News Correspondent Richard Lui

The debate over health care reform could be heading in a new direction. Democrats are considering going at it alone. That would mean trying to pass it without Republican support.

Caution: Relations between Dems and the GOP could get toxic.

Democrats want to use a process called reconciliation. It would only require 51 votes in the Senate to get a health care bill passed. Normally, a bill would require 60 votes to be passed. Also, with the reconciliation process, only 20 hours of debate would be allowed, no filibuster would be allowed, stamping out opposition debate.

Some Republicans might call the use of this process an underhanded move, and suggest that their efforts to hammer out a bipartisan solution unappreciated. Some Democrats would say their efforts to discuss major issues, even the public health plan option, are going unappreciated.

This is not the first time the reconciliation move has been discussed. President George W. Bush used it for major tax cuts. President Bill Clinton rejected reconciliation when he was trying to get his health care bill passed.

During the congressional break, bipartisan debate continues fervently in town halls across the country and in DC on health care. Democrats are trying to appease conservative members of their party to stay on board with the President, while wooing moderate Republicans.

What do you think of reconciliation? Smart move or the wrong move? Let us know what you think about the ongoing fight over health care right here, and we’ll share your comments later on Morning Express with Robin Meade.

News Correspondent Richard Lui

We don’t expect to hear about soldiers killing fellow soldiers. They treat each other like family. The story of a soldier suspected of opening fire on fellow soldiers at near Baghdad on Monday was shocking and horrific. It was probably a lightning bolt that ran through the minds of mothers, brothers, and friends of troops abroad. Are they ok?

Yesterday’s losses were at a stress clinic at Camp Liberty, the largest of U.S. camps in Baghdad, capable of holding thousands of troops at a time. Global Security says it has a chapel, PX shoppette, barber shop, Internet cafe, gym and more. It is a small city within a city, a home away from home, that yesterday was turned upside down.

In the past, on-site mental health facilities were not robust. Now the military has stress clinics that treat troops while they’re close to the frontline. That is where the gunman was going for treatment. But some question if mental injury treatment capabilities are enough not only on the frontline, but also when they return to civilian life in the U.S.

A recent study illustrates just how widespread mental health issues are among troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. It found one in five veterans have symptoms of PTSD or depression. And the Army says there were a record number of troop suicides in 2008.

Critics point to the number of tours of duty. Many reservists are on their third or fourth. Each time, troops are exposed troops to a possible mental injury, says Paul Rieckhoff of the Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America. The gunman in this case was on his third tour. Rieckhoff points to the family unit too—though they are not on the frontline they get deployed emotionally, especially as economic stress hits hard at home for many.

When we hear this, many of us want to help. We want to reach out, and we want to help make it better and easier for the servicemen and women. When you see them in airports across our country, they are so valiant, yet always seem so calm. For some, it may be quite the opposite. So what do you think of what happened at Camp Liberty? How does it make you feel? What more can we do to help troops? We appreciate your thoughts, so please post them here, and we will share as many as we can on Morning Express.

News Correspondent Richard Lui

It aims to stimulate a recessionary economy. House and Senate versions hover in the 800 billion dollar ranges. The plan’s spending over one or two years would almost equal ten percent of the total national debt built up since the founding of the U.S.

As the effects of the economic downturn spread, President Obama wants to act fast to stop the bleeding, What would you like to see him do?

You may know somebody who lost their job or has had their hours scaled back. Many are living a life of frugality we haven’t seen in recent years. The largest asset most own is their home, but the value has plummeted in the last year. Part of the debate is whether these types of problems will be solved by the stimulus plan now being cobbled together on Capitol Hill.

There’s some good. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said last week the stimulus bill will increase jobs by 1.3 to 3.9 million by the end of 2010, lowering the projected unemployment rate by 2.1 percentage points.

But there’s some bad too. The CBO also warns the stimulus plan would hurt long-term economic growth; reducing it by 0.1 to 0.3 percent by 2019. The concern is that large government spending would reduce availability of money to be invested privately.

There is also concern the bill is packed with pork, special interest earmarks that help one group from a certain congressional district for instance. This is fueling debate over tax cuts versus spending projects.

Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, wants a trigger in the bill, one that switches off the spending as soon as the economy recovers. He points to a lack of real bipartisan work in the Senate, and says anybody who says they are working in a bipartisan fashion doesn’t know what the word means.

While Senator Barbara Boxer, D-California, told opponents of the bill to "get over it. Come and talk to us. Come and work with us.”

What do you think of the stimulus plan? How could the money best be spent to create jobs in your community?

We want to know! Weigh in and your comments could be featured on the show.

News Correspondent Richard Lui
 
First, Nancy Killefer, President Obama’s choice for the new position of Chief Performance Officer, withdrew her name from consideration because of concern over how she handled unemployment tax for household help in the past. No more details were given.

Daschle: Not the best nominee. Also not the only one to withdraw under scrutiny.

Then hours later, Tom Daschle, President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services withdrew his name because of persistent questions about his failure to pay taxes for work previously done, and for car and driver services he received. He also faced questions about consulting work to a lobbying firm and possible conflicts of interest.

Add in Bill Richardson who withdrew from consideration for Secretary of Commerce, and the once quick out of the gates transition team seems to have hit some bumps. How did the 63 items listed on the transition team’s questionnaire to avoid situations like this not get the job done? Analysts debate when and how much information was known.

History tells us you’d have to go back to 1985 with Ronald Reagan to find a President’s cabinet with more unnamed positions by February 3. Reagan had four positions open; Obama has three.

So what do these withdrawals say about the new administration? The common theme with Killefer, Daschle, and Geithner were tax problems. The President says he doesn’t want to set a standard of double standards — one for powerful people, and one for ordinary folks who pay their taxes. But is it too late? And does this represent the change in Washington he promised? Or on the flip side are these vetting standards too high for certain individuals like Killiefer, and perhaps scaring away talented individuals?

Let us know what you think. We’ll be sharing your views on Morning Express with Robin Meade.

News Correspondent Richard Lui

2 questions to talk about.

1. Is this about Burris or about Blagojevich?

Roland Burris has spent decades in Illinois politics, is well respected, and was the first African American male to hold a statewide elected office. He competed against Rod Blagojevich for the governorship, but lost. Burris then became an ally of Blagojevich, leading the new governor’s transition team. So appointing Burris might appear reasonable.

Burris: At the heart of the storm.

But Blagojevich is under investigation for allegedly trying to sell President-Elect Barack Obama’s Senate Seat to the highest bidder. That development has now cast doubt over his ability to govern, and tainted his selection of Burris to fill the seat. Burris says that Blagojevich’s problems have nothing to do with him and the appointment is legal. Illinois House lawmakers have put together a special panel to determine if impeachment proceedings against the governor should be taken. So is this more about Blagojevich, or about Burris?

2. Should Burris be allowed to sit in the US Senate?

He showed up at 1030am, January 7, 2009, like hundreds of other new lawmakers, but his trip was different. He was swarmed with a frenzy of media. Everybody wanted to know if Burris was going to make it to one of the 100 wooden desks that the most exclusive club in the world uses daily.

He had to make it past the sign-in desk, then past the sergeant at arms at the chamber door, and then finally get to his seat on the US Senate floor for swearing in. Those were the steps. But he only made it to the desk, where he was turned away because his certificate from the state of Illinois didn’t have the Illinois Secretary of State’s signature.

At 1050am he was back on the street telling reporters he was not allowed in. US Senator Diane Feinstein broke ranks on Burris-mania yesterday. She says the by rejecting him, it casts doubts on gubernatorial appointments nationwide. Do you agree with her? Should he have been let in or was the right decision made to keep him out? And do you want to hear more from President Elect Obama on Burris?

Let us know what you think about these questions and any other thoughts you have. We’ll be posting them here and getting them on Morning Express! See you then.

News Correspondent Richard Lui

Got a secret? If you want to work in the Obama White House those doing the hiring want to know about it.

“Tell me about your past live-in lovers, what are their names and phone numbers?”

“Have you hired a house cleaner, what are their names, are they legal US citizens?”

“Who owns a gun in your family, how’s their health, do they have any enemies?”

Those questions just scrape the surface of 63 essay questions each high level candidate is being asked to answer. It’s a far cry from the 11 blank fields like name and address one needs to fill out on change.gov to be considered for the new Obama administration. Not all candidates for the 7000 jobs listed in the new Plum Book will have to answer theses questions, just cabinet and high level advisor positions.

As you have seen in recent times, this data is important to know not only to assess the strength of one’s candidacy but also to determine how one will be perceived by the public and press under scrutiny. Tax returns can expose one’s financial and business dealings. Lovers could reveal salacious details. And family members’ actions could reflect the candidate’s character.

This is no online McDonald’s application which will take you about 30 minutes to fill out (I just looked at it online). But running the U.S. is not even close to running a fast food restaurant (although I hear they serve french fries with the West Wing Burger at the White House Mess—the eatery under the Oval House).

So here’s the list if you want to see all the questions.

Since these leaders will be running the U.S. during a very fragile time of its history, many of you are probably concerned about whether these job candidates have what it takes—the X factor in running the largest economy in the world.

So what do you want to know? What would be your questions for the next Treasury Secretary or White House Press Secretary? Blog below and don’t hold back. As you can see, neither did the Obama Transition Team.

News Correspondent Richard Lui

It came earlier in the night. I got the email from CNN’s Political Team at 8:39pm that CNN was projecting Pennsylvania as an Obama win. It was the state the McCain campaign had targeted as necessary to reach the White House. When that didn’t happen, it hinted of things to come.

Sen. Barack Obama addresses a crowd of 125,000 people in Chicago, Illinois.

Then Ohio went Obama at 9:33pm—as has been said, no Republican has won the White House without Ohio.

Then at 11pm, CNN projected Senator Barack Obama as the 44th President of the United States. History had arrived, and was reached by breaking a lot of well-investigated conventional wisdom.

The youth did turn out as 18% of votes were aged 18-29, and 2 out of 3 of them went for Obama. Large numbers of Clinton supporters didn’t protest vote: of those who wanted her to be the Democratic nominee, 82 to 17 percent went for Obama.

As for the Bubba vote or Bradley Effect, it didn’t materialize it appears based on early numbers. CNN’s last average of polls had Obama/McCain at 51/44. Popular vote at this hour is 52/47. And Independents favored Obama 51/45 percent. If this much discussed dynamic where voters will not tell pollsters their actual preference did show up, it did in small numbers.

And there are more stats, but really this is about you and the country in the days and years ahead.

What do you think this election means to the country’s financial crisis, healthcare, and terrorism?

Will you remember where you were when you learned who won?

Going forward, will the country work in a bipartisan way, or is it still divided? And on a more personal level, what does this day mean to you? Let us know!

News Correspondent Richard Lui

We’ve been blogging about each debate and what you’ve thought of the candidates’ performance, during the primaries and now for the general election. We’ve talked about tax plans, race, and campaign teams. It’s hard to believe but now we're just days from picking the next president, after nearly two years of debate and stumping.

Wonder if either of these guys had a Freddie Mercury power-ballad stuck in their head?

So in a farewell of sorts to the debates, what would be your ode to what has certainly been a campaign like no other election we have ever seen?

Tell us what song is your political debate theme song, whether it’s because of issues you particularly care about right now, or because of whom you think won. Blog about the song title and artist you would choose to sum up this election.

And if you get really jazzed up, send us your debate theme song that you wrote and performed in an iReport. All you have to do is click here to send one in and we’ll rush it to air for you when we can. Here are some that have caught our attention: this one starts by asking “How do you feel about the economy, are we in a recession?” Then looking back, this one looks at the GOP campaigns and this one the Democrats.

If you don’t have the time to record your personal theme song right now, not to worry. To start, just blog your ideas of a song and the artist who sang it, that characterizes what you thought of last night’s debate, and we can start with that!

Be sure to include WHY you chose the song you did, so we can share that information on air.

News Correspondent Richard Lui

“Off with Head”, “Obama, Osama”… Those are a couple of the things heard - or seen on signs - at recent political rallies, according to the Wall Street Journal. Pictures of Senator Obama dressed as a devil and screams of “Socialist” and “Nobama” have also been reported in many papers just overnight. Why are we hearing more of this lately?

Some might point to the way the candidates have raised emotions in the words they’re using, such as “risky” and “erratic” by Obama in describing McCain, or “that one” by McCain alluding to his opponent, as Obama sat right next to him during a debate.

The candidates aren’t using the same language some voters used at rallies. But the candidates’ words may indicate the degree of respect they’ve used in addressing each other. Some voters may see that as a launching off point. In other words… if my candidate feels that way about his opponent, then let me say what he can’t.

Or, does this strong language have less to do with the candidates and more to do with the voters? Are voters merely feeling the battle cry as Election Day fast approaches? Most of us have probably felt the same fervor in sports games or competitions before. The heated rhetoric may be simply that - chants to gather energy and excitement for supporters’ respective candidate. Free speech and hyperbole exercised to make a point others may not hear otherwise.

The WSJ explores this difficult issue, saying that, as voters' tenor becomes more intense, so do their calls for their candidate to do the same. It goes on to say that McCain has drawn a line when attacking Obama and his relationships – McCain will not touch the subject of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, but will talk about William Ayers, who was tied to bombings of government buildings during the Vietnam War.

The campaigns themselves have grappled with moving away from their pledges to wage a gentlemen’s campaign. Now, it appears, they are debating how negative they should go. They, their staff and surrogates see how voters are reacting to their attacks.

So what do you think—why are we hearing words like “off with his head” on the trail now? Is it just like presidential races we have seen before—or have we reached a new place? And overall, what do you think of where both campaigns have taken their rhetoric and their advertisements this year? Pipe in early and often!

News Correspondent Richard Lui

Blogger J preferred McCain's debating style.

We're always writing headlines, but we learned from the Vice Presidential debate you the viewers do a far better job than we do.

Today, we want your headlines on the town hall presidential debate. Send us one or two, or five for that matter and we'll share as many of them as we put them to print on "The Morning Express."

To get us going, I thought I'd grab several headlines from before the debate instead of after. Most online publications seemed to focus on McCain more than Obama:

"McCain ready for debate battle": USA Today
David Jackson talks about predebate attacks and how an aggressive tactic may or may not work.

"I don't expect a rock-'em-sock-'em night": National Review
Byron York argues that McCain doesn't need a homerun necessarily but to stay steady in the final weeks of the race.

Blogger Connie called it for Obama.

"McCain's last chance, or a chance to shine?": MSNBC
Howard Fineman asks if McCain can turn the campaign around, and points to how McCain has been down for the count before and come back.

So were theses authors and publications right? Was it more about McCain than Obama? Did they hit the issues you care about given the diving world stock markets, and troubled economies, domestic and international. You finish this out for us given what you've seen and read since last night's debate.

And all said, did the debate change your mind? Plus regardless of your affiliation, who do you think will win?

Look forward to your headlines!