In one of the best piece I have read in the past few weeks on the Democrats’ end-end-endgame on health care, Michael Barone pretty much summarizes the issue, with his keen analysis of polling trends and election statistics: What’s good for House leaders is bad for members:

But the political incentives for the 138 Democratic members who represent districts where the health care bills are unpopular are entirely different. What we are seeing is something like an irresistible force (a highly skillful leadership) meeting an immovable object (public opinion in most Democratic districts). One or the other will give.

For many Democratic members — especially the 37 Democrats who voted no last November — the best thing to happen is for the bill not to come to a vote on the floor and just go away.

Emphasis added.  (Read the whole thing–it’s Barone.)  The push for Obamacare comes from the White House, the Democratic leadership and left-wing interest groups.  It’s all about ramming their vision for greater government involvement in our lives through.  Most Democrats in swing districts would rather focus on other issues.

Tight now, the Democratic leaderships doesn’t have the votes to get their rahming done:

Asked on ABC’s “Good Morning America” to say if he had the 216 votes necessary to pass the legislation in the House, [House Majority Leader] Hoyer, D-Md., replied, “I don’t have a precise number. Having said that, we think we’ll get the votes. … We think we will have the votes when the roll is called.”

Um, Steny, when’s that going to be?  When are you going to call the roll?  And when are we going to see the bill?

Just a second ago on Megyn’s show, that’s what the Michigan Democrat just said.

No, unfortunately, he wasn’t literally talking about the vote on the Stalinization of Health Care Bill of 2010 itself.

What he was talking about was all the vote-counting of his “Stupak Dozen”, those pro-Life Democrats who voted for the House version of the bill last November, but have threatened to flip to a “no” if their demands that taxpayer-funded abortion provisions be stripped from the legislation are not met.

Megyn had asked him about reports that some had been peeled away (something I’d not heard anyway) already, and he replied that, basically (I’m paraphrasing) all the reports of who the Dozen actually are are incorrect. He said, “I keep my list with me”, and that the reports he’s hearing about who they are and who is wavering are “not even close.”

You suppose that lady with all the Botox is posturing? Bluffing? Here’s hoping Rep. Stupak and whomever is on his list hang tough and hang together.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

I’d not presume that Bret Baier of FoxNews reads our blog. But since he’s asked for our input, here are the first three questions I’d pose to President Obama if it were me interviewing him today:

1) Mr. President, you’ve continued to say, even up to this week, that your plan will not affect Medicare negatively. In fact, in Ohio the other day, you criticized those who question you plan by calling them out: [start sound-bite]

You know, the most insidious argument they’re making is the idea that somehow this would hurt Medicare.

Now, that seems a pretty stern characterization of your detractors, to call their tactics “insidious”. Are you willing now, here today, to classify the Congressional Budget Office as “insidious”, considering they have called into question the use of double-counding of quote-unquote savings from Medicare for the purposes of shoring up its own solvency while at the same time using those savings to offset the costs of your overall plan?

2) Mr. President, as a former Constitutional law professor, you were highly-lauded as someone who, quote, “stood apart in too many ways to count.” You were praised by former students and wept upon by the press for your excellent manner of presentation. Could you, now, in terms that all those who watch FoxNews—and clearly could never therefore be nearly as erudite in the ways of the world, let alone the US Constitution as someone like yourself—can understand how it is that the process, from the bill’s passage in the House last fall, through a different bill’s passage through the Senate on Christmas Eve, through reconciliation and the so-called “Slaughter” rule, works? And how this is in keeping with our form of Constitutional and representative government?

3) Finally, Mr. President, you’re also a student of American history, and indeed, now part of it (Haven’t been able to sit down with you since your election, for some reason, by the way, Congratulations on that!) Similar to my last question, and with the understanding that we’re about to make history here in the United States, can you give an example of when, in our Nation’s history, such a broad new entitlement program—which will reorder over one-sixth of the Nation’s economy—was passed without any support from the minority party, an overwhelming majority (greater than the majority that so historically elected you a year and a half ago, for what it’s worth) of the electorate opposed to it, with only the slimmest of margins in the Congress to pass it, through the scheme of reconciliation in the Senate and/or the Slaughter manuveur in the House?

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)

I guess Obama, Pelosi and Reid will rule the United States like a banana republic from this week on.  We are no longer a “nation of laws.”

In a recent comment, one of our perennial critics, Tano, makes a somewhat cogent defense of Slaughter Rule, a defense which works only if it works out as he says it will.  First, here’s the defense:

What they are trying to avoid – what the whole “deem passed” maneuver is about is their hope to avoid a recorded vote on the UNAMENDED Senate version of the bill. The one with all the Cornhusker – Lousiana stuff in it – y’know the stuff that is coming OUT of the bill. The problem for them, is that they have to vote FOR the Senate bill before they can amend the Senate bill. So technically – they have to vote in favor of all the things that they are going to vote against a day later – things they do not support.

Now, if the House could “deem” the Senate bill passed as part of their actual vote on the amendments (pulling out the Cornhusker Kickback et al.) and then the Senate revisit the whole package (as passed by the House) before the president signs it, this whole process would pass constitutional muster (even if it is a bad bill) .  House Democrats wouldn’t be on the record backing Cornhusker and the Senate would have to vote on the whole thing (its bill plus amendments) before it become law.

But, here’s the problem.  If the House deems the Senate bill passed, then (I’m assuming) that bill would exist independently of all the amendments passed in the House, meaning the president can sign it and it becomes law without the Senate even considering said amendments.   (Where’s the guarantee the Senate will even vote on them?)  Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase along with a whole passel of payoffs become law.

And since the Senate can’t even begin to consider reconciliation (as per the parliamentarian’s recent ruling) until a bill becomes law, then every House member who accedes to the Democrats’ deeming will have allowed the kickback to become law.

Will the Senate want to move forward on those amendments once its bill has become law?  Obama will have had his signing ceremony, the historic moment will have passed.  Will he want to expend any more energy into getting the Senate to act on amendments crafted in the House?  Will Senators?

That’s the main problem with the “deeming” solution.  It’s a sure-fire way to make the Senate bill the law of the land, with no guarantee that the House “fixes” will even be considered.

UPDATE:  (more…)

First, a major hat tip to the folks at the leftie blog, Think Progress, for posting the video embedded below.  General David Petraeus, them man widely admired on the right, the man who, we believe, was the real man of the year in 2007 and who, I believe, would make a fine presidential candidate in two years time, now says “the time has come to consider a change to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,”

The good general is exactly right that this should be done in a “thoughtful and deliberative manner,” not the willy-nilly manner in which the the Clinton Administration tried to enact it..

According to the folks at Think Progress:  ”This week, the Pentagon’s Office of the General Counsel is also expected to release the results of its 45-day review of how Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could be implemented in a fairer manner.” Seems the process has been pretty deliberative so far.  Let’s hope it leads to repeal before the year is out.

What a tool.

In an “extended, exclusive” interview tomorrow [Obama] will sit down with Special Report anchor Bret Baier to make his health care reform pitch to the FNC audience. What a long, strange trip it’s been.

The interview will air in full at 6pmET tomorrow and will take place earlier in the afternoon. “We welcome the opportunity to sit down with the President and try to get some specifics on the health care legislation,” said Baier in making the announcement right after NoonET today on Fox News.

The history between the White House and Fox News has been a shaky one. In September he went to every major news outlet except Fox for an interview. That started things, and with FNC essentially winning the war it came to a head in late October with a meeting between Robert Gibbs and Michael Clemente.

So Fox is a just a bunch of right-wing extremists watched by right-wing extremist teabaggers… until Obama is on the ropes.

What. A. Tool.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Hey gang.  Just a word from The Road Warrior here.  The paying job is a killer this year.  Lots of travel since January 4th.  Like every week and lots of weekends.  I’m on the verge of exhaustion.

Anyway, a million thanks to Dan & Nick for keeping the blog fires burning with some great stuff.  And Sarjex with awesome editorial cartoons!!

A reminder to everyone – after a break last week, I have a new “GayPatriot’s America” radio program going live tomorrow, St. Patrick’s Day, at 10PM Eastern.  My guest is Kevin McKeever, conservative blogger and CPAC sponsor.  We’ll have a full hour of political discussions and would love some phone-in calls!  WEB LINK TO SHOW Oh yeah, I’m going to drink-radio-host in honor of my (partial) Irish heritage.  I’m thinking Scotch or American Honey Wild Turkey.  Thoughts?

Reminder that PatriotPartner and I are traveling NEXT weekend to The City of Angels. We’ll be visiting Dan (GP West), visiting the Reagan Museum, hosting a table at the Claremont Institute’s dinner featuring Dick Cheney, and brunching with Princess Leah & the GP gang on Sunday.

Okay. That’s it for now.  Back to the crappy American Idol season.  And I’ll try for more blogging this week.  And hopefully another piece at BigJournalism.com.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

…On the lighter side of a very dire situation:

Jim Jordan (R-Hottieville) just happens to be sexy as hell. Move over, Senator Brown.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Via Michelle Malkin:

. . .  our Texas blogger friend Kathleen McKinley said it first last week: “We’ve Moved From Passing Bills Without Reading Them to Passing Bills Without Voting On Them.”

Emphasis added.

The AP Reports:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday said Israel must prove it is committed to the Mideast peace process with actions. But she brushed aside suggestions that relations with the main U.S. ally in the Mideast are in crisis over Israeli plans to build new Jewish housing in east Jerusalem.

Naming a public square for a terrorist who murdered children doesn’t show much of a commitment to peace.  And refusal to engage in direct negotiations with Israel also demonstrates a lack of commitment to peace.

Sorry, Hillary, it’s not Israel who needs to make the first move here.

And because some of you demanded it, be sure to check out some of the new t shirt designs! (“Reagan: Sexy Beast” coming soon!)

All proceeds go towards helping me justify my political cartooning to TLG.

The polls have been going against the Democrats’ various schemes to overhaul our nation’s health care system since last summer.  They’ve had to pay off various Senators to secure their votes.  They’ve lost the editorial pages of the MSM.  House Democrats are attempting to dodge an up-or-down vote on the Senate bill.

And still they press on.

Wonder if one day we’ll uncover some memo from a White House operative to his counterpart on the Hill that they need to “hide the defeat”  of their efforts to overhaul our nation’s health care system.

If they pass it now, they’ll only prolong this divisive debate; it could well be the defining issue of not just the 2010 elections, but the 2012 elections as well which means a full term for the junior Senator from Massachusetts and new Republican Senators in New Jersey, Pennsylvania (in addition to Pat Toomey), Virginia, Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota (in addition to John Hoeven), Montana, New Mexico and Washington State.  That should make Democratic filibusters impossible.

Now, I’ve deferred many times (and often broken with some partisans) when it comes to keeping secrets at the highest levels of the government. I believe, for instance, that people should be allowed to give the president (whomever he is) their unvarnished and honest opinions on policies when he asks. As such (again, for example), they should be able to do so with the assurance that this act can be held in confidence if they so desire. Such has always been the deference paid by the Executive, and a necessary aspect of receiving expert opinion. Therefore, I’ve never been one to hop on the The-President-Needs-To-Release-White-House-Visitor-Logs bandwagon, regardless of who sits in the Oval Office.

That being said, the latest from the AP shows how the conspiracy theories of some of the most unhinged critics of the most recent Administration (and the empty promises of the current president) were all a bit overwrought.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

Obama says he won’t campaign for Dems who vote no on healthcare

Borrowing an expression from the Washington Post, yes, that Washington Post, blogress Jennifer Rubin nails the Democrats’ health care endgame, well, actually, it’s their end-end-endgame:

Even Nancy Pelosi is trying to keep things vague, suggesting it may not come to this [the "Slaughter Rule"]. But it iscoming to this, because a desperate president and the equally desperate Democratic leadership fear losing, so they resort to tricks, backroom deals, and parliamentary sleights of hand. That’s in large part how the bill got to be so unpopular. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem intent on doubling down, so why not load up on the procedural gimmicks? At some point — now would be as good a time as any — saner Democratic heads may prevail and wonder why their leaders must shred the Constitution in order to pass a bill that’s supposedly such an electoral winner for their side.

Emphasis added.

As to the aforementioned Slaughter rule.  Its author was against it before she was for it.  What is this for the Democrats, situational politics?

I’m really digging Yuval Levin over at The Corner (which, of couse, should be the second blog on your “Favorites” list) these days on the health care debate.

In a post this morning he casts a suspicious eye on the backroom deals (hello, C-SPAN?) being thrown in wavering Democrats’ direction to secure their votes (or non-votes as the case may be) for the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010, and wonders where the press is on all this:

These special dispensations will present themselves in the course of the coming months, but we will probably never have a full picture of what they involve, and what it really took to get “no” votes from last time to switch (assuming any actually do so, of course.) We won’t know, that is, unless political reporters stop covering this week as though it involves a wonky substantive debate among House Democrats and started asking the Speaker and any members who change their votes about just what the “persuasion” process has involved.

Why, one might ask, are Democrats learning the lesson Ben Nelson figured out a bit too late? Could be because nobody’s yet holding them to account for their slimy underhanded ways. Perhaps we should change that.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

269 years ago today, one of our great Founding Fathers was born.

James Madison would become the fourth President of the United States, but probably more importantly, the “Father of the Constitution” and author of its Bill of Rights.

A member of the House of Representatives and resident of the White House, as we stand today at the “precipice” of a new governmental seizure of 1/6 of our economy, this great man is likely rolling over in his grave at the thought of the former body about to pass a bill without voting on it that the current occupant of the latter is ready to sign with great haste in spite of the overwhelming opposition the electorate consistantly demonstrates.

I wonder, What would James Madison, the author of the and 10th Amendment to the Consitution think?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

I have on my desk a print-out of an editorial in the left-of-center New York Daily News where the editors, urging the president to pull the plug on his health care overhaul, point out:

Just one in four voters supports the reform bill as written; half want Congress to start over. Compare that with the popular support other major pieces of social legislation enjoyed before passage, like welfare reform (68%), Medicare (63%) and civil rights (60%).

Even if we buy the fanciful numbers of one of our perennial critics, we still don’t even have a majority for Obamacare, not even a plurality.  Nearly every prior major reform enjoyed support of at least three-fifths of all Americans.  And those reforms didn’t have the president shilling for them as regularly as this president has been shilling for an overhaul of our nation’s health care system.

In every election where health care has been an issue these past six months, it has played to the GOP’s advantage, even in states that voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008.  The Democrats seem to recognize that their bill isn’t that popular as they have had to pay off various Senators for their votes and are busy crafting payoffs to secure the votes of waving Members of the House. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said, “there is a lot of ‘arm-twisting’ to attract votes, adding that leadership officials are asking members what they want in the yet-to-be-released reconciliation package to secure their votes.”

Don’t think they’re doing that asking in front of C-SPAN cameras.

Democrats know they’ve lost on the merits, so the only way they can win is with back room deals.

They’ve lost this fight politically, but, alas, as I’ve said before, they could still win it legislatively.