There seems to be quite a bit of bemusement among Republicans and more centrist Democrats over the furor erupting on the Left regarding the removal of the public option. The constant refrain from more centrist Democrats is something along the lines of "this is 90% of what we want, let's take it and maybe we can get the other 10% later."

That's true I guess, but that 10% is pretty darned important to the left. The public option (or some equivalent) served two purposes. First, it put something into the law that had a chance of being gradually tweaked and expanded over the years into a single payer program (though the weak version included in the House version, left alone, likely would not have accomplished this), much the way SCHIP has grown into a major program (the trick was implementing it in the first place).

The Democrats aren't likely to have 60 Senate votes, 258 House votes and the Presidency again anytime soon, and with this bill accomplished, the taste for making major health reform changes anytime in the next decade will probably be minimal. This is probably the end of the road for the public option, at least for the foreseeable future, and we won't be making any major moves away from a private insurance based system until Haley's Comet returns.

Second, and more importantly in the near-term, without a public option, all of the taxpayer-funded subsidies would flow to private insurance companies, along with a substantial portion of taxpayer's takehome paychecks under the individual mandate. This is obviously anathema to a Democratic base that loathes insurance companies more than just about any other American institution.

Tom Friedman, hopeless optimist:

Let's not fool ourselves. Whatever threat the real Afghanistan poses to U.S. national security, the “Virtual Afghanistan” now poses just as big a threat. The Virtual Afghanistan is the network of hundreds of jihadist Web sites that inspire, train, educate and recruit young Muslims to engage in jihad against America and the West. Whatever surge we do in the real Afghanistan has no chance of being a self-sustaining success, unless there is a parallel surge — by Arab and Muslim political and religious leaders — against those who promote violent jihadism on the ground in Muslim lands and online in the Virtual Afghanistan.

Note to Tom: don't hold your breath. We're now eight years removed from 9/11, and the only thing the last 3,016 days have taught us is that there is no Islamic reformation coming any time soon, no budding civil war from which moderate Islam will emerge victorious.

As an aside, it certainly doesn't help matters that despite nearly a decade peppered with additional acts of terrorism by Islamic fundamentalists, much of the media and the liberal intellectual elite of the Western world (among them, Mr. Friedman himself) continue to cling to a doctrine of political correctness that prevents the kind of unvarnished dialogue the matter requires. One need look no further than the terrorist attack at Fort Hood last month for a good example of what I'm talking about.

Like Friedman, I was once an optimist for the cause of moderate Muslims as well. No longer. Nearly four years ago I wrote a column similar to the one Friedman wrote today, calling on moderate Muslims to step up and reclaim the mantle of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance:

February 8, 2006

Still Waiting For Moderate Muslims....

By Tom Bevan

Six days after September 11, President Bush went to the Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., to deliver a message to a shocked, grieving nation: “These acts of violence against innocents violate the fundamental tenets of the Islamic faith.” “Islam,” the President continued, “is peace.”

Five years later, after bombings in Bali, Turkey, Madrid, London, Israel, Iraq, and Amman (to name a few), the savage killing of Theo van Gogh, the murdering of children in Beslan, the burning of thousands of cars in Paris, and now a global conflagration over a few lame cartoons published in a Danish newspaper months ago, it is more than understandable the world is starting to question whether President Bush's proclamation was more wishful thinking than fact.

The current crisis over the Mohammed cartoons helps illuminate another threat that is every bit as dangerous as terrorism: the cultural assertiveness of Islamic fundamentalism. The people we see rioting in London and around the world are not all willing to strap bombs to themselves in the name of Allah. But they're clearly demonstrating a sympathy for the fundamentalist cause – whether manipulated or not- and a willingness to use threats of violence as a form of cultural intimidation. That is an ominous sign.

We keep hearing about how the vast majority of the 1.4 billion Muslims in the world practice the religion of Islam peacefully. That is certainly true, though not terribly important. What is important is where the trend is heading between the majority and the minority. This is a process without stasis; every day each group within Islam is either gaining or losing ground. One group is exerting more influence and control and the other is exerting less. Few would dispute that over the last five years, with few exceptions, the fundamentalist minority within Islam has been the group making strides.

The problem, of course, is that while the West is the target of Islamic fundamentalism and terror, the West is not in control of the outcome of the battle. Ultimately, that responsibility rests in the hands of moderate Muslims. No amount of appeasement, or bombs, or isolation, or troop withdrawals by the West is going to change the core dynamic of the struggle between those who want a modern, tolerant version of Islam and those who want to impose a 9th century version of sharia.

Every religion has its fundamentalists – Christianity no less than Islam. The difference between the two (as well as other major religions) is that over time and through much struggle Christians developed an external, peaceful tolerance toward those who would offend or insult their faith and, just as importantly, an internal discipline and intolerance toward members who would commit heinous acts of violence against innocent people in the name of their Lord. Islam, for the most part, still has that equation backwards.

And so we wait and continue to wonder: where are the moderate Muslims today? Where have they been for the last five years? We saw protests against terrorism in the streets of Amman last year – but only after the horrendous suicide bombing of a wedding shocked the consciousness of Jordanians. Aside from that, we've seen nothing demonstrating the magnitude and seriousness one would expect from hundreds of millions of people outraged over the fact their religion's good name has been hijacked and distorted by a small group of fundamentalists.

There are only two conclusions to be drawn: moderate, peace-loving Muslims are either unable to win the battle against fundamentalism, or they are unwilling to win it. We are fast approaching the day when the continued lack of demonstrable effort on the part of moderate Muslims serves to disabuse the West of the notion that Islam “is peace.” That would be a terrible thing, and it would make the struggle of moderate Muslims that much more difficult in the end. The time for action is now.>

Almost four years later, no such action has taken place.

And, please, let's also dispense with the fantasy that the rise of Islamic fundamentalists is the fault of George W. Bush and his foreign policy.

Despite his speechifying in Cairo and Ankara, Obama hasn't fared any better stemming the tide of Islamic fundamentalism during his first year in office - and he won't fare any better for the remaining years either.

To Friedman's point (and mine): this is a battle that has nothing to do with a particular president or policy. It cannot be won or lost (or perhaps even significantly influenced) by anyone or anything outside of the Muslim world. It is a struggle for the soul of the Islamic faith. And for the last eight years, unfortunately, the moderates have barely even shown up for the fight.

I mean, really, has it come to this?

It began Tuesday. Readers of the Miami Herald's website are being asked, or offered the opportunity, to make donations to what was once one of the more dignified broadsheets in the United States. Meanwhile, News Cycle reported this week that at least 15,000 people have lost their jobs in the newspaper industry in 2009.

Are newspapers going the way of elevator operators? Will only the boutique brands survive (like the boutique buildings in Manhattan that still wield the men who take you up that elevator)? Or, is non-profit the future?

For now, this holiday season, go to the Herald if can spare a dime for journalism. It's the season of giving, after all.

Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) has long been considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the country, save for the fact that he did not have a big-name Democratic opponent. This remains true after today's Public Policy Polling survey, which finds the first-term senator continuing to hold off his three challengers -- all of whom are unknown to more than two-thirds of the state's voters.

The question is: how long will they remain unknown, especially with the national Democratic Party all but endorsing former state Sen. Cal Cunningham, who only recently entered the race. Cunningham is unknown to 81% of the state, while 80% aren't sure of attorney Kenneth Lewis and 69% of Elaine Marshall, who's serving her fourth term as North Carolina's Secretary of State.

As for Burr, nearly 30% still don't know enough about him to form an opinion, while 35% approve of his job performance and 37% disapprove. Tested against a generic Democrat, Burr holds a statistically insignificant 42%-41% lead. Here's how he tests against the three Democrats in the race:

Burr 45 - Cunningham 36 - Und 20

Burr 43 - Lewis 37 - Und 21

Burr 42 - Marshall 37 - Und 21

The PPP survey was taken of 593 registered voters in North Carolina and conducted from Dec. 11-13 with a margin of error of +/-4.0%.

Civitas Institute released a poll on the race yesterday, finding Burr leading Marshall by 8 points.

A new Florida poll, conducted by SayfieReview.com/AIF/Zogby, finds 55% approve of the job President Obama is doing -- about 6 points higher than this national average.

The survey found the state to be split on Obama's plans for reforming the country's health care system, as 47% oppose it and 46% are in favor of it. Voters are also split on the generic congressional ballot test, with 35% saying they'd vote Republican, 33% Democrat and 22% undecided.

2010 is a big election year in Florida, with open races for the governor's mansion and a Senate seat.

This telephone survey of 801 likely voters in Florida was conducted Dec. 7-11 with a margin of error of +/- 3.5%.

From the Miami Herald:

Democratic lawmakers, led by Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., on Tuesday filed the first comprehensive immigration reform bill in the current Congress, giving renewed hope to millions of undocumented immigrants in South Florida and around the country.

But the prospects for passage remain as uncertain as ever.

One of the problems is that Gutierrez's bill is decidedly liberal and, critics say, will cripple current efforts at fashioning a truly bipartisan solution:

Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., who supports immigration reform, criticized Gutierrez's bill because it disrupts efforts by him and a group of bipartisan lawmakers drafting a separate immigration reform bill.

``This effort today, a showhorse not workhorse effort, is throwing a hand grenade into the midst of the bipartisan efforts,'' said Diaz-Balart.

Mario Diaz-Balart, R-Fla., echoed his brother saying Gutierrez's bill ``will probably destroy the chances of passing any real reform.''

If Speaker Pelosi chooses to push Gutierrez's bill instead of backing a serious bipartisan effort, it looks like immigration reforms could have all the makings of a rerun of the health care mess.

It's no secret that Nancy Pelosi is a divisive figure. But the new Battleground Poll shows just how significant of an image problem she has with the public.  To put things in perspective, according to the Battleground Poll Pelosi's favorable rating is 15 percentage points lower than Sarah Palin, and her unfavorable rating is 7 points higher than Palin's.  Pelosi has the worst net fav/unfav rating of any politician surveyed in the poll:

Obama +17 (57/40)
Biden +8 (48/40)
Gingrich +7 (43/36)
Palin -1 (45/46)
Reid -18 (19/37)
Pelosi -23 (30/53)

Even those numbers don't tell the whole story. Of the 53 percent who give Pelosi an unfavorable rating, 44% say their opinion of her is "strongly unfavorable."  Believe it or not, that number eclipses the animosity the public feels for the much reviled pharmaceutical industry (41% strongly unfavorable). Only the health insurance industry registered a higher "strongly unfavorable" rating than Pelosi in the poll, and then by just two points (46%).

Tiger Woods names athlete of the decade.

There's no question he is the athlete of the decade, it's just awkward timing that he wins the award amid revelations that he won't be winning any awards for being husband of the year (or decade, or century).

Rasmussen releases some more Florida numbers this morning, this time on the race to succeed Charlie Crist (R) as governor.

General Election Matchup
McCollum (R) 44 (-2 vs. last poll, 10/19)
Sink (D) 39 (+4)
Und 12 (-3)

Alex Sink, the state's chief financial officer, is viewed favorably by 45 percent and unfavorably by 31; McCollum, currently attorney general, has a 54 / 30 fav/unfav split. McCollum leads by 4.4 in the RCP Average for Florida Governor.

President Obama's job approval rating is down to 44 percent in the battleground state, while 55 percent disapprove. Crist still has a net +7 job approval rating, though it's slipped as well.

The new Battleground Poll of 1,000 likely voters conducted by the Republican firm The Tarrance Group and the Democratic firm Lake Research Partners shows President Obama's job approval rating at 50%, with 45% disapproving.

Other notable results from the poll:

Republicans lead Democrats by one point in the generic Congressional ballot, 42 to 41. Eighteen percent are undecided.

Congress's job approval rating is a dismal 24%, with 68% disapproving and 12% undecided.

Fifty-seven percent feel America is off on the "wrong track" while only 34% say the country is moving in the "right direction."

In a related question on the mood of the public, 20% said they feel "angry" about the way things are going; 8% were "depressed"; 11% "anxious"; and 12% "pessimistic." However, 15% said they felt "optimistic" and another 27% described themselves as "hopeful." Overall, 51% expressed negative feelings while 46% expressed some form of positive feelings.