Morning Must Reads — Winning Ugly

Any Democratic senators who missed Sunday’s editorial in the Times that counseled ramming through a health-care bill with 51 votes was the only thing left to do, Writer John Harwood provides a field guide for employing the nuclear option.

Harwood suggests that the basis of the plan will be mandatory insurance for every American, huge subsidies, and regulations to convert insurance companies into public utilities. How much it costs, who it covers and when it goes into effect? Details! The important thing is that a W is a W.

“The Finance Committee is pursuing a plan costing roughly $900 billion over 10 years. Dropping that number much further, a potential consequence of deficit worries and the difficulty of enacting tax increases, would make it harder to provide even bare-bones coverage for the vast majority of the uninsured.

Ultimately, however, elements still in dispute appear less likely to derail comprehensive legislation than to alter its precise effects and pace of implementation.

For all the political risks of acting, ‘Everyone knows the alternative is worse,’ said Rahm Emanuel, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff and a veteran of the Clinton White House. ‘Failure leads to failure.’”

Washington Post – Health-Care Reform, One Stop at a Time
 

Back in March, the president unleashed his millions of grass roots supporters to go out and fight for his budget… and not much happened. Going door to door to talk about the budget turned out to be nothing like going door to door to ask people to support a candidate in an election.

But now Organizing for America is looking to make a difference on health care, as the Democratic Party gasses up the motor coaches and starts handing out t-shirts in an effort to create the impression of a groundswell and shift the balance of enthusiasm away from conservative opponents. And it’s timed for not only the return to session for Congress but the $150 million in advertising from drug companies is support of Obama.

Writer Dan Eggen points out that with still no plan to sell and deep divides among Democrats about what to do, generating the kind of enthusiasm seen on the Right may be tricky.

“Patients First, an arm of the conservative group Americans for Prosperity, ended a six-week tour on Friday that featured a bus wrapped in a giant red hand and the proclamation: ‘Hands Off Our Health Care!’

Group spokeswoman Amy Menefee said that although ‘imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,’ she doubts the DNC-backed efforts will have much impact on the debate. She and other reform opponents also say the push seems phony.

‘It’s hard to calculate what the response will be when you’re asking people to rally for bigger government,’ Menefee said of the Obama group’s efforts. ‘That’s essentially what they’re asking of people, and I think on a personal, motivational level it’s very different than the people on our side.’”

Wall Street Journal — Cheney Says He Was Proponent for Military Action Against Iran
 

In the coverage of former Vice President Dick Cheney’s smackdown of Eric Holder for pitting the FBI against the CIA, Cheney’s aside that he favored giving the Iranian government a going away present in the form of a strike against their nuclear facilities got relatively little notice.

But writer Michael Phillips looks at what might have been if President Bush had gotten on board.

‘I thought that negotiations could not possibly succeed unless the Iranians really believed we were prepared to use military force,’ Mr. Cheney said. ‘And to date, of course, they are still proceeding with their nuclear program and the matter has not yet been resolved.’

Mr. Cheney’s views were at odds with those of other top officials at the time. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said repeatedly during those final months that a strike against Iran would make the Middle East more unstable and would raise the risk on American forces in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan.”

Wall Street Journal — U.S. Walks Fine Line in Afghan Vote
 

With the CIA stripped of it’s power to detain and interrogate suspects, new rules of engagement that seek to eliminate civilian casualties, and a broad nation-building agenda, the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is already plenty complicated.

But trying to get a fair election result out of the country while not becoming a kingmaker is further testing American forces.

Writers Annand Gopal and Matthew Rosenberg look at how fears of violence and possible rioting have NATO looking for reassurances but not to endorse or oppose any outcome.

“Over the weekend, [opposition candidate Abdullah] Abdullah offered a bleak outlook for the country if people don’t accept the election results. “If the democratic process does not survive, then Afghanistan doesn’t survive,” he told hundreds of supporters at a rally north of Kabul Friday.

Such talk, along with private suggestions from some in Dr. Abdullah’s camp that a Karzai win could be met with violent protests, has prompted U.S. and European officials to press the doctor to rein in his people. Dr. Abdullah’s comments are “something that certainly worries all of us. It’s not at all helpful at this moment,” said a U.S. diplomat in Kabul.

As the vote count becomes more contentious, the U.S. and its allies are finding it harder to play a hands-off role. Over the weekend, U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown called Dr. Abdullah to discuss the elections, according to Abdullah campaign spokesman Fazel Sangcharaki.”

Washington Post — Environmentalists Slow to Adjust in Climate Debate
 

Writer David Farenthold suggests that America would be even closer to charging global warming fees and saving the earth if environmentalists weren’t so decent and thoughtful.

Farenthold goes out to Athens, Ohio, the home of super-crunchy Ohio University in the nation’s carbon belt to find out that the energy industry and its employees are trying to build vocal opposition, offering t-shirts and free sandwiches, while the greenies talk about inefficient buildings and hold sing alongs.

Farenthold does not point out that the federal government, every earth science teacher, and almost every media outlet in the country aggressively supports spending a $1 trillion to lower carbon emissions in hopes that Brazil, Russia, India, and China are moved to follow our example.

But the feelings of excess decency may lessen when a full-scale green ad blitz kicks off in the weeks to come.

What’s of political consequence here, though, is that the green folks are getting more frustrated with the Senate, which has put the issue on the back burner in order to focus on health care. But the green lobby, which has a lot of stroke among Democrats, wants action right away so that President will be able to assume a global warming leadership position next month when the G-20 meets in Pittsburgh in advance if Kyoto II in Copenhagen this December.

If the greens have enough jucie to force the Senate to take up the issue before health care is resolved, it could be train wreck.
“In the Midwestern heart of the current ad blitz, the office of Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has been getting calls from people inspired by environmental groups’ TV ads. But in the office of Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a staff member said letters were running 100 for and 7,000 against climate legislation.

Even the optimists in the environmental movement talk about the next few months as a cliffhanger, rather than a sure thing.

‘I often refer to it as ‘The Moment.’ It’s the moment we’ve all been waiting and working for, for a very long time,’ said Maggie L. Fox, CEO of the Alliance for Climate Protection, an activist group founded by former vice president Al Gore. ‘Yes, it’s a test for the environmental movement. But it’s a test for our civilization.’”

–To get Morning Must Reads in your inbox every weekday click here.

‘