I don't think this will matter much to the rump of the party, but it could matter a great deal to moderate Independents.

I'm sorry but I disagree. There is a difference between what DC and what the bubble calls bipartisan, and what the American electorate considers bipartisan. That difference is a reflection of plutocracy (or corporatism). America has a mushy center - either 40% or 10%.

I never liked Thompson that much, but you really can't get elected to high office in Wisconsin if you're completely anti-Progressive.  

He should go after Arne Carlson, ex-governor of Minnesota.  He pulled the Republican version of a Joe Lieberman years before Joe Lieberman did it, and promptly became a Republican again... loyal, but moderate.  I don't doubt he supports health care reform.

The whole idea of this as "brilliant strategy" seems dubious; the fact that Michael Bloomberg or Schwarzeneggar favors reform seems a detail, and a detail unlikely to matter to most other Republicans. In an election, this kind of strategy makes sense because voters are the ones who need to be influenced; having modeates, even reired ones, support a Dem offers a certain sort of voter "cover" to cross party lines (and I'd point out that the kind of partisan who supports the idea of My DD is unlikely to relate to that kind of logic, to begin with). Applying the theory as somehow analogous when setting up a congressional vote strikes me as dubious, at best. And really, getting some semi-identifying Republican moderate to vaguely agree with the idea of "reform" is a reminder how amorphous, even at this late date, the "health care reform" bill remains: basic, important elements are still in question, the question of costs and covering them is still under discussion, and the fact that "something" may get passed is being substituted as a positive development in lieu of specific detailed proposals. The fact that they can pass "something"... means very little to me. The fact that a Michael Bloomberg or Tommy Thompson or some other equally unrepresentative is vaguely supportive of "reform" means very little as well. That progressives have so defined down the notion of real progress on healthcare, merely because it's what the White House has decided is a winning strategy... just frightens me.

strikes me as a significant get, particularly given the influence he had on welfare reform.

The problem here is that people like Schwarzwenegger  and Bloomberg are probably closer to the Baucus bill.  So their endorsement probably is good news for some sort of "reform" but not the PO.  Even big insurance seems to be on board with some sort of uber-mean version of the Baucus bill.

Bi-partisan support makes the story a little more complex as we get to the "ordering off of the menu" stage of the compromising on the Hill because it probably means the bill gets less palatable than more.