After his 1851 coup d’état, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, nephew of the real Napoleon, pronounced himself Napoleon III. It was the rise to power of this great-man-wannabe that prompted the famous opening of Karl Marx’s Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis-Bonaparte: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice.
Bart Stupak said at his press conference this afternoon that an executive order signed by President Obama will accomplish what his amendment would have accomplished:
"All the safeguards we were looking for, the principle we fought for all these months, will be enforced through this exeuctive order. ... It's a good agreement."
Stupak said on Fox News this afternoon that the executive order will have "the full force and effect of law."
The problem with Stupak's statements is that they're not true--and no one on the right or the left believes them to be true, except for Bart Stupak and a few of his friends.
This is an odd moment of agreement in a debate over health care that's been filled with factual disputes.
The executive order promised by President Obama was issued for political effect. It changes nothing. It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill. The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says.
The GOP is now offering its motion to recommit: the Stupak-Pitts amendment which passed the House 240 to 194 in November to ban abortion-funding. If it passes, the bill will have to go back to the Senate for approval, which means at least 25 Democrats will flip-flop on their previous vote on Stupak.
Stupak is now urging fellow members to vote it down.
Sometime in the next hour, the House of Representatives of the United States of America will pass into law a health care reform that the people they represent oppose. In so doing, they will complete the decades-long project of American liberals to create an American welfare state along the lines you find in postwar Western Europe. Next comes immigration, cap-and-trade, a universal entitlement to higher education, and card-check legislation empowering unions. And after that come the tax hikes -- not just on the rich, but on everyone -- that will be required to pay for this drastic expansion of government. Never in modern congressional memory has so much been affected for so many by so few.
Do not believe anyone who tells you they understand the path American politics will take after this vote. It is truly unique. And yet a few things are clear. One, the idea of the "pro-life" Democrat should be tossed into the dust-heap along with such outmoded concepts as cold-fusion. Two, Obama will achieve a short-term bump in his political capital, and likely his poll ratings, because he will have achieved something that every Democratic president since Harry Truman has been unable to accomplish. And three, Obamacare is a testable proposition. The proponents of this legislation have made distinct claims regarding its costs and consequences that should not be forgotten -- especially when America encounters its first debt crisis some years from now.
Let's give the last word to Rep. Paul Ryan:
Liberals are right. America will never be the same.
Bart Stupak, pro-life Democrat who was the leader of a bloc of hold-outs, just held a press conference announcing a deal he made with the White House to address his abortion concerns in an Executive Order. He announced that "8 or 9" pro-life Democrats will vote for health-care reform now, which should put the bill past its hurdle of 216 votes.
In 2005, Syria's Ba'athist dictatorship was accused of supporting the assainination of Rafik Hariri, who was then the prime minister of Lebanon. Hariri's death sparked an internal anti-Syrian uprising in Lebanon--the Cedar revolution--which was both supported vocally by the Bush administration and tangibly when the State Department yanked its ambassador from Damascus.
Now the Obama administration wants to send the State Department back, claiming that U.S. foreign policy objectives would be better served through a locally assigned embassy and ambassador. Both the White House and congressional allies are talking up the qualifications of Robert Ford, Obama's pick for a potential Syrian posting. Ford is a long time State Department veteran who served as ambassador to Algeria and more recently deputy chief of the U.S. mission in Iraq -- neither easy diplomatic postings.
But the debate isn't about Ford's qualifications. Syria's brutal Ba'athist regime is a habitual human rights offender with multiple priors -- and a fanatical enemy of the United States.
Consider that:
1) Damascus purposefully sustains regional destabilization. Syria's alliance with Iran has heightened tensions with other Arab powers like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, as well as contributed to a constant cycle of war in southern Lebanon and Israel's northern flank. Syrian ports are critical logistical nodes for Hezbollah and, to an extent, Hamas in Gaza. They provide short range rockets to both terror groups, which are used unmercifully on Israeli towns and villages. It should be noted that this is far more harmful to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process than building a couple of housing units in Jerusalem, which earned the Netanyahu government the stiffest of rebukes from the White House and an ultimatum from Foggy Bottom.
2) Syria is an avowed enemy of America's regional democratic allies. An official state sponsor of terrorism since the State Department released the list in 1979, the regime actively works to undermine the freely elected government in Iraq (largely in the form of pushing foreign fighters across the Syrian-Iraqi border) and exports violence by proxy into neighboring Lebanon and Israel.
3) They're brutal. Bashar al-Assad's one party regime uses torture to suppress internal dissent and individual liberties. Assad's security forces have nearly unlimited power, rendering basic freedoms practically non-existent. Freedom House, an international political rights watchdog, has frequently ranked Damascus at the bottom of their human rights and civil liberties index. Last year, they included Syria in their "Worst of the Worst" section, dedicated --as the name implies-- to the world's most heinous totalitarian regimes.
Syria doesn't deserve to be recognized or rewarded with an ambassadorial presence -- at least, not until lawmakers and diplomats see tangible evidence of the positive liberalization trend that was promised by Bashar al-Assad when he assumed power in 2000. The State Department needs to articulate clearly what foreign policy objectives they expect to be served by reopening an embassy in Damascus, but--more importantly--Syria must prove to the world that they are capable of rational action and discourse. That means immediately and unconditionally terminating support of the Iraqi insurgency, as well as publicly renouncing violence against their democratic neighbors. Then and only then should President Obama consider inviting Syria back to the community of responsible nations.
Last year President Barack Obama filled out his NCAA tournament bracket and predicted (as many did) that North Carolina would take the whole thing. He was right. And he was very popular at the time, too, I might add. This year the president's approval numbers have tanked—he's somewhere around 46 percent at the moment. And this year he picked Kansas to win the NCAA tournament—the Jayhawks entered the tourney as the overall number one seed. And earlier today in the second round they were eliminated by number nine seed Northern Iowa, 69-67. What else will he get wrong in 2010?
To be honest, the president had a couple of good upset picks—the kinds that you would make if you read a decent amount about college hoops. (Conservatives are justified in ridiculing the commander in chief for the amount of time he must spend reading up on the game as opposed to figuring out how to create jobs. They are also right to think that if this were the previous president, he would be mocked for this instead of perceived as cool. For instance, Bush spent way too much time working out at the gym—shouldn't he have been more focused on Iraq? In contrast, President Obama spends at least an hour each day working out and thank God for that—he's sending a positive message to our youth and grappling the issue of childhood obesity, which his predecessor didn't care about. He was too busy wasting his time in the gym to care about anything! But I digress.)
Nevertheless, Obama picked 13th-seeded Murray State to win a round against number 4 seed Vanderbilt, which they did. He also correctly chose Cornell over Temple in the 12-5 upset (there's one almost every year). But he got greedy in choosing Siena over Purdue.
So now, only two of the president's final four teams remain: Kentucky and Kansas State. Obama's other regional champion, number two Villanova, was thrown out this afternoon by a bunch of Marys—the St. Mary's Gaels to be specific.
After hearing out everyone from President Obama to tea party activists, Dover Democratic Rep. Zack Space announced today that he'll oppose the health care reform bill that's up for a vote on Sunday in the House of Representatives.
Space, who represents a sprawling southeast Ohio congressional district with a high concentration of Republicans, said he doesn't like the bill, and his constituents don't like it, either.
"Probably the most significant concern is the pay-fors in the bill," said Space. "They are opening the door to taxing employee benefits as income, which is going to create, I don’t care how you slice it, a hardship for middle class families that they can’t afford to endure right now."
Space said the version of the bill he supported last year taxed the wealthiest Americans, rather than the middle class, to pay some of the working poor's health care costs.
"This bill has taken those people out of it," said Space.
Space had a one-on-one meeting with Obama Wednesday, and has been getting leaned on by unions heavily.
Obama arrived in the visitors' center under the U.S. Capitol for a meeting with the House Democratic Caucus this afternoon that had the definite feel of a pep rally before a big game.
That's as far as I'll go with the sports metaphors, as Harry Reid did enough torturing of sports metaphors for all of us when he spoke. He told the president, who he knows "likes basketball," that we are in the overtime of a basketball game and everyone already knows the conclusion, but it's close, so the opposition just keeps fouling us, but we're gonna keep making our shots, and in "when the buzzer finally sounds, there will be a clear winner. That winner will be the American people."
But wait, were the American people even playing? Nobody ever got me the ball!
The rally, by design had a feeling of inevitability about it, with Obama saying "we are 24 hours away" from health-care reform after a year of debate. But is there reason for the confident air?
"Stupak said those standing with him now number about six -- down from the rough dozen he has claimed for weeks. That is likely enough to put the majority within striking distance of the 216 votes they need for passage."
The whip count is certainly tight enough that Stupak could still endanger the bill, even with a smaller bloc, but Pelosi does seem to be peeling off a few pro-lifers.
Of course, you'd never know the vote was close given the tone Democrats took today. Harry Reid, the only member of the Senate on hand, told the crowd that Nancy Pelosi is the "greatest speaker the House of Representatives ever had." Pelosi called Reid, "a master at work." No, I'm not kidding.
What to say about Obama's speech? It was the same thing you've heard all year—55 times as of today, actually— with all the attendant straw men, distortions, exaggerations, and of course, lecturing of others for using straw men, distortions, exaggerations.
Obama began by quoting—wait for it—Lincoln: "I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true." That was the refrain of his speech, which exhorted Democratic lawmakers to be true to his giant hodge-podge compromise vision of how health care should work.
He implored Democrats, "Don't do it for me," after imploring them all week to take this vote to save his presidency. He promised once again that "if you like your health insurance, you'll be able to keep it," even though mandates for private health insurance will preclude great sectors of the current constellation of insurance plans we can now have.
Obama claimed the "bill runs straight down the center of American political thought." He claimed Republicans want to take the "fox in the henhouse" approach, in which special interests and insurance companies get more power, ignoring his own oft-criticized deal with PhRMA and his mandate that requires all Americans buy insurance from... insurance companies. He kindly conceded it won't "solve every problem " with health care, but also said it's "the biggest step forward since Medicare."
Of course, the vote on Medicare passage was, 307-116 in the House and 70-24 in the Senate.
Obama repeatedly said he knew it was a "tough vote" and then proceeded to publicly name-check every Democrat in a tough district who's voting with him, presumably so their Republican opponents can have clear footage of those members being applauded by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama.
The speech ended with the same call to higher duty and greatness that each campaign speech did, with the same lofty call to action that every victory speech did, and with the same moving exhortation to change the world and the system as his rousing call to re-elect Jon Corzine did. Luckily, with Obama, everything is uplifting, no matter what it is.
In the end, it was an Obama speech in every sense, which prompted Howard Kurtz to write, "even if you hate this health care bill, that was quite an oration."
Indeed, Howard, when you subtract the strawmen and distortions, it was great! It's like saying every Bush speech was awesome, if you don't count his delivery.
I just got back from a Tea Party protest and an anti-war protest (And, they think the righties are the unreasonable ones???), so I'm catching up on healthcare news.
The latest is that the House will push ahead with two real votes— one on reconciliation and one on the Senate bill. They're likely to vote on the reconciliation bill first, and there is reportedly a letter from more than 50 senators promising to vote for the House reconciliation bill. Steny Hoyer said the Senate bill, once voted on by the House will go directly to the president for his signature.
"The whip is here, but clearly we believe we have the votes," Hoyer said when asked whether they have the votes to make it happen.
I've had the feeling this week, as much as I hate it, that the chances of defeating the House vote this weekend were lower than 50/50, but I'm not sure I see where she gets all the votes she needs if she was scrambling for Stupak folks last night. Now she's Mrs. Tough Guy and will not be dealing with him (after the deal didn't come together and the pro-choice women in the House likely reamed her).
The White House that wants the government in charge of the health-care system, meanwhile, seems to have finally settled on a place to meet with the Democratic Caucus, on its third try. Obama was first supposed to meet with Democrats on the Hill, then in the White House, and now they're in the Capitol Hill Visitors' Center. Sure, have at health care, guys. I'm sure running a layered, impossibly complex system of medical care delivery with private and public components will be easier than setting up a meeting with your own Caucus.
They are certainly sending the signal that this is a done deal, but it's so close that I wouldn't believe the picture of inevitability they're painting. Don't get off the phones, folks.
Administration Actuary Can’t Analyze Health Bill Before Final Vote
Even the Administration’s Chief Actuary at HHS cannot provide cost analysis of latest Democrat health spending bill before the vote
Chief Actuary: ‘I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.’
WASHINGTON, DC – The Obama administration’s chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) notified Republican leaders Saturday that the “very tight time frame” and “complexity” of the Democrats’ health spending bill would prevent them from fully analyzing the costs and efficacy of the bill before the House voted on the legislation. The letter was in response to a request from House and Senate Republicans.
The Chief Actuary, Richard S. Foster, wrote: “In your letter, you requested that we provide the updated actuarial estimates in time for your review prior to the expected House debate and vote on this legislation on March 21, 2010. I regret that my staff and I will not be able to prepare our analysis within this very tight time frame, due to the complexity of the legislation.”
There are reports that Bart Stupak and other pro-life Democrats are meeting with Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi has said that they are discussing a compromise that would use an executive order to allay the concerns of pro-life Democrats. The National Right to Life Committee just put out a release explaining that an executive order cannot fix the abortion related problems in the health care bill:
NRLC's March 19 letter to the House of Representatives, summarizing the seven major pro-abortion components in H.R. 3590, is posted here.
It should be noted that all of the problems listed in the NRLC letter -- with the possible exception of no. 5 (pro-abortion administrative mandates) -- would be created by and controlled by the proposed statutory language of H.R. 3590. If the bill is signed into law, these statutory requirements and defects are not subject to correction or nullification by the chief executive or his appointees, whether by Executive Order, regulation, or otherwise. Lawmakers will be responsible for the law that they vote for, and cannot hide behind hollow assurances from the President.
Prof. Robert Destro, a professor of law and former dean of the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, and an expert on abortion-related litigation, today sent Congressman Stupak an illuminating letter regarding whether the $7 billion in funds directly appropriated for Community Health Centers, in the Senate health bill (H.R. 3590), could be or would be spent for abortions. We have posted the letter here.
During today's House Rules Committee meeting on the health care, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter diverted discussion of the health care bill into an attack on Paul Ryan's roadmap.
Slaughter repeatedly interrupted Ryan and said his plan would end Medicare. Ryan told Slaughter it was obvious why "you want to talk about someone else's bill than your own." After Ryan explained that individuals now under 55, when they become Medicare-eligible, would be able to purchase their own Medicare with a check from the government, Slaughter replied, "I think that verges on cruelty."
Watch it here:
"I can tell you don't understand it accurately," Ryan said of his plan at one point during the tense exchange. Democrats Henry Waxman, Xavier Becerra, and Sander Levin all piled on Ryan too.
By all accounts Bart Stupak has been pushing for an ironclad guarantee that the bill would only pass on the condition that his amendment is included. Kathryn Lopez hears what I hear:
Prospects for a Stupak deal may be collapsing. (Which, yes, could mean prospects for a vote tomorrow are collapsing. Or it could mean the White House/Pelosi twisted enough arms.)
Two pro-life GOP members close to Stupak tell NRO that any Stupak deals are off. They just spoke with him and they said he's finished with Pelosi. They rejected his enrollment corrections proposal.
The Hill reports that Nancy Pelosi is working on a deal with pro-life Democrats to add Bart Stupak's amendment to the health care bill with an "enrollment corrections bill." That means she doesn't have the votes without Stupak and his band of brothers (and sisters).
“There's a proposal out there, and we want to see it in writing and massage it,” Stupak told The Hill. “We have nothing yet.”
We're getting deep, deep into the weeds of parliamentary procedure, but I believe this is how an enrollment corrections bill could work. There would be a separate vote in the House, and it would then go to the Senate (if it passes the House). What is crucial for Stupak is that he needs to get an ironclad procedural guarantee that the health care bill would be passed only on the condition that the Senate passed his correction. Stupak would need the rule to deem the Senate bill passed, but make its passage conditional upon the Senate's passage the Stupak enrollment correction.
Without a conditional agreement, Democrats in the Senate could double-cross pro-life House Democrats.
Although this may be procedurally possible, it may be politically impossible because it would require pro-choice Democrats in the House and Senate to swallow what they consider to be a very bitter pill. Rep. Diana DeGette says that more than 40 pro-choice Democrats will vote against the bill if it includes the Stupak amendment. "We are holding firm this time," DeGette said. "If Mr. Stupak and a few members along with the Republicans decide to use this to take health care down, that loss of health care will be in their hands."
Well, actually both sides are now threatening to take down the health care bill over abortion. It's a question of whether either side will cave. While there may not actually be 40 pro-choice Democrats who would join her, there are probably more than a few. Jan Schakowsky has pledged to vote against the bill if it includes the Stupak language. And don't forget that Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut is the former executive director of EMILY's List. See her anti-Stupak floor speech from November:
Small groups, gathered in meeting rooms scattered around the world and focused on a single issue, can affect the way we live, at least now and perhaps for a long time. Consider only this week’s conclaves.
Here in Washington, the Federal Reserve Board’s monetary policy gurus met and decided to keep interest rates low until unemployment drops, even though they agreed that the economy is already improving. Meanwhile, meeting in committee rooms and in the corridors of power, Congress agreed to give the White House what its economists and the president, meeting in the Oval Office, demanded: more stimulus spending. It is true that there is considerable excess capacity in the economy, as the deflation-worriers continually point out. But anyone who believes that the meetings at the Fed, in congress, and in the White House are not laying the ground for future inflation carries a heavy burden of proof.
Meanwhile, in Vienna the members of OPEC, the oil cartel, met and decided that $80 is just about the right price for their crude oil. That means that the cartel is not prepared to support the fragile worldwide recovery by lowering oil prices. It will, of course, sooner or later have to confront the price-threatening problem of stepped-up production from Iraq, perhaps to Saudi Arabian levels, a development that is increasingly likely as foreign oil companies get on with the work of repairing old fields and discovering new ones. But that is for another meeting.
By deciding at its Vienna meeting to keep oil prices far above competitive levels, OPEC is taxing consumers and in effect running a counter-stimulus policy, to the consternation of the groups meeting in Washington.
The Vienna meeting also affected meetings of airline executives and union leaders in London. The decision to keep oil and, therefore, fuel prices up added to the pressure being brought on the fuel-intensive airline industry by strikes and the threat of strikes. Lufthansa has already been put through the wringer by its union, and British Airways is next in line as its cabin crews prepare to lay down their clipboards and serving trays tomorrow (at this writing talks continue and some flights will go, staffed by non-strikers, even if there is a strike). Passengers will not book in usual numbers on an airline under threat of a strike, never mind actually experiencing one. If the British Airways workers succeed, other airline unions around the world might well emulate their British cousin. Indeed, captain David Bourne, Director of the Airline Division of the U.S. International Brotherhood of Teamsters has already met with British union officials.
If the first day's output is any indication, Kausfiles fans can look forward to much more prolific blogging thanks to Mickey Kaus's decision to challenge Barbara Boxer in California's Democratic primary.
Rep. Keith Ellison: "The fact is, we're honoring a great American novelist, but we have to divert that important conversation…the Republican caucus wants to go toe-to-toe on health care."
Rep. Jackie Speier: "While we are trying to recognize the life and work of a great American novelist, we find ourselves drifting into a discussion of health care."
Another big get for Dems: Rep Brad Ellsworth, a former Yes vote who shared the concerns of the Stupak dozen and was intensely wooed by both sides, will vote Yes on the Senate bill, his spokesman confirms to me.
“He’s a Yes,” Jonathan Kott, communications director for Ellsworth, just said by phone. “He will vote in favor of health care reform.”
A press release detailing his rationale is forthcoming from his office.
This is a blow to the Stupak coalition. Will he bring others along?
Ellsworth just sealed the Democratic Senate nomination as well as his defeat in the general election.
Update: Stupak's office sent out an email saying he will hold a press conference with "other pro-life" members at 11:00a.m. to discuss the health care bill. Maybe all the pro-life Democrats cut a deal?
The health care debate is beginning to resemble trench warfare. You have two camps -- the Yeses and the Nos. They spend most of their time launching artillery attacks on the opposing position. Every so often, though, a soldier traverses No Man's Land as he rushes to join the other side.
So far four Nos have joined the Yeses. But there is a larger, much more undefined, group of Yeses slowly crawling across the barren wasteland toward the No trench.
Fox says Pelosi is one or two votes away from victory. Don't believe it. Jeffrey H. Anderson puts the count at 203-214 and writes: "Don't forget the other wavering representatives, all of whom have yet to cast their votes. Let's make this a triumph of American democracy. Let's make Sunday a day when — at long last — the will of the people, expressed by their representatives, resounds victoriously."
On Sunday the cannons cease. And we find out who's left standing on either side.
For those Democrats for whom the right to life is more than just a political calculation:
They should be urged to ask themselves how they want to think of themselves at the end of their careers (whether that's in a few months or decades from now), and, ultimately how they want to look back upon and be judged for their life and service (whether by themselves or their Maker). For those who believe that abortion is wrong and that the government should not be funding it, they must be asked to think about how that should inform their actions. In other words, do they want that belief to be a matter of principle that informs their votes (irrespective of what the Speaker offers or threatens)? Or do they want to admit that the fate of the unborn is just another chit that they are willing to cash in? Ben Nelson traded a career of saying he cared about the unborn for $100 Million. And that is what his career will likely be remembered for.
For pro-life democrats, history, their conscience and their Maker will be watching and judging them to see how they confront the same issue.
Everything is going according to plan. Well, almost everything.
Buried in Vol. 2 (of 3) of the Air Force’s FY 2011 R&D budget (the entire budget encompasses 33 documents, some of them are more than 1,000 pages long) is an item referring to the “reliable replacement warhead.” This is the controversial Bush administration proposal (once, and perhaps still, supported by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) to design a less complex nuclear warhead that is less prone to decay and dysfunction over time. This is important because every weapon in our current arsenal is at least 20 years old (and some are much older) and many of them are incredibly complex and thus, potentially, don’t work any more—but we don’t know it. Former nuclear weapons designer Thomas Reed analogizes a nuclear weapon to highly complex sports car: You can’t leave a Ferrari in the garage for 20 years, and then decide one day you want to take it for a spin, and count on it starting just like that.
Not that we are quite so neglectful as that. The U.S. has a lot of programs to gauge the potential reliability of our arsenal, but all of them stop short of the decisive step—fissile testing—because that is deed too internationally provocative and domestically unpopular. Our best guess is that the tests we do run are quite good. But at the end of the day, we can’t be sure that which or how many of our weapons will work and which won’t. Which, of course, undermines the basic purpose of the arsenal: to scare (“deter”) potential attackers from doing anything too rash lest they unleash the worst we can throw at them.
The answer was once said to be the “reliable replacement warhead,” a less complex design made from existing fissile material and no small measure of recycled parts that would incorporate everything we have learned from more than half a century of research, design, and testing. It would not be as powerful or as advanced as our most cutting-edge weapons, but that is the whole point. In being simpler, it would be more, well, reliable. Rather than a Ferrari in that garage think of it as maybe not quite a Model T but a ’57 Chevy.
The RRW is controversial because doves and disarmament advocates believe it amounts to building new nuclear warheads and thus moves in the wrong direction from where we should want to go (a world without nuclear weapons), sets a bad international example, and perhaps could spur a new arms race. President Obama has made opposition to the RRW a key component of his nuclear policy agenda. Vice President Biden and Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher have denounced it in vociferous terms. Nonetheless, one reads occasionally of rear-guard actions within the bureaucracy to keep the program alive.
Could this budget item be one such? The Air Force denies it, calling it a holdover from the last budget, essentially a clerical error (a cut-and-paste mistake perhaps?).
No matter how this weekend's vote turns out, we're going to need to take a break from health care reform. Like government spending, health care has crowded out the market for political discussion. Glance at the news, and you would have no way of knowing that other things are happening.
Among the topics subsumed by the health care debate? A fascinating discussion over the 10 books that have influenced one's world view. Tyler Cowen got the ball rolling with his list. Read some follow-ups here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. As a card-carrying nerd, I love book lists, and picked up somenewtitles from the various recommendations. (One note: Most of these guys are econ bloggers, so their picks lean heavily in that direction.)
The exercise got me thinking about what my list would look like. You'll find it under the fold, in no particular order, and without commentary:
The votes of House Democrats on Sunday will largely determine the votes of independents in November. Individual members of Congress who vote “no” on the proposed health care overhaul will strike an immediate chord of respect with their constituents, establish an instant reputation for fiscal prudence and independent thinking, and gain the appreciation of voters for listening to them. Those who vote “yes” will invite the disdain of voters across the entire political spectrum, save the far left.
Independents, even more than most Americans, strongly disapprove of the proposed health care overhaul. In June, 66 percent of independents supported President Obama in a Fox News poll. After nine months of the president’s focusing almost entirely on health care, the same poll now shows that only 38 percent of independents support him — an amazing decline. Even fewer of these same independents, just 29 percent, specifically approve of the president’s handling of health care. More than twice as many, 63 percent, disapprove.
A PPP poll now shows Republicans leading on the generic congressional ballot by a tally of 46 to 43 percent. The GOP has built that lead on the strength of a 44 to 26 percent advantage among independents — the same 18-point margin by which Reagan beat Mondale and FDR beat Hoover.
Intensity of feeling is also clearly on the side of those who oppose the health-care overhaul. By two to one, those who strongly oppose it outnumber those who strongly support it (46 percent to 23 percent). This is not just a flash in the pan. Such two-to-one gaps in intensity have been pretty consistently in evidence since Thanksgiving.
It’s hard to win an election without the support of independents and with the intensity of support/opposition working solidly against you. But individual House Democrats can quickly quiet most opposition and win over most independents. With just one vote, they can show that they are independent too. They can show that they don’t just vote the party line, but are willing to exercise independent judgment and take independent action. They can show that they are willing to listen to their constituents. Those who exercise that healthy spirit of independence, even with their party leaders breathing down their necks, will be rewarded by grateful voters in November for their courage.
