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)

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)

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

-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from HQ)

. . .  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.

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.

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.

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)

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?

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)

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)

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.

Three years ago, she “rescinded an award given to a California resident because of his position with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)“.  ”Boxer and her staff cited concerns about CAIR’s positions on terrorist groups, contending that CAIR had refused to label Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations.“

Well, given the Administration’s recent attacks on Israel, blogger Bruce Kesler wonders if Mrs. Boxer, who often puts partisanship over principle is boxed in by Obama:

California Senator Barbara Boxer, although advocating the most extreme liberal views undermining national security, has been a firm supporter of Israel.

Now, Boxer faces the American Jewish dilemma.  She and over 75% of American Jews supported the election of President Obama.  Obama’s, can’t call it anything else, attacks on Israel has gotten roundly criticized by leading Jewish organizations (AIPAC and ADL) and by Republican leaders (here, here and here).

Where is Boxer?  Nothing has been heard from her.

Is she waiting for marching, or parroting, orders from the White House?

My sense is that she’ll be silent and cross her fingers, hoping that Tom Campbell, with his anti-Israel voting record and double-talking about his associations with terrorist apologists prevails in the contest to run against her on the Republican ticket.  Then, she won’t need address Obama’s attitude toward Israel as the focus will be on Campbell’s record.

Should, however, Carly Fiorina prevail, then Ma’am’s gonna face a big dilemma, whether to take issue with her president or stand up for Israel, particularly given the substantial Jewish population in her jurisdiction.

She does have a record of preferring partisanship.  While she once championed women allegedly victimized by sexual harassment, she was silent when a Democratic president was accused of such harassment.  Seems, for Mrs. Boxer, partisanship trumps all.

But, given that this is yet another week for the Democrats’ health care endgame, a game which responsible politicians would have ended five months ago, there could be some interesting blogging ahead.

For now, I’ll make this observation:  the Democrats can still win this battle legislatively, but no matter what the outcome, they’ve already lost it politically.

If they pass the bill, they will have done so, not in an open process, but through devious means, crafting the bill in secret, offering payoffs to wavering Senators to get that chamber to pass it and using procedural shenanigans to force it through the House.  They’ll have exposed themselves as putting legislative victory ahead of all other considerations, even and especially the “good government” issues they ran on in 2006 and 2008.

And if they lose, well, David Freddoso says it best:

Consider: If Obama wins, he gets a very unpopular bill whose higher taxes and Medicare cuts materialize immediately, years before its benefits kick in. If he loses in the coming weeks, he doesn’t even get the satisfaction of blaming the Republicans. He’s already past the stage at which a GOP filbuster can stop this thing. Instead, he will have lost in a House vote, with members of his own party striking the death blow against his top legislative priority.

While I didn’t think my errand would take more than 15 minutes, I figured the note said, “Failed Meter” (or some such) meaning I wouldn’t even have to pay a dime for parking.  But, no, the note didn’t say that the meter had failed, but that someone had put in several quarters, only to have the meter continually read “15 minutes.”  I just shook my head in amusement, wondering if the person who penned the note had bothered to look around.

Had the person read the sign, she might have saved herself a few quarters.  :-)

When I learned that blogger Mickey Kaus was tossing his hat into the ring against California’s ineffective and hyperpartisan junior Senator, Ma’am Barbara Boxer, in their party’s primary, I briefly thought of changing my registration so I could vote for this laconic liberal.  I appreciate his terse and and witty blog posts and have enjoyed chatting with him at various blogger shindigs in LA.

Were Kaus to win the Democratic primary, he would retire a big-spending, mean-spirited embarrassment from the Senate.  And he would make a far better Senator than she.  Even given her absence of accomplishment, she still would be the favorite should she win her party’s nomination–given Democrats’ registration edge in the Golden State.  A vote for Mickey would thus secure the end of her career.

All that said, I won’t be changing my registration.  It would only be honorable to do so if I were certain to vote for Mickey in the fall.  And while I like him, I disagree with him on too many issues to be able to support him against a Ronald Reagan conservative like Carly Fiorina (though if Mickey were up against Tom Campbell, I’d probably vote Democratic given that former California State Finance Director’s record on Israel and his big-spending ways in state government).

That said, the only reason you should vote in the opposing party’s primary is if you’re certain to support that candidate in the general.  And since I’m not certain I’d be voting for Mickey Kaus should he prevail in June, I’ll keep my Republican registration.

But, I’ll still be rooting for him–and won’t rule out supporting him come November if he emerges victorious this June.

Now, I certainly agree with him that it’s not for courts to define marriage and that while intimacy is a major part of a serious marriage, it is not its defining aspect.  So, now, we’ve got him saying that if state courts deciding marriage, it could lead to people marrying their horses:

Hayworth, during an interview with an Orlando, Fla., radio station explained: “You see, the Massachusetts Supreme Court, when it started this move toward same-sex marriage, actually defined marriage — now get this — it defined marriage as simply, ‘the establishment of intimacy.’”

“Now how dangerous is that?” asked Hayworth, who is challenging Sen. John McCain from the right in Arizona’s GOP Senate primary.

“I mean, I don’t mean to be absurd about it, but I guess I can make the point of absurdity with an absurd point,” he continued. “I guess that would mean if you really had affection for your horse, I guess you could marry your horse.”

Yeah, I know what he’s getting at.  Trying to show the slippery slop onto which such court decisions put us.  So, why not simply remove marriage from the jurisdiction of courts and make it instead (as it should be) the province of legislatures?  Instead, he wants the constitution to define marriage via a federal marriage amendment.

This pompous man’s pontificating shows he’s more interesting in getting attention than making a serious argument on a serious issue.  If he were serious about the slippery slope, he would favor a less draconian solution than the federal marriage amendment he backs.

Senator Boxer said, “In the face of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, the Congress has acted today to save or create jobs in California and across the nation.  With so many Californians anxious about the economy, this legislation offers help and hope.  This bill will put Californians to work now building the highways, bridges, transit and rail systems, and renewable energy sources of the 21st century.”

The White House predicts that the legislation will save or create approximately 400,000 jobs in California.

Los Angeles Times, 1 year, 26 days later:

For many California areas, unemployment rates moved persistently higher in January, indicating that the national economic recovery hasn’t yet translated into jobs for the Golden State.

New county-by-county figures released by the state Wednesday showed that in eight counties, more than 1 in 5 people were out of work. Moreover, revised numbers for last year show that fewer people were employed than was previously believed.

The state was one of five, along with Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, that reached their highest unemployment rates since the government began keeping track in 1976, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. California’s was 12.5% in January, up from 12.3% in December.

Seems like the state lost more jobs that Mrs. Boxer predicted would be created or saved.  Blogger Michael Roston, noting that the Sooner State is suffering nearly as badly as is the once-Golden State, wonders if we can expect to see the ‘Grapes of Wrath’ in reverse with people moving from California to Oklahoma.

(H/t for Roston piece which linked LA Times piece: Instapundit.)