Remember those Republicans and Democrats who took Roche/Genentech’s script and inserted it, barely touched, into the Congressional Record?

It will surprise none of you that there were parties involved.

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) was scheduled to attend a breakfast fundraiser at the Phoenix Park Hotel on May 7.  The event was hosted by lobbyists David Jones and former Senate Finance Committee staff director James Gould, who count Roche as clients.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) held a fundraising breakfast at Bistro Bis on September 17. Lobbyist hosts included Darin Gardner and Anna Sagely, who lobby exclusively for Hoffman-La Roche,  as well as lobbyists Mat Lapinski, Chris Myrick, and Christine Pellerin, who have Roche on their client lists.

Darin Gardner and Christine Pellerin, legislative assistant to former Congressman Henry Bonilla (R-TX), also hosted Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) for breakfast at Bistro Bis, also in May of this year.

Finally, Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX) held a cocktails and cigars fundraiser for Women Impacting the Nation, a project of her leadership committee Common Sense Common Solutions, on September 21. More than two dozen lobbyists hosted the event, four of whom represent Roche:  Darin Gardner, Christine Pellerin, Anna Sageley and Mat Lapinkski–the same lobbyists responsible for the Conaway and Poe events.

The same post notes that Roche/Genentech has hosted parties for 26 members of Congress since their merger in March.

This Congressing thing sounds like great fun! You get invited to all sorts of swell parties, people shower you with money, and they even do your homework for you. A lark! So long as you don’t care about people suffering.

In my last post, I showed you what a roomful of Republican biotech-paid whores looks like. But in that same room are the following Democratic biotech-paid whores.

Two comments on this. First, both the Republicans and Democrats included a talking point that I haven’t included in these two posts–talking about the necessity to do testing to make sure the biosimilars are interchangeable (Peterr collects the Dem version here). I aspire to do a post collecting all of them to show you bipartisan whoredom in action, if I recover from this tedium.

The other thing: check out the difference in talking points. Sure, the biotech lobbies made Republicans look like assholes. But they basically scripted Democrats into parroting simple five-paragraph essays of the kind you had to write when you were in third grade: Thesis, 1, 2, 3, conclusion.  Are they suggesting Democrats can’t handle a script–a frigging script submitted to the record, not read!!–harder than that? If they weren’t already ashamed at being industry whores, they really ought to hang their heads for how stupid the industry made them appear.

“Another significant benefit: jobs jobs jobs!”

Bob Filner

I wanted to draw attention to another significant benefit of this legislation: the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.

Yvette Clarke

Another significant benefit of this legislation, which has not received as much attention, will be the creation of new high paying jobs, high quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.

Donald Payne

Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.

Bill Pascrell

Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle: this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in health care delivery, technology, and research in the United States.

Phil Hare

With unemployment at its highest level since 1983, another significant benefit of this legislation that should be highlighted is the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology and research in the United States.

Linda Sanchez

But another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received much attention is its promotion of high-paying research, high tech, and manufacturing jobs. Contrary to the claims that this is a “job killing bill,” in fact, this bill will create thousands of jobs here in the United States.

Robert Brady

Another significant benefit of this legislation which has not received as much attention will be the creation of new high-paying jobs in this country. Let me repeat that for some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, this bill will create high-paying, high-quality jobs in healthcare delivery, technology, and research in the United States.

“1) An enormous demand for healthcare workers!”

Bob Filner

First, this bill will create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.

Yvette Clarke

First, this bill will create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.

Donald Payne

First, this bill will create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.

Bill Pascrell

First, H.R. 3962 will create enormous demand for health care workers, especially in the area of primary care.

Phil Hare

This bill will additionally create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.

Linda Sanchez

First, this bill will increase demand for healthcare workers, including doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, home health workers, and more.

Robert Brady

First, this bill will create enormous demand for healthcare workers, especially in the area of primary care.

“2) Health information technologies”

Bob Filner

Second, this bill will continue the efforts we began in the stimulus package to deploy new health information technologies that better manage both the quality of care people receive and the cost at which they receive it.

Yvette Clarke

Second, this bill will continue the efforts we began in the stimulus package to deploy new health information technologies that better manage both the quality of care and the cost of it.

Donald Payne

Second, this bill will continue the efforts we began in the stimulus package to deploy new health information technologies that better manage both the quality of care people receive and the cost at which they receive it.

Bill Pascrell

Second, the Affordable Health Care for America Act will continue the efforts we began in the stimulus package to deploy new health information technologies that better manage both the quality of care people receive and the cost at which they receive it.

Phil Hare

The Affordable Health Care for America Act will continue the efforts this Congress first undertook in the Recovery Act that deployed new health information technologies throughout our healthcare system. These technologies help to better manage both the quality of care people receive and the cost at which they receive it.

Linda Sanchez

Second, this bill will continue the investments begun in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, also known as the stimulus bill, to expand the use of health information technology.Health IT will help better manage the quality and cost of care patients receive by eliminating duplicative tests and ensuring that patients don’t receive the wrong medicine or the wrong dose.

Robert Brady

Second, this bill will continue the efforts we began in the stimulus package to deploy new health information technologies that better manage both the quality of care people receive and the cost at which they receive it.

“3) High quality research opportunities!”

Bob Filner

Third, this bill will create high quality research opportunities in this country. The Energy and Commerce Committee enacted a framework for allowing biosimilar competition in this country. This new class of medicines will help lower costs and bring competition to one area that is key to the future of our healthcare system. Biotechnology is on the cutting edge of efforts to reducing costly invasive procedures and allowing our constituents to live healthier and more productive lives.

Yvette Clarke

Third, this bill will create new research opportunities in this country. The Energy and Commerce Committee enacted a framework for allowing biosimilar competition in this country. This new class of medicines will help lower costs and bring competition to one area that is key to the future of our healthcare system. Biotechnology is on the cutting edge of efforts to reduce costly invasive procedures, thereby allowing our constituents to live healthier and more productive lives.

Donald Payne

Third, this bill will create high quality research opportunities in this country. The Energy and Commerce Committee enacted a framework for allowing biosimilar competition in this country. This new class of medicines will help lower costs and bring competition to one area that is key to the future of our healthcare system. Biotechnology is on the cutting edge of efforts to reducing costly invasive procedures and allowing our constituents to live healthier and more productive lives.

Bill Pascrell

Third, H.R. 3962 will create high quality research opportunities for America. The legislation under consideration establishes a framework for allowing biosimilar competition in this country. This new class of medicines will help lower costs and bring competition to an area that is a key to the future of our health care system. Biotechnology is on the cutting edge of efforts to reduce costly invasive procedures and allow our constituents to live healthier and more productive lives.

Phil Hare

[presented first in the series] This bill creates a framework for allowing biosimilar competition in this country, which has the potential to lead to a new class of generic biologic medicines that will help lower costs and bring competition to one of the areas that will be key to the future of our healthcare system.

Linda Sanchez

Finally, this bill will promote more of what America already does so well: medical research. By allowing more Americans access to health insurance, this bill will increase the demand for advanced medical technologies that are manufactured right here in America. And by creating a process for the Food and Drug Administration to  approve so-called “biosimilar” drugs, this bill will encourage  competition in the cutting edge field of biologic drugs. This new class of medicines will help cure and treat more Americans  at lower costs.

Robert Brady

Third, this bill will create high quality research opportunities in this country. The Energy and Commerce Committee enacted a framework for allowing biosimilar competition in this country. This new class of medicines will help lower costs and bring competition to one area that is key to the future of our healthcare system. Biotechnology is on the cutting edge of efforts to reducing costly invasive procedures and allowing our constituents to live healthier and more productive lives.

Earlier today, I noted the curious absence of Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton in the NYT story about Genentech writing speeches for those supporting biologics in the health care reform bill.

(Note two people missing from this list: Eshoo and Barton, the measure’s co-sponsors.)

Thankfully, LittleSis figured out where Eshoo and Barton were hiding in that story.

But the Times misses a key piece of the puzzle: two of the Genentech lobbyists at the firm that wrote the pharma-friendly talking points are ex-staffers to Anna Eshoo and Joe Barton, co-sponsors of a key measure in the bill designed to benefit Big Pharma.

Nick Kolovos, a former legislative aide to Eshoo, and Jeffrey Mackinnon, former legislative director in the office of Joe Barton, have both lobbied on behalf of Genentech this year for the firm Ryan, Mackinnon (of which Mackinnon is a co-founder).

Oh, that explains it!! Their revolving door staffers were some of the people writing the speeches for those 42 parrots.

Click through to see how Bart Stupak has a tie here, as well.

Update: I asked the folks at LittleSis about Jay Inslee’s involvement in all of this. And got directed to Nick Shipley–Jay Inslee’s Legislative Director for the last several years, and now lobbying on biologics for Roche with the McManus Group.

On October 29, Jane wrote a scathing post about what Anna Eshoo’s provision to give biosimilars a route to approval would do, focusing on the 12 years–and probably more–of monopoly it would grant.

The following day–October 30–Eshoo responded.

On November 2, Jane ripped apart some of Eshoo’s details. She reminded Eshoo that no lesser legislative whiz than Henry Waxman has made the same argument Jane was making. She pointed out that taxpayers have already paid for many of these drugs.

Meanwhile, a bunch of earnest medical students started pressuring law-makers directly.

And then, the NYT tells us, the biotech industry started recruiting Representatives to publicly state their support for the biologics measure.

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

[snip]

The e-mail messages and their attached documents indicate that the statements were based on information supplied by Genentech employees to one of its lobbyists, Matthew L. Berzok, a lawyer at Ryan, MacKinnon, Vasapoli & Berzok who is identified as the “author” of the documents. The statements were disseminated by lobbyists at a big law firm, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal.

In an e-mail message to fellow lobbyists on Nov. 5, two days before the House vote, Todd M. Weiss, senior managing director of Sonnenschein, said, “We are trying to secure as many House R’s and D’s to offer this/these statements for the record as humanly possible.”

He told the lobbyists to “conduct aggressive outreach to your contacts on the Hill to see if their bosses would offer the attached statements (or an edited version) for the record.”

That big dollar lobbying got 42 Representatives–42!!!–to try to refute the arguments that Jane was making.

Our Jane has them running scared, I guess. I wonder how much those 42 Congressional parrots cost Genentech (which is located in Anna Eshoo’s district)?

While I’m grateful the NYT has called out these 42 Representatives for being industry parrots, there are a number of questions the article raises. Such as, who are the 42 Representatives? The article mentions:

Republicans

• K. Michael Conaway
• Lynn Jenkins
• Blaine Luetkemeyer
• Lee Terry
• Joe Wilson

Democrats

• Robert Brady
• Yvette Clarke
• Phil Hare
• Bill Pascrell Jr.
• Donald Payne

That’s just 10 people; the article stated that “more than a dozen” lawmakers used Genentech’s talking points almost verbatim and reports Genentech bragging of getting 42 Representatives to use its talking points. (Note two people missing from this list: Eshoo and Barton, the measure’s co-sponsors.) So who are the others? And who might the other 30 that Genentech boasted of?

Also, it’d be really nice to show the emails, so Americans can see how little it takes to buy a member of Congress.

Finally, it’d be nice if they showed us either the talking points or the speeches made by the members of Congress to save us the time it’ll now take to dig that out of the Congressional record. I wonder, for example, how much of Anna Eshoo’s response to Jane on October 30 came directly from her Genentech script writers?

There are many reasons I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the conference on health care reform.

But chief among those is to see how (whether) they’re going to justify paying for “health care” for the Christian Scientists while denying reproductive care for millions of women.

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments — which substitute for or supplement medical treatments — on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against “religious and spiritual healthcare.”

Granted, both the Stupak Amendment and payment for Christian Scientist prayer may be removed in conference.

But I’d really like to see how Orrin Hatch, say, tried to explain skewing healthcare in this country only to meet the demands of religion, no matter how wacky, even while denying the care choices of millions of religious and non-religious women. And, frankly, I’d love to see what the courts think about it. Because once you’re making laws to protect the Christian Scientists all the while crafting your bill to meet the demands of the Catholic Bishops, you’ve got a very interesting Church/State separation question on hand.

Update: Church of Christ, Scientist  v. scientology correction per joejoejoe.

As you read Bart Stupak boasting of taking reproductive choice away from women, remember that he’s not just an otherwise good Democrat (he’s not, in fact, a Blue Dog) who consistently lets the agenda of the Catholic Church override the well-being of his constituents, he’s also one of C-Street’s top Democratic members.  This man, crowing over his legislative success is speaking as a representative of a group that preaches moral purity for others, but excuses itself from such moral guidelines with a back-slapping prayer lunch with the buddies. And then turns around and uses that moralizing to accrue political power.

HuffPost asked Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), the lead Blue Dog negotiator, why he succeeded and the progressives failed.

“Because I didn’t threat[en]. These are the facts,” he said.

But you did threaten, a reporter pointed out.

No, Stupak said, it wasn’t a threat. It was a promise. “No, they know I’ll vote against the rule,” he said.

Stupak said the Blue Dogs have gradually been sending a message to leadership and that much of it goes back to a previous vote involving an appropriations bill that Blue Dogs wanted to include pro-life language.

In July, the House considered a Financial Services Appropriations bill that would allow publicly-funded abortions in the District of Columbia. Stupak and allies were not allowed an amendment, so they sought to “take down the rule” — in other words, round up enough votes to deny he bill a chance to get voted on on the floor. When time expired, the pro-lifers had prevailed. But Pelosi held the vote open for extra time and persuaded four members to switch their votes.

They didn’t win in the end, Stupak said, but they accomplished their goal.

“We wanted to send a message,” he said. “We went back and I said, ‘See, I can take down your rule.’”

He has held his fire since then, saving his strength for the health care bill.

“Now, I have not threatened that every time that we went to Rules Committee and we didn’t always get our pro-life amendments, I did not try to take down any rules. You have to pick your fights at the right time. You can’t be crying wolf all the time because you lose your wolfiness. You lose your credibility,” he said. “So I’m not going to lose my credibility. So you use it at certain times when it’s appropriate.”

Viewed through the lens of Stupak’s C Street membership, this victory lap (and all the others he has been doing) comes off as what it is: a naked grab for power through hypocritical moralizing.

Too bad that formula works so well for so many in Washington.

As news outlets are reporting everywhere, Joe Lieberman is threatening to join a GOP filibuster of heath care reform. Brian Beutler reports the news without much elaboration on Lieberman’s stated justification for doing so. (See below for Beutler’s follow-up.)

I told Senator Reid that I’m strongly inclined–i haven’t totally decided, but I’m strongly inclined–to vote to proceed to the health care debate, even though I don’t support the bill that he’s bringing together because it’s important that we start the debate on health care reform because I want to vote for health care reform this year. But I also told him that if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage. Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill.

The AP provides just a hint of Lieberman’s justification.

Lieberman said Tuesday in a telephone interview with The Associated Press that he’s worried a public option would be costly to taxpayers and drive up insurance premiums.

But the Politico reports Lieberman’s stated justification.

“I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman added. “It’s just asking for trouble – in the end, the taxpayers are going to pay and probably all people will have health insurance are going to see their premiums go up because there’s going to be cost shifting as there has been for Medicare and Medicaid.”

Lieberman said he “very much” wants to vote for health care reform but that he’s worried about stifling “the economic recovery we’re in” or adding to the federal debt.

“I feel this way about a national, government-created health insurance company – whether it’s a trigger or not,” he said. “My answer is – we’re – we have the opportunity to do some great reforms here. These exchanges that we’re talking about, I think, are going to drive competition and probably bring the cost of health insurance down or at least contain the cost increases for a lot of people. Let’s give that two or three years to see how it works to see how it works before we talk about creating another entitlement that will end up increasing the national debt and putting more of a burden on taxpayers.”

So here’s what Joe Lieberman claims the public option will do:

• Be costly to taxpayers
• Drive up premiums
• Involve cost-shifting to private plans
• Create an entitlement
• Increase the national debt
• Put more of a tax burden on taxpayers

As DDay points out, this is utter nonsense.

Lieberman’s justification on this is just nonsense – the public option would SAVE money for the government, to the tune of $100 billion dollars over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also would cost nothing to the taxpayer, being financed by individual premiums.

Now, there’s the possibility that if the public option was set at Medicare +5, there might be cost shifting, if you ignored challenges to that claim, if you ignored the way insurance companies will game the system to push high cost people into the public option, and if you ignored the many other ways the insurance companies will be cost shifting themselves once this system is set up.

But everything else Lieberman said is horse puckey. He is either completely ignorant about health care works (unlikely, for a Senator from Connecticut). Or, he’s lying his ass off as to his rationale.

Don’t you think the press ought to call him on that?

Update: Here’s First Read, abdicating its role as journalist by letting Lieberman’s explanation go unchallenged.

Update: Kudos to CBS’ Stephanie Condon for doing real reporting.

Lieberman has said he opposes a public option because of the potential burden it could place on taxpayers. However, Democrats have crafted a public option that would be financed by premiums rather than federal funds.

Update: Ooohboy. The Hill goes above and beyond in credulously reporting Lieberman’s BS. They even let him claim that he’s not doing this because of CT’s insurance companies.

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), one of a handful of Senate wild cards in this fall’s healthcare reform debate, says his concern about the Senate bill is based on the national deficit — not the insurers that dominate his state.

[snip]

“Insurers aren’t my biggest concern — I sued them once when I was attorney general, and I’m not afraid to end anti-trust exemptions,” Lieberman said. “I am really worried about what this could do to the deficit.”

Update: Beutler does a follow-up calling Lieberman on his BS.

This is at great odds with the findings of most experts, who say that, by bringing efficiencies into the greater insurance market, and therefore lowering the government’s subsidy burden, a public option will actually save money.

I asked him to square his rationale with the experts consensus, but he was undeterred. “Well all the history we have of health entitlement programs, including the two big ones that I dearly support, Medicare and Medicaid, is that they end up costing more than we’re prepared to pay, and they add to the debt, and then they add to the burden on taxpayers.”

Update: Oh wait!! WSJ just unseated The Hill for being the most credulous on this story!! They let both Lieberman and Bayh get away with claiming they’re concerned about the deficit. And then they let Bayh argue for letting medical device makers off easy!

Mr. Lieberman was not the only moderate to voice concerns Tuesday. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) said he was concerned both about the impact of the bill of the federal budget deficit and the bill’s impact on insurance premiums for families and businesses.

Mr. Bayh also said he would oppose a motion to proceed to the bill in its current form if a provision that would impose $40 billion in fees on the medical-device industry over 10 years isn’t eased.

“Without that, they would definitely not have had my support,” said Mr. Bayh. Medical-device makers have a big presence in his home state.

Update: Bloomberg doesn’t call Lieberman out on his lies or ignorance either.

Update: Fox doesn’t give Lieberman’s excuse, so of course they don’t debunk it.

Update: Jonathan Cohn shows other journalists how it’s done.

It literally makes no sense whatsoever. A public plan does not provide a new entitlement. It just doesn’t. It’s a different form of providing an entitlement. Nor is it more expensive. In fact, the stronger versions of the public plan would cost less money. Lieberman is just babbling nonsense here.

Another reason for his position, of course, is that Connecticut is home to some huge insurance companies, who don’t want any new competition. But the other Connecticut Senator isn’t threatening a filibuster.

Update: MSNBC has done several follow-ups. But they’ve not yet gotten around to actually reporting that Lieberman’s entire premise is bogus.

Update: Mark Ambinder doesn’t bother to call Lieberman on his bogus premise. Instead, he just assumes that Lieberman’s “play for power”–one that relies on the flaccidity of the press–will work.

Now — the final bill, post-conference, is going to look a bit different from the reconciled Senate bill. Lieberman is giving himself the power to influence the final bill. I doubt that the Senate leadership is going to press him too hard right now, preferring to see if he can be accommodated in the final debate.

Update: Dana Bash engages in he-said-she-said, but doesn’t point out that CBO agrees with Dems that Lieberman’s premise is bogus.

Democrats call such claims fear-mongering and say a public option is the best way to bring competition to the market. President Obama has called a public option the best way to help achieve major goals of health care reform, including expanded coverage and lower costs.

Update: USA Today doesn’t bother telling its readers that Lieberman’s premise is bogus.

Update: Nor does CSM.

Update: Nor does the NYT.

This is interesting. Funding for the Blue Dog’s PAC (as distinct from Blue Dogs themselves) has dried up even as Blue Dogs have attempted to gut health care reform.

Our analysis of the fiscally conservative and increasingly influential Blue Dog Coalition and its funding noted that the group’s political action committee had averaged more than $176,000 in receipts from other PACs over the first half of 2009. Their monthly haul dropped to a surprisingly low $27,000 in July, rebounded somewhat in August, and but then dropped again to just $12,500 in September.

[snip]

After raising $1.1 million from January to June, the committee raised less than $87,000 between July and September — less than it brought in during any one of the preceding five months. And in just three months, the Blue Dog PAC’s monthly fundraising average dropped by more than $50,000 — probably not the sort of fiscal conservatism the 52-member coalition was hoping for.

Now, that’s the group’s PAC. Individual members seem to be doing just fine. For example, here are some August and September donations to Allen Boyd, who remains opposed to the public option.

• American College of Radiology PAC, $4,500
• American Dental Association PAC, $2,500
• American Osteopathic PAC, $2,500
• SmithKlineBeecham, $3,500

(Interestingly, Amgen took back $1,000 from Boyd during this period.)

And here’s some PAC donations to Mike Ross.

• American Medical Association, $1,000
• American Medical Group, $1,500
• American Optometric Association PAC, $2,000
• American Society of Health System Pharmacist, $1,500
• Assurant, $1,500
• Fresenius Medical Care, $2,500
• Healthcare Distribution Management, $2,500
• RiteAid, $2,500

Both of these men, at least, are still getting a chunk of change from health care companies, even while the Blue Dog PAC is getting nothing.

Obviously, this is not just about health care–Blue Dogs suck at the teat of a range of onerous business interests. But at a time when Blue Dogs might be exercising maximum influence, they’re not getting any return as a group. I wonder if that stems from a lack of leadership as a block–particularly Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s repeated embarrassment as Raul Grijalva repeatedly out-whipped her on the public option.

“Yes, I think there’s momentum, “ said Blue Dog leader Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.). “They don’t have the votes for a public option with Medicare rates.”

But Grijalva noted that 46 members recently signed a letter pledging to vote against the centrist plan. In the numbers game of the House, that is significant, because Republicans are expected to unite against the healthcare bill. So if 39 Democrats oppose the plan, it wouldn’t get the 218 votes needed to pass. There are 52 Blue Dogs, as well as many other centrist members not in the coalition.

“With negotiated rates, you lose votes on the left,” Herseth Sandlin said. “ I don’t know that either public option can get 218 votes.”

Not to mention by Herseth Sandlin’s own squishiness on the public option?

Obviously, this is just two or three months data. But it raises the possibility that the Blue Dogs, as a block, are losing some of their clout.

Greg Sargent reports the totally unsurprising fact that Alex Castellanos, one of CNN’s talking heads, is sucking at the insurance industry teat.

CNN has acknowledged in a statement to me that a high-profile Republican commentator who frequently discusses health care on the air is also the media buyer for one of the ad campaigns bankrolled by America’s Health Insurance Plans, the major industry trade group currently waging war against the White House and Dem reform proposals.

CNN tells me his ties to the industry will be disclosed in the future.

The CNN contributor, well-known GOP consultant Alex Castellanos, is best known for producing the racially-charged “Hands” ad, has repeatedly appeared on the network attacking Dem health care plans and the public option, which is strongly opposed by AHIP.

Castellanos’s consulting firm, National Media, also recently placed over $1 million of TV advertising for AHIP, according to info obtained by Media Matters. AHIP’s most recent $1 million ad buy attacks the health care plan as a threat to Medicare.

Given that news, take a close look at Alan Grayson’s appearance on the Situation Room a few weeks ago. Castellanos keeps claiming there’s a Republican plan. But, as Grayson points out, the plan Castellanos describes is simply a bunch of policies the insurance industry supports.

Seems to me CNN–in its newfound spirit of transparency–ought to give Grayson another opportunity to point out how Castellanos used a “news” show to pimp the industry’s policies.

Harry Reid is in trouble in his reelection effort in Nevada. From the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s report on a new poll by Mason Dixon:

Nevadans say they’re ready to replace longtime Democratic incumbent Sen. Harry Reid with an untested Republican.

Which Republican? Undecided.

But of their top two picks — former GOP party official Sue Lowden and real estate developer Danny Tarkanian — either one would unseat Reid if the election were held today, according to a poll commissioned by the Review-Journal.

Lowden and Tarkanian are in a statistical tie atop a list of nine primary candidates, according to the survey of Nevada registered voters.
…
In one general election scenario, 49 percent of respondents picked Lowden and 39 percent chose Reid. In another, 48 percent picked Tarkanian to 43 percent for Reid. That poll, which surveyed 500 voters Tuesday through Thursday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

In Clark County, where Reid needs to dominate to win another term, he is in a statistical tie with either Lowden or Tarkanian.

“That is the bad news,” UNLV political science professor David Damore said of Reid’s Clark County numbers. “That tells you there is a disaffected base there.”

For months the perception of Reid among voters has been fixed, with near 100 percent name recognition and a high number of voters viewing him unfavorably. In the latest poll, 38 percent of voters viewed Reid favorably compared to 50 percent with an unfavorable view.

Chris Cillizza, the David Broder wannabe and heir apparent, draws the knee jerk Villager conclusion that Reid’s troubles result from Nevada voters viewing him as too liberal and carrying too much water for Barack Obama.

But Cillizza typically ignores that Barack Obama won Nevada over McCain by a huge margin, 55% to 43% ten short months ago. And Cillizza ignores that Nevada is populated by a huge community of service employees in the Las Vegas and Reno metropolitan areas, and generally a poor to middle class populous in the remaining areas, all of whom are dying for healthcare reform and relief. It is not that Democratic votes are not there for Reid; it is that Nevadans are fed up with his inability to get the things done that they want, and healthcare with a strong public option that will actually help them, is undoubtedly the leader in their clubhouse of reasoning.

The depth of Reid’s problem should not be underestimated. Nor should the challenge of Republican businessman Danny Tarkanian. Tarkanian grew up in Las Vegas, was a top student and Rhodes Scholar candidate, and was point guard on the first of the famous UNLV Runnin Rebel basketball teams that held forth for the better part of two decades at or near the top of the NCAA standings. Oh, by the way, those famous UNLV teams were coached by Danny’s father Jerry “Tark the Shark” Tarkanian, probably the most beloved name in Nevada sports history. Tarkanian’s mother was a Las Vegas City Councilwoman and active philanthropist. The guy has some serious juice from his name and background and will get major support from the GOP assuming he continues to climb in relation to GOP official Sue Lowden, which he is expected to do.

The conclusion here is that Reid has serious problems and they are of his own making. Unless Reid gets with the program, exercises some party discipline from his Majority Leader position and starts working earnestly for the causes, first and foremost the strong public option, of Democratic voters, he will not get any support from the activist base. As Jane Hamsher says:

There are 51 Senators who will vote for a public option, something 77% of the country wants. It would win a majority in a floor vote. We were told that we needed 60 votes in the Caucus so we’d have a filibuster-proof majority — so that the GOP would never block a bill from getting to the floor. The only reason not to put the HELP Committee public option in the Senate bill is because Joe Lieberman and other “ConservaDems” are conducting a silent filibuster — they won’t say it publicly but they’ll say privately that they will vote with the GOP to filibuster the bill.

That means the Democratic caucus will now filibuster itself.
…
Either you’re going to enforce caucus discipline or you don’t have a party. You have instead a collection of self-interested narcissists, each one with the ability to derail any legislation they don’t like. Every Senator who derives their political power from membership in the caucus is thereby granted the power to torpedo any piece of legislation from coming to a vote, with no consequences. It’s an outrage.
…
So if Reid won’t enforce caucus discipline, if as Majority Leader he now says it’s acceptable to use the “60 vote” threshold to water down the bill, he has to wear it. No matter how he votes personally. No matter how much the White House makes a fetish of bipartisanship and courts Olympia Snowe. No matter what cover anyone else tries to give him.
…
I don’t care if we have to recruit a Democratic primary challenger. Maybe someone from the Culinary Workers? I don’t care it we have to blitz the Nevada airwaves with ads about Reid’s coziness with DC lobbyists, or maybe how his son — who is running for Governor — just sits back while his father adds $2000 a year to Nevada health insurance premiums at their behest. And I sure don’t fucking care if Danny Tarkanian becomes the next Senator from Nevada, because at that point 60 votes don’t mean anything anyway.

And that, as Walter Cronkite would say, is the way it is. Harry Reid needs to wake up and get with the program the voters overwhelmingly want; if he doesn’t, he is going to be sucking on a wet towel by himself out in his trailer in Henderson. Sucking on a wet towel is what Tark the Shark was famous for (along with fast, exciting and winning teams); wouldn’t it be ironic if Tark’s son is the one who sent Hanoi Harry Reid to that ugly end of the road?