WEDNESDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* On the president's desk: "The formal request by the nation's top Afghanistan commander for more troops is now in President Barack Obama's hands, administration officials said Wednesday as the war launched after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks reached its eight-year mark with no end in sight."

* Obama doesn't intend to double-down or withdraw.

* Oh my: "Two men were arrested when police found a pipe bomb, two shotguns, bomb-making materials, ammunition, a can of propane and SWAT costumes in their car Tuesday night in New Haven, Conn. So far the police don't have a clear sense of what the pair were planning to do, New Haven Police spokesman Officer Joe Avery told TPM."

* A House GOP effort to force Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) from the chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee fell far short.

* Speaker Pelosi moving towards a watered-down public option?

* The "czars" hearing came to the expected result: "Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama's extensive use of policy 'czars' is legal -- as long as the officials do not overstep their authority."

* Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) doesn't care what the constitutional experts say on the subject.

* Dahlia Lithwick's Supreme Court dispatches continue to be brilliant. In the latest, she reports on yesterday's hearing regarding animal-cruelty videos.

* National Review columnist John Derbyshire digs deeper in his opposition to women voting.

* If you exclude Fox News viewers, the president is pretty popular in North Carolina.

* John Blevins and Marvin Ammori offer a very helpful look at the Comcast v. FCC case pending in the D.C. Circuit.

* Why on earth would Newsweek ask someone from the Consumer Bankers Association for their opinion on SAFRA?

* On a related note, SAFRA is clearly an issue in which Obama is winning.

* Thanks to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Maine for helping make the case for a public option.

* Newt Gingrich continues to lose touch with reality.

* And finally, Rep. Louie Gohmert, a right-wing Republican from Texas, in arguing against repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," managed to insist that a hate-crimes bill would lead to a legalization of necrophilia, pedophilia, and bestiality. He then used scripture to condemn homosexuality before comparing his opponents to Nazis. Seriously.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

CBO SCORES BAUCUS.... The long-awaited Congressional Budget Office report on the Senate Finance Committee's health care reform bill was finally released this afternoon.

What's the news? The bill would cost $829 billion over the next decade, achieve $81 billion in deficit reduction, and cover 94% of the population.

According to CBO and JCT's assessment, enacting the Chairman's mark, as amended, would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $81 billion over the 2010-2019 period. The estimate includes a projected net cost of $518 billion over 10 years for the proposed expansions in insurance coverage. That net cost itself reflects a gross total of $829 billion in credits and subsidies provided through the exchanges, increased net outlays for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and tax credits for small employers; those costs are partly offset by $201 billion in revenues from the excise tax on high-premium insurance plans and $110 billion in net savings from other sources. The net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes that CBO estimates would save $404 billion over the 10 years and other provisions that JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $196 billion over the same period. In subsequent years, the collective effect of those provisions would probably be continued reductions in federal budget deficits. Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.

By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 29 million, leaving about 25 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under the proposal, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 94 percent. Roughly 23 million people would purchase their own coverage through the new insurance exchanges, and there would be roughly 14 million more enrollees in Medicaid and CHIP than is projected under current law. Relative to currently projected levels, the number of people either purchasing individual coverage outside the exchanges or obtaining coverage through employers would decline by several million.

At first blush, it's a mixed bag. The price tag will please spending-averse lawmakers, as will the deficit reduction (bending the proverbial cost curve), but the Finance Committee bill still leaves a significant number of people without coverage, and subsidy levels remain a point of major contention.

I'll have more in the morning, but in the meantime, the key takeaway from the CBO report is straightforward enough: it moves the process forward. If the CBO had released a report trashing the Baucus bill -- higher than expected costs, lower than expected savings -- the result would have been quite a bit of chaos on the Hill.

This afternoon's report keeps the ball rolling in the right direction.

WHATEVER IT IS, THEY'RE AGAINST IT.... It's tempting to think a measure like this one would pass unanimously. After all, it's not as if voters would elect monsters to the Senate, right?

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

All Franken's measure would do is allow victims of rape and discrimination to have their day in court -- not exactly controversial stuff. When Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) accused Franken of pushing a "political attack directed at Halliburton," the Minnesota senator explained that it would apply equally to all defense contractors.

The good news is, Franken's measure passed, 68 to 30.

The bad news is, 30 Senate Republicans -- 75% of the entire Republican Senate caucus -- voted against this.

Perhaps I should be thankful that 10 GOP senators voted with the majority -- by contemporary standards, I suppose that's a lot -- but what possible rationale could three-fourths of the Republican Senate caucus have for voting against this?

Let's not overlook the larger context here. Democrats are expected to try to find "bipartisan" support on practically everything. Some GOP lawmakers think health care reform isn't "legitimate" if it doesn't have 80 votes.

And yet, when the Senate considered a measure yesterday to give rape victims who work for U.S.-subsidized defense contractors a day in court, 30 out of 40 Republican senators said, "No."

The notion that the majority should be able to reach constructive, worthwhile compromises with this minority is clearly ridiculous.

GUN SHOW UNDERCOVER.... When it comes to purchasing firearms, there's a pretty significant loophole -- criminals who wouldn't otherwise be able to buy a gun can go to a gun show and avoid a background check. Licensed firearm dealers have to run the check; private, unlicensed sellers at a show don't.

It leads to a rather obvious phenomenon -- criminals who can't pass background checks go to gun shows and buy firearms anyway.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a fierce critic of the gun-show loophole, launched an interesting investigation. Bloomberg's office sent undercover investigators to seven gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada, to see how easy it is to exploit the gap in the law. The investigators secretly recorded their experiences.

Now, the existing loophole is supposed to have a safeguard -- if a private seller has reason to believe a buyer wouldn't pass a background check, it's a crime to go through with the sale. So, as part of this investigation, the undercover officials specifically told gun-show sellers that they'd fail a background check.

And in 35 out of 47 cases, the sellers sold the guns anyway.

"The gun show loophole is a deadly serious problem -- and this undercover operation exposes just how pervasive and serious it is," Bloomberg said. "We are sending a copy of our detailed report Gun Show Undercover to every member of the United States Congress. We'll work with congressional leaders to pass legislation closing the gun show loophole. This is an issue that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; it's about keeping guns from criminals, plain and simple."

Of course, watching the undercover footage, it's hard not to think about a certain other video we've seen recently with secret filming. As Karl Frisch sarcastically noted, "Since Fox News and Andrew Breitbart has been positively obsessed with the ACORN videos, I'm sure this will be right up their alley."

We know it won't, but the point is nevertheless important. The anti-ACORN videos sparked immediate congressional outrage and generated an enormous amount of media attention. It dealt with a couple pretending to be a prostitute and a pimp getting tax advice. The Bloomberg video is about criminals buying firearms. Which is more important?

TIME FOR A WAKE-UP CALL, NOT FOR PANIC.... A new Gallup poll shows Democrats losing their edge on the generic-ballot question. Asked which party's congressional candidate they'd support if the election were held today, 46% preferred the Democratic candidate, while 44% sided with Republicans. The two-point gap is down from six points in July and 15 points in January.

This is getting quite a bit of attention today, and for good reason. Dems are still in the lead, but their once-strong margin has all but disappeared. Republican support hasn't grown much, but Democratic support has slipped badly. Particularly striking was the fact that self-described independents now prefer the GOP on a generic ballot by nine points.

But before DCCC staffers start jumping out the window, there are a few angles to this to keep in mind.

First, the midterms are 13 months away. It's a cliche, but 13 months is a very long time in national politics (consider where we were 13 months ago). Making predictions this far out is rarely a good idea. The new Gallup data is a snapshot that comes before progress on health care reform, at a point in which no major bills have passed in months, and while the economy is still in serious trouble. A year from now, reform will hopefully have passed, and the economy will, again hopefully, be improved.

Second, a generic ballot has limited value -- there are actual candidates' names on a ballot, which comes after a campaign. For that matter, last November, the Dems' lead on the generic ballot question had shrunk considerably, to about the point where is stands now. The party nevertheless expanded their majorities considerably in both chambers.

Third, Republicans are still awfully unpopular, aren't trusted on major issues, and still suffering from an embarrassingly weak brand name. Democrats' popularity has waned, but it's tough to replace an unpopular party with an even more unpopular party.

Finally, instead of panicking, Dems should look at a poll like this as a wake-up call. People aren't satisfied. The more lawmakers address the issues that people care about, the less voters will embrace a throw-the-bums-out attitude.

SOME FOLKS CAN'T TAKE A JOKE.... In some right-wing circles, there's a belief that Barack Obama's first book, "Dreams From My Father," was actually ghost-written by Bill Ayers. It wasn't, of course, but like the rest of the bizarre conservative conspiracy theories, reality doesn't much matter.

Birthers, meet Ghosters. The overlap is considerable.

National Journal caught up with Ayers at a book festival recently, and the '60s-era radical decided to have a little fun at the right wing's expense.

When [Ayers] finished speaking, we put the authorship question [on "Dreams From My Father"] right to him. For a split second, Ayers was nonplussed. Then an Abbie Hoffmanish, steal-this-book-sort-of-smile lit up his face. He gently took National Journal by the arm. "Here's what I'm going to say. This is my quote. Be sure to write it down: 'Yes, I wrote Dreams From My Father. I ghostwrote the whole thing. I met with the president three or four times, and then I wrote the entire book.'" He released National Journal's arm, and beamed in Marxist triumph. "And now I would like the royalties."

He pulled the same gag soon after with a conservative blogger.

In general, Ayers joking around about a silly conspiracy theory wouldn't be especially noteworthy, but as Dave Weigel reports, a surprising number of conservatives took Ayers seriously.

People he's duped so far: Jonah Goldberg, his mother Lucianne Goldberg, Tom Maguire, Dennis Byrne, Carol Platt Lieblau, and a bunch of other conservatives, some of whom try to split the difference by suggesting that Ayers is revealing a little bit of truth behind the sarcasm. How embarrassing.

Ron Chusid added, "The gullibility of conservatives, or more precisely their willingness to believe without bothering to fact check anything which confirms their biases, is amazing.... [T]hose guys will believe anything if it fits into their narrow worldview."

Now that the Washington Post and New York Times have taken a special interest in what right-wing voices are concerned about, I hope the papers are paying close attention here: a few too many on the right have poor critical thinking skills and will run with any story they hope is true.

HOW FOX NEWS PERCEIVES ITS WORK.... Mike Allen reported yesterday that White House advisor David Axelrod and Fox News president Roger Ailes recently got together for a little chat. According to the report, the meeting occurred two weeks ago, and while it's unclear exactly what transpired, there's no reason to think the animosity between the White House and the Republican cable news network has dissipated.

Time's Michael Scherer followed up and gained some interesting insights.

"The fact that our numbers are up 30 plus in the news arena on basic cable I'd like to think is a sign that we are just putting what we believe to be the facts out on the table," said Michael Clemente, Fox's senior vice president for news, in an interview on Tuesday.

Ezra added, "Most news organizations, in my experience, do not have to qualify the word 'facts' with the words 'what we believe to be.'"

Clemente added that White House frustration with the propaganda outlet is consistent with other recent administrations.

"It reminds me a little bit about what happened to Sam Donaldson when he was covering the White House," said Clemente. "The Reagan White House thought he was enemy number one. He had the same relationship with the Carter White House. They thought he was enemy number one. He thought he was doing his job."

The comparison doesn't make sense, for exactly the reason Clemente mentioned. Reagan and his team thought Donaldson was an attack dog, but Donaldson "had the same relationship with the Carter White House."

In other words, he didn't play favorites, and went after stories with equal enthusiasm regardless of the party in power.

In contrast, Fox News and the Bush White House were two peas in a pod -- the president literally took his press secretary from the network and granted FNC all kinds of exclusives -- while Fox News has deliberately positioned itself as the Obama White House's enemy.

BOOSTING THE JOB MARKET.... The appetite on the Hill for another stimulus package is practically non-existent. Support is growing, however, for a new employment tax credit.

The idea of a tax credit for companies that create new jobs, something the federal government has not tried since the 1970s, is gaining support among economists and Washington officials grappling with the highest unemployment in a generation.

The proposal has some bipartisan appeal among politicians eager both to help their unemployed constituents and to encourage small-business development. Legislators on Capitol Hill and President Obama's economic team have been quietly researching the policy for several weeks.

"There is a lot of traction for this kind of idea," said Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the Republican whip. "If the White House will take the lead on this, I'm fairly positive it would be welcomed in a bipartisan fashion."

In addition to the economists working on the proposal, some heavyweights support the concept, including the Nobel laureate Edmund S. Phelps, Dani Rodrik of Harvard and former Labor Secretary Robert B. Reich.

Phelps and Reich agreeing on a job-creation idea isn't that unusual. Seeing Cantor agree with them, however, is bound to raise eyebrows.

Tim Fernholz presents the case for the proposal, and highlights the larger political dynamic.

Basically, the tax credit would provide subsidies for the salaries of new hires in an effort to spur job growth. Getting it over the line now is key, since the government wants to get it in place before the economy starts to swing back into gear, but not take so much time doing it that employers delay hiring in anticipation of the subsidy. There are also plenty of concerns about loopholes and corporate welfare, but if the law is written the right way this might be something worth getting behind. Especially if Republicans will vote for something that might help lower unemployment.

By some measures, the tax credit would cost about $20,000 for each job created, with the target goal of creating about 2 million jobs.

There's no word yet on financing the $40 billion proposal.

I should add that the proposal may sound familiar -- President Obama promoted the idea during the debate over the stimulus bill, but the measure was scrapped by Congress.

WEDNESDAY'S CAMPAIGN ROUND-UP....Today's installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn't generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers.

* No matter which poll you rely on, New Jersey's gubernatorial race is close. While a Fairleigh Dickinson poll showed Gov. Jon Corzine (D) lead Chris Christie (R) by one point yesterday, the latest Rasmussen poll shows Christie up by three, 47% to 44%. Two weeks ago, Rasmussen put Christie's lead at seven points.

* On a related note, Vice President Biden will be in New Jersey later today, and will appear at an event for Corzine.

* In Virginia, Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Creigh Deeds said yesterday that "what's going on in Washington" has made his own campaign "very tough." It's not a good sign when, a month before the election, the candidate starts blaming others.

* Republicans' chances of winning Iowa's 2010 gubernatorial race got a little better today, when former Gov. Terry Branstad (R) filed the paperwork for his comeback bid. Early polls show him looking extremely strong against incumbent Gov. Chet Culver (D).

* The Democratic Senate primary in Florida gets a little more crowded today when former Miami Mayor Maurice Ferre enters the race. Ferre, who is 74, last sought public office in 2001, when he lost a re-election campaign in Miami.

* In a Democratic pollster, but the latest survey from Momentum Analysis shows Robin Carnahan (D) leading Roy Blunt (R) in Missouri's 2010 Senate race, 48% to 45%.

* In Kansas, a Survey USA poll shows Jerry Moran leading Todd Tiahrt in the Republican Senate primary, 43% to 27%. About a third of Kansas Republicans are still undecided.

* And in Vermont, Sen. Pat Leahy (D) is considered a lock for re-election, but he'll apparently face a primary challenge from the left.

CONCESSION OF THE DAY.... Reps. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) were on CNBC's "Squawk Box" this morning, discussing health care. Ryan argued that, despite what we've been led to believe, he and his Republican colleagues believe reforming the system is very important.

It led to an interesting exchange:

Frank: "Paul, when did you figure that out? Because apparently, for the 12 years Republicans were in control, eight of which we had a Republican President, that hadn't occurred to you. So I'm glad you now understand that. But can you tell me, at what moment -- at what moment the revelation occurred?"

Ryan: "The first bill I introduced on this subject was about six years ago."

Frank: "Yeah but you had control of the Congress, why didn't the Republican Congress act on it?"

Ryan: "I will have a moment of bipartisan agreement. We should have fixed this under our watch and I'm frustrated we didn't."

To clarify just a little further, "we should have fixed this" is underselling what transpired. Republicans made no effort -- literally, none at all -- to reform the broken system. The number of uninsured kept growing; premiums kept soaring, systemic pressures kept depressing wages, and Republicans didn't just fail to fix the problem for more than a decade, they pretended the problem didn't exist. It wasn't a priority.

These same GOP lawmakers did, however, find time to consider constitutional amendments on gay marriage and flag burning.

Update: Amanda Terkel has the video of the exchange.

REMEMBER THE ALAMO?.... I can appreciate the fact that historical parallels can make for powerful political rhetoric. But the right really should look beyond the Alamo, or at a minimum, realize why it's foolish.

Earlier this week, after nearly breaking down in tears (again), Glenn Beck told his television audience that they're not alone: "It's you and me and the Fox News Channel -- the Alamo for truth."

If this sounds familiar, it's because Roger Ailes, Fox News' chief executive, told Glenn Beck in January that he wanted to bolster the Republican network's opposition to the Democratic administration. "I see this as the Alamo," Ailes said, according to Beck. "If I just had somebody who was willing to sit on the other side of the camera until the last shot is fired, we'd be fine."

Um, guys? As I recall, the Alamo didn't turn out too well. Most of the Americans who fought in the battle were killed.

If Fox News is "the Alamo for truth," doesn't that mean it's the place where the truth gets killed?

FOUND: GOP CAUCUS THEME SONG.... The "Party of No" theme has always been pretty descriptive when applied to congressional Republicans, but wouldn't it be even better if their governing philosophy could be put to music?

Groucho Marx first sang this in 1932, but it's certainly applicable eight decades later.

For those of you who can't watch clips from your work computers, here are the lyrics:

I don't know what they have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it.

Your proposition may be good,
But let's have one thing understood,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And even when you've changed it or condensed it,
I'm against it.

I'm opposed to it,
On general principle, I'm opposed to it.

For months before my son was born,
I used to yell from night to morn,
Whatever it is, I'm against it.
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!

It might as well have been custom made for the Republican National Committee.

THE CARPER COMPROMISE.... The Wall Street Journal reports today that a public option compromise measure crafted by Sen. Tom Carper (D) of Delaware seems to be gaining steam. The piece noted that Carper's measure "won praise from some in his party Tuesday as a way of bridging differences among them."

Sen. Kent Conrad (D) of North Dakota, for example, called the Carper proposal was "very constructive." And Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Congress' most conservative Democrat, seems amenable, too.

At least one opponent of a public option, Senator Ben Nelson, the Nebraska Democrat, said Tuesday that he was warming to a compromise proposal floated last week by another Democrat, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware.

Mr. Carper has suggested leaving it to the states to decide whether to offer government-sponsored insurance plan, the so-called public option. Details are scant -- Mr. Carper circulated a one-page proposal, not a fully fleshed-out legislative plan -- and it is unclear whether the idea will gain enough traction to be included in a final Senate bill. But Mr. Nelson said he had been discussing it with colleagues.

"It all depends on the details,'' Mr. Nelson said. "But I think there is a legitimate argument for giving the states an option to solve this problem, which is essentially an insurance problem.''

Nelson added that Carper idea start gaining some momentum last week "and it seems not to have lost any momentum since then.''

So, is Carper's measure any good? We'll have a better sense as it's fleshed out in more detail, but Ezra Klein gave it a fairly positive review last week, and sketched out the general outline:

1) Participate as grantees in the CO-OP program and apply for seed funding.

2) Open up that state's employee benefits plan.

3) Create a state administered health insurance plan with the option of banding together with other states to create a regional insurance compact.

Each state would, in other words, be allowed to create a public option. And states could band together to give their public options more bargaining power and efficiencies of scale. This would do a couple of things. First, it would give residents access to a public competitor. Second, it would provide an acid test of whether a public competitor substantially changes an insurance market. Does it force private insurers to bring their prices down? Does it create more competition and transparency? Are consumers more satisfied? And if all that happens, will other states really resist adopting the public option?

Jonathan Cohn had a slightly more skeptical take, but still called it "an interesting idea."

A SUBTLE SHIFT... The latest Fox News poll shows 53% of Americans opposing health care reform, with only 33% supporting it. This was clearly welcome news at the National Review.

That said, it's worth taking a step back. One angle to consider is the fact that the Fox News poll, as Nate Silver explained, arrived at its result after a series of dubious questions that sounded an awful lot like GOP talking points.

Another angle worth noting is that the Fox News poll appears to be an outlier. This week's Gallup poll shows support for reform growing and opposition shrinking. Indeed, for the first time in a while, Gallup has supporters outnumbering opponents.

A new Associated Press poll finds the public split on the merits of reform, but opposition to the proposals has dropped from 49% to 40% over the last month.

The same AP poll shows increased support for the president, too.

President Barack Obama's approval ratings are starting to rise after declining ever since his inauguration, new poll figures show as the country's mood begins to brighten. But concerns about the economy, health care and war persist, and support for the war in Afghanistan is falling.

An Associated Press-GfK poll says 56 percent of those surveyed in the past week approve of Obama's job performance, up from 50 percent in September. It's the first time since he took office in January that his rating has gone up.

People also feel better about his handling of the economy and his proposed health care overhaul.... Fifty percent of those surveyed said they approved of the president's handling of the economy, up from 44 percent in September. And 48 percent said they approved of his handling of health care, up six points and about equal to the 47 percent who said they disapproved.

I wouldn't put too much stock in the Fox News poll. The larger trends look encouraging on public support for reform.

GRASSLEY'S PRINCIPLE-FREE OPPOSITION.... Given his record, we're well past the point of expecting intellectual seriousness or consistency from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). But his take on an individual mandate as part of health care reform is pretty striking, even for him.

Victor Zapanta reported yesterday on Grassley's latest stand. The senator was asked whether he might consider supporting health care reform if Democrats satisfied his concerns about funds for abortion and coverage for undocumented workers. Grassley said he'd oppose reform anyway, because of the individual mandate.

"[T]here are other points as well, but let me mention other points that you didn't mention. And one would be the individual mandate, which for the first time would have a federal penalty against people who don't have health insurance.... I'm very reluctant to go along with an individual mandate."

So, for Chuck Grassley, an individual mandate is a deal-breaker. No matter what other concessions Democrats are willing to make in the name of compromise and in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, the Iowa conservative believes the mandate is just too much.

At least, that's what he believes now. As recently as August, Grassley argued the way to get universal coverage is "through an individual mandate." He told Nightly Business report, "That's individual responsibility, and even Republicans believe in individual responsibility."

In June, Grassley was even clearer. He said "there isn't anything wrong with" an individual mandate, and compared it to laws requiring Americans to have car insurance. "Everybody has some health insurance costs," the conservative senator said, "and if you aren't insured, there's no free lunch."

Grassley added, in unambiguous terms, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates."

Read that sentence again.

Democrats moved forward with reform efforts, taking Grassley at his word. Just a few months later, however, Grassley has concluded that he's not only against individual mandates, he considers them a deal-breaker. And remember, as far as Senate Republicans are concerned, Grassley was the lead negotiator on working towards some kind of consensus on the legislation.

Why is "bipartisan" health care reform impossible? Because leading GOP lawmakers like Chuck Grassley oppose the measures they support.