And yet we're dawdling on reform?

PASS THE GODDAMN BILL!

In the larger context, it's a reminder that the summit invitation puts Republicans in an awkward spot. If they participate, they'll very likely lose the policy debate. If they reject the invitation, they'll look petty and small (even more so than usual), giving Dems ammunition to further characterize the GOP as knee-jerk partisans, unwilling to even have an open and bipartisan conversation.

I'd like to think all of this has something to do with David Plouffe returning to the fold. Would it be premature to say "check mate?"

Stand by for details...

In hindsight, it was a good idea, actually. But "killing the filibuster" is a misleading way to describe it. The filibuster should continue to exist, but it shouldn't be a matter of procedure anymore. In other words, breaking a filibuster is a standard part of the process now, with cloture votes built into the system.

If you eliminate the need for a 60-vote supermajority for cloture -- or any cloture votes at all -- you force the minority party, if they really want to stop a bill, to literally stand up with the adult diapers and filibuster. Talk and talk and talk, and to take the public scrutiny for it. That's the hinge in the all of this. The public doesn't understand or even know when a filibuster takes place. With a real-life filibuster, I think they would. And that makes the filibuster a politically risky tactic, but still one that's available if need be.

Oliver Willis responds with a series of billboards of his own. But the nearsighted stupidity this billboard represents is beyond confounding. Yes, there are people who seriously want Bush back even though the facts are clear and incontrovertible. For example:

Wes Anderson's Spider-Man

And the latest word via Countdown is that the Republicans won't meet with the president unless reconciliation is taken off the table. Ezra Klein told Keith Olbermann that the president should agree with that demand -- but only if the Republicans agree to an up-or-down vote. No filibuster.

But beyond the finer points of the Republican demands, it's obvious that they simply have no interest in having any summit (televised or not), and they have even less interest in passing healthcare reform.

Bluff successfully called. Flawless victory.

She's had since September, 2008 to study. And yet she still has to scrawl "tax cuts" on her hand so she won't forget. Dream on, wingnuts.

Democrats still don't have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, and unless they can win over at least one Republican, they may adjourn this coming weekend empty-handed.

What's the hang up? Republicans are working with Democrats on one key aspect of the legislation: tax breaks for employers who hire new employees. But beyond such a measure, Republicans are balking at supporting a full package. And with Democrats now one vote shy of a 60-vote supermajority, they will need one GOPer to break ranks if they want the package to overcome a filibuster.

The question remains: if the Republicans filibuster a jobs bill in the middle of 9.7 unemployment, and no one makes a big stink about, does it make a sound?

While he wasn't the most honest politician, he spoke out against the Iraq occupation when it was politically dangerous to do so.

After going it alone on health care reform for nearly a year, President Obama has decided he wants to bring Republicans into the conversation. Here’s the problem: unless the President and Speaker Pelosi are willing to scrap their government take over and hit the reset button, there’s not much to talk about.

Republicans believe the status quo is unacceptable, but so is any health reform package that spends money we don’t have or raises taxes on small businesses and working families in a recession. To that point, House Republicans have offered the only plan, that will lower health care costs, which is what the President said was the goal at the start of this debate.

I'm very interested to see how this televised summit goes. I simply can't imagine that the president will take seriously anyone who's position includes the Luntz words "government takeover." It's an insult and a distortion, and I don't see any real negotiations happening with this sort of language in the mix. And of course that's fine with me, but we'll see how the president deals with it.

It’s possible, though, that this is all about laying the groundwork for pursuing a Dem-only reconciliation solution later. Such an effort, should it happen, will inevitably be portrayed as yet another partisan back-room effort to ram reform through. So perhaps the White House hopes a very public gesture of bipartisanship and transparency now will undercut those attacks and allow Dems to argue that they had no choice but to move forward alone.

I'm looking forward to that moment in the televised summit when the president presses the Republicans on whether they'd vote for the bill. I strongly believe that this is the whole point of the strategy -- expose and emphasize the fact that regardless of what's in the bill, they won't vote for it. This is crucial.

Name-calling by anyone, I teach this to my children and you teach it to your children and grandchildren, too. Name calling by anyone is just unnecessary.

Again, name-calling, using language that is insensitive, by anyone, male, female, Republican, Democrat, is unnecessary. It’s inappropriate. Let’s all just grow up.

Literally seconds earlier:

They are kooks. I agree with Rush Limbaugh.

And there you go.

(Adding... Regarding "final word" in the headline, I reserve the right to backpedal on that one.)

Corrected: It was Chris Wallace.

Uh Huh Her - "Explode"