Still, there are enough differences between the House bill and what the Senate has already essentially agreed to that liberals are troubled. Ignore the thorniest question, what to do with the public option; that still leaves a slew of other issues, from the Senate's plan to tax expensive healthcare benefits to pay for expanding coverage to the House's more generous expansion of Medicaid eligibility to poor people.

The public option, though, tops the list. Grijalva said he didn't think much of the reported deal to remove it from the Senate bill, though he doesn't mind the plan to let uninsured people between the ages of 55 and 64 buy into Medicare -- as long as their premiums are affordable and the move doesn't jeopardize the system's already precarious finances. If the Senate is hung up on the name, though, progressives don't care what a public plan is called. "Call it what you want to call it," he said. "If it provides that coverage and that intent, it has some public oversight and owernship to it, then we're in favor."

But even though the details aren't set yet, progressives are preparing to defend their goals. Liberal Democrats have been meeting frequently with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (though Grijalva says they don't hear from the White House much), and they'll keep the pressure on. "People are reluctant, at this point, to say 'I'm going to draw this line in the sand and say if this isn't in, then I'm out,' because there's no details," Grijalva said. "We keep hearing, 'Wait till it gets fleshed out.' You need to plan for the worst-case scenario here; given past performance by the Senate, you gotta plan on the worst-case scenario."

For weeks, Warren, a stalwart opponent of gay rights in this country, has refused to comment on a bill under consideration in Uganda that, if passed, would make homosexual acts punishable by life imprisonment or even death in some cases. (Salon's Mark Benjamin appeared on the "Rachel Maddow Show" recently to discuss an American whose program was an inspiration for the measure; you can watch that here.) The pastor has been under particular pressure to issue a statement condemning the legislation because of his affiliation with Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan minister who has repeatedly spoken at Warren's Saddleback church and who has unequivocally endorsed the bill. When other American Christian leaders from across the ideological spectrum issued a statement denouncing the proposed law, however, Warren declined to join them.

After coming under considerable fire for this, even from his fellow evangelicals, the pastor finally broke down Wednesday and released a video statement in which he came out against the legislation.

In the statement, Warren did admit that the potential law is "unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals." But, lest people interpret his stance against killing gay people as some sort of support for homosexuality, Warren also took the opportunity to reiterate his view that being gay is a sin, telling viewers, "we can never deny or water down what God's Word clearly teaches about sexuality."

"Well, what I said -- it is a two-part statement that quotes what the President has said. We believe, we in the House believe that the public option is the best way to hold insurance companies honest -- to keep them honest and also to increase competition. If there is a better way, put it on the table," Pelosi said at her weekly press conference, in response to a question about her August comments.

"As soon as we see something in writing from the Senate, we will be able to make a judgment about that. But our standards are that we have affordability for the middle class, security for our seniors, closing the donut hole and sustaining the solvency of Medicare. Responsibility to our children, so not one dime is added to the deficit. And accountability of insurance companies. We will take a measure of that bill in those regards."

These comments are being portrayed as Pelosi outright abandoning the public option. Clearly, she wasn't quite that definitive. But she's certainly leaving the door open to the Senate deal, and -- especially given these remarks -- it wouldn't be at all surprising to see her come out in support of it fairly soon. If the agreement is the only way any bill passes the Senate, it's not like she has much choice in the matter.

Things are different now. Republicans think, and rightly so, that they're in a much stronger position on healthcare than they were when Luntz penned the memo that contained those words of wisdom. So their rhetorical strategy has shifted, and now it's at the point when top Republicans have no problem admitting to exactly the dynamic that Luntz warned against.

In a memo of his own, published Thursday, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele wrote:

I urge everyone to spend every bit of capital and energy you have to stop this health care reform. The Democrats have accused us of trying to delay, stall, slow down, and stop this bill. They are right. We do want to delay, stall, slow down, and ultimately stop them from experimenting on our nation’s health care. And guess what, so do a majority of Americans.

Steele's often off message, but not this time. With polls trending away from President Obama, and having seen the anger on display at the town halls this summer, the GOP's content to let everyone know their plan.

That doesn't mean Democrats won't try to make them pay for it. In a statement, Democratic National Committee Press Secretary Hari Sevugan said:

With this memo and Senator Judd Gregg's obstruction manual, Republicans have laid their cards on the table and made explicit that their intention, their singular goal, is obstructing the President's agenda for the sake of politics no matter how high the price for the American people. They've made the choice crystal clear for voters -- while Democrats are working to get things done for the benefit of the American people, Republicans are obstructing progress for the benefit of themselves and their special interest allies. If they think that's a winning proposition, they are in for a world of hurt.

That's what the senator said in a recent interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody. He added, "I’m trying to pull the party back to the mainstream of where America really is.”

DeMint also told Brody that one of the reasons he's gotten involved in endorsing conservative candidates this year is, "I need some new Republicans, people who believe in constitutional government, a balanced budget and liberty and so I’m out across the country recruiting new Republicans who I think if they get here will not only challenge the institutions of government but be willing to even challenge the Republican Party and our leadership if they feel like we’re going in the wrong direction."