The ban on federal funding for ACORN adopted by the House Thursday almost certainly would have been ruled out of order -- if Democrats had cared to stand in the way.

The Republican-written amendment exceeded the jurisdiction of the committee that wrote the bill and had nothing to do with the legislation at hand, giving ample opportunity for any Democrat to raise a point of order against it because it was not germane to the underlying student-loan bill.

Some Republicans expected Democrats to object and kill the "motion to recommit" that triggered the amendment. But none did. Instead, the whole House voted, 345-75, to prevent the beleaguered catchall community-organizing outfit from getting federal funding.

So even the 75 Democrats who voted with ACORN already had silently assented to the federal-funding ban. After these videos surfaced, it's not hard to understand why.

Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., is preparing to send a bipartisan letter to President Obama opposing an anticipated request for more troops in Afghanistan.

"We oppose any increase in U.S. troops in Afghanistan, especially in light of the fact that there is no exit strategy," said McGovern, who is still circulating the letter for signatures.

The top American official in Iraq, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, is expected to make an official request for more troops soon.

North Carolina Rep. Walter B. Jones, a one-time supporter of the Iraq War who became its most fierce GOP critic in Congress, is signing on to the McGovern letter, ensuring it has support in both parties.

"The president needs to slow down," said Jones, who represents the Marine base Camp Lejeune. "We're going to be more demanding of 'What are we trying to achieve?' because our troops are worn out."

President Obama heard a rallying cry for a public insurance option during a health care conference call with leaders of four Democratic caucuses on Friday.

But he made no commitment to support the idea, leaving many disappointed liberals convinced that he will not embrace it in his address to a joint session of Congress next Wednesday.

Subscribers to CQ.com can get the full story there, but here are some highlights of the discussion, as described to me and colleagues Greg Vadala and Ed Epstein by CQ sources:

• Members of the Black Caucus, the Progressive Caucus, the Hispanic Caucus and the Asian Pacific American Caucus pressed Obama to put up a stronger fight for the public option, on which he has been reticent and which his advisers have signaled he is ready to jettison.

• Obama didn't bite, asking them instead to define better what the term "public option" means to them.

• He raised the possibility -- as one of a number of available ideas -- of using a trigger mechanism to establish a public insurance agency only if the costs of private insurance don't go down and the quality of care doesn't go up. Progressive leaders have said they will not vote for a bill that has a delayed trigger mechanism for the public option.

The leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent President Obama a letter that threatens to withhold support for a health care overhaul if it does not include a public option -- and if it does not reverse a deal with Blue Dogs for negotiated rather than fixed reimbursement rates for providers.

"Any bill that does not provide, at a minimum, a public option built on the Medicare provider system and with reimbursement based on Medicare rates -- not negotiated rates -- is unacceptable," CPC co-chairs Lynn Woolsey of California and Raul M. Grijalva of Arizona wrote.

The letter was first reported by Plum Line blogger Greg Sargent.

Just like the president's arm's-length treatment of the public option is not new, the response of the liberal leaders is more a restatement than a news-breaker.

As his White House aides were telling reporters yet again on Tuesday that President Barack Obama will not insist on a government-backed insurance agency, his political aides were using the prospect of the so called public option to raise money from Democrats who support it.

Beyond the money, the president's political Web site is an organizing hub for a nationwide network of public option vigils scheduled for tonight.

It's a political paradox that pits private provocation against prudish public posturing.

And who knows, maybe it will work -- at the very least, Obama will have kept his activists activated and his campaign arm funded.

Liberal interest groups and Democratic lawmakers said Wednesday that Sen. Ted Kennedy's death should be a catalyst for action on the issues that he cared about.

"Senator Kennedy's Death is a Call to Action on Immigration Reform" blared the headline of a Wednesday afternoon release from the Campaign to Reform Immigration for America.

John Podesta -- the former Clinton White House chief of staff and Obama transition head who now leads the Center for American Progress -- said during a conference call that Kennedy's death should give a kick-start to health care overhaul efforts, according to CQ's Avery Palmer.

"Members in the Senate will, I think, take his passing as a moment to rally and push forward and push through health reform," Podesta said.

And Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., the only current senator whose length of service surpasses Kennedy's, said that any health care legislation that becomes law should bear the name of his friend.

Byrd's suggestion -- naming the short title of one of the bills after Kennedy -- seems most likely.