a product pitch to a prospect’s requirements and budgets. A huckster only cares about the features of the product, and will pitch those features endlessly, regardless of whether the prospect has a need for the features or can afford them. When I look at Axelrod’s talking points, I can’t help but think of the penultimate huckster pitch, the Ginsu steak knife:

This approach works well with Ginsu knives on late night TV. For selling a comprehensive solution to Health Care reform? Not so much.

Enterprise software is a malleable product. It does a lot of stuff and can be customized to meet the specific needs of the client. Generally, it does much more than a client needs, with a large percentage of enterprise software features not needed at all. If a salesperson focuses on the small percentage of features that actually solves the client business problem, they can usually get the sale. If they spend their time extolling all the wonderful features of the software, whether relevant to the client or not… they don’t get the sale.

Mr. President, you and the Democratic party believe you have a mandate from the American people to reform health care. I believe you are correct, and said as much before the election. However, a mandate is not a blank check. Expressed in sales terminology, it is far more important to understand what the client wants to buy vs. hammering them with a pitch of what you want to sell them. The continuing erosion of support for H.R.H. 3200 (House of Representatives Hairball 3200), clearly shows that what you are selling, is not what the American people are buying.

I could be wrong, but if I were to guess what the American people are looking to buy, it would be something that can be articulated pretty simply and emerges from some basic American values of fairness and common sense. I’d say it is really about these three things:

1. Every American gets a baseline level of solid health care. No one is left behind.
2. No American need be at risk of financial ruin or bankruptcy because they get sick.
3. The program is manageable and fiscally responsible. Americans want to feel reasonably certain we won’t see mushrooming costs like with Medicare and the prescription drug plan.

That’s it, Mr. President. We don’t need “Free! Free! Free! Preventive Care!” or a set of Ginsu steak knives to sweeten the deal. Put together a package that does these three things, pitch them clearly and simply, and you’ll close the sale.

Interestingly, Wyden-Bennett S391 accomplishes all three. HRH 3200 at best accomplishes one of the three. Just sayin…

Class dismissed.

X-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

Watch the following clip and tell me it’s not frustrating to watch…

And so it goes…

While I agree that polls are meaningless from this distance, insight into the election can be gleaned from structural issues. Shortly after the November election, I posted an analysis on the prospect of restoring divided government in 2010 or 2012. This summary/conclusion paraphrased from that post:

After the 2008 election the Democrats picked up an additional 21 seats and will have a crushing 82+ seat majority in the House. Given the difficulty of changing majorities in the House, there is almost no likelihood of a Republican majority in the house before 2014 and probably longer (even with a hurricane force political tailwind, the Democrats only picked up 21 seats in ‘08 – do the math). That leaves the Senate as the only determinant of whether divided government can be restored in 2010. In 2012, either re-taking the Senate or the presidency are possibilities for restoring divided government, as the house will likely remain out of reach…

Conclusion / Predictions

We will have One Party Rule under the Democrats for at least four years.

The next opportunity to restore divided government will be in 2012.

The Republicans will have two ways to get there, so I will go out on a limb and make the prediction that divided government will be restored in 2012, either through the Republicans winning the presidency or (more likely) a majority in the Senate. If the latter, we will be in the interesting situation that we have a divided congress, and regardless of which party wins the presidency – a divided government. That’s a good thing.

No telling what shape the country will be in by then.

I stand by the overall thesis, but all the results were not in and a few things have changed. Time for an update.

First, based on the completely insane deficit spending in the first six months of Single Party Democratic Rule, we now have an answer to the last bullet. We will be in very sorry economic shape by the 2012 election, with a debased currency, high inflation, and possibly eclipsed by the more capital friendly China as the pre-eminent economic engine on the planet.

Second, there have been some changes in the structural elements of the 2010 Senate races. Republican Arlen Specter changed his party affiliation, and the Missouri race was finally decided. With Al Franken now in the Senate, there are 60 Senators who caucus Democrat and 40 Senators who caucus Republican. With special elections in New York to replace Hillary Clinton and in Delaware to replace Joe Biden, we now have 36 Senate seats up for grabs in 2010, with 18 held by Republicans and 18 held by Democrats.

Perversely, the Republican hand in 2010 was strengthened by their unrelenting poor performance in 2008. Instead of defending 19 of 34 seats as outlined in my previous post, they are defending 18 of 36 seats, exactly like the Democrats, and on a structurally even playing field in 2010. They are in far too deep a hole to have any chance of retaking the Senate majority in 2010, but (despite Justin’s snark) if they can take 2 or 3 seats, it will be a big win and they will be in an excellent position to retake the Senate in 2012 when they have significant structural factors in their favor.

The Senate remains the best chance to divide this government in 2012. While Barack Obama’s poll numbers have predictably eroded from the stratospheric level he enjoyed earlier in the year, he still has a deep reservoir of goodwill and personal popularity with voters. He is personable, likable, smart, and as Joe Biden noted – “clean and articulate”. Predictions three years out are indeed foolish, but barring some as of yet unrevealed scandal close to the President, I expect he will be reelected.

Net net – The best chance to restore fiscal rationality in 2012 is for Republicans to take the Senate, and that will take two election cycles. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and the first step is for Republicans to pick up a couple of seats in 2010.

Two Senate races have peaked my early interest.

Pat Toomey is a solid fiscal conservative. His primary challenge to Arlen Specter is widely attributed to be the reason Specter changed his party affiliation. Ironically, if Specter survives a Democratic Party primary challenge, he could still easily lose to Toomey in the general election. I like Toomey’s chances. I like what he says about divided government. And I really like the way he acquitted himself in a laughably hostile Hardball appearance on Tuesday August 4:

Another campaign of interest – Democratic Senator Chris Dodd’s Connecticut seat. I had some positive things to say about Chris Dodd during his brief presidential run. That was then. This is now. A lot of questions emerged about his close relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, a sweetheart mortgage from Countrywide Financial and cozy relationships with banking lobbyists. This is a race that should be a slam dunk and a safe seat for Democrats, but is now up for grabs. Recent polls show that Dodd is trailing former Republican congressman Rob Simmons. Simmons would be a fine choice. But there is another interesting challenger in Connecticut. Money manager and economic soothsayer Peter Schiff is also considering a run for this seat.

Schiff took a page from the Ron Paul campaign and his “moneybomb” effort today is showing pretty impressive results thus far for a Senatorial campaign:

Maybe we will get that libertarian voice in the Senate.

x-posted from “Divided We Stand United We Fall“

The GOP is finally able to get rid of one of their more embarrassing Senators.

The reason?

Money…

The writing on the wall may have been the news reported Sunday by the Louisville Courier-Journal that more than 100 former Bunning donors have signed up with Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a fellow Republican who has formed an exploratory committee.

Bunning is 77. Grayson, who has taken in twice what Bunning has raised, is 37.

Bunning announced in May that he intended to run for a third term, but as I wrote back then, that decision is “subject to change.” And it did.

But will this be good for the Dems or the Repubs in the next election cycle?

Well, Kentucky is a fairly red state, but Bunning barely won last time against Daniel Mongiardo, a complete unknown who had a fraction of Bunning’s war chest. Part of this was due to the fact that Bunning suggested that Mongiardo looked like one of Saddam Hussein’s sons, but I also think Kentucky voters realize that Bunning isn’t really all there anymore. In fact, his approval numbers are barely cracking 30% and his disapproval is above 50%. So his prospects in 2011 were dim to begin with.

Still, will the political landscape in Kentucky change or will the continue to elect Republicans?

Still, if you want to take a glance…

More here.

So, Franken has finally won.

Now comes the hard part: establishing credibility.

Read the rest at True/Slant.

This isn't much of a surprise after today’s ruling, but the fact that he won’t prolong this any further is certainly welcome news.

From Minnesota Independent…

The former senator called Al Franken this afternoon to congratulate him on his victory nearly eight months after election day. The concession came shortly after the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a ruling naming Franken the winner in the protracted contest.

“I’m really at peace,” Coleman told reporters at a press conference at his St. Paul home. “I’ve had a lot of time to process this election, think about the past and look to the future. So I really have a sense of peace for where things are at.”

Coleman vowed to work with Franken as he becomes Minnesota’s junior senator. He insisted that the fact that Franken will become the 60th Democratic senator — giving President Obama a filibuster-proof majority — played no role in his decision-making process. “Whatever I can do now to be a unifying force that’s what I’m going to do,” he said.

And note that last paragraph…now Obama has a filibuster-proof majority.

But will he use it?

Discuss.

Nearly 9 months after the election, there appears to be some light at the end of the tunnel for Minnesota.

From the AP:

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) – The Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered that Democrat Al Franken be certified as the winner of the state’s long-running Senate race.

The high court rejected a legal challenge from Republican Norm Coleman, whose options for regaining the Senate seat are dwindling.

Justices said Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office. With Franken and the usual backing of two independents, Democrats will have a big enough majority to overcome Republican filibusters.

However…

Coleman hasn’t ruled out seeking federal court intervention.

Ugh.

Norm…seriously…it’s time to pack it up. It was close, but you lost and every recount has shown that. Not only that, I think nearly every single court decision has gone against you. Minnesota needs a Senator and it’s pretty clear that you won’t be it. Move on already.

More as it develops…

You probably noticed that I didn’t write anything about John Ensign’s affair because it seemed like just another hypocrite doing what hypocrites do.

But when I read the following letter penned by one of Ensign’s former employees (as well as the husband of the woman Ensign pursued), I was moved enough to share it. You’ll find out why soon enough.

From Las Vegas Sun:

More than any time in my life I understand why people take matters into their own hands. I am disheartened! I have sought wise counsel, tried to do the right thing and continue to run into road blocks (sic) in dealing with a very terrible circumstance and injustice that lives in my life. I am hoping you and Fox News can help.

My name is Doug Hampton. I am a former employee of US (sic) Senator John Ensign. I worked for Senator Ensign in his official government office on Capitol Hill from November 2006 to April 2008. My responsibilities were the oversight of his personnel in Washington as well as the state of Nevada. Duties included budgets, policy and public speaking on behalf of the Senator and his initiatives.

Here is my story. In December of 2007 in the midst of some very difficult personal issues that deeply impacted my family and marriage, Senator Ensign pursued and engaged in a relationship with my wife. Our families were lifelong friends, our children attend school together to this day, and our homes are in neighborhoods across from each other. My wife was the Senator’s campaign treasurer.

There is a tremendous amount (sic) of details and critical facts associated with this story and their relationship that will not be addressed in this letter but are very important and need to be further explored if you choose to meet with me. The purpose of this letter is to establish the framework for discussion and provide enough information to warrant a meeting with you and Fox News. This is the only letter of its kind and no other news stations have been contacted with this information. I have great respect and affection for Fox News and many of your collages (sic). I’m sending this to you because you have a legal back ground (sic) and this story has several legal elements.

The unethical behavior and immoral choice of Senator Ensign has been confronted by me and others on a number of occasions over this past year. In fact one of the confrontations took place in February 2008 at his home in Washington DC (sic) with a group of his peers. One of the attendee’s (sic) was Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma as well as several other men who are close to the Senator. Senator Ensign’s conduct and relentless pursuit of my wife led to our dismissal in April of 2008. I would like to say he stopped his heinous conduct and pursuit upon our leaving, but that was not the case and his actions did not subside until August of 2008.

The actions of Senator Ensign have ruined our lives and careers and left my family in shambles. We have lost significant income, suffered indescribable pain and emotional suffering. We find ourselves today with an overwhelming loss of relationships, career opportunities and hope for recovery. Our pursuit of justice continues to place me and my family in harm’s way as we fear for our well being (sic).

Today, Senator Ensign’s responsibility and stature have increased within the US (sic) Senate. His is currently the head of “Policy” for the Republican Party, the number four position within the Parties (sic) leadership team. We on the other hand are completely ruined and left to deal with the aftermath of very evil and completely unjustifiable acts by one of our countries (sic) top leaders.

It appears there may be nothing the law can do to correct and bring justice and restitution to (sic) this terrible wrong that has been done to us. I have sought a number of lawyers who are having difficulty finding charges that may hold up in court. There are either technicalities that exist due to the time period in which I have sought help, or other nuances that quite frankly make no sense to me given the egregious acts and blatant abuse of power by Senator Ensign. From my perspective this whole nightmare is terribly wrong and completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated.

I clearly understand this story is difficult to believe for anyone reading (sic) for the first time. I too would have difficulty believing it, if someone brought me this story. However I assure you it is true and there are facts, a paper trail, phone records and personal witnesses to testify to its truth. It is my belief we are dealing with a very powerful person and an institution in the US (sic) Senate that only the media can pierce to expose the wrong and bring light and focus to what needs to be done? (sic)

Please help me! This should not be how the leadership of our country should be allowed to behave. I need justice, help and restitution for what Senator Ensign has done to me and my family. Regardless of technicalities, regardless of position, regardless of power this cannot and should not be tolerated in our country from our trusted leaders. Will you help? Will you consider a meeting with me to further discuss this story and what can be done to bring justice and correction to this situation?

I love this country and considered it a great privilege to work in the US (sic) Senate. I am bringing this to you and Fox News to address this professionally and correctly. I could have sought the most liberal, Republican hating media to expose this story, but there are people’s lives at stake and justice is about proper process as well as outcome. Senator Ensign has no business serving in the US (sic) Senate anymore! I will send you and (sic) email as well as leave you and your staff messages in an attempt to meet you and your team as soon as possible. I live and work in Nevada but can be in New York within hours, I look forward to your help.

Sincerely,
Doug Hampton

What this guy did was pretty despicable, and now I think he should resign. And if Republicans are protecting him because of his stature within the party, well, they should stop immediately. Because like most hypocrites, it’ll only be a matter of time before he can’t help himself again and the GOP will have to deal with another one of these situations.

Be forewarned Republicans. If you let this one go it could seriously nail you later on.

House Dems are bound and determined to make a public option their first priority, and I can understand why. This has been a long time coming and they’re convinced that only the federal government can compete with private industry.

But what she’s missing is the idea that Kent Conrad brought up…which is the public option may not have the votes. So if she pushes through a bill that can’t pass the Senate, could this spell the end of her tenure as the Speaker?

From CNN:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Thursday dismissed the idea of health-insurance cooperatives as an alternative to a government-sponsored health-care plan.

Asked at her weekly news conference whether she could support non-profit co-ops, Pelosi said, “No, not instead of a public option.” [...]

Despite the Senate talks, Pelosi said House Democrats were moving forward with a bill focused on creating a government insurance plan. “In our House, there is strong support for a public option,” she said.

The speaker described the model, saying, “It should be actuarially sound. It should be administratively self-sufficient. It should be a real competitor with the private sector and not have an unfair advantage. When you say the words public option — if that is the term we will be using — you have to say right next to it, level playing field.”

Still, House Republicans are signaling that they won’t accept any type of health care reform that involves the government…

“I’m opposed to a government option, period,” said Boehner. “Listen, if you like going to the DMV and you think they do a great job, or you like going to the post office and think it’s the most efficient thing you’ve run into, then you’ll love the government-run health-care system that they’re proposing, ’cause that’s basically what you’re gonna have.”

Ahh, the sweet sounds of demagoguery.

This is gonna get ugly.

It’s must see stuff…

So sounds bad, right? But nothing will come of it. Here’s why…

Technically, Burris never did raise any money for Blago, and talking about it isn’t illegal. Unethical? Sure. But an ethics violation is the political equivalent of being told to go sit in the corner for 30 minutes. So my guess is that all he’ll get is a slap on the wrist.

However, just for a personal standpoint…the fact that Burris didn’t bring this phone conversation up before today is just dumb and he doesn’t deserve to be a Senator because of it.

By the way, this is the type of hard hitting interviewing we need to see more of. Matthews isn’t here taking partisan swipes. He’s trying to get to the truth. And good for Burris for showing up, but Matthews wasn’t lobbing softballs at him and everybody else in cable news should take note.

Popular Republican governor Charlie Crist is set to announce whether or not he’ll try to join the federal government, but sources are already saying it’s a done deal.

From Politico:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R) will be announcing Tuesday that he will be running for the Senate, according to a source close to the governor, giving Republicans their most high-profile recruit of the 2010 election cycle.

Crist’s decision puts Republicans in strong position to hold onto the seat held by retiring Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) Crist holds high approval ratings among both Republicans and Democrats, according to statewide polling, and has forged a moderate governing style that has won him widespread support. [...]

Florida Republican Party chairman Jim Greer confirmed to the Pensacola News-Journal that Crist will be making his formal announcement in Tallahassee on Tuesday at “a low-key event” and said he will draw immediate endorsements by a statewide and national Republican leaders.

For those of you who followed the 2008 campaign, you already know that Crist was on McCain’s VP short list…and I think it’s clear by now that he should have gone with the governor from Florida instead of the one from Alaska.

But that begs the question: what are Crist’s presidential aspirations?

Something tells me that, like Jindal, he understands that 2012 is not a good time to run and the field will be WAY too crowded. But 2016 will present an opportunity because there’s no way that Biden would run for POTUS. Obviously that means Obama would win in 2012, but there’s a better than even chance that’ll happen right now.

So a move to Washington for the next 6 years wouldn’t be the worst idea in the world. It would put him on the national stage, would allow him to build bridges on moderate issues and oppose the ones he feels aren’t in the best interests of Republicans.

And hey, perhaps there is no angle, but I can’t help but think Crist feels he’s well positioned as the next Reagan since there’s no way Republicans can with the White House without Florida.

Republicans can call Arlen Specter an opportunist all they like and maybe they’re right. But the fact remains, the senator’s party jump is the direct result of the Republican’s increasing intolerance of moderates within their party.

I understand that Specter is not a model Republican and that a primary challenge is often the price a politician pays for refusing to toe the party line. But usually the main powerbrokers support the incumbent (as happened with Specter in 2004) and the official stays in office. Except, here in 2009, the Republican party is effectively controlled by talk show hosts and hardcore activists who seem to think the path back to power is through purification of the party.

This is not a syndrome exclusive to conservatives. We shouldn’t forget the purging of Joe Lieberman which resulted in the longtime Democrat becoming an Independent. Lucky for Dems, Lieberman chose to continue caucusing with the blue team, even though he did campaign for John McCain. Now with the Democrats on the verge of a 60 vote majority in the Senate (as soon as Al Franken gets his seat, God help us), I think Democratic purists may better understand the usefulness of a big tent. Without Lieberman and other less-than-pure Dems like Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, et. al., the Democrats wouldn’t be so close to a filibuster-proof majority.

Arlen Specter most likely defected because he would lose his primary. But that should still tell the Republicans something: if they want to return to power quickly (rather than waiting for the pendulum of history to swing back away from the left), they’d be better off building a broad-based coalition rather than trying to create a pure, but powerless party.

This is pretty big news. Reports out of Washington indicate Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter will switch parties moving from a Republican to a Democrat. The announcement is expected today or tomorrow.

Republicans in Pennsylvania have been planning to mount a primary challenge against Specter because the senator is viewed by party operatives as too liberal. Well, looks like they got their wish to get rid of Specter. Too bad the result will almost certainly give Democrats a 60 vote majority in the Senate (assuming Al Franken officially wins in Minnesota, which looks very likely).

More as the story develops.

And of course Coleman will appeal, but it’s looking more and more likely that we’ll be calling the former SNLer Senator Franken in the very near future.

From Star Tribune:

After a trial spanning nearly three months, Norm Coleman’s attempt to reverse Al Franken’s lead in the recount of the U.S. Senate election was soundly rejected today by a three-judge panel that dismissed the Republican’s lawsuit.

The judges swept away Coleman’s argument that the election and its aftermath were fraught with systemic errors that made the results invalid.

“The overwhelming weight of the evidence indicates that the Nov. 4, 2008, election was conducted fairly, impartially and accurately,” the panel said in its unanimous decision.

In rejecting Coleman’s arguments, the panel said the Republican essentially asked it to ignore Minnesota election requirements and adopt a more lenient standard allowing illegal absentee ballots to be counted.

Frankly, I don’t see what other legal rabbits Coleman can pull out of his hat at this point, and even conservatives are starting to call for him to quit. He has little recourse now than to try and get another recount, but the last one put him more in the hole so I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

So yes, it’s time for Coleman to accept defeat and hang it up. Otherwise he’ll kill his chances to challenge Franken in the next election.

More soon…

That’s the word out today and it sounds fairly damning for Jackson because how would folks come to Blago and promise this if it wasn’t backed up by Jesse Jr.?

From Chicago Sun Times:

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s camp was told last year that U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) would raise up to $5 million in campaign cash for the ex-governor if he was appointed to President Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned.

The overture came from at least two members of the local Indian community who approached the Blagojevich fund-raising team last fall, sources say.

Besides the $5 million to be raised by Jackson, the proposal also included another $1 million for Blagojevich’s campaign fund that would come from Indian donors, sources say.

And here’s how it went down…

The first came from Rajinder Bedi, a state employee who acted as a conduit to the Indian community for Blagojevich, sources say. Bedi met with the governor’s brother, Robert, to tell him that a longtime fund-raiser and wealthy health care businessman, Raghuveer Nayak, would help organize fund-raising within the Indian community and that Jackson would raise money as well.

Then, at an Oct. 31 planning luncheon at the India House restaurant in Schaumburg, Nayak delivered a similar message to Robert Blagojevich, the Sun-Times has learned. Nayak allegedly identified himself to the Blagojevich camp as a representative of Jackson, sources say.

Again, doesn’t bode well for Jackson. Because he has definitely had contact with Nayak and even if he didn’t do anything wrong, Nayak can say he did.

Ugh, what a mess.

More as it develops…

It’s all done for Coleman, and yet…

From Star Tribune:

Democrat Al Franken today extended his lead over Republican Norm Coleman in Minnesota’s U.S. Senate election, after the counting of about 350 formerly rejected absentee ballots this morning.

Franken captured 198 of the ballots, while Coleman took 111. The ballots added 87 votes to Franken’s recount lead, enlarging his margin over Coleman to 312.

The result makes it even more likely that, barring an unforeseen circumstance, Franken will prevail in the election lawsuit that Coleman filed in January to contest the Democrat’s 225-vote recount lead. The three-judge panel presiding over the case has not said when it will issue a final decision.

Coleman will appeal the case to the Minnesota Supreme Court, his lawyer Ben Ginsberg said after today’s proceedings. One of the grounds for the appeal will be unequal treatment of the ballots, Ginsberg said.

Hopefully we’ll have a resolution soon because this is getting ridiculous. And then Coleman can challenge Franken in the next election. But Minnesotans deserve a final decision as soon as possible because they need a representative in the Senate.

In the wake of the Justice Department’s decision to drop charges against former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, Alaska’s Governor is joining those making a rather absurd call:

Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) called on Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska ) Thursday to step down from his seat and run in a special election in the wake of the Justice Department’s decision to drop corruption charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Begich narrowly defeated Stevens in 2008, a contest overshadowed by Stevens’ October conviction.

Palin’s call came after a reporter at the Fairbanks News Miner emailed her a copy of a statement by Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich calling for Begich to step down.

Asked for her response, Palin simply wrote back: “I absolutely agree.”

When the reporter wrote back to confirm that Palin meant she’d like to see Begich resign in order to hold a special election, the governor responded: “Yes.”

In an email to POLITICO, Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton confirmed the governor’s position. “She absolutely agrees that there should be a special election,” Stapleton wrote. “Stepping down to hold the special election would be the right thing to do.”

Over at The Next Right, Jon Henke says quite succinctly exactly what I thought when I first heard this last night:

A lot of people wonder who the next leaders of the Republican Party should be. I don’t know. But you know who it shouldn’t be? Anybody who thinks the current elected Senator from Alaska should resign so that the corrupt former Senator Ted Stevens can be brought back to the Senate.

Seriously people, do you really want to see the guy behind the Bridge To Nowhere and one of the Senate’s Kings of Pork back in the Senate ?

Stevens symbolizes much of what was, and apparently still is, wrong with the Republican Party and the fact that Palin seems open to the idea that he should be given another bite at the apple just confirms what I’ve thought about her since September.

James Joyner, meanwhile, addresses the “fairness” issue that some are raising:

The Attorney General dropped the case against Stevens prior to sentencing because of prosecutorial misconduct, not because of evidence exonerating Stevens.

Beyond that, it’s not uncommon for narrow elections to be decided based on dubious knowledge on the part of the voters. Candidates are often smeared with unfounded charges by their opponents and occasionally even charged with actual crimes for which they are subsequently exonerated. Them’s unfortunately the breaks. There are no do-overs.

Just ask Gary Condit.

C/P: Below The Beltway

What is reconciliation? Here’s the summary:

Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has been deficit reduction, but in recent years reconciliation has encompassed revenue reduction generally and spending increases in selected program areas.

So, since healthcare reform is expected to be part of the new budget, it can be swept in through reconciliation.

Bear in mind, Reid has also stated that the bipartisan bill currently in the works from Democrat Max Baucus and Republican Chuck Grassley should be given a chance. I hope this is the opinion of President Obama as well, because resorting to reconciliation on such significant legislation would probably destroy any chance of bipartisanship in the future. Yes, some Republicans will obstruct whatever healthcare bill comes up for a vote, but there are still enough reasonable Republican Senators for the Democrats to be able to craft a balanced bill that can avoid a filibuster.

I understand Democrats are eager to reform healthcare and that it is an issue that needs some form of government action (to, if nothing else, correct previous, bad government actions from the municipal level to the federal level). But passing the first bill which can win 51 Senate votes is very unlikely to yield balanced, smart legislation. Giving Republican Senators a voice will ensure the regulation-happy contingent of the Democratic party will be somewhat subdued by smart deregulatory ideas that exist on the right.

I’m pretty sure a large majority of Americans want healthcare reform. Hopefully we will get reform that the majority can support.

Senate Banking Committee Chair Chris Dodd has had better days. Looks like the AIG bonus scandal just found a political whipping boy:

Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision.

“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.

“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”

Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill.

I like the “But for that language” part of the quote. If Dodd thought the language was good, he wouldn’t have hid from his involvement in it. He’ll have a hard time defending his role now. Sure, a lot of people voted for the bill, but the “I didn’t read that part” excuse is better than the “I wrote that part and then denied and am now hoping it all goes away” excuse.