Those are some forceful words from Senator Byrd. What did President Clinton do? Clinton acknowledged that Senator Byrd was correct, and dropped the pursuit of Reconciliation to pass Healthcare back in the 1990’s.

My question to Senator Byrd is: why are you not arguing in the exact same manner against Obama’s desire to use this process for the EXACT SAME REASON???

How about Senator Kent Conrad, D-North Dakota on Reconciliation? This was Senator Conrad on the floor of the Senate recalling the debate over President Clinton’s consideration of Reconciliation for Healthcare:

And now? Oh, you know what’s coming. Now Conrad has signaled he is willing to use this budgetary procedure to pass Obama’s exceedingly flawed (and not even completely written) Healthcare bill.

I might add, he was that upset in 2001 over a $138 Billion dollar initiative? Ahahahahah, isn’t that just precious? Especially considering Obama and the Democrats racked up $223 Billion in DEBT just this past month alone!! In just ONE month they have spent more $90 billion MORE than Bill Clinton’s Healthcare Initiative. Wow, Senator Conrad, way to really stick to your budgetary guns there.

No wonder Democrats are referred to as the “Tax and Spend” Party. I used to take offense at that, but they are earning that label in a big way now.

And then, there is Obama as a US Senator on how we cannot use Reconciliation. Yo knew it was coming. Oh, make sure to check out the date when he is talking about getting a bill to his desk to his sign:

Did you catch that? September of 2007 he was already claiming the presidency. Talk about hubris. Now? You know that, too. Obama wants to use it. In the following video from the Blair Street Summit, Obama’s essentially saying we are a bunch of dumbasses who don’t care how Congress does its job:

Here’s a newsflash for you, Obama – we DO pay attention to how things get done in Washington, or not, and how much you all are listening to us or not. You most definitely are NOT.

Just to digress for a moment, I just wonder why in the world this man wanted this position so much that he was willing to lie, cheat and steal to get it when he CLEARLY has such little regard for the people whom he is SUPPOSED to be serving. Must be those perks he mentioned in the first video because it isn’t any respect he has for us.

And talk about HYPOCRISY. Byrd, Conrad, and Obama are poster boys for it in their flipflop about Reconciliation to shove this extremely expensive, pork laden, Big Pharma gifting, increased insurance premium making, Medicare curring healthcare bill down our throats.

Obama wants to “get ‘er done” before he leaves next week, another false deadline.

To that end, the House Democrats have locked themselves away in their “transparent” attempt to come to some agreement about this bill so they can try and meet Obama’s time frame.

So glad they are spending SO Much time on this when 462,000 people have filed for unemployment this WEEK. The numbers were expected to be lower.

In my own state, the front page news included that unemployment in South Carolina has hit another record high:

Employers cut 27,700 positions throughout the month, including seasonal jobs in tourism and retail, as the jobless rate reached 12.6 percent, the state Employment Security Commission said Wednesday.

South Carolina’s unemployed population — a total of 273,455 residents — is the biggest on record.

Compare that number with the data recorded several years ago and a grim picture emerges. That figure, for example, never topped 100,000 people in 2000. Throughout 2005, the number averaged 140,000.

“It gives us a sense of how many jobs the economy needs to create in order

to put a majority of people back to work,” said economist Don Schunk of Coastal Carolina University. “More so than the unemployment rate, (that number) tells us how far we have to go before we return to some sense of normalcy.”

The preliminary January rate eclipsed the previous record set in December. That number originally came in at 12.6 percent, but it was revised downward to 12.4 percent last week, based on more current information.

So, yes, Congress, by all means, cancel all of your other meetings like you did today (Thursday), continue to focus all of your time and energy on a healthcare bill we have been telling you for months we do not want, while we continue to lose our jobs, our homes, and our faith in you.

November cannot come soon enough.

Even in the face of mounting opposition within his own party, and even among some liberals like Dr. Marcia Angell (who, by the way, is being demonized by some progressives as being “anti-woman” for opposing this bill. That is some logical leap, as in, it has lept away from being logical). Dr. Angell highlights that this bill as written is a gift to the pharmaceutical companies (Obama made his deal with them before any bill was ever even written) and the INSURANCE companies, the same ones Obama demonizes in his speeches. Yet, on Obama goes, as this article by Charles Krauthammer brings home, Onward with Obamacare, Regardless:

So the yearlong production, set to close after Massachusetts’s devastatingly negative Jan. 19 review, saw the curtain raised one last time. Obamacare lives.

After 34 speeches (as of 3/4/10), three sharp electoral rebukes (Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts) and a seven-hour seminar, the president announced Wednesday his determination to make one last push to pass his health-care reform.

The final act was carefully choreographed. The rollout began a week earlier with a couple of shows of bipartisanship: a Feb. 25 Blair House “summit” with Republicans, followed five days later with a few concessions tossed the Republicans’ way.

Show is the operative noun. Among the few Republican suggestions President Obama pretended to incorporate was tort reform. What did he suggest to address the plague of defensive medicine that a Massachusetts Medical Society study showed leads to about 25 percent of doctor referrals, tests and procedures being done for no medical reason? A few ridiculously insignificant demonstration projects amounting to one-half of one-hundredth of 1 percent of the cost of his health-care bill.

As for the Blair House seminar, its theatrical quality was obvious even before it began. The Democrats had already decided to go for a purely partisan bill. Obama signaled precisely that intent at the end of the summit show — then dramatically spelled it out just six days later in his 35th health-care speech: He is going for the party-line vote.

Unfortunately for Democrats, that seven-hour televised exercise had the unintended consequence of showing the Republicans to be not only highly informed on the subject, but also, as even Obama was forced to admit, possessed of principled objections — contradicting the ubiquitous Democratic/media meme that Republican opposition was nothing but nihilistic partisanship.

No kidding about the Blair House seminar. We suspected that was the case before it happened, and its hours long drama did nothing to dispel that initial suspicion. Not that that stopped Obama, then or now, despite the outcome. A big ol’ oopsie daisy” for the Democrats on that one:

Republicans did so well, in fact, that in his summation, Obama was reduced to suggesting that his health-care reform was indeed popular because when you ask people about individual items (for example, eliminating exclusions for preexisting conditions or capping individual out-of-pocket payments), they are in favor.

Yet mystifyingly they oppose the whole package. How can that be?

Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: a dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.

However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak is to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?

Perhaps something like 3 to 1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry’s feeling about the current Democratic health-care bills.

Uh, yeah – I don’t know how many more ways Americans can say we do not want this bill as written, yet Obama and the Democrats continue their push regardless of the sentiment, and the concerns, like cost:

Late last year, Democrats were marveling at how close they were to historic health-care reform, noting how much agreement had been achieved among so many factions. The only remaining detail was how to pay for it.

Well, yes. That has generally been the problem with democratic governance: cost. The disagreeable absence of a free lunch.

Which is what drove even strong Obama supporter Warren Buffett to go public with his judgment that the current Senate bill, while better than nothing, is a failure because the country desperately needs to bend the cost curve down, and the bill doesn’t do it. Buffett’s advice would be to start over and get it right with a bill that says “we’re just going to focus on costs and we’re not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things.” (Disclosure: Buffett is a director of The Washington Post Co.)

Obama has chosen differently, however. The time for debate is over, declared the nation’s seminar leader in chief. The man who vowed to undo Washington’s devious and wicked ways has directed the Congress to ram Obamacare through, by one vote if necessary, under the parliamentary device of “budget reconciliation.” The man who ran as a post-partisan is determined to remake a sixth of the U.S. economy despite the absence of support from a single Republican in either house, the first time anything of this size and scope has been enacted by pure party-line vote.

Surprised? You can only be disillusioned if you were once illusioned.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Well, true that. Those of us who were watching with eyes wide open, and not high on Hopium or drunk on Kool Aide, were never “illusioned.” As Obama’s tenure continues, we marvel that so many are STILL “illusioned.” Kinda makes you wonder just what the hell it takes to finally get through the closed minds of his supporters. Buying GM didn’t do it; taking over banks didn’t do it; giving away the store to the unions didn’t do it; his lack of experience and leadership didn’t do it; and now this healthcare debacle isn’t doing it. What in the hell does it TAKE to get through to them?

To be honest, I don’t think I want to know. How about you?

I have seen any number of people justify this action, good people, who believe the lines being fed them by Obama and the Democratic leadership about using this option, claiming the Republicans used it before, even equating getting Obamacare passed this way as comparable to how Social Security and Medicare were passed. Those comparisons are simply false:

Leave aside the irony of invoking “the American people” on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Yet, these false comparisons continue, on a daily basis it seems.

While that is important to make clear, it is not my main point here. My point is about this man: Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat, of West Virginia. Specifically, I want to share Senator Byrd’s response to using a budgetary process to force such a massive program on us. Who cares what Senator Byrd says, you query? Well, he is one of the creators of Reconciliation, and oh, does he have something to say about usage of Reconciliation being threatened now (the following is from April 29, 2009):

Statement on FY 2010 Budget Resolution

“I like this budget. I support many of the policies that the President’s budget embraces – including middle-class tax relief, and badly needed investments in our nation’s infrastructure – but I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body.”

“Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. ((Emphasis mine) The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts, or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other Committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after five years. Additionally, numerous other non-budgetary provisions of any such legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult.”

“Whatever abuses of the budget reconciliation process which have occurred in the past, or however many times the process has been twisted to achieve partisan ends does not justify the egregious violation done to the Senate’s Constitutional purpose. The Senate has a unique institutional role.” (Emphasis mine)

I know, I know – Senator Byrd completely went against the will of the people of his state (along with Senator Jay Rockefeller) when he threw his support to Obama rather than the one, Clinton, his people overwhelmingly chose. But STILL – this is important. What he is saying is important. It paints a picture in bold relief that for the Democrats to pull this kind of maneuver is an “Abuse of Power.” Coming from the longest serving senator, who has been through a lot of Administrations and Congresses, that is saying something. He continues:

“It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will not always control this chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the bear trap of the reconciliation process.”

That reminds me of this quote by Joe Biden on the Reconciliation process: “and I pray God that when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” Sorry, Joe – either the Democrats aren’t listening to you, or God isn’t. Guess where my money is.

Back to Byrd’s statement:

“Under reconciliation’s gag rule there are twenty hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend. Those restrictions mean that whatever is nailed into reconciliation by the majority will likely emerge as the final product. With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it. The citizens who sent us here deserve that explanation and they should demand it. We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right. An amendment can vastly improve legislation. Debate can expose serious flaws. Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people’s healthcare. The President came to the White House promising a bipartisan government because he knew how sick and tired the American public is of scorched earth politics. I daresay President Obama should not be in favor of the destruction of the institutional purpose of this Senate in which he served any more than he would bless a rigged psuedo-debate on healthcare, completely absent minority input.” (Again, emphasis mine)

“While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this institution.”

Reconciliation is not the answer, never was. But that Obama and the Democrats are even considering it speaks volumes about the plan, Obama, and the Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi, who had the audacity to say this:

“They know that this will take courage,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she’ll try to strong-arm. “It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare,” the Speaker continued. “But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.”.

One can only hope, and pray, that cooler heads will indeed prevail. One can only hope that the will of the people will ultimately triumph, and that this plan goes back to the drawing board where it belongs. One can only hope that the eyes of people, good, usually reasonable, people, will see this ploy for what it is. A purely political, ego-driven, lobby pandering, 1/6th of our economy government run plan opposed by the majority of Americans.

Perhaps Nancy and Barack should pay more attention to their elder statesman, who actually helped write the damn Reconciliation thing.

It is, in short, an Abuse of Power: ‘An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role.’ Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Lady de Rothschild has continued to stay in the political landscape, and has the following post in The Daily Beast. What a post it is:

Obama’s shortcomings were eminently foreseeable, says one of McCain’s most prominent Democratic backers. Lynn Forester de Rothschild on how the president’s fake bipartisanship could never hide his true leftist agenda.

The failures of the Obama presidency were clearly telegraphed by the Obama candidacy. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Back in September 2008, as a lifelong Democratic Party loyalist and activist, I backed John McCain; I told The New York Times, “I love my country more than my party.” Supporting a Republican was the last thing I expected to be doing in the fall of 2008. But I knew it was my only choice, given the decision by the Democratic Party establishment to reject 18 million voters in favor of the inexperienced and ideological Barack Obama.

His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America.

After watching President Obama in office for more than a year, it is clear to me that, during the campaign, we already knew what kind of president he would become.

Yes, most of us DID know what kind of president Obama would become, hence why so many of us supported Clinton:

The health-care summit vividly demonstrated Mr. Obama’s fake bipartisanship. When he was a candidate, we celebrated when he said, “We are not red or blue states. We are the United States of America.” But candidate Obama had no record of bipartisan behavior. Ironically, the one time that Obama entered into a bipartisan effort was with, of all people, John McCain. He reached across the aisle to draft ethics reform legislation with Senator McCain. But when Obama returned to the Democratic establishment with a bill that did not meet their favor, he backed away fast. It was candidate McCain who had worked productively and regularly with Democrats, like with Russ Feingold on campaign-finance reform and Ted Kennedy on immigration. The record told me more than the rhetoric about which candidate would honestly respect the other side and reach across the aisle to find the best solutions for America.

Perhaps the biggest fabrication of the Obama candidacy was his claim of being a centrist. Sure, he made promises during the campaign that pleased moderates. He promised “the elimination of capital gains taxes for small business,” a $3,000 refundable tax credit to existing businesses for every additional employee hired through 2010, removal of penalties for early withdrawal of 401(k) savings during the recession, and no administration jobs for lobbyists. Perhaps the best of all was the promise he made in the Mississippi presidential debate when he said, “We need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.” They were specific, sensible promises—ones that enabled him to mislead the electorate about his real plans for America.

Oh, sure he would. Many of us knew Obama would give the same kind of attention to the issues that came before him as he did while an IL Senator (“Present!”) or as a US Senator (“I changed my mind!” like he apparently did in regard to a promise made to John McCain), and so many more (remember FISA, for instance?). Ahem. Some of us were paying attention, though:

Again, I chose to look beyond the rhetoric to the record. At the time, it was obvious that a candidate who won the primary because of the left would be beholden to the left, no matter what promises he made to get elected. It was also obvious to ask what kind of president would have voted “present” on 129 difficult votes while in the Illinois State Senate. He was always thinking about how to keep every constituency happy; how to maintain his viability for the White House. In The Audacity of Hope, he criticized Bill Clinton for giving too much respect to Ronald Reagan. He asked the Democratic Leadership Council, the centrist Democratic group, to remove his name from their lists.

So if he wasn’t going to be a centrist Democrat in the tradition of Bill Clinton, what did Barack Obama want from his presidency, should he be elected? He told us from the beginning. It was a stunning agenda, but it seemed innocuous, even inspiring, during the campaign. Standing on the steps of the old Illinois State Capitol, announcing his candidacy for president, Obama declared he was running “not just to hold an office, but to gather with you to transform a nation.” Suddenly now everyone is worried he is trying to transform America. He had said so all along. His is an effort to make a bigger, more intrusive and more costly government. His hope is, and has always been, to turn the country into a nation that looks more like a European social democracy. He ignores that the roots of our strength have always been small government and a dynamic private sector, fostered by both Democrats and Republicans. His cynical use of centrist language as a tool to get elected does not change the fact of his true objectives for America. It is telling that under Obama’s presidency, according to Sunday’s CNN Poll, 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of independents and 70 percent of Republicans see the federal government as a threat to the rights of Americans.

Holy crapoli. There are some pretty bad numbers, especially for the “Transformational King” that was supposed to be Obama, especially this soon. Again, “We Told You So:

Our central problem is that the combination of his grandiloquence and the September 2008 financial crisis led to his election. Now, the only way to stop him in the next three years is through voter pressure on Congress. One course is to follow Massachusetts and just elect any Republican. But both parties lack courageous leaders who will fight for the values and policies of the middle. We need a movement of the militant middle; millions of voters who support the sensible policies from both parties. This would give Democrats political cover to stand up to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and Republicans the backbone to acknowledge that the country must progress in order to be strong. Most Americans see a false choice between a smaller government and a progressive country. We must have both. It is our only hope. (Lady de Rothschild is chief executive of E.L. Rothschild LLC, a private investment company. She is a director of the Estee Lauder Cos. and The Economist Newspaper Ltd.)

Interesting points by Lady de Rothschild, don’t you think? Here she is explaining why she said, “Told You So”:

I love this woman – an excellent role mode during Women’s History Month. I think she is fantastic – so eloquent, so knowledgeable, so diplomatic, so RIGHT, especially about Bill Clinton, and SO right about Barack Obama. Told you so…

Apparently, I am not the only one, though I’m not the one who counts. It’s the people who are actually in Reid’s state who matter at this juncture. And they are none too happy with him, either. Even a visit from The One didn’t help him, as this article makes clear, POLL: Obama’s Visit Just Bounced Off Reid; Poll shows senator gained little ground in re-election battle. Oh, dear. That doesn’t bode well, does it? Short answer, no. But here’s the particulars of just how much Obama did not help the senator in his re-election bid:

During his whirlwind visit to Las Vegas two weeks ago, President Barack Obama mentioned U.S. Sen. Harry Reid by name four dozen times, gave him a big hug and talked him up as if he was a long-lost brother.

In remarks that could not have been more laudatory, Obama repeatedly characterized the veteran Democratic leader as a man “made of very strong stuff” who was making the right decisions for the state back in the nation’s capital.

But as Reid faces an uphill path to win re-election to a fifth Senate term, Obama’s enthusiastic endorsement does not appear to have improved the Senate majority leader’s standing among constituents, according to a new poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Reid got no bounce from Obama’s visit on Feb. 19, when the president spoke highly of him at Green Valley High School and to business leaders at CityCenter, polling indicates.

A larger percentage of voters surveyed (17 percent) said they would be less likely to vote for Reid following the president’s visit than said they would be more likely to vote for him (7 percent). Seventy-five percent said Obama’s visit would have no effect on how they vote.

“Reid was not helped, and Obama was not any more popular than he was before he came to the state,” said Brad Coker, managing director at Mason-Dixon Polling & Research.

Obama’s day in Vegas “did not have much of an effect” on Reid’s re-election chances, notably among independent voters, Coker said.

Um, I’m no mathematician, but I do know basic arithmetic: 17 – 7 = 10, so I’m not real sure about Coker’s conclusion that Obama’s visit “did not have much of an effect” on Reid’s behalf. Seems like Obama’s visit had QUITE the effect, just not the kind Reid probably wanted. Coker continued:

“The independents hold the key to Reid, and for Reid there is no sign he is cracking them right now,” he said.

Mason-Dixon researchers spoke over the phone with 625 likely Nevada voters Monday through Wednesday. The poll’s margin of error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

A political boost for Reid “wasn’t the intent of the visit,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said.

“Senator Reid asked the president to come to Nevada to talk about jobs and the economy and in doing so they announced $100 million to help Nevadans who are underwater in their homes,” Summers said.

Oh, you have GOT to be kidding me. That’s how they are going to try and spin this? They really do think we are a bunch of A-Number 1 Morons, don’t they? Naturally, this had absolutely zip to do with Reid’s continued struggles for re-election, not the best impression when the Senate Majority Leader is having such a hard time in his own state. Surely he can count on a little, tiny bounce by a visit from the president – not:

Regarding Obama’s trip to Las Vegas, the president’s lack of a coattail for Reid to ride says as much about Nevadans’ ambivalence toward the president as it does about the senator, Coker said.

Reid’s renewed focus on passing jobs bills in the Senate continues to be overshadowed in voters’ minds by Obama’s association with the unpopular health care debate, including Thursday’s daylong health summit , Coker said.

“It would be to Obama and Reid’s advantage to get off health care and get onto issues that people want them to work on,” Coker said.

But Obama’s visit served several purposes for Reid that wouldn’t turn up in the numbers, at least not yet, said Mark Peplowski, a political science professor at the College of Southern Nevada.

One purpose is to excite the Democratic base, particularly younger voters and occasional voters who went with Obama in 2008 and need to be re-energized.

“Pollsters now are talking with inveterate voters, but Obama and Reid are looking long term at nine months from now because Harry doesn’t have a primary race,” Peplowski said.

David Damore, a UNLV professor, said Reid’s ability to put Obama together with business leaders, as he did at a fund­raiser and again at CityCenter, shows power brokers, including Republican ones, that he can continue to deliver.

That might cement Reid’s support later among people who otherwise might think about contributing to his Republican challenger, Damore said. (Contact Stephens Media Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@reviewjournal.com or 202-783-1760.)

Yeah, let’s just see how well that goes over with the regular people of Nevada. They seem to see both Obama and Reid pretty clearly, don’t they? Make sure to check out the comments of the people who live in that state following the article. Hooey, there are some folks who are hot under the collar.

Or maybe they just don’t cotton to Obama telling people NOT to come to Las Vegas – TWICE, and waste their money there.

Ahem. Well, we keep trying to tell them that JOBS are what we need, something that will pay the mortgage, pay our utility bills, enable us to buy gas to get to work, and cash to put food on the table. We do not need some half-baked plan full of pork that will constitute 1/6th of the economy and will cost us money we don’t have – personally, and as a country, just to massage the ego of “That One.”

Yep, those coattails of Obama’s ain’t what they used to be – oh, wait, they never were (just ask Cornine, Deeds, or Coakley). Maybe it’s time for our “representatives” in Washington to figure out they are there to do OUR work, not whatever the man in the White House demands. If not, more of them, hopefully like Reid, will be looking for jobs themselves.

Hey, here’s a thought – Obama, why don’t you go “help” Pelosi, too? Since she seems to have forgotten her job description, to represent the people and not you, Obama, she could do with retirement. Rather, WE could do with her retirement.

Who else should Obama go “help”?

It’s an excellent question, Eastan. Here is a look at the list of invitees to Obama’s “Bipartisan” Healthcare Summit:

Senator Harry Reid, D-NV, Majority Leader
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY, Republican Leader
Senator Dick Durbin, D-IL, Majority Whip
Senator Jon Kyl, R-AZ, Republican Whip
Senator Max Baucus, D-MT, Chairman of the Finance Committee
Senator Chuck Grassley, R-IA, Ranking Member of the Finance Committee
Senator Tom Harkin, D-IA, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Mike Enzi, R-WY, Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Chris Dodd, D-CT, Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
Senator Chuck Schumer, D-NY
Senator Patty Murray, D-WA
Senator Kent Conrad, D-ND
Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-WV
Senator Ron Wyden, D-OR
Senator Lamar Alexander, R-TN
Senator John Barrasso, R-WY
Senator Tom Coburn, R-OK
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA
Representative Steny Hoyer, D-MD, Majority Leader
Representative John Boehner, R-OH, Republican Leader
Representative James Clyburn, D-SC, Majority Whip
Representative Eric Cantor, R-VA, Republican Whip
Representative Charles Rangel, D-NY, Chairman of the Ways and Committee
Representative Dave Camp, R-MI, Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Committee
Representative Henry Waxman, D-CA, Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Joe Barton, R-TX, Ranking Member of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative George Miller, D-CA, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Kline, R-MN, Ranking Member of the Education and Labor Committee
Representative John Dingell, D-MI, Chair Emeritus of the Energy and Commerce Committee
Representative Xavier Becerra, D-CA
Representative Louise Slaughter, D-NY
Representative Robert Andrews, D-NJ
Representative Jim Cooper, D-TN
Representative Paul Ryan, R-WI
Representative Marsha Blackburn, R-TN
Representative Charles Boustany, R-LA
Representative Peter Roskam, R-IL
** Note: Senator McConnell and Leader Boehner will designate one additional Republican member to attend.**

How many elected women do you count in there? I counted four, a rather paltry number, a slim representation for over HALF the population of the United States (and the world, for that matter).

Why does this matter? Because women have “Unique Health Needs,” that’s why:

* 80% of the population with osteoporosis are women.
* 75% of people with lupus are women.
* Twice as many women as men have arthritis.
* Hypothyroidism is ten times more prevalent in women than in men.
* Fibromyalgia (FM) is nine times more prevalent in women than in men.
* Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is three times more common in women than in men.
* Migraine headaches affect women three times more than men.
* Women experience more severe and more pain overall than men.
* Interstitial cystitis is almost exclusively found in women.
* Multiple sclerosis occurs more in women than in men.
* Endocrine imbalance affects women more than men.

Women with auto-immune conditions often have food and/or environmental sensitivities, heavy metal toxicity, dysbiosis and/or leaky gut syndrome. Depending on the genetics, lifestyle, and environmental affects, each person’s unique biochemistry will determine which tests are of highest priority.

For example, osteoporosis is of major concern for aging women. Bone mineral density testing is necessary to determine bone health. Solomon and colleagues reported that bone mineral density testing (BMD) is under-utilized by a majority of health care professionals. BMD is an important test for assessment of bone density. Urinary bone resorption assessment is a useful test to monitor whether treatment is preventing further bone loss.

Thyroid dysfunction was reported to be three times as high in women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) than in women with non-inflammatory rheumatic diseases such as osteoarthritis and fibromyalgia. Some RA patients have food and environmental sensitivities, and others have dysbiosis. RA has especially been linked with a genetic predisposition and Proteus bacteria as a trigger for the illness.

Bairey–Merz reports that about 50% of women but 17% of men who have diagnostic cardiac catheterization have normal coronary arteries. So, 50% of the time chest pain in women is due to some other cause(s). Assessment of mineral status, and of other cardio risk factors such as homocysteine, fibrinogen, and C–reactive protein can be used to detect other contributors to chest pain. These tests and others are included in a comprehensive cardiovascular assessment. Magnesium deficiency often mimics angina and arrhythmia. Serum minerals testing would be of benefit.

Higher levels of estradiol also are associated with increased risk of chest pain, so a hormone panel would be indicated as well.

Although CFS and FM are distinct, they have many common characteristics in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Several studies have reported a high incidence of food sensitivities, leaky gut syndrome, and thyroid autoimmunity in fibromyalgia and CFS.

That’s why it matters that there were so few women present in these discussions. As if they really mattered anyway since Big Pharma already has its deal in place, along with some other sweetheart deals for a few states, etc. But still – Obama could have made more of an effort. You know, with him being such a big feminist and all, right, “Ms. Magazine”?? Yeah, right.

This bill is fraught with so many problems, major problems. We know that. We’ve discussed that for months. But having so few women at the table is a pretty big problem, too. With so many health issues particular to women, and affecting women more than men, it should have been an IMPERATIVE that more women were involved in this process, not fewer. That’s reason enough to go back to the drawing board, don’t you think? I do.

And something else I think – had there been a President Hillary Clinton, as there should have been, the voices of women would have been well represented, with a seat at the table. With Obama? Not so much…

A mere majority vote in the Senate, otherwise known as utilizing the ‘nuclear option‘ or reconciliation, is allowed but typically only utilized for simple procedural measures.

Back in 2005 when President Bush hinted that he would look to use reconciliation for purposes of passing some judicial appointments, the leaders of the Democratic Party had some strong words for George W. and his Republican friends. Truth be told, Bush did use this procedure during his Presidency – although not frequently and not for something as large as healthcare. The Republicans are certainly no paragons of virtue when it comes to legislation.

Let’s watch and listen, though, as the same Democrats who railed on Bush are now positioning themselves to use the same process of reconciliation to restructure one-sixth of our economic landscape, that is healthcare. (Great video clip after the fold)

How long did it take you to say, “What a bunch of hypocritical phonies?” How often did you say it?

When Democrats currently comment that reconciliation exposes the underside of the political process and that it is not pretty but necessary, show them this video clip and ask if they would prefer to be called hypocrites or phonies or both.

If anybody in Washington wonders why America holds them in such disdain, this 4-minute video should answer all their questions.

LD

The last thing I will say, though — let me say this about health care and the health care debate, because I think it also bears on a whole lot of other issues. If you look at the package that we’ve presented — and there’s some stray cats and dogs that got in there that we were eliminating, we were in the process of eliminating. For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your — if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you’re not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

Bevan goes on to state:

If we take this statement at face value, President Obama is admitting the the health care bills passed by either the House or Senate (or both) contained provisions which were “snuck in” – presumably by Democratic members and perhaps on behalf of certain lobbyists – that would have in fact prevented people from keeping their current insurance and/or choosing the doctor they want.

This was one of the core debates on health care throughout last year: Would President Obama and the Democrats’ legislation allow government to come between citizens and their choice of doctors and insurers? Obama promised it wouldn’t. Republicans said it would, and this was one of the aspects of the legislation that led them to characterize it as a government takeover of health care – the same characterization that Obama chastized the GOP for today.

So even the President is admitting to this. Anyone protesting this debacle was called the dirtiest of names by the likes of the arrogant Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer because we dared to question their 2,000 page health care monstrosity. The Dems may have snuck it in? Why would they try to do that? Don’t they have our best interests at heart.

I do not recognize this party anymore. Even Dianne Feinstein made the comment that we just couldn’t understand the depth and breadth of this legislation. Apparently, we understood it a lot better than certain folks would have liked us to.

Though the President brazenly behaves as though the American people trust his every utterance, the latest Rasmussen Reports polling on the President’s SOTU speech show just how deep that trust deficit has become.

The president in the speech declared that his administration has cut taxes for 95% of Americans. He even chided Republicans for not applauding on that point. However, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that taxes have been cut for 95% of Americans. Most (53%) say it has not happened, and 26% are not sure. Other polling shows that nearly half the nation’s voters expect their own taxes to go up during the Obama years.

The president also asserted that “after two years of recession, the economy is growing again.” Just 35% of voters believe that statement is true, while 50% say it is false.

Obama claimed that steps taken by his team are responsible for putting two million people to work “who would otherwise be unemployed.” Just 27% of voters say that statement is true. Fifty-one percent (51%) say it’s false.

Perhaps trust might be reclaimed by realizing one basic principle. The time for transparency is before and during negotations on important legislation — not after the fact, when someone has spent the better part of a year trying to shove it down the American gullet, while denying the very thing they now admit to be true. Further, what assurances do the American people have that as health care legislation continues to morph in Congress, more of these types of dangerous provisions won’t be “sneaking in.”

Health care reform is necessary. Congress first needs to prove they can be trusted to repair and improve the current system before we hand them the reins to gut it altogether.

Here’s a hot flash, Mr. President. I like my doctors. I like my health care plan. I don’t want anyone messing with it, especially if what they are offering will degrade the level of care my family and I now receive.

Yes, Obama laid blame at the feet of just about everyone but himself last night during his SOTU. “The Buck Stops Here” moment was very short-lived, was it not? It’s Bush’s fault about the banks, even though Senator Obama voted to bail them out; it’s the Republicans fault – the minority party – that nothing can get passed in D.C., even though the Democrats had a super-majority, it is everyone’s fault but his, for whatever condition the country is in, unless it is something positive, then it is ALL him. Yes, he can walk and chew gum at the same time – woohoo!!! Let’s give him a standing ovation!! Lost jobs? Staggering deficit? Home foreclosures?? Nah, that’s not his fault.

And how about Justice Alito’s “Joe Wilson” moment, when he said, “Not true” to Obama’s claim the recent Supreme Court Decision would allow foreign dollars to influence our elections. All I gotta say is, lucky for him he isn’t from South Cackalacki, or else he would be labeled a racist. Ahem. I am sure this will be looked at from every which way in the upcoming days.

But in case you missed it, here is the moment with Justice Alito, with commentary from Peter Johnson:

Wow, that was some response from Mr. Johnson, who is, by the way, a Democrat, and who voted for Obama.

What else? Oh, yes, the whole DADT thing that Obama punted out to the Congress. That’s exactly what he did. DADT could have long ago been repealed, but yet, there it still is. I have zero patience for LGB groups who are going to be thankful for this little throwaway crumb from the table. If Obama wanted to end it, he would have. Now, just because he mentioned it, organizations like Servicemembers Legal Defense Network are all atwitter. Spare me. When Obama, and the Congress, actually DO something about it, then I’ll give them appropriate props. But until then, it’s the same-o, same-o, all talk and no action.

And how about the Republican Response? It was offered by new Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell from Richmond, in the House of Delegates. Take a look:

I have to say, this is one of the better responses I have seen from either side of the aisle (remember the incredibly painful, stiff response from then-Governor of Kansas, Kathleen Sebelius?? Oh, wow – I had such high hopes for her until her incredibly wooden performance. Watching paint dry would have been more interesting.).

UPDATED: Jon Stewart had an interesting review of the media’s coverage of the SOTU. There was one person in particular who made a rather startling statement, and not for the first time. Check it out:

Why am I not surprised?? How about you?

Let’s not forget who was in charge of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, shall we?? Barney? Chris? Ahem. Funny how that often goes unmentioned, isn’t it?

You wanna know what else is funny about this whole negative attitude toward lobbyists? Especially after Obama ripped on them again? That he INVITED THEM TO THE WHITE HOUSE FOR A PRIVATE BRIEFING THE DAY AFTER THE STATE OF THE UNION. I am not kidding, people – how many different ways can I say, “What a freakin’ hypocrite?????” Or, “How do people buy the crap that comes out of his mouth???” Holy smokes!!! Those of us who are sentient beings knew this was happening, that he was saying one thing, while doing another. But, c’mon, how blatant can he be that he thinks we are the biggest bunch of morons on the face of the planet??? And how can so many Americans BE such morons to buy this crap from him? Good grief, people, THINK!!!

So, here it is, in black and white:

[Snip] The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”

The invitation, which went to a variety of stakeholders, was sent by Fred Baldassaro, a senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Business Affairs and Public Liaison.

The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.” (Emphasis mine.)

Yeah, I’ll just bet they aren’t:

The calls are scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, with the first topic being job creation and economic growth.

Another call, at 1 p.m., is on government reform and transparency. Republicans have criticized the Obama White House for not being more transparent in its discussions with Congress on healthcare reform. Obama recently acknowledged that the legislative process has not been as open as he promised on the campaign trail.

Other issues that will be addressed on Thursday include education, climate change and healthcare reform.

Oh, yay!! Doesn’t that make you feel better? Of course, they have been there all along, steering this Healthcare bill, from Obama’s original meeting with Big Pharma to the insurance industry lobbyists. Gee, can’ imagine why so many of us oppose this current bill: because we know what actually wrote it.

But Obama better be careful before he hurts their feelings:

A handful of lobbyists told The Hill on Thursday morning that they received the invitations and were planning to call in.

Some lobbyists say they are extremely frustrated with the White House for criticizing them and then seeking their feedback. Others note that Democrats on Capitol Hill constantly urge them to make political donations.

One lobbyist said, “Bash lobbyists, then reach out to us. Bash lobbyists [while] I have received four Democratic invitations for fundraisers.”

In his State of the Union on Wednesday, Obama once again targeted K Street: “We face a deficit of trust — deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue — to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve.”

So, um, this is how Obama expects to fix it? Invite the lobbyists to participate in these major issues facing the country? Well, sure, that makes sense. In the Upside-Down World of Washington, DC, that is.

And all in the light of day, right? Oh, sure, PollyAnna:

The Treasury Department referred The Hill’s request for comment to the White House, which at press time had not responded to questions on this issue.

On Thursday afternoon, White House spokesman Josh Earnest stated in an e-mail, “As part of our effort to reach out and engage with the public and policymakers, it is standard for our outreach team to organize a conference call, so that we can include people who are not in Washington, after a major speech or announcement through the president’s priorities. These calls are targeted at a diverse group of community and government leaders including mayors, governors, faith groups, women’s organizations, representatives from the African American and Latino communities to share as much information about the administration’s agenda as possible. The calls, which include question-and-answer sessions, typically include hundreds of people from across the country…”

Lobbyists say the Obama White House has held many off-the-record teleconferences over the past year.

For example, lobbyists and others were invited to a teleconference with “senior Obama administration officials” on Monday to discuss the administration’s plan to improve the lives of middle-class families.

The invitation, which is addressed to “Friends,” emphasizes in bold and italics that “this call is for background information only and not intended for press purposes.” It advises callers to tell the operator “you’re joining the ‘White House Briefing Call.’ ”

Another lobbyist said these types of teleconferences occur “all the time.” (Emphasis mine)

And that is why many on K Street are exasperated with Obama’s use of lobbyists as a punching bag. Some have said they understood why he used strong rhetoric on the campaign trail but are irritated the White House solicits their opinions while Obama’s friends in Congress badger them for political donations.

Don’t you feel sorry for those poor lobbyists who are shaping our policies?

Or do you feel anger that we have a government that is so duplicitous, so underhanded, so hypocritical, and so conniving?? Obama gets up there spewing this bullshit at the SOTU, and the VERY NEXT DAY, meets with K Street Lobbyists. And he does so with no shame, not even a hint that the impropriety gets through to him.

Wow. Show of hands – WHO bought this crap from him and the Democrats?? Anyone? Bueller?? And we wonder why this country is in such a mess…

What would the assassinated President make of this week’s special election in Massachusetts, where a little-known Republican won the seat held by John and Bobby Kennedy’s younger brother Teddy for 47 years? What would they make of the GOP sending one of their own to sit in the US Senate for the first time since 1978?

A Republican winning the “Kennedy seat” would have been a joke a few weeks ago, a fantasy so preposterous that not even FOX’s Glenn Beck would have spoken of it on his program. That one of the most liberal states in the country, a state Barack Obama carried by 30 points in the 2008 election, would vote a conservative into office is devastating for the Democratic party, certainly, but particularly for Barack Obama, the candidate enthusiastically endorsed by the Kennedys – the closest a Democratic contender can get to being touched by the Almighty himself.

Given the huge embarrassment of this debacle and the potentially devastating effect this election could have on crucial pieces of legislation like national health care, the Democrats have done what they excel at in times of crisis: Form a circular firing squad. Exhibit A: The Kennedy family’s frantic CYA behavior. Not a pretty sight for sure.

So why did the Democratic contender for the seat blew a 30-point lead? Many silly theories abound. She wasn’t “exciting” enough (I’m scanning my brain trying to come up with a Massachusetts politician who can be characterized as “exciting.” None come to mind. John Kerry? Uh, no). She misspoke when she said Boston Red Sox legend Curt Schilling is a New York Yankee fan – a heresy comparable to a Pakistani politician telling a journalist that Imran Khan roots for India. But the actual reason Coakley’s loss was her her baffling indifference to campaigning. When asked why she was taking such a passive approach following a hard-hitting debate, she testily responded “As opposed to standing outside Fenway Park? In the cold? Shaking hands?’’ Coakley has learned the hard way the answer to her arrogant “let them eat cake” quote is a definitive yes. Too late now.

There are other more bizarre theories being bandied about to explain the upset. Winner Scott Brown is good-looking. He posed nude for Cosmopolitan magazine (although if a journalist dug out a photo of a Democrat posing in the buff that campaign would be over).

Absurd.

The reality is that the Massachusetts result is a canary in the coalmine for Democrats. The GOP is in the minority. The chairman of the Republican Party, Michael Steele, is frequently ridiculed for his unpredictable and embarrassing behavior and flagrant expenditures that have left the party with less than $10 million in the bank. The party still suffers from a terrible image problem thanks to 8 years of Bush-Cheney.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are sitting on a hefty war chest. They control the executive and legislative branches of government.

And now they’ve lost a Senate seat in a traditionally liberal state.

The results of this election are a harsh rebuke to Democratic leadership, including Barack Obama. Particularly Barack Obama. He is the public face of the party. The man who promised hope and change, the president who was elected with the slogan “yes we can,” is now learning maybe we can’t. Not unless we do what we promised to do.

Handing out taxpayer dollars to Wall Street and standing by while that money is distributed in bonuses rewarding spectacular failure and lapses of judgment is not change. Guantanamo remains open for business. American homeowners continue to foreclose on their homes at a rapid clip. Banks aren’t loaning money to potential homebuyers. Refinancing is nearly impossible to obtain. Unemployment is hovering at around 10%. So what are the Democrats doing about this?

Clearly the voters of Massachusetts would answer “not enough.” And if the Democratic party doesn’t start taking care of business, the midterm elections of 2010 could make the upset in Massachusetts look like child’s play.

–
First Published at: The Pakistan Update

On the ol’ Inspiro-meter, I’d say the president has hit that rarely reached sweet spot right between Droopy the Dog and Eyeore. Note, in particular, the deadness in his eyes as he closes out his appeal.

How could I NOT watch the ad?

And now, so can you:

Ms. Ham is right on target.

It is to the ad above that State Senator Scott Brown said to Obama, Scott Brown: Obama Not Invited To This Party. Whoa. There’s more:

Surging GOP Senate candidate Scott Brown yesterday warned President Obama to “stay away” from the Bay State during his roiling race against Democratic rival Martha Coakley and not to interfere with their intensifying battle in the campaign’s final days.

“He should stay away and let Martha and I discuss the issues one on one,” Brown said. “The machine is coming out of the woodwork to get her elected. They’re bringing in outsiders, and we don’t need them.”

Coakley’s campaign showed signs of panic as they scrambled to get a last-minute appearance by Obama to bolster their effort before Tuesday’s election.

Some polls are showing the Senate contest far closer than any pundits expected, and Coakley in danger of losing her clear shot at the historic seat.

Coakley said yesterday she hasn’t heard from the White House. “I welcome his support, but we’ve got a lot of support here in Massachusetts (and) I think he’s got a lot on his plate in Washington,” she said.

Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that the president had no plans to visit Massachusetts, even though he realizes “there’s a lot at stake in the election.”

But sources said Coakley is pushing for a Sunday event with Obama as the race remains glued to the national spotlight.

“We would love to see Obama any time,” said Boston City Council President Michael Ross, a Coakley supporter who attended her event at Dorchester’s Kit Clark Senior Center yesterday. “Any time the president of the United States comes it will remind Democrats to get involved.”

Considering Obama’s continually tanking poll numbers, not to mention the swing to Brown, I imagine Senator Brown would love to see Obama come there to stump for Coakley, too, right? Oh, yeah:

But Republican consultant Charlie Manning said a visit from a president with tanking ratings would make Coakley look desperate as upstart Brown enjoys a last-minute boost from climbing poll numbers and media momentum.

“It’s sort of like trying to bail out a boat that’s already sinking. I don’t think they can fool the voters of Massachusetts this time,” Manning said.

National interest in the race centers on an impending vote on health-care reform – championed by the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy.

A Brown win would be crushing for Obama, who would lose a 60-seat Democratic majority in the Senate, said Larry J. Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

In addition to a rally headed by former President Bill Clinton planned for tomorrow, Coakley’s team circulated a heartfelt plea from Kennedy’s widow, Vicki, last night asking supporters for help. They’re also rumored to be pushing for a potential event with Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy.

“It’s a real fight at this point in time,” said U.S. Rep. William Delahunt (D-Quincy). “We’re doing everything we can to help.”

Brown urged Coakley’s campaign to keep the race about local issues instead of national figures.

“It’s me against the machine,” he said. “And it always has been.”

No doubt Brown has that right.

But the other thing he has right is highlighting Coakley’s support for a Healthcare Bill opposed by TWO-THIRDS of the country, not to mention the possibility of Cap And Trade (which might as well be called, “Cost and Tax”), also opposed by two-thirds of Americans.

I don’t know what the outcome will be on Tuesday. Previously, I had thought Coakley would be good, but then she keeps opening her mouth and demonstrating how clueless she is (no terrorists in Afghanistan? Really?? Oh, that’s good news. I wonder why she knows this and no one else in the entire country does?). To support her just because she is a woman isn’t good enough. She has to be a good choice, the best choice, too. If Brown can put the brakes on this Senate Run Wild, well, I can support that. Someone needs to do it, that’s for damn sure.

What I do know is I will be watching with great anticipation come Tuesday night!

Peggy Noonan has written a great piece on this very issue, and what it means for us, and for Obama, the headline of which sets the tone, The Risk of Catastrophic Victory; Obama is in the midst of one. Can the GOP avert one of their own?:

Passage of the health-care bill will be, for the administration, a catastrophic victory. If it is voted through in time for the State of the Union Address, as President Obama hopes, half the chamber will rise to their feet and cheer. They will be cheering their own demise.

If health care does not pass, it will also be a disaster, but only for the administration, not the country. Critics will say, “You didn’t even waste our time successfully.”

What a blunder this thing has been, win or lose, what a miscalculation on the part of the president. The administration misjudged the mood and the moment. Mr. Obama ran, won, was sworn in and began his work under the spirit of 2008—expansive, part dreamy and part hubristic. But as soon as he was inaugurated ,the president ran into the spirit of 2009—more dug in, more anxious, more bottom-line—and didn’t notice. At the exact moment the public was announcing it worried about jobs first and debt and deficits second, the administration decided to devote its first year to health care, which no one was talking about. The great recession changed everything, but not right away.

In a way Mr. Obama made the same mistake President Bush did on immigration, producing a big, mammoth, comprehensive bill when the public mood was for small, discrete steps in what might reasonably seem the right direction.

The public in 2009 would have been happy to see a simple bill that mandated insurance companies offer coverage without respect to previous medical conditions. The administration could have had that—and the victory of it—last winter.

Instead, they were greedy for glory.

Yes, Noonan nailed it. They got greedy:

It was not worth it—not worth the town-hall uprisings and the bleeding of centrist support, not worth the rebranding of the president from center-left leader to leftist leader, not worth the proof it provided that the public’s concerns and the administration’s are not the same, not worth a wasted first year that should have been given to two things and two things only: economic matters and national security.

Those were not only the two topics on the public’s mind the past 10 months, they were precisely the issues that presented themselves in screaming headlines at the end of the year: unemployment and the national-security breakdowns that led to the Christmas bomb plot and, earlier, the Fort Hood massacre. “That’s two strikes,” said the president’s national security adviser, James Jones, to USA Today’s Susan Page. Left unsaid: Three and you’re out.

Just as bad, or worse, the president’s focus on health care allowed the public to infer that his mind was not focused on our security. He’d frittered his attention on issues that were secondary and tertiary—climate change, health care—while al Qaeda moved, and the system stuttered. A lack of focus breeds bureaucratic complacency, complacency gives rise to slovenliness, slovenliness results in what was said in the report issued Thursday: that, faced with clear evidence of coming danger, the government failed, as they’re saying on TV, to “connect the dots.” Dots? They were boulders.

Obama and the Super Majority of Democrats have demonstrated that not only can they not see boulders, they are completely tone-deaf to the cries of the people they claim to represent:

I am wondering if the Obama administration thinks it vaguely dishonorable to be popular. If you mention to Obama staffers that they really have to be concerned about the polls, they look at you with a certain . . . not disdain but patience, as if you don’t understand the purpose of politics. That purpose, they believe, is to move the governed toward greater justice. Just so, but in democracy you do this by garnering and galvanizing public support. But they think it’s weaselly to be well thought of.

In politics you must tend to the garden. The garden is the constituency, in Mr. Obama’s case the country. No great endeavor is possible without its backing. In a modern presidency especially you have to know this, because there will be times when history throws you a crisis, and to address it you may have to do an unpopular thing. A president in those circumstances must use all the goodwill he’s built up over the months and years to get through that moment and survive doing what he thinks is right. Mr. Obama acts as if he doesn’t know this. He hasn’t built up popularity to use on a rainy day. If he had, he’d be getting through the Christmas plot drama better than he is

The Obama people have taken to pointing out how their guy doesn’t govern by the polls. This is all too believable. The Bush people, too, used to bang away about how he didn’t govern by the polls. They both added unneeded stress to the past 10 years, and it is understandable if many of us now think, “Oh for a president who’d govern by the polls.”

If Mr. Obama is extremely lucky—and we’re not sure he’s a lucky man anymore—he will get a Republican Congress in 2010, and they will do for him what Newt Gingrich did for Bill Clinton: right his ship, give him a foil, guide him while allowing him to look as if he’s resisting, bend him while allowing him to look strong.

I think the problem is that Obama bought his own hype. He forgot that it was a complete and total PR stunt by the Davids – Axelrove and Plouffe. He forgot that he really isn’t The One. Maybe he’ll be getting a rude awakening soon.

But that’s only half the story:

Which gets us to the Republicans. The question isn’t whether they’ll win seats in the House and Senate this year, and the question isn’t even how many. The question is whether the party will be worthy of victory, whether it learned from its losses in 2006 and ‘08, whether it deserves leadership. Whether Republicans are a worthy alternative. Whether, in short, they are serious.

I spoke a few weeks ago with a respected Republican congressman who told me with some excitement of a bill he’s put forward to address the growth of entitlements and long-term government spending. We only have three or four years to get it right, he said. He made a strong case. I asked if his party was doing anything to get behind the bill, and he got the blanched look people get when they’re trying to keep their faces from betraying anything. Not really, he said. Then he shrugged. “They’re waiting for the Democrats to destroy themselves.”

This isn’t news, really, but it was startling to hear a successful Republican political practitioner say it.

And they surely are, but there has to be more:

Republican political professionals in Washington assume a coming victory. They do not see that 2010 could be a catastrophic victory for them. If they seize back power without clear purpose, if they are not serious, if they do the lazy and cynical thing by just sitting back and letting the Democrats lose, three bad things will happen. They will contribute to the air of cynicism in which our citizens marinate. Their lack of seriousness will be discerned by the Republican base, whose enthusiasm and generosity will be blunted. And the Republicans themselves will be left unable to lead when their time comes, because operating cynically will allow the public to view them cynically, which will lessen the chance they will be able to do anything constructive.

In this sense, the cynical view—we can sit back and wait—is naive. The idealistic view—we must stand for things and move on them now—is shrewder.

Political professionals are pugilistic, and often see politics in terms of fight movies: “Rocky,” “Raging Bull.” They should be thinking now of a different one, of Tom Hanks at the end of “Saving Private Ryan.” “Earn this,” he said to the man whose life he’d helped save.

Earn this. Be worthy of it. Be serious (emphasis mine).

Amen to that.

Well, there is one organization that has a request for Congress, and that would be C-Span. Surely you remember the numerous times Obama promised to debate healthcare in the open, so constituents could see what their elected officials were doing, and that it would be aired on C-Span, rather than the bill being crafted in secret, behind closed doors? Well, naturally, we should have known (and many of us suspected), that scenario, the secret meetings one, was EXACTLY what the Democrats have done. C-Span is over it, and recently sent this letter to the Powers-That-Be:

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi The Honorable Harry Reid
Speaker Majority Leader
United States House or Representatives United States Senate

The Honorable John Boehner The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader Minority Leader
United States House of Representatives United States Senate

Dear Speaker Pelosi:
Representative Boehner:
Senator Reid:
Senator McConnell:

As your respective chambers work to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate health care bills, C-SPAN requests that you open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.

The C-SPAN networks will commit the necessary resources to covering all of these sessions LIVE and in their entirety. We will also, as we willingly do each day, provide C-SPAN’s multi-camera coverage to any interested member of the Capitol Hill broadcast pool.

Since the initial introduction of the America’s Affordable Health Care Act of 2009 in the House and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the Senate
C-SPAN has televised literally hundreds of hours of committee hearings, mark ups and floor debate on these bills for the public to see. And importantly, we have archived all of this video for future generations to study in the C-SPAN Video Archives.

President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation’s editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation’s health care system. Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.

We hope you will give serious consideration to this request. We are most willing to employ the latest digital technology to make the cameras, lights and microphones as unobtrusive as possible.

Please contact me if I can answer any questions.

Sincerely,

Brian Lamb

I guess Mr. Lamb couldn’t put “Honorable” in quotation marks, though I think I would have been sorely tempted to do so for the members he addressed. But that’s just me.

And what kind of response did C-Span get? Nothing formal yet, but Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D,MD), among others, appeared before the cameras in the video below. Wait until you hear Speaker Pelosi’s response about Obama’s campaign promises. That’s a good one. And Rep. Van Hollen goes on at some length about the process behind the Healthcare bill. I suggest you not drink or eat anything while he is speaking. Just a suggestion. Then it goes back to Speaker Pelosi. Does it ever get funny around the 7:45 mark:

Okay, just HOW is it that none of their heads exploded while they stood up there lying through their teeth? Mr. Van Hollen’s voice did go up and crack, a tell-tale sign he’s lying, and Pelosi just blathered on with impunity.

I might add, yes, there were all kinds of Town Halls, Mr. Van Hollen, and the vast majority of people then told you and your colleagues that We. Do. Not. Want. This. Bill. As. Crafted. We have been saying it, screaming it, writing, it, and phoning it in, Rep. Van Hollen. The problem is, y’all aren’t listening. Even today, the majority of Americans do not want this policy you are about to shove down our throats.

This certainly explains another poll, that the majority of Americans think Congress is doing a poor job. Yeah. No kidding.

Oh, wait, maybe there’s another possibility for the La-La Land response by the giggly Speaker of the House. Perhaps Nancy just doesn’t understand the word. That is the only possible explanation I can think of to explain her emphatic insistence that this has been the most transparent process EVER. Either that, or I’m thinking really, really good drugs. Considering her giddy, giggly self, I am inclined to the latter. Ahem.

In case you didn’t catch what she and Rep. Hollen said, this aptly entitled article,
Nancy Pelosi’s Response, has it:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended Congress’ work on a healthcare bill Tuesday saying the process has displayed historic transparency, just as C-SPAN mounts an effort to open the negotiations.

C-SPAN wrote a letter to congressional leaders Tuesday asking that TV cameras be allowed to film negotiations to reconcile the House and Senate versions of healthcare reform legislation.

But Pelosi said Congress has already been transparent throughout the process.

“There has never been a more open process for any legislation,” Pelosi said at a press conference.

Pelosi also hinted that holding informal negotiations–likely without TV cameras–might be the most practical way to push the legislation through.

“We will do what is necessary to pass the bill,” Pelosi said.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), assistant to the Speaker, said the healthcare bill had been “subjected to unprecedented level of public scrutiny.”

Pressed on whether C-SPAN cameras would be allowed in negotiations, Van Hollen hedged.

“We don’t even know if there’s going to be a conference committee,” he said, alluding to the likelihood that Democrats will reconcile the two bills behind closed doors.

Oh, yes, unprecedented “public scrutiny.” Seems to me Rep. Van Hollen has been smoking a bit too much of that Hopium if closed-door, often partisan, meetings in which decisions are made to payoff Big Pharma (Obama – before the official work on the Healthcare Bill even got started), the insurance industry, and to force taxes on the middle class that will make it the working poor class. Staggering. Again, Rep. Van Hollen, we have said – CLEARLY – that we do not want this bill of yours. (The Comments after this article are mighty telling. I didn’t see a Pro-Pelosi one among them. Here’s the Link if you’d like to see for yourself.)

Oh, and the White House? If you had to guess, what do you think Obama would do? If you guessed avoidance, you’d be right. If you wish to read Robert Weasel Gibbs’ slippery response to queries about the C-Span letter, click HERE. If you have a strong stomach, or high threshold for bullshit, that is.

Here’s the reality of the situation:

You tell it, Johhny Mac. Transparency on this issue, with this Congress, is simply non-existent. Oh, and Mr. Lamb? I wouldn’t be holding my breath for Nancy, Harry, or Barry to let the cameras in anytime soon…

To the Health Care Industry, Big Pharma, and a few select states. Yes, in the wee hours of the morning (okay, 7:00 a.m.), the Senate voted to pass the Health-Care-less-what-the-people-and-physicians-say Bill. Oh, yes – what a banner day. The Senate rammed through a bill so fraught with problems it would be laughable if it didn’t have the potential to affect so many in this country.

But, one person who is very happy about this early morning vote was Barack Obama. Now he can do what he does best – vacation. Yep, he was waiting to make sure this backroom, strong-arm, possibly unConstitutional bill to pass the Senate before going to Hawaii for the holidays. I am sure he is all plumb tuckered from his trip to Norway and Copenhagen in such a short amount of time, and his constant tv appearances. Poor baby, I am sure he is EXHAUSTED.

Obama got what he wanted thus far – oh, no – not any of the things on which he campaigned, mind you. No, he got a Health Care Bill with his name on it to pad his record, assuming that we aren’t smart enough to actually care what the hell is IN it. All he cares about is being able to brag that it happened, not what it will do to the country. Next step, the House of Representatives to jive the two bills together just in time for the State of the Union?

Not if this Representative has anything to say about it, though. And this one is actually a Democrat. I am not referring to Stupak, but to Louise Slaughter (D/NY). I know, I was surprised, too, when I saw this article from CNN, A Democrat’s View From he House: Senate Bill Isn’t Health Reform. Dang, she better be careful of any presents left at her door by Rahm and Harry. Ahem. I have to say, it is mighty courageous of her to speak out like this, and isn’t that a sad commentary, that it would require courage? We’ve seen what happens if a Democrat doesn’t toe the line (“We’re keeping score, brother,” – Obama). No doubt. That’s the Chicago-way.

But Slaughter isn’t from Chicago. She’s from New York:

CNN Editor’s note: Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, a Democrat, represents the 28th Congressional District of New York. Slaughter is the first woman to chair the House Rules Committee and the only microbiologist in Congress.

The Senate health care bill is not worthy of the historic vote that the House took a month ago.

Even though the House version is far from perfect, it at least represents a step toward our goal of giving 36 million Americans decent health coverage.

But under the Senate plan, millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently?

I do not want to subsidize the private insurance market; the whole point of creating a government option is to bring prices down. Insisting on a government mandate to have insurance without a better alternative to the status quo is not true reform.

Amen, sister. Right there with ya. Oh, and that whole taxation thing? That will happen immediately even though this program isn’t set to start until 2014. I gotta tell you, considering how much we already pay (including how much MORE we have to pay since we can’t be married, about $2,500 a year), I don’t really care to be shelling out more money to pay for OTHER people’s private health insurance. BUt that’s just me. Oh, and maybe Slaughter:

By eliminating the public option, the government program that could spark competition within the health insurance industry, the Senate has ended up with a bill that isn’t worthy of its support.

The public option is the part of our reform effort that will lower costs, improve the delivery of health care services and force insurance companies to offer rates and services that are reasonable.

Although the art of legislating involves compromise, I believe the Senate went off the rails when it agreed with the Obama Administration to water down the reform bill and no longer include the public option.

But that’s not the only thing wrong with the Senate’s version of the health care bill.

Under that plan, insurance companies can punish older people, charging them much higher rates than the House bill would allow.

In the House, we fought hard to repeal McCarran-Ferguson, the antitrust exemption that insurance companies have enjoyed for years. We did that because we believed firmly that those Fortune 500 corporations should not enjoy special treatment.

Yet the Senate bill does not include that provision — despite assurances from some members that they will seek to add it. By ending that protection, we will be able to go after insurance companies with federal penalties for misleading advertising or dishonest business practices.

The House bill would cover 96 percent of legal residents, while the Senate covers 94 percent. Compared with the House bill, the Senate’s bill makes it much easier for employers to avoid the responsibility of providing insurance for their workers.

And of course, the Senate bill did not remove the onerous choice language intended to appeal to anti-abortion forces.

Now don’t get me wrong; the current House and Senate bills are a significant improvement over the status quo. Given the hard path to reform and the political realities of next year, there is a sizable group within Congress that wants to simply cut any deal that works and call it a success. Many previous efforts have failed, and the path to reform is littered with unsuccessful efforts championed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton.

Supporters of the weak Senate bill say “just pass it — any bill is better than no bill.”

I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills.

It’s time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Louise Slaughter.

I disagree, too. Do it right the first time. DO it so that physicians all across the country don’t give up their practices. Do it so that the middle class won’t be carrying the burden. Do it so that Medicare isn’t cut. Do it so that it truly benefits the people of this country, not just to get it done to get it done. It’s too important to be shoved through like this.

How about taking back this present to the Health Care industry and Big Pharma, and go back to the Drawing Board in the New Year? That would work for me, and the majority of my fellow Americans.