President Barack Obama tapped his massive email list to organize support for the economic stimulus on Friday, the first attempt by Obama's aides to formally rally his campaign supporters behind the new President's legislative agenda.

"The President's plan passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday," writes Mitch Stewart, who was recently appointed director of Organizing for America, in the new email to Obama supporters. "To avoid the usual partisan games" and actually pass the bill, he argues, citizens need to get active, host "economic recovery house meetings" and show "neighbors and friends" what the plan "means for their community."

OFA's house meeting portal includes a talking points PDF -- "paid for by OFA, a project of the Democratic National Committee" -- and an interactive map projecting the economic impact of the plan on every state, based on an analysis by Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi, who has previously advised Sen. John McCain. The plan would save or create about four million jobs across the country, according to that projection, by the end of 2010.

To see the biggest impact of this effort, however, you have to read between the lines of Stewart's email. There is no direct reference to pressuring members of Congress or criticizing opponents of the plan. Operatives are signaling that "the goal is not to get these supporters to lobby their elected officials." This week, in fact, former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe took to the New York Times to declare that OFA "is not a 'call or e-mail your member of Congress' organization."

OFA is not formally lobbing or publicly bullying Congress, and for a range of political and legal reasons, that will probably be the framework through 2012. But let's be real. Obama's aides are unleashing a grassroots organizing operation, targeting citizens with localized advocacy to pass a single piece of legislation on a tight schedule. That is pressure on Congress to pass a law, sparked by the Chief Executive but executed by the people. If Obama supporters respond, it should help shore up support for the stimulus in regions that Obama dominated in November.

From The Nation.

There is, in fact, some significant bipartisan support for Barack Obama's recovery package -- at least beyond the halls of Congress.

In recent days, some of the nation's more moderate Republican governors have bucked their fellow party members in Washington and come out in favor of the stimulus proposal.

"In some ways, as the governor of Florida, I'm concerned about what infrastructure projects can be supported by this plan, how we can help education, how we can help with health care for the most vulnerable in our society," Gov. Charlie Crist said on Friday. "We have a deficit in our budget that we are facing in our session coming up in March. And it looks like this could be a help to Florida if done right. From some of my colleagues I have spoken with in the congressional delegation, it will help Florida."

As economic indicators worsen and state budgets suffer, most governors are finding an infusion of federal aid irresistible. And so there are situations like the one taking place in Indiana, where Rep. Mike Pence has led the House GOP charge in opposition to Obama's plan while his state's Republican governor has offered grudging support.

"I have great misgivings," Gov. Mitch Daniels told reporters Thursday in Indianapolis, "but I hope that it's going to work."

In Connecticut, the state's moderate Republican governor Jodi Rell called up Democratic Rep. Jim Himes to ask how she could help move the stimulus through Congress.

"What can I do, who can I call to make sure this passes?" Rell told Himes, according to The Hill.

To be sure, not every Republican governor is on board with the stimulus. The Republican Governors Association "does not take an official position," according to the group's communications director Mike Schrimpf. But there are various members of the organization, he said, who have been critical of the recovery package. Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi called large portions of the stimulus "just crazy."

"Don't give me $400 million of one-time money and make me spend it on recurring expenses," he told the Wall Street Journal. "I'm better off not to get it."

Gov. Rick Perry, in Texas, has voiced similar, fiscally conservative concerns. And Mark Sanford, governor of South Carolina, penned an op-ed Friday on the conservative site Human Events, questioning the efficacy of a "stimulus package approach[ing] $1 trillion... [H]ow will spending even more help?"

Yet even Sanford has said he is "undecided" about whether to accept stimulus funding in the event that it passes, and he is facing heavy pressure from the state's mayors and even Republicans in the state legislature to help gear federal aid their way.

More on Charlie Crist

WASHINGTON — Chief Warrant Officer James Brad Smith broke five ribs, punctured a lung and shattered bones in his hand and thigh after falling more than 20 feet from a Black Hawk helicopter in Baghdad last month.

While he was recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, his doctor suggested he add acupuncture to his treatment to help with the pain.

On a recent morning, Col. Richard Niemtzow, an Air Force physician, carefully pushed a short needle into part of Smith's outer ear. The soldier flinched, saying it felt like he "got clipped by something." By the time three more of the tiny, gold alloy needles were arranged around the ear, though, the pain from his injuries began to ease.

"My ribs feel numb now and I feel it a little less in my hand," Smith said, raising his injured arm. "The pain isn't as sharp. It's maybe 50 percent better."

Acupuncture involves placing very thin needles at specific points on the body to try to control pain and reduce stress. There are only theories about how, why and even whether it might work.

Regardless, the ancient Chinese practice has been gradually catching on as a pain treatment for troops who come home wounded.

Now the Air Force, which runs the military's only acupuncture clinic, is training doctors to take acupuncture to the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. A pilot program starting in March will prepare 44 Air Force, Navy and Army doctors to use acupuncture as part of emergency care in combat and in frontline hospitals, not just on bases back home.

They will learn "battlefield acupuncture," a method Niemtzow developed in 2001 that's derived from traditional ear acupuncture but uses the short needles to better fit under combat helmets so soldiers can continue their missions with the needles inserted to relieve pain. The needles are applied to five points on the outer ear. Niemtzow says most of his patients say their pain decreases within minutes.

The Navy has begun a similar pilot program to train its doctors at Camp Pendleton in California.

Niemtzow is chief of the acupuncture clinic at Andrews Air Force Base. He's leading the new program after training many of about 50 active duty military physicians who practice acupuncture.

The U.S. military encountered acupuncture during the Vietnam War, when an Army surgeon wrote in a 1967 edition of Military Medicine magazine about local physicians who were allowed to practice at a U.S. Army surgical hospital and administered acupuncture to Vietnamese patients.

Niemtzow started offering acupuncture in 1995 at McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. Several years later, he became the first full-time military medical acupuncturist for the Navy, which also provides health care for the Marines.

Later, he established the acupuncture clinic at the Malcolm Grow Medical Center at Andrews, and he continued to expand acupuncture by treating patients at Walter Reed and other Air Force bases in the country and in Germany. Niemtzow and his colleague Col. Stephen Burns administer about a dozen forms of acupuncture _ including one type that uses lasers _ to soldiers and their families every week.

Col. Arnyce Pock, medical director for the Air Force Medical Corps, said acupuncture comes without the side effects that are common after taking traditional painkillers. Acupuncture also quickly treats pain.

"It allows troops to reduce the number of narcotics they take for pain, and have a better assessment of any underlying brain injury they may have," Pock said. "When they're on narcotics, you can't do that because they're feeling the effects of the drugs."

Niemtzow cautions that while acupuncture can be effective, it's not a cure-all.

"In some instances it doesn't work," he said. "But it can be another tool in one's toolbox to be used in addition to painkillers to reduce the level of pain even further."

Smith says the throbbing pain in his leg didn't change with acupuncture treatment but that the pain levels in his arm and ribs were the lowest they've been since he was injured. He also said that he didn't feel groggy afterward, a side-effect he usually experiences from the low-level morphine he takes.

Ultimately, Niemtzow would like troops to learn acupuncture so they can treat each other while out on missions. For now, the Air Force program is limited to training physicians.

He says it's "remarkable" for the military, a "conservative institution," to incorporate acupuncture.

"The history of military medicine is rich in development," he said, "and a lot of people say that if the military is using it, then it must be good for the civilian world."

WASHINGTON — Neither former President George W. Bush's hand-picked national party chairman nor his four challengers got the required 85 votes to become party chief on the first tally Friday, pushing the election to a second ballot.

Of the 168 votes cast by the Republican National Committee, Chairman Mike Duncan, who is seeking a second two-year term, got 52, while former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele emerged as his leading threat, with 46 votes. Of the others; South Carolina GOP Chairman Katon Dawson got 28, Michigan GOP Chairman Saul Anuzis took 22, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell trailed with 20.

Still, with at least one more round of balloting set to occur and possibly more, seemingly anyone could end up with a majority.

After the tally was read, the five candidates rushed to the floor to persuade individual RNC members to back them.

Thus far, none of the five has dropped out and thrown his support behind another. That is expected to change if there are three or more rounds of voting.

Despite back-to-back elections that saw the GOP lose control of Congress and the White House, Duncan and his supporters argue that the longtime party insider from Kentucky should be re-elected because of his experience.

"Who is the best leader to fix our infrastructure to win elections, to promote our conservative principled agenda ... There's only one candidate that has the experience to bring that change," said Matt Strawn, the Iowa GOP chairman who nominated Duncan.

But his challengers and their backers are pushing for change.

Gary Jones, the Oklahoma GOP chairman, said Blackwell is "exactly what this party needs." Sue Everhart, a Georgia party official, said Steele "has the talent and the skill to rebuild this party." Glenn McCall, a South Carolina committee man, said Dawson has a record of "proven accomplishments." Keith Butler, a Michigan committee man, said Anuzis is "the fresh face that we need today to begin our comeback."

Another candidate, former Tennessee GOP Chairman Chip Saltsman, dropped out of the race on Thursday with little explanation, saying only in a letter to RNC members: "I have decided to withdraw my candidacy."

Saltsman, who ran former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's failed presidential campaign last year, was considered a long-shot candidate who several Republican officials said likely wouldn't have had enough support even to be formally nominated had he continued his bid.

It faltered in December after he drew controversy for mailing a 41-track CD to committee members that included a song titled "Barack the Magic Negro" by conservative comedian Paul Shanklin and sung to the music of "Puff, the Magic Dragon."

___

On the Net:

Republican National Committee: http://www.rnc.org

For a new administration committed to fixing America's health system by only paying for medicine we know works, Medicare's decision to pay for off-label chemotherapy drugs, ably described by the New York Times presents a challenging opportunity. Revering this policy could send a powerful and positive message.

The new rule commits the government to paying for some anti-cancer drugs that the Food and Drug Administration hasn't found effective in dealing with the particular diagnosis involved. In other words, a drug the FDA has blessed to combat breast cancer would be used on someone with prostate cancer. All involved agree that these "off label" uses are experiments that often fail.

Despite the odds, they are popular. Patients like them because they provide a glimmer of hope in an otherwise bleak prognosis. Doctors want to expand their arsenal when they're exhausting their ammunition. And drug companies like them a lot because they modestly increase sales in the short run and provide the potential, if successful, of vastly increasing sales later.

But that's hardly a compelling argument for having Medicare -- or private insurers -- pay for them. From my perspective, it is an expensive investment in hope that's discordant in a system based on science. It raises some interesting and provocative questions about where to draw the reimbursement line and whether the goal of evidence-based medicine is achievable.

How far are we willing to stray from FDA's findings? If we're willing to use a drug for a different type of cancer, should we pay to use anti-cancer drugs on those who are not responding to conventional therapy after a stroke? And if that's okay, why rely on FDA approval at all? If someone wants to use a hyper-pure (and very expensive) peanut butter to help heal wounds, why discourage such experimentation?

It is all too easy to push this argument to absurd lengths. Given the fact that some patients are convinced they're alive today because of a visit to Lourdes when all other options had failed, do we have a responsibility to pay for visits to shrines when all relevant conventional medical remedies failed? Perhaps a society that was richer and more sensitive than contemporary America would do so, but we're not about to.

For my tax dollar - and my health somewhat dependent on my Medicare coverage -- I'd go for a policy that had Medicare defer to the FDA and only pay for drugs used for purposes that agency had approved. That would limit experimentation, but would focus our medical investments on the areas where the probability of a positive payoff was greatest.

Originally posted to Centeredpolitics.com

More on Health

Republican Senator Howard Baker once asked "What did the President know and when did he know it?" when it became clear that then-President Nixon was involved in the Watergate scandal.

Back then Republicans were about small government, fiscal responsibility, and the rule of law. Back then Democrats were about accountability, labor fairness, and limiting corporate influence in government. Much has changed since those days, when Congress acted as a check on the Executive Branch and a single break-in was enough to spark a serious Congressional inquiry into White House dirty tricks and abuses of power.

The Republicans in office now are by and large social reactionaries who have helped expand government powers, depleted the US Treasury, and disregarded the rule of law. Democrats have not done better. When Speaker Pelosi declared that the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney was "off the table," she not only abdicated her Constitutional responsibilities, she ensured that we would be dealing with the consequences of her negligence for years to come.

So Here We Are Now

Karl Rove is alleged to have used the US Department of Justice as his own political brown-shirts (see articles at end). Innocent people went to jail, were denied their freedom, their rights, and even now are being denied justice. The victims of these alleged illegal activities, including Don Siegelman, Paul Minor, Oliver E. Diaz Jr., John Whitfield, Wes Teel, Georgia Thompson, and others were in most cases financially destroyed and their careers ruined. The stress from this onslaught in most cases permanently affected the health of these victims and in two cases, has denied them the right to tend to a seriously ill spouse. In Paul Minor's case, his wife of 40 years is dying from breast cancer that has spread to her brain.

She cannot see her husband because she cannot travel as she is in hospice. He cannot see his wife, because he is in prison. They will likely never see each other again. In Wes Teel's case, his wife has Multiple Sclerosis and has to live through the daily horrors of this illness alone. Do these people, American citizens - whose only crime was that they were allegedly targeted as political enemies by Karl Rove - get any justice?

Rove Subpoenaed

The House Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Karl Rove this past Monday to testify about these alleged political prosecutions. The people Rove allegedly talked to or gave orders to were in the Department of Justice and in the various US Attorney offices as well as individuals not in government. Rove has publicly denied discussing this with anyone, including anyone at the White House.

Yet he invokes Executive Privilege in order to not appear in front of Congress.

Why?

If Rove had no discussions with the President about this - as his attorney has publicly claimed - then how does Executive Privilege apply? And EVEN if Rove had discussed these alleged illegal activities with the President - he must still honor a Congressional subpoena, even if he then invokes privilege during the hearing. Either the President knew - (in which case Howard Baker's now famous question still applies) - or there is no Executive Privilege. Rove cannot have it both ways. In any case, how does what Rove can and cannot answer have anything to do with showing up?

Moreover, Executive Privilege ONLY applies to giving advice to the President or conversations with the President. It does NOT apply to conversations with people outside of the White House or outside of government.

Fred Fielding's Legal Advice

According to Rove, 4 days before Bush left office, White House Council Fred Fielding issued a letter telling Rove not to honor a Congressional subpoena. Fielding is essentially advising a former client of his to break the law. It is one thing to advise that Rove may not answer certain questions or any questions for that matter. It is a whole other matter to actually advise his client not show up when subpoenaed. What authority does Fred Fielding claim he has in order to advise his client to break the law? Is Fielding being told by President Bush to advise Rove in this manner? In other words, is the President saying that anyone who has ever worked for him is above all laws because he decides it? (What did the President know and when did he know it?)

Surely Mr. Fielding might be able to answer this question? Where does he claim this authority from? Unlike former Nixon White House Council John Dean - who did the honest, ethical, decent and legal thing -Fielding is doing his best to obstruct justice. As a result, I would like the relevant legal bar under which Fielding has his license to investigate this matter.

Ultimately, however, this can be more quickly resolved via the following:

Congress can disregard Bush's belief that he and his friends are above the law, and vote on Inherent Contempt. Rove can sit in jail while Fielding spins and dances.

Attorney General Eric Holder can open up criminal proceedings into both Rove and Fielding.

Otherwise, there is only one thing to conclude in all of this should Rove not be held to account for - at the very least - skipping out on his subpoena - that so long as your attorney writes you a note, you are exempt from being held to account. John Yoo did this kind of legal get-out-of-jail pass for the Bush administration when he authored justifications - illegal - for acts of torture. Fred Fielding is doing the same thing now. Since we are a democracy and none of us are above the law, either we all have to honor subpoenas or we don't. If Rove does not have to show up, then none of us have to.

##

Articles

The Permanent Republican Majority Series (US Attorney Scandal):

• Part 1: Political Prisoner


• Part 2: Siegelman's Daughter Speaks Out


• Part 3: Running Elections from the White House


• Part 4: Mississippi Prosecutions


• Part 5: Interview with Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver E. Diaz, Jr.


• Part 6: Break-Ins Plague Targets of Political Prosecutions
  


• Part 7: Justice for Sale


• Judge who denied Paul Minor's release protoge of Karl Rove


• DOJ Investigating 2 US Attorneys in alleged political prosecutions
• 60 Minutes signal dropped in Alabama only during Siegelman portion


• Interview with Dana Jill Simpson on Karl Rove's alleged smears


• Abramoff said he had agreement with White House aid regarding communications


• Treasury Department investigating US Attorney for sharing private income tax returns of a case target

Also see Scott Horton's excellent reporting on Mississippi and Alabama.
See local Alabama journalist Roger Shuler's excellent reporting More on Karl Rove

BBC News is running a medical care story today that has implications for U.S. medical care. Residents who are put on a shorter 48 hour/week limit, in accordance with European Union regulations, made 33 percent fewer medical errors than those on a schedule of up to 56 hours a week. The sample size of National Health Service doctors was small but the results were significant. Thanks to Dr. Elisabeth Paice for the link .

The relevance of the study for the United States is that U.S. hospital residents are expected to work up to 80 hours a week during their training. The New York-based Commonwealth Fund has shown that patient-reported medical errors are the highest in the United States in a study comparing it with five other countries -- Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the UK. Of the six countries, the UK had the fewest patient-reported medical errors.

The new study is reported in the Quarterly Journal of Medicine. The sample size was 19 junior doctors in residence.

[N]ine studied while working an intervention schedule of <48 h per week and 10 studied while working traditional weeks of <56 h scheduled hours in medical wards. Work hours and sleep duration were recorded daily. Rate of medical errors (per 1000 patient-days), identified using an established active surveillance methodology, were compared for the Intervention and Traditional wards. Two senior physicians blinded to rota independently rated all suspected errors.

The results showed significantly lower error rates for the doctors on the new rota with fewer hours:

Average scheduled work hours were significantly lower on the intervention schedule [43.2 (SD 7.7) (range 26.0-60.0) vs. 52.4 (11.2) (30.0-77.0) h/week; P < 0.001], and there was a non-significant trend for increased total sleep time per day [7.26 (0.36) vs. 6.75 (0.40) h; P = 0.095]. During a total of 4782 patient-days involving 481 admissions, 32.7% fewer total medical errors occurred during the intervention than during the traditional rota (27.6 vs. 41.0 per 1000 patient-days, P = 0.006), including 82.6% fewer intercepted potential adverse events (1.2 vs. 6.9 per 1000 patient-days, P = 0.002) and 31.4% fewer non-intercepted potential adverse events (16.6 vs. 24.2 per 1000 patient-days, P = 0.067). Doctors reported worse educational opportunities on the intervention rota.

More on European Union