1:50 p.m. — The House is currently voting on a number of minor bills in order to get members to the floor and get head counts, allow the leadership to talk to their respective caucuses, etc. Debate has not really begun yet…

From Rasmussen’s analysis:

“Women give a slight edge to Giannoulias at this point, while male voters and voters not affiliated with either major party break nearly even….Only nine percent (9%) of Illinois voters view Giannoulias very favorably, while 19% view him very unfavorably. Another 13% are not sure. Kirk is regarded very favorably by 13% and very unfavorably by 12%. Nineteen percent (19%) do not know enough about him to venture even a soft favorable or unfavorable opinion….Fifty-two percent (52%) of voters in Illinois favor the health care reform plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats, while 46% are opposed to the plan. These numbers include 35% who Strongly Favor the plan and 37% who Strongly Oppose it. Support for the plan is considerably higher in Illinois than among voters nationwide.”

Hamsher responded in a lengthy post:

“The breathless Marc Ambinder prints this today:

Already, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is blasting Democratic activist Jane Hamsher for using Survey USA to essentially poll-pressure Blue Dog Democrats into retirement.

Really? We’re trying to pressure Blue Dogs into retirement? Where? Well, he doesn’t say.

The fact that the poll was on health care, and we’ve been writing about health care solidly for the past 8 months, seems to have escaped his notice. Are the polls accurate? Yes, but that doesn’t matter, printing them is tantamount to ‘poll pressure.’

There’s a key piece of information Ambinder seems to have omitted from the article:

BARON HILL IS LOSING BY 8 POINTS TO HIS GOP OPPONENT…

Rahm Ambinder goes on to say that Bayh ‘really grew to dislike the influence of liberal activists on his Senate colleagues.’ Well, it’s nice to know Bayh found the strength to vote against Byron Dorgan’s drug reimportation amendment that would have saved both the government and the public billions of dollars in drug costs. Having taken $439,000 in campaign donations from pharmaceutical companies alone, what’s a guy to do?”

In the world according to Jane Hamsher, Rahm Emmanuel controls the universe, is the root of all evil, and Marc Ambinder is his bitch. Needless to say, the world according to Jane Hamsher is a rather peculiar place. Still, leaving aside the vitriol in her response, I think some of the criticism aimed at her with respect to her polls is unwarranted. Hamsher contends — and the pollster confirms — that she played no role in crafting the questions.

Now, that doesn’t mean the polls aren’t flawed.  I think they are. Emory political scientist Alan Abramowitz, in my view, debunks them  quite convincingly. But it in this case, bad questions are the fault of the pollster, not the person who commissioned the surveys.

What to make of his latest post?

“For months now, Bayh has been screaming at the top of his voice that the party needs to reorient toward a more popular, centrist agenda — one that emphasizes jobs and fiscal responsibility over health care and cap and trade. Neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has given him the response he wanted. Their bungling of what should have been a routine bipartisan jobs bill last week seems to have been the last straw….

Quitting the Senate was a no-lose move for the presidentially ambitious Bayh, since he can now crawl away from the political wreckage for a couple of years, plausibly alleging that he tried to steer the party in a different direction — and then be perfectly positioned to mount a centrist primary challenge to Obama in 2012, depending on circumstances.

There will be those Democrats who bid good riddance to Bayh and his coal-burning-state apostasy about cap and trade, etc. If so, they won’t need a very big tent to contain the celebration. On a more pragmatic view, Bayh’s dramatic vote of no-confidence in his own party’s leadership looks like another Massachusetts-sized political earthquake for the Democrats. Not only does it imperil the president’s short-term hopes of passing health care and other major legislation this year. It also makes it much more likely that the Republicans can pick up Bayh’s Senate seat in normally red Indiana and, with it, control of the Senate itself. If present trends continue, November could turn into a Republican rout.”

First, Lane has simply invented a false narrative here. No one believes that Bayh’s retirement is the beginning of an insurgent campaign to wrest the Democratic nomination from President Obama in 2012. Such an idea is, on its face, preposterous. This is partly because an insurgent campaign from the right — within the Democratic party — is a phenomenon that simply does not exist. Of course, Lane is trying to push a purely fictitious narrative of his own invention into mainstream discussion. After all, if a member of the Washington Post editorial board is loudly proclaiming Bayh’s viability, then the notion of his candidacy must have some credibility.

Second, Lane seems to be encouraging Democrats both to focus more attention on the deficit and abandon efforts on health care reform. This, of course, is illogical. As conservative stalwart Rep. Paul Ryan readily acknowledges, the deficit cannot be addressed without making structural changes to the health care system.

Interestingly, Lane makes no mention of the blatant cynicism surrounding the manner in which Bayh chose to leave office — that is, waiting until one day before the filing deadline to announce his retirement. This maneuver, of course, makes a primary all but impossible, leaving state Democratic leaders to choose a new candidate. In other words, Bayh has willfully denied his constituents a chance to choose the Democratic nominee. I would love to see how Lane reconciles this manipulation with the brave, principled character he has depicted.

Lane’s latest drivel is a symptom of a larger problem in political punditry: worship of a warped notion of centrism. A centrist, as traditionally understood, defies the dogma and doctrines of ideology. But a self-styled “centrist” who believes that, by defying one’s political party you have done something intrinsically noble, is a different breed altogether. This centrism, as Lane’s post demonstrates, can itself become an ideology, with its own brand of intellectual laziness and dishonesty.

“’After all these years, my passion for service to my fellow citizens is undiminished, but my desire to do so in Congress has waned,’ he said.

“’My decision was not motivated by political concern,’” he added. “’Even in the current challenging environment, I am confident in my prospects for re-election.’”

The announcement, needless to say, comes as somewhat of a shock — and a blow to Democrats.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., as quoted in the Wall Street Journal:

“‘Mr. Obama said he’ll challenge Republicans to explain how they will cover large numbers of uninsured people. But Rep. Dave Camp (R., Mich.) rejected that standard. ‘We didn’t portray our bill as being universal coverage,” he said in an interview. “We never attempted to do that.’”

Well, this is somewhat of a departure from the standard GOP line, which contends that Republicans would love to do some version of comprehensive reform and cover the uninsured.  They just can’t sign onto the Democrats’ bill.

Anyone who has watched this debate knows this is crap. One need only look at history: when was the last time a Republican president proposed a comprehensive health care reform bill — or made any effort to cover the uninsured? (Answer: Richard Nixon.) When was the last time Republicans, when they controlled Congress, tried to pass comprehensive health care legislation?  Never.

Camp, to his credit, is simply stating the truth: Republicans don’t want to see comprehensive health care reform enacted. And covering the uninsured just isn’t their thing.  After all, why would you want to cover the uninsured when you could just cut taxes?

So far, no Republican with the stature to defeat Bayh had jumped into the race. John Hostettler, a discredited former GOP House member who lost to Brad Ellsworth (D) in a 2006 landslide despite representing an overwhelmingly Republican district, is already seeking the nomination.

Rasmussen:

“A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely GOP Primary voters in the state finds Rubio leading Crist 49% to 37%. Three percent (3%) prefer another candidate, and 11% are undecided.

The new numbers mark a stunning turnaround. Crist was the strong favorite when he first announced for the Senate seat, and Rubio was viewed as a long-shot challenger.

But Crist’s support fell from 53% in August to 49% in October. By December, the two men were tied at 43% apiece.”

Fabrizio (a GOP pollster), who shows Rubio ahead 44% to 30%:

“Overall, Crist has fallen behind Rubio by double digits in the GOP Senate Primary. Several factors appear to be conspiring against him putting the outcome of his Senate bid seriously in question….Ideologically, Rubio has clearly flanked him on the right where he holds almost a 2 to 1 lead. With nearly two-thirds of GOP voters calling themselves Conservatives this trend should be most alarming to the Crist team….Crist is failing to generate intensity of support for his candidacy even among the 61% of GOP voters who approve of the job he is doing as Governor. Among this group he doesn’t even garner 50% of their votes.

Jobs and the economy is the top issue for these voters. Crist currently trails Rubio among these voters – a trend he can’t allow to continue.”

“Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said Friday that she has been in conversation with Democrats and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus about a way forward on health care reform.”

Right, because this all worked out so well the first time.

Is there any doubt — any at all — that Chuck Grassley and Olympia Snowe played Baucus for a fool?  Isn’t there some way to cut him out of the process?

8:02 Pre-speech update(!): Kirsten Gillibrand smacks Harold Ford in a SOTU tweet: “Looking forward to the #SOTU tonight. If HF were here, he would probably be sitting on the Republican side.”  Snap!!

9:07 — Max Baucus, looking hapless…

9:10  — Pelosi, looking characteristically unnerved..

9:14 — These struggles are the reason I ran for president…

9:16    — “We need to overcome the numbing weight of our politics…”

9:17 — This whole opening segment is leaving me cold…

9:19 — “We’ve recovered most of the money we spent on the banks.”  He plugs his proposed tax on tax on banks.  Dems give him  a standing O, Repubs not so much

9:22 — Full-throated defense of the stimulus.  Good.  I was wondering when we were going to hear it.  Dems leap to applaud, Republicans look constipated.

9:24  “I am calling for a new jobs bill tonight.”  Finally gets a bipartisan ovation.

9:26  I had forgotten how McCain can’t control his glares of utter loathing when Obama speaks.  I’m kinda experiencing some campaign nostalgia…

9:27 — Calls for “eliminating capital gains taxes on small business investment.”  Joy all around.

9:35 — More nuclear power, more drilling, coal.  Republicans leap to their feet, race to get asses back in chairs before he mentions “comprehensive energy bill.”

9:41 — Revitalize community colleges!

9:42 — $10,000 tax credit for four years of college.  Sheesh — wasn’t this part of the Gore/Lieberman 2000 platform?

9:43 — Whacks colleges for exploding costs.  Here, here.

9:44 — And now we get to health care…

9:45 — I appreciate his nod to Michelle, but it kind of disrupted his rhythm and momentum

9:47 — Much anticipated “I will not walk away” line delivered better than I would have thought.  Not bad.

9:49 — Dems were clearly looking for marching orders tonight — seem quite eager to be told to pass the damn thing

9:50 — Remember Bush?  As much as we would all (especially Republicans) like to forget…

9:51 — Three-year spending freeze for non-discretionary, non-defense. Important to point out that he’s not talking about an across-the-board cut, but rather a bottom line freeze

9:55 — Josh Marshall quips: “Nelson and Lieberman sitting together in axis of weasels.”

9:58 — Calls out the Supremes!  Truly awkward moment. Alito shakes his head, mouths: “It’s not true.” The rest show no visible reaction.

10:02 — Obama to Dems: “Govern, dammit!” Nice.

10:03 — Just saying no to everything may be good politics, but it’s not leadership.”

10:04 — Tells off GOP for “schoolyard taunts” on national security.  Well done.

10:08 — Biden, unlike most veeps, seems to really dig his job.

10:13 — Repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. I was wondering when this was coming — it was rumored to be in tonight’s speech.

10:20 — “I don’t quit.”  I think those three words sum up the core message of this speech.

10:25 — I have to say, the tone of this speech grew on me as it progressed. It was feisty, somewhat playful, and resolved. With respect to policy, there wasn’t anything unexpected. He gently scolded Democrats for “running for the hills,” which I think he needed to do.