Photo provided by the AP

Yes, Obama campaigned on a promise of “Hope and Change”, but did he deliver?  According to the 2009 Pulitzer Prize winner Politifact.com, not quite.  In his first year in office, President Obama has broken 14 campaign promises.  To be fair, Politifact.com reports that he has kept 91 and compromised 33.  But in a country that demands accountability and transparency (pay attention to #14), it’s the broken ones that seem to matter most, especially if you blame so many problems on your predecessor.  As reported by Politifact.com (follow the link for detailed explanations), the broken promises keep coming:

1. End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
2. End no-bid contracts above $25,000
3. Direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives
4. Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
5. Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
6. Double funding for afterschool programs
7. Urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws
8. Allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage
9. Pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit
10. Reduce earmarks to 1994 levels
11. Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs
12. Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
13. Recognize the Armenian genocide
14. Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN*

*Interesting note, as reported by the Associated Press:

C-SPAN asked to televise the negotiations between the House and Senate versions; the White House insists it hasn’t seen the request.

I didn’t know that request had to be formally given to the White House for a president to keep his promise!

Ouch…that’s gotta hurt!

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

Other articles of interest:

Urgent Appeal RE:  Massachusetts and Other States

Hillary Goes Weak-Kneed on Iran Sanctions

Who are these “economist” who keep expecting the situation to get better, when we, the American people, know that is not true?  It is all around us!  What are they basing their expert predictions on?  The stock market?  That’s nothing more than a good indicator that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer!

It’s a form of “legal robbery”, if you ask me.

It certainly isn’t middle-America or the poor that is making the stock market go up, we simply don’t have the money to invest.  We are too busy saving our pennies, looking through the couch and the seat of our cars just to scrape up enough change to by Roman Noodles.

But back to unemployment.  Now, factor in the hundreds of thousands of Americans who can no longer claim unemployment benefits because their eligibility has run out.  The White House seems to sweep this little issue under the rug.

Until people start going back to work, I (like most Americans) expect the situation to continue to decline.  It’s just common sense, something these so-called “economist” are severely lacking!

From Fox News:

WASHINGTON — The number of newly laid-off workers requesting unemployment benefits rose more than expected last week as jobs remain scarce amid a sluggish economic recovery.

The Labor Department said Thursday new claims for unemployment insurance rose by 11,000 to a seasonally adjusted 444,000. Wall Street economists polled by Thomson Reuters expected an increase of only 3,000.

The rise was partly a result of large seasonal layoffs in the retail, manufacturing and construction industries, a Labor Department analyst said. The second week of January usually sees the largest increase in claims, unadjusted for seasonal trends, during the year, the analyst said.

Still, the increase didn’t disrupt the longer-term downward trend in claims. The four-week average dropped to 440,750, its 19th straight drop and lowest level since August 2008.

Initial claims are considered a gauge of the pace of layoffs and an indication of companies’ willingness to hire new workers.

Claims have dropped steadily since last fall, as companies cut fewer jobs, raising hopes that hiring may increase soon. Initial claims have dropped by nearly 90,000, or 17 percent, since late October. Two weeks ago, new claims dropped to their lowest level since July 2008.

Despite the recent drop, the economy is not yet consistently generating net increases in jobs. The Labor Department said last week that employers cut 85,000 jobs in December, after adding only 4,000 in November. November’s increase was the first in nearly two years. The unemployment rate was unchanged at 10 percent.

Many economists say the four week average of claims will need to fall to below 425,000 to signal that the economy is close to generating net job gains.

Meanwhile, the number of people continuing to claim benefits dropped sharply to 4.6 million from 4.8 million the previous week. The continuing claims data lags initial claims by a week.

But the so-called continuing claims do not include millions of people who have used up the regular 26 weeks of benefits customarily provided by states, and are receiving extended benefits for up to 73 additional weeks, paid for by the federal government.

More than 5.3 million people were receiving extended benefits in the week ended Dec. 26, the latest data available. That’s a drop of about 135,000 from the previous week.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

From Rep. John Boehner:

Fixed it is not.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) latest health care “manager’s amendment” would STILL levy a new “abortion premium” fee on Americans under the Democrats’ health care plan.  Just like the original 2,032-page, government-run health care plan from Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) and the last version of Senator Reid’s 2,074-page bill, this latest 383-page amendment levies an abortion premium and does not fix the problem of government funds being used to subsidize elective abortions.

Under Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” there is no prohibition on abortion coverage in federally subsidized plans participating in the Exchange.  Instead the amendment includes layers of accounting gimmicks that demand that plans participating in the Exchange or the new government-run plan that will be managed by the Office of Personnel Management must establish “allocation accounts” when elective abortion is a covered benefit (p. 41).  Everyone enrolled in these plans must pay a monthly abortion premium (p. 41, lines 5-8), and these funds will be used to pay for the elective abortion services.  The Reid amendment directs insurance companies to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage (p. 43), and charge a minimum of $1 per enrollee per month (p. 43, lines 20-22).

In short, the Reid bill continues to defy the will of the American people and contradict longstanding federal policy by providing federal subsidies to private health plans that cover elective abortions.  The new language does include a “state opt-out” provision if a state passes a law to prohibit insurance coverage of abortion, but it’s a sham because it does nothing to prevent one state’s tax dollars from paying for elective abortions in other states.

A majority of Americans believe that health care plans should not be mandated to provide elective abortion coverage, and a majority of Americans do not believe government health care plans should include abortion coverage. Currently, federal appropriations bills include language known as the Hyde Amendment that prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under the Medicare and Medicaid programs, while another provision, known as the Smith Amendment, prohibits federal funding of abortion under the federal employees’ health benefits plan.  Under the Reid “manager’s amendment” the new health care plan that will mirror the federal employees’ plan and be managed by the Office of Personnel Management will NOT be subject to the Smith Amendment.

Leader Reid’s latest health care proposal is an affront to the American people and drastically moves away from current policy.  In a statement released by National Right to Life Committee legislative director Douglas Johnson said, “The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.”  The American people deserve more from their government than being forced to pay for abortion.  The pro-life Stupak/Pitts amendment passed the House by a vote of 240 to 194, enjoying the overwhelming support of 176 Republicans and 64 Democrats.  The Stupak/Pitts Amendment codifies current law by prohibiting federal funding of elective abortions under any government-run plan or plans available under the Exchange.  The Reid plan ignores the will of a bipartisan majority of the House, and indeed the American people, by rejecting this bipartisan amendment.

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life – not end it – and the American people agree.  House Republicans have offered a common-sense, responsible solution that would reduce health care costs and expand access while protecting the dignity of all human life. The Republican plan, available at HealthCare.GOP.gov, would codify the Hyde Amendment and prohibit all authorized and appropriated federal funds from being used to pay for abortion. And under the Republican plan, any health plan that includes abortion coverage may not receive federal funds.

UPDATE: Here is a detailed critique of the new Reid abortion language from the National Right to Life committee.

What will Obama do now?

From Yahoo News:

NASIRIYAH, Iraq (AFP) – Iranian forces took control of a southern Iraqi oil well on a disputed section of the border on Friday, US and Iraqi officials told AFP.

“There has been no violence related to this incident and we trust this will be resolved through peaceful diplomacy between the governments of Iraq and Iran,” a US military spokesman told AFP at Contingency Operating Base Adder, just outside the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.

“The oil field is in disputed territory in between Iranian and Iraqi border forts,” he said, adding that such incidents occur quite frequently.

An official of the state-owned South Oil Co in the southeastern city of Amara, and west of the field, said: “An Iranian force arrived at the field early this morning (Friday).

“It took control of Well 4 and raised the Iranian flag even though the well lies in Iraqi territory,” the official added.

“An oil ministry delegation is to travel to the area on Saturday to assess the situation.”

The national security council was due to hold an emergency meeting on Friday chaired by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Iraqi state television said quoting the minister of state for national security, Shirwan al-Waili.

The council also groups the ministers of interior, defence, foreign affairs, justice and finance.

Well 4 lies in the Fauqa Field, part of a cluster of fields Iraq unsuccessfully put up for auction to oil majors in June. The field has estimated reserves of 1.55 million barrels.

The field is about 500 metres (yards) from an Iranian border fort and about 1 kilometre from an Iraqi border fort, US Colonel Peter Newell said, adding that it falls on the Iraqi side of a border agreed between the two countries.

There are five other similar fields that also fall into disputed territory, he said.

“What happens is, periodically, about every three or four months, the oil ministry guys from Iraq will go … to fix something or do some maintenance. They’ll paint it in Iraqi colours and throw an Iraqi flag up.

“They’ll hang out there for a while, until they get tired, and as soon as they go away, the Iranians come down the hill and paint it Iranian colours and raise an Iranian flag. It happened about three months ago and it will probably happen again.”

He added that the Iraqis are “very concerned about the Iranians pulling oil out of fields underneath Iraq.”

Iran has prevented Iraqi oil officials from reaching the well in the past, an industry source said. The Iraqis have accused Iran of firing on their people, something Tehran has denied.

There have been a number of meetings in recent years aimed at reaching agreement on border fields, so far without success.

What did Mr. Danin come away with?  Well, read for yourself… but my jaw is still on the floor!!!

From the Huffington Post, by Stephen H. Dinan:

Over Thanksgiving, I was hiking with my brother-in-law when he commented that he only knew two kinds of people: those who loved Sarah Palin and those who hated her. Nobody was in the gray zone. While I didn’t consider myself a “hater,” I also knew that she had triggered intense reactions in me when she joined the Republican ticket. After Obama’s victory, the fear of her becoming President subsided along with the negative charge, but I had to confess to a lingering prejudice beneath the surface.

One week later, I bought her autobiography, Going Rogue. Why? To dissolve my own prejudice and to better understand how we as a culture can go beyond the extreme political polarizations that have so paralyzed our country. What I know from years of psychological and spiritual explorations is that whenever we judge or fight something in the world, there is an aspect of ourselves that we are battling against. In creating walls of separation in the world, we reinforce them within ourselves, which is ultimately to our detriment.

I truly believe that everyone has their divine role to play in the world, even those with very different politics, beliefs, and values. While I have held that truth, though, I still had a visceral reaction to Palin – a sure signal that some work remains.

So reading Going Roguewas something of a test for myself – could I find the place of appreciation, respect, and even love for Sarah Palin?

What I found is that it wasn’t really that hard, actually, simply by taking the time to meet her on her own turf rather than through sounds bites, spin, and polarized media battles. Reading someone’s personal memoir is an intimate journey into their inner sanctum, and I developed a real appreciation for Sarah in reading the book. Aspects of her that seemed coarse, simplistic, or combative during the campaign were revealed to be a product of frontier values and growing up in a culture that is faced with subzero temperatures and constant tests of survival.

Her journey from high school basketball captain to Governor revealed itself as an impressive triumph of hard work, resiliency, and willingness to challenge the status quo. Many of the most caricatured and vilified aspects of her history turned out to be lopsided depictions and sometimes gross misrepresentations.

For example, while her belief in God is deep and sincere, she wasn’t fanatical about it or dismissive of others. I found a real appreciation for the spiritual depths she went to when first faced with having a Down’s syndrome child. Her ultimate celebration of the beauty and perfection of that child, a child that 90% of people would have aborted according to statistics, was profoundly moving and it led hundreds of thousands of special needs children to feel championed through her campaign.

On other fronts, her pro-development views on energy and oil did not exclude a deep love for the environment and even an appreciation for alternative energy and reducing our carbon footprint. She wrote in moving terms about her husband’s indigenous ancestry and connection with the natural world, as well as the devastation wrought by the Exxon Valdez spill. Despite being pro-business she was heroically willing to face down the oil industry when it was corrupting the government of Alaska, a kind of bravery we need more of on both sides of the aisle.

Perhaps the most moving aspect of the book is the way in which she never waivers in her family commitments throughout the political journey. She passes up an opportunity to contest a Senate seat in order to manage her son’s hockey team. She breast feeds in front of a taken-aback lawmaker. Team Palin is a part of every campaign and a constant presence in her official roles. Her family is at the center of her life in a way that feels whole and balanced, which is both impressive and commendable as we all seek to balance competing demands on our time.

In reading the book, I started to see a lot more of myself and my upbringing in Sarah. I too had grown up in a frozen land – Northern Minnesota – a place of unpretentious, middle-class, hardworking people who believe in personal responsibility and straight-talking integrity. We, too, had our sled dog races, subzero temperatures and a spirit of camaraderie to make it through. I began to see her political values as a natural extension of those tough-minded virtues, enabling her to take on daunting tasks and succeed at each level of life.

My developing appreciation of her formative years in the book led to a different view of the pressure cooker of national, presidential politics – I felt far more compassion for the ugly way in which she was attacked by the press, dismissed by the opposition, and muzzled by patronizing campaign bosses. She faced strong prejudices from people like myself who were scared that her more black-or-white, provincial-seeming perspective would someday be in the Oval Office. We were also worried by her folksy appeal and ability to attack Obama aggressively while appearing quite charming. The result of that reaction was a barrage of distorted stories, inflated fears, and downright misrepresentations, some of which were quite damaging to her family. After reading in her own words what she went through, I felt more compassion for her and dismay about the meat grinder that we’ve created for political leaders – an occupation for which we truly need our best and brightest.

Reading Going Rogue makes me understand that Sarah is not the ruthlessly ambitious and cutthroat caricature we feared; she is a woman who has befriended Democrats personally and professionally, shown real leadership in fighting corruption, and taken a more nuanced position on several issues in which she seemed far more polarizing. She seems quite sincere in her desire to serve in whatever way the universe calls for that service.

All that said, I still bristled when she launches in the final part of the book into a diatribe about what our country needs, which is strongly colored with right-wing platitudes and a self-righteous air as well as the tendency to portray liberals as the enemy rather than fellow allies in evolving our country. I would love to see more thoughtful reflections on positions and values, a deeper understanding of history, and less of the combative edge, all of which would make her a more unifying leader (and likely lead to fewer arrows back at her and her family). But that may not be her role. She is more of a super-charged Mom of the great white North, flashing into action to fight for what she sees as right, inspiring the Everyman and Everywoman to take personal responsibility for their lives and their country. She has the same qualities as a mother bear, with a fierce love that is eager to protect her cubs (or her country). If she’s on your side, that can be exhilarating. But it can also reinforce the kind of partisan warfare that the book ultimately demonstrates is so destructive. My prayer is that this admirable woman can more fully embrace the idea that we all are on the same team here on planet earth. It’s an all hand-on-deck moment for humanity and both conservatives and progressive values and people are needed.

Most of all, I come way from the book seeing Sarah as a woman who loves her family deeply, seeks to live a life of integrity, and wants America to be strong, successful and vibrant. While I may disagree with some of her policies and perspectives, I can better respect both her sincere patriotic intent as well as her willingness to take on hard fights in the service of democracy, in addition to her championing of the everyday people who often feel marginalized in our political process. I still would not vote for her for President, but I do respect her more as a person and as a leader of an important base of Americans.

I come away from reading Going Rogue feeling that it would be a useful act of citizenship for all those who feel prejudice towards her to read her book and meet her on her own turf in order to heal the lingering prejudices. I feel more balanced for having done so. I would also urge conservatives who hate or fear Obama to read his autobiography to better understand the man behind the political leader and thus heal their own biases.

The way I see it, healing the rift between Democrats and Republicans helps to heal the rift in our own hearts. The truth is that each party tends to champion one side of America’s core values and we need both to operate in complementary and respectful ways for us to address the challenges we face. As each of us heals that prejudice in ourselves, we truly become part of the solution.

Join the discussion on the new PIN Discussion Forum.  Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

He is the anti-Obama!  No apologies , no excuses!

“The constitution says PROMOTE the general welfare, not PROVIDE welfare!”

Join the discussion on the new PIN Discussion Forum.  Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

A new fundraising letter from Sen. John Kerry (D) of Massachusetts gives a strong hint about how Democrats may try to stir their base to action during the 2010 election season: scare them with the prospect of a Sarah Palin nation.

“Think GOP obstruction is bad now?” Senator Kerry asks in a fundraising letter sent out Tuesday morning by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Just imagine what Washington would look like if a bunch of new senators – inspired by Sarah Palin and the tea party crowd – took over.”

In recent months, the political right has been energized by Ms. Palin, whose “Going Rogue” book tour has boosted her favorability rating, and by the Tea Party movement, which has channeled the anger of fiscal conservatives outraged by Obama administration spending. Together, they kindle the worst political fears among many liberals, summoning visions of gun-toting, Glenn Beck-watching, right-wing radicals.

With the Democratic caucus holding 60 seats in the Senate – exactly the number needed to defeat a Republican filibuster – Kerry suggested in his letter that “the loss of even one or two would flip crucial votes in their favor and doom President Obama’s agenda.”

Breaking the midterm trend

Traditionally, the party of a new president tends to lose seats in midterm elections. Recent GOP victories in New Jersey and Virginia governor’s races raise that specter for 2010. In large part, Kerry appears to be trying to offset the historic trend by creating a conservative bogeyman (bogeywoman?) against which Democrats can fundraise and campaign.

“Either we match the passion and activism of these new forces in the Republican Party or they’ll be choosing who’s sitting in the Senate, steering our country’s course,” Kerry writes. “If we don’t match them dollar-for-dollar, we will lose Senate seats in 2010.”

A ‘sideshow’ or a ‘threat’?

Yet there is at least an element of truth in his statement: “If you think this movement is more circus sideshow than actual threat, you’d be mistaken.” Palin and the Tea Party movement have gained enough public legitimacy to at least serve as a foil for Democratic ambitions.

Shortly after resigning the Alaska governorship this summer, Palin’s favorability rating was 39 percent, according to CNN. Now relieved of actual governance and inspired by a popular book tour and relaxed TV appearances, Palin has pushed her rating to 46 percent. By a somewhat less scientific measure, she also recently got a 30-second ovation on “The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien” – a show that has mercilessly mocked her.

Perhaps more relevant to Democrats like Kerry is some Republican candidates’ apparent desire to court Palin and Tea Partiers as a way to vicariously claim their energy. Republicans such as Mark Kirk, who is running for Mr. Obama’s former Senate seat in Illinois, are “contorting themselves to appeal to the new Sarah Palin Republicans,” Kerry writes.

He also mentions GOP Senate candidate Rob Simmons in Connecticut, who “has been running around the state with a tea bag hanging from his rearview mirror.”

Such tactics, Kerry warns, “might seem silly. But they’re working.”

Now, Kerry’s apparent hope is that an anti-Tea Party strategy will work, too.

Join the discussion on the new PIN Discussion Forum.

Please follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was poleaxed by an inconvenient one yesterday.

The former US Vice-President, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, became entangled in a new climate change “spin” row.

Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming.

Mr Gore is not the only titan of the world stage finding Copenhagen to be a tricky deal.

World leaders — with Gordon Brown arriving tonight in the vanguard — are facing the humiliating prospect of having little of substance to sign on Friday, when they are supposed to be clinching an historic deal.

Meanwhile, five hours of negotiating time were lost yesterday when developing countries walked out in protest over the lack of progress on their demand for legally binding emissions targets from rich nations. The move underlined the distrust between rich and poor countries over the proposed legal framework for the deal.

Last night key elements of the proposed deal were unravelling. British officials said they were no longer confident that it would contain specific commitments from individual countries on payments to a global fund to help poor nations to adapt to climate change while the draft text on protecting rainforests has also been weakened.

Even the long-term target of ending net deforestation by 2030 has been placed in square brackets, meaning that the date could be deferred. An international monitoring system to identify illegal logging is now described in the text as optional, where before it was compulsory. Negotiators are also unable to agree on a date for a global peak in greenhouse emissions.

Perhaps Mr Gore had felt the need to gild the lily to buttress resolve. But his speech was roundly criticised by members of the climate science community. “This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics,” Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.

“You really don’t need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic.”

Others said that, even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski’s six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is at the extreme end of the scale. Most climate scientists agree that a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely for the near-disappearance of sea ice.

“Maslowski’s work is very well respected, but he’s a bit out on a limb,” said Professor Peter Wadhams, a specialist in ocean physics at the University of Cambridge.

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.”

Richard Lindzen, a climate scientist at the Massachusets Institute of Technology who does not believe that global warming is largely caused by man, said: “He’s just extrapolated from 2007, when there was a big retreat, and got zero.”

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 23% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-two percent (42%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.

Today is the second straight day that Obama’s Approval Index rating has fallen to a new low. Prior to the past two days, the Approval Index had never fallen below -15 during Obama’s time in office (see trends).

The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded. Just 41% of Democrats Strongly Approve while 69% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 21% Strongly Approve and 49% Strongly Disapprove.

(Read more)

Sometimes you have to go to the other side and see what they are saying. 

From the Huffington Post:

Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) informed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a face-to-face meeting on Sunday that he will vote against a health care bill that includes a public option or a provision that would expand Medicare, a Democrat Senate aide tells the Huffington Post.

The two Senators had a discussion in Reid’s office shortly after Lieberman appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday morning. The Connecticut Independent discussed with Reid some of his concerns about the legislation, elaborating on issues he had raised during the show. According to the source, who was briefed on the exchange, Lieberman punctuated the discussion by telling the majority leader directly that he would vote against the bill if the Medicare buy-in and public option provisions remained in it. Roll Call reports that Lieberman said he would also support a Republican filibuster of legislation that included these provisions.

“Leadership was definitely a bit surprised with the lines being drawn in the sand the way they were,” said the source. “We expected that he would say critical things about [the bill]. But he is not even giving us a chance to get it scored.”

The pledge by Lieberman to oppose the bill represents a potentially huge setback for reform proponents, many of who saw the latest round of policy compromises as the last true chance to corral the needed votes. That said, leadership has several fallback options (none of them promising) should Lieberman follow through on the threat.

The first is to convince the Senator to support Democrats in breaking a Republican filibuster before casting a vote against the bill. This would allow for the legislation to pass with Lieberman still registering his opposition. Lieberman, however, has said he considers the procedural vote to cut off debate to be of the same significance as a vote on the bill itself.

The second path is to try and pick up a Republican moderate. But this too seems unlikely, as Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Reid’s best bet, has also expressed opposition to the Medicare buy-in provision.

The third path would be to appease Lieberman and wipe the provisions that he deems controversial from the bill. This, however, would likely lose Reid several progressive votes — advancing the cause no further.

The final path would be to try the reconciliation, the parliamentary procedure that would allow Democrats to pass chunks of health care reform by a simple up or down vote. There are a host of hurdles that come with going down this route, including questions over what, exactly, could be passed. And at this point both the White House and Reid’s office seem hesitant to use the procedural tool, even after Lieberman’s latest round of opposition.

“It is not on the table at this point,” the source said. “We are still trying to go through regular order.”

Join the discussion on the PIN Discussion Forum.

Please folow us on Facebook and Twitter.