From NBC's Ken Strickland
It's been reported by at least one news outlet recently that the Senate Finance Committee would complete work on its health-care reform bill by September 15th. Not so, says Republican negotiator Mike Enzi.

"I have not and will not agree to an artificial deadline, because I am committed to getting health-care reform right, not finishing a bill by some arbitrary date," Enzi said in a written statement today. Enzi, Grassley and Snowe are the three Republican members of a bipartisan committee group drafting a compromise proposal.

Video: Democratic strategist Chris Kofinis talks about how Democrats will manage right wing protestors and other political saboteurs who threaten to derail the Democrats' health care agenda.

"Improving access to quality, affordable health care for American families is too important to do hastily. Additionally, since many of the policies under discussion will not take effect for a number of years, we should focus on the goal of meaningful reform and not rush to meet timelines."
 
Enzi also pushed back on suggestions that Senate Democratic leaders might use a procedural tool called "reconciliation" that would allow the Senate to pass a healthcare bill with a simple 51 vote majority -- making it filibuster proof.

"I won't be moved by partisan threats to misuse the budget reconciliation process," he said. "I am committed to getting health-care reform right."

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
American presidents rewarding top campaign fundraisers with plum ambassadorships has long been common practice for both Democrats and Republicans alike. But President Obama

, who has vowed to "change the ways of Washington," has not only continued this tradition of his predecessors, he has outpaced them.

So far, 57% of Obama's picks for ambassador positions -- 34 of 60 -- have been political appointees, or people not considered career Foreign Service, according to the American Foreign Service Association. Fourteen of those, or 23 percent, are bundlers. Bundlers are individuals who raise large amounts of money for a candidate by "bundling" together smaller contributions from others. For 2008, anyone who a raised more than $50,000 for candidate Obama are considered bundlers.

In the past 50 years, the average percentage for political appointees has been about 30 percent, according to AFSA. The practice increased under George W. Bush -- 36 percent of his picks were political. (Jimmy Carter appointed the least at 24 percent.) Because many of the political appointments are made early on in a presidency, Obama's percentages will likely decrease; as more ambassadors are named, more are likely to be career Foreign Service. 

At a January news conference, then-President-elect Obama did acknowledge that "there probably will be some" ambassadors chosen who were top donors. "It would be disingenuous for me to suggest that there are not going to be some excellent public servants but who haven't come through the ranks of the civil service," he said. The White House is focused on the 30-percent target, but not necessarily reducing the number. Groups like AFSA have advocated for the average to be lowered to 10 percent.

Some foreign policy observers say that if Obama is not going to change the practice, then perhaps some of these posts should be eliminated all together. They argue the positions are outdated, a waste of money, and have long gone to political appointees who may have little prior knowledge of the region to which they are assigned. Others aren't convinced. They say removing these posts would reduce access to key leaders, be seen as a "slap in the face" to other countries, and, they stress, one never knows when -- or where -- a crisis could happen.

For the full story, click here

From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and Domenico Montanaro
Arizona Sen. John McCain

said today he will vote against Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's pick to be the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

McCain's no vote is interesting because he holds the view that "elections have consequences" meaning a president should get his nominee approved if qualified. 

McCain voted for Bill Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example.
McCain is also up for re-election next year, and not only does Arizona have a large Hispanic population, McCain also has a primary -- against Chris Simcox, one of the founders of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, an anti-illegal immigrant activist group.

"There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee," McCain said in a statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He added, "And obviously, Judge Sotomayor's life story is inspiring and compelling."

But, "an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court," McCain said. He cited, as have other Republicans Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic who was nominated by President Bush for the DC Circuit Court but blocked by Democrats. He added that he does "not believe that she [Sotomayor] shares my belief in judicial restraint." And: "Though she attempted to walk back from her long public record of judicial activism during her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor cannot change her record."

Video: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, previews the Senate vote on the appointment of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor later this week.

Here's McCain's full statement, made on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

          "Mr. President, it is with great respect for Judge Sotomayor's qualifications that I           come to the floor today to discuss her nomination to the Supreme Court.

"There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee. She is a former prosecutor, served as an attorney in private practice and spent twelve years as an appellate court judge. She is an immensely qualified candidate.

"And obviously, Judge Sotomayor's life story is inspiring and compelling. As the child of Puerto Rican parents who did not speak English upon their arrival to New York, Judge Sotomayor took it upon herself to learn English and become an outstanding student. She graduated cum laude from Princeton University and later from Yale Law School. Judge Sotomayor herself stated that she is 'an ordinary person who has been blessed with extraordinary opportunities and experiences.'

"However, an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court. Those who suggest otherwise need to be reminded of Miguel Estrada. Mr. Estrada also was a supremely qualified candidate. And he too has an incredible life story. Miguel Estrada actually immigrated to the United States from Honduras as a teenager, understanding very little English. Yet, he managed to graduate from Columbia University and Harvard Law School magna cum laude before serving his country as a prosecutor and a lawyer at the Department of Justice. Later, he found success as a lawyer in private practice. However, Miguel Estrada, in spite of his qualifications and remarkable background - in spite of the fact that millions of Latinos would have taken great pride in his confirmation - was filibustered by the Democrats seven times, most recently in 2003 because many Democrats disagreed with Mr. Estrada's judicial philosophy. This was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a court of appeals nominee.

"I supported Mr. Estrada's nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, not because of his inspiring life story or impeccable qualifications, but because his judicial philosophy was one of restraint. He was explicit in his writings and responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would not seek to legislate from the bench.

"In 1987, I had my first opportunity to provide 'advice and consent' on a Supreme Court nominee. At that time, I stated that the qualifications I believed were essential for evaluating a nominee for the bench included 'integrity, character, legal competence and ability, experience, and philosophy and judicial temperament.'

"When I spoke of 'philosophy and judicial temperament' is it specifically how one seeks to interpret the law while serving on the bench. I believe that a judge should seek to uphold all acts of Congress and state legislatures unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution and refrain from interpreting the law in a manner that creates law. While I believe Judge Sotomayor has many of these qualifications I outlined in 1987, I do not believe that she shares my belief in judicial restraint.

"When the Senate was considering Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Second Circuit in 1998, I reviewed her decisions and her academic writings. Her writings demonstrated that she does not subscribe to the philosophy that federal judges should respect the limited nature of the judicial power under our Constitution. Judges who stray beyond their constitutional role believe that judges somehow have a greater insight into the meaning of the broad principles of our Constitution than representatives who are elected by the people. These activist judges assume that the judiciary is a super-legislature of moral philosophers.

"I know of no more profoundly anti-democratic attitude than that expressed by those who want judges to discover and enforce the ever-changing boundaries of a so-called 'living Constitution.' It demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government. And regardless of one's success in academics and government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench.

"Though she attempted to walk back from her long public record of judicial activism during her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor cannot change her record. In a 1996 article in the Suffolk University Law Review, she stated that 'a given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction.' Mr. President, it is exactly this view that I disagree with.

"As a district court judge, her decisions too often strayed beyond settled legal norms. Several times, this resulted in her decisions being overturned by the Second Circuit. She was reversed due to her reliance on foreign law rather than U.S. law. She was reversed because the Second Circuit found she exceeded her jurisdiction in deciding a case involving a state law claim. She was reversed for trying to impose a settlement in a dispute between businesses. And she was reversed for unnecessarily limiting the intellectual property rights of freelance authors. These are but a few examples that led me to vote against her nomination to the Second Circuit in 1992 because of her troubling record of being an activist judge who strayed beyond the rule of law.

"For this reason, I closely followed her confirmation hearing last month. During the hearing, she clearly stated that 'as a judge, I don't make law.' While I applaud this statement, it does not reflect her record as an appellate court judge. As an appellate court judge, Judge Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supreme Court six times. In the several of the reversals of Judge Sotomayor's Second Circuit opinions, the Supreme Court strongly criticized her decision and reasoning. In a seventh case, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling noting that in her written opinion for the majority of Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor had ignored two prior Supreme Court decisions.

"While I do not believe that reversal by the Supreme Court is a disqualifying factor for being considered for the federal bench, I do believe that such cases must be studied in reviewing a nominee's record.

"Most recently, in 2008, the Supreme Court noted in an opinion overturning Judge Sotomayor that her decision 'flies in the face of the statutory language' and chided the Second Circuit for extending a remedy that the Court had 'consistently and repeatedly recognized for three decades forecloses such an extension here.' Unfortunately, it appears from this case, Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., that Judge Sotomayor does not seek 'fidelity to the law' as she pledged at her confirmation hearing. As legislators, we enact laws. The courts must apply the law faithfully. The job of a judge is not to make law or ignore the law.

"Further, in Lopez Torres v. N.Y. State Board of Elections, the Supreme Court overturned Judge Sotomayor's decision that a state law allowing for the political parties to nominate state judges through a judicial district convention was unconstitutional because it did not give people, in her view, a 'fair shot.' In overturning her decision, the Supreme Court took aim at her views on providing a 'fair shot,' to all interested persons stating, 'it is hardly a manageable constitutional question for judges - especially for judges in our legal system, where traditional electoral practice gives no hint of even the existence, much less the content, of a constitutional requirement for a 'fair shot' at party nomination.'

"In her most recent and well-known reversal by the Supreme Court, the Court unanimously rejected Judge Sotomayor's reasoning and held that white firefighters who had passed a race neutral exam were eligible for promotion. Ricci v. DeStefano raised the bar considerably on overt discrimination against one racial group simply to undo the unintentionally racially skewed results of otherwise fair and objective employment procedures. Again, this case proves that Judge Sotomayor does not faithfully apply the law we legislators enact.

"Again and again, Judge Sotomayor seeks to amend the law to fit the circumstances of the case, thereby substituting herself in the role of a legislator. Our Constitution is very clear in its delineation and disbursement of power. It solely tasks the Congress with creating law. It also clearly defines the appropriate role of the courts to 'extend to all Cases in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.' To protect the equal, but separate roles of all three branches of government, I cannot support activist judges that seek to legislate from the bench. I have not supported such nominees in the past, and I cannot support such a nominee to the highest court in the land.

"When the people of Arizona sent me to Washington, I took an oath. I swore to uphold the Constitution. For millions of Americans, it is clear what the Constitution means. The Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms to protect himself, his home, and his family. The Constitution protects our right to protest our government, speak freely and practice our religious beliefs.

"The American people will be watching this week when the Senate votes on Judge Sotomayor's nomination. She is a judge who has foresworn judicial activism in her confirmation hearings, but who has a long record of it prior to 2009. And should she engage in activist decisions that overturn the considered constitutional judgments of millions of Americans, if she uses her lifetime appointment on the bench as a perch to remake law in her own image of justice, I expect that Americans will hold us Senators accountable.

"Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government. And, as I stated earlier, regardless of one's success in academics and in government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench. For this reason, and no other, I am unable to support Judge Sotomayor's nomination."

From NBC's Mark Murray
Remember this morning's articles describing how Democrats, in the debate over health-care reform, are going after health insurers? Well, the liberal group Americans United for Change has announced a new TV ad that -- you guessed it -- takes on the insurers.

"Why do the health insurance companies and Republicans want to kill President Obama's health insurance reform?" the ad, goes. "Because they like things the way they are now. Ed Hanway, CEO of insurance giant Cigna, makes $12.2 million a year. That's $5,883 an hour. Ed makes more in one day, than the average worker makes all year long."

[Youtube:ULKJiRv-Lnk] 

From Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Domenico Montanaro, and Ali Weinberg
*** The battle for Congress: With the House on its recess and with six months into the Obama administration, now's about as good of a time as any to look at the battle for Congress that will take place some 450 days (!!!) from today. Currently, Dems hold a 79-seat advantage in the House (256-177, with two vacancies). That means for Republicans, to regain the majority in House (i.e., get 218 seats), they must net 41 seats. While it's unlikely that the GOP will be able to pick up that many seats, Republicans have history, the map, and (it's starting to seem) the political winds at their back to regain a chunk of congressional seats in 2010. Below is everything you wanted to know about next year's House races but were afraid to ask. We'll take a stab at the Senate races next Monday, after the Senate has embarked on its August recess.

*** History's on the GOP's side: As for the history, the first midterm election for a sitting president hasn't been kind to that president's political party: Since the end of World War II, every president except one -- George W. Bush, after 9/11 -- has seen his party lose House seats. In fact, since 1946, an incumbent president's party has lost an average of 26 seats in his first midterm election (that includes 1974, after Ford had succeeded Nixon after Watergate). The worst performance was in 1994, when the Democrats lost 57 seats. The second-worst was in 1946, when Dems lost 55 seats. The best performance was in 2002, when Republicans actually netted two congressional seats. Now keep in mind, as true math freaks will tell you, we actually haven't had enough elections to make these numbers statistically significant. Still, it's a trend that does matter…

*** So is the map: As for the map, Republicans appear to have more potential pick-up opportunities heading into 2010. There are 49 Democratic-controlled congressional districts that McCain won last year (most of them in the South, the very districts represented by those Blue Dogs). By comparison, there are 34 GOP-controlled congressional districts that Obama won (many of them in blue states like California, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). What's more, after their big gains in 2006 and 2008 -- in down years for Republicans -- Democrats may very well have hit a ceiling. Translation: Even with the 34 Republican-controlled districts that Obama won, Democrats have nowhere to go but down. But GOPers have this slight problem: Some of their very best incumbents in blue states (Mark Kirk, Jim Gerlach, perhaps Mike Castle) are running for statewide office, which means these seats will probably flip back to the Democrats next year.

*** One big difference: Yet keep in mind that 2010 isn't 1994 in this one respect: The 1992 election actually provided hints of the 1994 tsunami (redistricting, strength of anti-establishment Perot etc.; Republicans actually did well in 1992 House races and picked up senate seats). So 1992's results scared a number of Dems and led to a lot of retirements -- making 1994 even more difficult for their party. Remember, MSNBC's Morning Joe won his Dem-held House seat in an open seat contest; the conservative southern Dem decided to retire. We're not seeing this same pattern for 2010 just yet. Democrats seem to have the ability to have insulated themselves from a 1994- or 1946-like result.

*** The answer my friend is blowing in the wind: And as far as the political winds go, Republicans are faring much better in polls' generic-ballot tests. In last week's NBC/WSJ poll, Democrats held a seven-point advantage over Republicans in the generic ballot, 46%-39% -- the smallest edge for Dems since April 2006. In fact, since Hurricane Katrina, Democrats typically had a double-digit advantage over the GOP. In addition, an NPR poll showed Republicans with a one-point edge in its generic-ballot test. As Charlie Cook wrote on National Journal on Friday, "It is too soon to say that Republicans have captured the momentum or hold the advantage, but a shrinking Democratic edge will almost surely precede a reversal, hence the understandable anxiety on the Democrats' part as they continue wrestling with health care…" 

*** The Dems' clear state advantage: But new Gallup numbers -- taken in the first half of this year -- are an important reminder why it's still going to be difficult for the Republican Party to become the majority anytime soon. According to these numbers, Democrats have a clear advantage in 30 states (plus DC), while Republicans have an advantage in just FOUR states. In short, Democrats have firewalls that the GOP doesn't have anymore. Just look at these top-10 lists. The Democrats' top-10 states: DC (65-point advantage), Massachusetts (34-point advantage), Hawaii (29 points), Maryland (28 points), Vermont (28 points), Rhode Island (27 points), Illinois (26 points), New York (25 points), Connecticut (25 points), California (22 points). The Republicans' top-10 states: Utah (23-point advantage), Wyoming (21 points), Idaho (13 points), Alaska (11 points), Alabama (6 points), Mississippi (1 point), North Dakota (even), Nebraska (even), Kansas (-2 points), and Arizona (-2 points). Wow.

Video: National Economic Council Director Larry Summers discusses the state of the beleaguered U.S. economy with NBC's David Gregory on "Meet the Press."

*** Selling the new normal: That's what Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner (on Saturday) and chief White House economic adviser Larry Summers (on Sunday) were selling. They were both asked tax hypotheticals, and both left themselves wiggle room. But wouldn't it have been news -- and some might argue irresponsible -- if they answered any other way? How were they supposed to answer? Is it any different than asking a foreign policy team member about ruling out military intervention in, say, Iran? By the way, Cash for Clunkers is coming at a great time for the Obama administration. It's an easy-to-understand government program. And the demand for it, coming the same week as the GDP news (which is harder to explain), allows for a better story to tell about any evidence of an economic recovery. Can Republicans like John McCain and Jim DeMint stop it? One other Clunkers thought: The Dems are re-directing stimulus money to fund it. Could this be a sign of things to come with the stimulus in which congressional Dems redirect it if they decide they can't politically actually ASK for a second stimulus?

*** Memories, like the corners of my mind…: Anyone who is a fan of First Read and politics will no doubt love the new book on the 2008 election by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson, "The Battle for America 2008." On Sunday, the Washington Post excerpted a portion of it (featuring an interview with Obama). Today's installment looks at McCain's choice of Palin as his VP. Also, on Sunday, the two authors were on "Meet the Press," where they laid out some lessons they've taken away from the campaign about how the president is and will continue to govern.

*** The Great American Health Care Fight: With the House on recess, there are several previews in the papers about the August health-care campaign… In fact, we're getting more trickles of how the recess will play out: It will be Dems v. insurance industry, and GOPers vs. Obama… Obama is traveling to the West to sell the health plan… And John Boehner's office has a new Web ad (with "Young & The Restless music in the background) hitting Obama on health care.

 Video: With August just one day away, MSNBC political analyst Eugene Robinson talks about the progress made on the heath care front and where it's likely to end up now that Congress is on vacation.

*** Other odds and ends: In an op-ed, is CIA chief Leon Panetta

sending a signal to Congress to stop the Bush-era intel probes?... The Washington Post has a C.W.-setting piece noting that Dems are still using Bush as punching bag still… And Tim Pawlenty continues his subtle differentiation with Romney on the issue of health care.

*** Obama's day: The president delivers remarks on the post-9/11 GI Bill at George Mason University at 11:05 am ET. After that, at 12:30 pm, he meets at the White House with the emir of Kuwait.

*** And did you know? At the end of the New York Times' profile of Tom Arnold, per MSNBC's Brooke Brower, it says he's going to shoot a movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger and James Cameron the day after Arnold leaves the governor's mansion. So does this mean Schwarzenegger's political career is more over than he's hinted publicly?

Countdown to Election Day 2009: 92 days
Countdown to Election Day 2010: 456 days

Click here to sign up for First Read emails. 
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter.

The Washington Post frames what the politics of the August recess will look like. "Democrats leave town for the August recess with frayed nerves and fragile agreements on health-care reform, and a new bogeyman to fire up their constituents: the insurance industry. With the House already gone and the Senate set to clear out by Friday, the terms of the recess battle are becoming clear. Republicans will assail the government coverage plan that Democrats and President Obama are advocating as a recklessly expensive federal takeover of health care. And Democrats will counter that GOP opposition represents a de facto endorsement of insurance industry abuses."

  Video: White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod joins Countdown guest host Richard Wolffe to discuss conservatives' strategy of disrupting Democratic town hall meetings during the August recess to derail the Democrats' health care agenda.

The New York Times does a similar piece, and notes that it appears August is going to be a month that Dems and the Obama admin focus their health-care fire on the insurance industry. "The effort will feature town-hall-style meetings by lawmakers and the president, including a swing through Western states by Mr. Obama, grass-roots lobbying efforts and a blitz of expensive television advertising. It is intended to drive home the message that revamping the health care system will protect consumers by ending unpopular insurance industry practices, like refusing patients with pre-existing conditions."

The AP looks at distortions in the health-care debate: "Confusing claims and outright distortions have animated the national debate over changes in the health care system. Opponents of proposals by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats falsely claim that government agents will force elderly people to discuss end-of-life wishes. Obama has played down the possibility that a health care overhaul would cause large numbers of people to change doctors and insurers."

Video: National Economic Council Director Larry Summers discusses President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul the U.S. health care industry with NBC's David Gregory on "Meet the Press."

How to tepidly sell good news? That's the challenge for the Obama administration this week and, perhaps, for the next few months. They started their effort over the weekend with interviews by top economic advisers -- Geithner in a taped interview on ABC on Saturday and Summers in live interviews on Sunday. It was another weekend of selling the idea that we've hit bottom. Now the question is what the recovery will look like.

The Washington Post: "Obama's advisers gave a first look at how the administration seeks to navigate a tricky period for communicating about the economy. They wish to advertise the signs of economic improvement while not appearing out of touch with the millions of Americans who remain jobless. The administration will keep using government policy to boost the economy in the short run, the advisers indicated, but will contain the deficit in the longer run, even if it means higher taxes. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner refused to rule out that possibility, saying the administration will 'do what it takes' to bring the deficit down." 

Video: President Barack Obama's top aides fanned out across the airwaves Sunday, touting the latest economic numbers while being careful to rein in public expectations. NBC's Mike Viqueira reports.

"Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan say the United States is climbing its way out of recession. They both said the danger of a national financial collapse has passed and Geithner predicted the Obama administration would not ask for any more funds to bail out Wall Street."

Democrats, the White House, and even some House GOPers seemed eager to get behind the suddenly popular Cash for Clunkers program. No doubt local dealerships and their excitement about the program probably is what fired up some House Republicans to sign on to this program. But what will happen in the Senate? For the additional $2 billion to be appropriated, the Senate needs to follow the House's lead this week and apparently some high profile GOPers, including John McCain, plan to try and stop it. Remember, this isn't NEW money -- but redirected stimulus money.

Video: The White House says it will suspend the popular "cash for clunkers" program if the Senate does not approve more funding. CNBC's Jim Cramer discusses the future of the program.

The Washington Post reports that the administration is looking at a new detainee facility (which would include courtrooms for federal trials and military commissions) in the U.S. -- either in Kansas or Michigan. 

And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today kicks off a seven-country, 12-day trip that takes her today to Kenya, the country where President Obama's father was born. The trip will be Clinton's "longest overseas journey to date as the top U.S. diplomat." In Kenya, "she will address an African trade and development forum, meet top Kenyan officials and see the beleaguered president of lawless Somalia's interim government."

A key House committee, Energy and Commerce, passed health care late Friday night 31-28. The House went on recess Friday and now has off for August. The Senate continues to try and hammer out a deal. It goes on vacation this upcoming Friday. 

The Boston Globe: "Democrats and the White House have spent much of the last year flaunting the newfound cooperation of old enemies like drug companies and the insurance industry. But now they face a new political calculus. The House left Washington on Friday afternoon without a floor vote on a overhaul, the Senate, which leaves this Friday, is even farther behind."

Video: Dan Balz, Haynes Johnson, former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., and former Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., discuss President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul the U.S. health industry with NBC's David Gregory on "Meet the Press."

Without Senate approval of the $2 billion more for "Cash for Clunkers," the program would have to be suspended, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said Sunday. 

And Republican Senators like John McCain and Jim DeMint are vowing to lead the charge against more "Clunkers" funding.

 

Video: Car buyers eager to trade in old gas guzzlers for new fuel-efficient cars jammed into crowded auto sales showrooms on Saturday, hoping to take advantage of the program before it runs out of money. NBC's Kevin Tibbles reports.

Republican Orrin Hatch explained why he pulled out of talks with the Senate Finance Committee on health care: "'I think Baucus could negotiate a good deal but they won't let him, he's constrained,' Hatch said of pressure on Baucus from President Barack Obama, Democratic leaders and liberal members of the Senate caucus. 'The Democrats want a public option and they're going to have a public option in the final bill," Hatch said in reference to a proposal to create a broad government-run insurance program. He predicted that even if Baucus manages to pass a healthcare reform package with a membership-run co-op insurance plan instead of a government-run program, he would lose out to liberals in negotiations between the Senate and House. He'll be crushed in the middle.' Hatch added that he believes "Democrats are intent on creating a system of 'socialized medicine' in the United States." 
 
NRA fires back... "In the face of a Democratic- controlled Congress and executive branch, the National Rifle Association is moving aggressively to push pro-gun legislation to the top of the Congressional agenda," Roll Call reports. "Working to maintain its pro-gun Democratic supporters, the NRA has been strategically pushing for Senators to add pro-gun amendments to high-profile legislation, including a provision that would have loosened D.C.'s gun control laws on a voting rights bill and adding conceal-and-carry language to the Defense authorization bill." 

Liberals v. Nelson, continued... "A liberal activist working with an advocacy group founded by former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean has attacked Nelson as 'bought and paid for by health and insurance interests' and suggested he is 'corrupt' and 'out of touch.'"
 
Some Republicans are questioning Spencer Bachus' fitness as ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee after an altercation between Bachus and committee chairman Barney Frank as well as continuing to say that, politically, it's difficult for Republicans to oppose executive compensation limits, but also arguing against them.

Retiring Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty

has an op-ed on health care in the Washington Post. "Instead of returning power to patients and rewarding positive outcomes, many Democrats in Washington want a government-run plan that would require states to comply with dozens of new mandates and regulations… In typical fashion, the self-proclaimed experts piecing together this Democratic health-care legislation are focusing on only one leg -- access -- of a three-legged stool that also includes cost and quality. Expanding access to health care is a worthwhile goal. But equal or greater focus should be placed on containing costs for the vast majority of Americans who already have insurance. Those costs will not be contained by a massive expansion of federal programs." And don't miss this... a shot at Romney? "Massachusetts's experience should caution Congress against focusing primarily on access."

As we mentioned above, there are 49 Democratic-controlled congressional seats that John McCain won last year. They are, courtesy of Swing State Project: AL-2 Bright, AL-5 Griffith, AR-1 Berry, AR-2 Snyder, AR-4 Ross, AZ-1 Kirkpatrick, AZ-5 Mitchell, AZ-8 Giffords, CO-3 Salazar, CO-4 Markey, FL-2 Boyd, FL-24 Kosmas, GA-8 Marshall, ID-1 Minnick, IN-8 Ellsworth, IN-9 Hill, KY-6 Chandler, LA-3 Melancon, MD-1 Kratovil, MN-7 Peterson, MO-4 Skelton, MS-1 Childers, MS-4 Taylor, NC-7 McIntyre, NC-11 Shuler, ND-AL Pomeroy, NM-2 Teague, NY-13 McMahon, NY-29 Massa, OH-6 Wilson, OH-16 Boccieri, OH-18 Space, OK-2 Boren, PA-3 Dahlkemper, PA-4 Altmire, PA-10 Carney, PA-12 Murtha, PA-17 Holden, SC-5 Spratt, SD-AL Herseth-Sandlin, TN-4 Davis, TN-6 Gordon, TN-8 Tanner, TX-17 Edwards, UT-2 Matheson, VA-5 Perriello, VA-9 Boucher, WV-1 Mollohan, and WV-3 Rahall. 

And there are 34 GOP-controlled congressional seats that Obama won last year: CA-3 Lungren, CA-24 Gallegly, CA-25 McKeon, CA-26 Dreier, CA-44 Calvert, CA-45 Bono-Mack, CA-48 Campbell, CA-50 Bilbray, DE-AL Castle, FL-10 Young, FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, IA-Latham, IL-6 Roskam, IL-10 Kirk, IL-13 Biggert, IL-16 Manzullo, LA-2 Cao, MI-4 Camp, MI-6 Upton, MI-8 Rogers, MI-11 McCotter, MN-3 Paulsen, NE-2 Terry, NJ-2 Lobiondo, NJ-7 Lance, NY-23 McHugh, OH-12 Tiberi, PA-6 Gerlach, PA-15 Dent, VA-4 Forbes, VA-10 Wolf, WA-8 Reichert, WI-1 Ryan, and WI-6 Petri.

The Washington Post has a piece that will quickly turn into cocktail party conventional wisdom: the two major Dem candidates in New Jersey and Virginia are still trying to link their GOP foes with Bush. "The strategy is aimed at defusing Republican attacks on Obama's administration by refocusing attention on how unhappy people were when Bush was in charge. And in New Jersey and Virginia, it is designed to recapture the electoral enthusiasm that brought Democrats victory last year."

"The two states will serve as a testing ground to see whether candidates can still turn elections into a referendum on the Bush years. If successful, it is a playbook likely to be used again for the 2010 congressional elections and beyond." 

Stu Rothenberg notes that the 2010 Senate landscape has shifted in the Republicans' favor in the past few months: "Fifteen months before the midterms, Democrats have major problems in two states -- Illinois and Connecticut -- while a third, Nevada, remains a potential headache. Republicans, on the other hand, have serious vulnerabilities in four states -- Kentucky, Missouri, New Hampshire and Ohio -- and potential problems in two others. But of late, even those Republican vulnerabilities look less daunting than they once did."

Video: Dan Balz, Haynes Johnson, former Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., and former Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla., discuss the future of the Republican Party with NBC's David Gregory on "Meet the Press."

VIRGINIA: Gubernatorial candidates Creigh Deeds (D) and Bob McDonnell (R) played up their "farm and forestry" credentials at a debate before an audience of Virginia farmers on Friday. Deeds "relished the opportunity to talk up" his 18 years on the General Assembly's agriculture committees and his experience operating on farm animals. "You won't find too many candidates for statewide office who have performed surgery on cows," Deeds said. While McDonnell does not have the same bovine surgery record, the two candidates did find common ground on one point: concerns about the federal cap and trade legislation. "We will not overburden Virginia's farmers and foresters with regulations that impede your work," McDonnell said. 

Creigh Deeds kicked off an "aggressive tour of Southwest and Southside Virginia" yesterday "to build support in rural parts of Virginia." He has a new website to match, featuring a video, "Deeds Country," that could "easily double as a country music video." While the tour is intended to "show that Deeds' rural roots will help [Southern Virginians] if he gets to the governor's mansion," his "embracing " of this side of his background "is turning off his more liberal Northern Virginia supporters."