Joust The Facts

Good For The Goose ...

... good for the gander, okay?

President Obama spoke to and with the GOP caucus yesterday, and while the invitation and its acceptance is heartening, it's difficult for the Republicans to look good in this situation.  The President, as he should, will always have the last word.  It's not a debate, it's the equivalent of a press conference where the press has to be even more deferential to the speaker due to their position and the television cameras.  I've linked to the transcript above.

Mr. Obama spoke a lot about responsibility for the economic difficulties, claiming essentially none of it for himself.  One claim, or rather a declaration, bears a closer look.

OBAMA: Let's talk about just the jobs environment generally.

You're absolutely right than when I was sworn in, the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 -- or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists because at that point not all the data had trickled in.

We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I'm assuming you're not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I'm assuming it wasn't my administration policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone in to effect. So I'm assuming that wasn't as a consequence of our policies. That doesn't reflect the failure of the Recovery Act.

The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year than anybody anticipated.

So, I mean, I think we -- we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be, but those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken to effect.

So the job losses were mounting before Mr. Obama took office, and continued to mount in the first quarter of his presidency  (and the second quarter as well, though he didn't mention it).  He claims that these should be attributed to the prior president's economic record as none of his policies had taken effect.

Point taken.  Now I assume he and the rest of the Democratic caucus will stop crediting the negative GDP growth that occurred at the end of 2000 and during the first three quarters of 2001 to George W. Bush and begin calling that the Clinton recession.

 

Recall that Mr. Bush was unable to get his tax cuts to kick in until 2003 (see the 8% growth in Q3 of that year).  Also, with the negative economic growth he inherited job creation lags, explaining the "where are the jobs" attacks he had to endure.  This is the same argument that Mr. Obama is making now.

And I'm certain that Mr. Bush will no longer be blamed for the loss of wealth that occurred in the second two quarters of '00 and the first two of '01 with the market collapse.

Right?  We're going to see a level playing field here, aren't we?  Or is political point scoring only legitimate against Republicans?

State Of The Union Blues

I had the good fortune, I believe, to be driving during most of the State of the Union address by President Obama, and so I wasn't in a position to throw anything, or to blog.  Now, having arrived home, and needing to get to sleep to work tomorrow, I do need to jot down a few thoughts that popped up as I listened.

First, I have heard tell of SOTU drinking games, where in a shot (or a gulp of beer or a splash of spritzer, your choice) is taken whenever certain phrases occur.  I haven't participated in a drinking game in decades, and I don't intend to start now.  However, if I were so inclined, the thought occurred to me that a good one would be to imbibe your beverage of choice whenever you were tempted to yell "You lie!" at the screen.

I would have gotten hammered.

My favorite line in the speech was this:

"I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony and some post-partisan era."

Perhaps, taken literally.  But he did say this when he was nominated:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless. (cheers) This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. (cheers) This was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. (shouting) This was the moment, this was the time when we came together so remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

Well, you could be forgiven for thinking that anyone who can slow the rise of the oceans and heal the planet, end war and cause all Americans to come together should be able to get Republicans and Democrats to sing Kum-Ba-Yah.

There's this line, regarding the health care plan: "There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo.  Note the reference to "many" doctors and others.  There probably are "many" that favor it.  But "most" of those same groups actually oppose the plan, and think it will make matters worse for patients and providers.  And "most" of the American people, having had a lengthy look at the plan think so too.

How about this one?  "Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves."  He doesn't really believe that health reform will reduce the deficit, does he?  The CBO scoring was based on a number of assumptions, such as massive Medicare reductions (in absolute terms) that depend on slashing provider payments, and other unrealistic scenarios.

Or this screamer, on national security:  "I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough."  Oh, brother.  This isn't a game of "king of the mountain."  A large number of Americans, I among them, believe that these policies - treating terrrorists as one would criminals with US citizenship, show trials, and repatriating dangerous detainees  among others - make America less safe.  Sorry, but we're going to criticize those things that we disagree on.  Get used to it.  Mr. Obama wants us to trust him on national security.  If he hadn't just arrested a terrorist, advising said terrorist of his right to remain silent he might have a better argument.

The President doubled down on all of his policy prescriptions, the same policy prescriptions that have caused his own popularity to plummet, independents to abandon him and his party, and a Republican to be elected in Massachusetts, for Pete's sake.  Denial certainly isn't just a river in Egypt.

1/28/10 0630:  I almost forgot one of the best lines. 

"As we take the fight to Al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as president.

We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August."

"Ending the war" doesn't mean bringing the troops home.  "Ending the war" means winning it, and that is something Mr. Obama can't do.  He can't because George W. Bush already did, with the surge that Mr. Obama opposed even after it was demonstrated a success.

From Rich, To Rubin, to Plouffe, to Obama

Follow along, okay?

From Frank Rich, in the NY Times:

It was not a referendum on Barack Obama, who in every poll remains one of the most popular politicians in America. It was not a rejection of universal health care, which Massachusetts mandated (with Scott Brown’s State Senate vote) in 2006. It was not a harbinger of a resurgent G.O.P., whose numbers remain in the toilet. Brown had the good sense not to identify himself as a Republican in either his campaign advertising or his victory speech...

Does health care matter? Not as much as you’d think after this yearlong crusade. In the Post/ABC poll, the issue was second-tier — at 24 percent. Obama has blundered, not by positioning himself too far to the left but by landing nowhere — frittering away his political capital by being too vague, too slow and too deferential to Congress. The smartest thing said as the Massachusetts returns came in Tuesday night was by Howard Fineman on MSNBC: “Obama took all his winnings and turned them over to Max Baucus.”

To Jennifer Rubin, in Commentary:

Everything is fine, perfectly fine. According to Rich, the real issue is that Obama was not angry enough or  wasn’t everywhere enough. Or Left-leaning enough. You can almost sense Republican candidates and operatives holding their collective breath, smilingly nervously and whispering to each other, “They couldn’t be that obtuse, could they?”

As if the Democrats didn’t have enough problems, Rich and many other of his ilk are counseling Obama to go hard Left and shed any facade of bipartisanship. This certainly will test just how low the Democrats’ standing with independent voters can go. If Massachusetts proved anything, it is that the course that Rich counsels — gin up the base — is a losing proposition...

It remains to be seen whether Obama is going to follow Rich’s advice, and more important, whether anyone on the ballot in 2010 will be dim enough to do so as well.

To David Plouffe, Washington Post:

We still have much to do before November, and time is running short. Every race has unique characteristics, but there are a few general things that Democrats can do to strengthen our hand.

-- Pass a meaningful health insurance reform package without delay. Americans' health and our nation's long-term fiscal health depend on it...

During the campaign, who will be whispering in Republican ears? Watching GOP leaders talking about health care the past few days, it was easy to imagine lobbyists and big health insurance executives leaning over their shoulders, urging death to health insurance reform.

As opposed to trial lawyers and unions, I guess.  Mr. Plouffe's piece is amusing in its predictability.  It's like Captain Renaud rounding up all the usual suspects.  Mr. Plouffe has been brought back by Mr. Obama to centralize the Democratic campaign strategy for the fall.  Once a central planner, always a central planner.

As Ms. Rubin writes, they couldn't be that obtuse, could they?

Health Care Reform That Defies Logic

Massachusetts just sent Scott Brown to the Senate largely based on his staunch opposition to the proposed health care reform.  Connecticut doesn't like it.  Rasmussen shows 61% opposed.  So how do Sen. Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi propose "improving" the bill to get it passed?  Make it more palatable to the left, progressives, and staunch liberal Democrats.

No, really.

Struggling to salvage health reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun considering a list of changes to the Senate bill in hopes of making it acceptable to liberal House members, according to sources familiar with the situation.

The changes could be included in separate legislation that, if passed, would pave the way for House approval of the Senate bill - a move that would preserve President Barack Obama's vision of a sweeping health reform plan.

But the move comes with political risk, because it would open Democrats up to charges that they pressed ahead with roughly the same health care bill that voters appeared to reject in the Massachusetts Senate race Tuesday. Republican Scott Brown won on a pledge to try to block Obama-style health reform.

The idea is to have a second bill that moves the overall reform further left.  And these ... Democrats think that move will win the day with the American public, who have already told them firmly once, in blue Mass., to stop.

As an aside, I've seen some progressives puzzled that Massachusetts, which already has its own universal care framework, rejected similar legislation nationally.  Paraphrasing, "after all, it wouldn't really affect them, they already have it."  Maybe that's because they've seen it, know it, and know that it's a problem they didn't want to inflict on the rest of the country.

Fine, As Long As It's Not Mr. Frank That Does It

Abolish Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and rebuild government financing of housing from scratch?  Barney Frank, D-MA, the chairman of the House Financial services committee, thinks it's a good idea.

A top House Democrat on Friday said his committee was preparing to recommend "abolishing" mortgage-finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and rebuilding the U.S. housing-finance system from scratch.

"The remedy here is...as I believe this committee will be recommending, abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and coming up with a whole new system of housing finance," said Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Frank's history with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac does not inspire confidence in his competence to oversee the job.  Let's review.

Taxpayers are now on the hook for as much as $200 billion to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and if you want to know why, look no further than the rapid response to this bailout from House baron Barney Frank. Asked about Treasury's modest bailout condition that the companies reduce the size of their high-risk mortgage-backed securities (MBS) portfolios starting in 2010, Mr. Frank was quoted on Monday as saying, "Good luck on that," and that it would never happen.

There you have the Fannie Mae problem in profile. Mr. Frank wants you to pick up the tab for its failures, while he still vows to block a reform that might prevent the same disaster from happening again.

At least the Massachusetts Democrat is consistent. His record is close to perfect as a stalwart opponent of reforming the two companies, going back more than a decade. The first concerted push to rein in Fan and Fred in Congress came as far back as 1992, and Mr. Frank was right there, standing athwart. But things really picked up this decade, and Barney was there at every turn.

Please go read the Wall Street Journal's concise summary of his involvement, none of it helpful, in the mortgage giants.  Here's more from the WSJ, circa 2004.  Here's the NY Times, in 2003, discussing the Bush Administration - yes, that evil and incompetent Bush Administration - proposal to reform the GSEs:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

Mr. Frank's response then?:

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Perceptive.  And here's the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby, in 2008, with a further indictment.

'THE PRIVATE SECTOR got us into this mess. The government has to get us out of it."

That's Barney Frank's story, and he's sticking to it. ... The Wall Street meltdown was caused by "bad decisions that were made by people in the private sector," Frank said; the country is in dire straits today "thanks to a conservative philosophy that says the market knows best." And that philosophy goes "back to Ronald Reagan, when at his inauguration he said, 'Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem.' "

In fact, that isn't what Reagan said. His actual words were: "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." Were he president today, he would be saying much the same thing.

Because while the mortgage crisis convulsing Wall Street has its share of private-sector culprits -- many of whom have been learning lately just how pitiless the private sector’s discipline can be -- they weren't the ones who "got us into this mess." Barney Frank's talking points notwithstanding, mortgage lenders didn't wake up one fine day deciding to junk long-held standards of creditworthiness in order to make ill-advised loans to unqualified borrowers. It would be closer to the truth to say they woke up to find the government twisting their arms and demanding that they do so - or else.

All of this from Mr. Frank now is happening because his knees are shaking over the election of Sen. Scott Brown on Tuesday.  Independent voters in Massachusetts are in a mood to turn the bums out, and one of those bums, if you've absorbed anything at all from the stories above, is Mr. Frank.  So he proposes abolishing and reforming mortgage financing, and now he'll present himself to the voters later this year as a white knight, riding to the rescue.  Rather cynical, I'd say.

So definitely, let's reform the companies, or abolish them, it matters not.  What matters is setting appropriate lending standards, ones that do not expose banks, then GSEs, then eventually taxpayers to excessive and unaffordable risk.

Just don't let Barney do it.  And don't let him get away with avoiding his responsibility for the crisis.  As Jeff Jacoby writes, his fingerprints are all over it.

Money And Influence

Yesterday the SCOTUS ruled, in Citizens United v. FEC, that Congress should not have limited the freedom of political speech as they did with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy...

President Obama jumped at the decision to rail against the influence of big corporations that this would unleash

President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

We can talk about free speech vs. the detrimental influence of large independent expenditures by unions and corporations, if you like.  But Drew M.  handles the discussion nicely over at Ace of Spades today, and Justice Kennedy's majority opinion (pdf) is worthy as well.  From the former:

Sure the Constitution protects ‘the press’ but as bloggers of today and pamphleteers of the founding era know, you don’t need to be a corporation to be ‘the press’. Clearly corporate media isn’t a necessary condition of ‘the press’ so why should media corporations be afforded special protections for 1st Amendment activities others aren’t?

There's also the inconvenient fact that corporations are nothing more than an aggregation of individuals (investors, workers, managers, etc). Each of these people have first amendment speech rights. Why exactly should those rights be destroyed simply because they are exercising them collectively instead of individually? (hint: they shouldn't)

There’s simply no merit to the left’s critique and they won’t like where it leads. The beauty of being a lefty is that every case is different and the argument you use one day, isn’t applicable to similar circumstances the next day if it doesn’t help you.

From the latter (pp 3-4):

Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.

Read that once more, and think about it.  Do you really want the government deciding which entities can have their voices heard, and which cannot?

Besides which, there is a current example of a large and influential block of individuals exercising political speech through their donations that must be very familiar to Mr. Obama and the Democrats, and which was completely unaffected by the restrictions of McCain-Feingold in shaping policy.  This group of individuals was considered at every turn by those crafting the health care legislation.  Their influence likely cost Mr. Obama the chance to ever have "reform."  Their influence was so broad and so deep that the Senate bill that passed catered to their whim.  The provisions that catered to them was the reason why most physicians were against the bill.  It's a large reason why it was so difficult to manage the costs of reform.

I think we know that I'm referring to the trial lawyers, the tort bar.  The unwillingness to cross that bridge is the reason that Mr. Obama and the congressional Democrats can't crow about passing a reform bill, because enough physicians would likelly have supported any bill that had real tort reform.  But so scared were Democrats of losing the support of the deep pockets that finance their campaigns that Howard Dean famously admitted that they couldn't and wouldn't be touched.

So whine all you want about the "evil" of corporations' free speech rights under this ruling.  Then tell me that it's okay that some pigs are more equal than others.

Strike Three

Not a good year for the cleanup hitter, Obama.  First he goes to Virginia to help out Creigh Deeds.  Strike one.

Then it was a trip north, to Bruce Springsteen's home state, to help out incumbent Governor Jon Corzine.  Doh!!  Strike two.

Finally, when that Senate supermajority was threatned by, gasp, a Republican in Massachusetts, he traveled to the home of the Red Sox, leaving his Pale Hose jacket at home, to stump for Martha Coakley.  Strike three.

Yer out, bub, grab some pine.

The Shot Heard 'Round The World

Ralph Waldo Emerson's Concord Hymn recalls the "shot heard 'round the world" at Lexington Green in Massachusetts, the start of the American Revolution.  April 1775, two hundred and thirty-five years ago.

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
     Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
     And fired the shot heard round the world.

The foe long since in silence slept;
     Alike the conqueror silent sleeps,
     And Time the ruined bridge has swept
     Down the dark stream that seaward creeps.

On this green bank, by this soft stream,
     We place with joy a votive stone,
That memory may their deeds redeem,
     When, like our sires, our sons are gone.

O Thou who made those heroes dare
     To die, and leave their children free, --
Bid Time and Nature gently spare
     The shaft we raised to them and Thee.

Massachusetts is once again the site of a shot heard round the world - the election of Republican candidate, now Senator, Scott Brown in the special election to fill the seat vacated with the passing of Ted Kennedy.  I noted earlier that this would be an odd legacy for Massachusetts former senior Senator - a vote by the people of his own state to seat a Senator who openly vowed to work to block his signature legislation.

Even odder is the insanity to which this has driven Democrats, particularly those in positions of power in Congress and in the Administration (I'm going to leave out Keith Olbermann, who has his own special brand of insanity).  And I won't be linking those insane comments.  Rather, I'm going to quote the one sane comment I've seen from a Democrat.

Even before the votes are counted, Senator Evan Bayh is warning fellow Democrats that ignoring the lessons of the Massachusetts Senate race will “lead to even further catastrophe” for their party. “There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this,” Bayh told ABC News, but “if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.”

Hey, if you won't listen to a "shot heard 'round the world," what, or who, else won't you listen to?

And yes, I am calling it for Brown.  With 62% reporting he leads 705,615 to 621,231.  That's 53% to 46%.

1/19/10 2120: Now it's 71% reporting, and it's 822209 to 719,458, and Channel 5 (local ABC- WCVB) is reporting that Ms. Coakley has called Mr. Brown to concede.  Her campaign party at the Sheraton Boston looked like a wake.

1/19/10 2300: Via Michelle Malkin, a shot heard 'round the world video.  Massachusetts Miracle, indeed.

Self-Parody, Thy Name Is 'Democrat'

As poll after poll has shown the remarkable turnaround, and likely win, in Massachusetts by Republican Scott Brown, there has been nothing quite as entertaining as the collective mental implosion of the Democrats, creating one self-parody after another.

There's the bumbling Kennedy, Patrick in this instance:

"If you don't, if you know that it takes eight years for George Bush and his cronies to put our country into this hole ... then you know we have a lot of digging to do, but some work needs to be done and this president's in the process of doing it and we need to get Marcia Coakley to help him to do that."

Marcia?  Here's Ted's version.

Then there's the continuing efforts to treat George W. Bush as Emmanuel Goldstein.

As audience members streamed out of Pres. Obama's rally on behalf of AG Martha Coakley (D) here tonight, the consensus was that the fault for Coakley's now-floundering MA SEN bid lies with one person -- George W. Bush.

"People are upset because there's so many problems," Rosemary Kverek, 70, a retired Charleston schoolteacher said as tonight's rally wrapped up. "But the problems came from the previous administration. So we're blaming poor Obama, who's working 36 hours a day ... to solve these problems that he inherited."...

36 hours a day?

More Kennedy: "One thing the Democrats have done wrong? We haven't kept the focus on this disaster on the Republicans who brought it upon us. We've tried too hard to do that right thing, and that's to fix it, as opposed to spend more of our time and energy pointing the finger at who got us [here] in the first place."

The comment stream after this story at Politico is priceless, and worth the extra 5-10 minutes of reading.  But it's not George W. Bush that has placed Ms. Coakley's ascension (and the "Kennedy Senate Seat") at risk.  First, as one of the commenters aptly points out:

"OMG! Bush tried and tried and tried to get Congress to address the problems with the housing market. It is on record and nobody seems to care."

Exactly... a fact that is not talked about.

LIBERALS... please read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Case closed, folks. Stop blaming Bush for the housing crisis. He had way too much on his plate with 911 and all that followed... and still his administration warned about the housing crisis in 2003!

Please vote for Scott Brown and send these ignorant Dems a message.

Second, it's not just that Ms. Coakley has been a terrible campaigner,

Coakley seems afraid to say what she believes in, giving voters reason to conclude she believes in nothing. With healthcare reform, she sounds like she believes in what’s necessary at any given moment.

sniffing down her nose at the concept that she'd even have to try to win votes.  And it's not just that ObamaCare, and the bribes, arm-twisting and 2000 page bills that sprang from the fervid imaginations of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, is so darn problematic.  It's both.

While this is all terribly amusing, it's also not a done deal.  "Massachusettes" is a wholly operated arm of the Democratic party, and they will not tolerate a Republican interloper usurping power in such an unseemly fashion.  By, you know, winning an election.  It will go down to the wire.

It shouldn't, but it will.

1/18/10 1630: Polls, polls, polls

Fox Boston:  A poll released a day before the special Senate race shows Senator Scott Brown surging to a double-digit lead over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the race for the open Massachusetts Senate seat.

The shift in favor of the Republican Party is a potential disaster for President Barack Obama and his Democratic political agenda.

PPP:  Over the last week Brown has continued his dominance with independents and increased his ability to win over Obama voters as Coakley's favorability numbers have declined into negative territory.

Ted Kennedy's Legacy?

The "legendary" senator from Massachusetts was a proponent of government run health care of the single-payer variety.  Oh, I know, he just wanted "reform" of this heinous system that leaves millions of uninsured Americans (and illegal immigrants) without medical care.  No, actually, that's not right either.  It leaves them without insurance.  They get health care, albeit not as conveniently as those with insurance.  In any event, he wanted single payer.  Let's quote from his convention speech in 1980:

Finally, we cannot have a fair prosperity in isolation from a fair society. So I will continue to stand for a national health insurance. We must -- We must not surrender -- We must not surrender to the relentless medical inflation that can bankrupt almost anyone and that may soon break the budgets of government at every level. Let us insist on real controls over what doctors and hospitals can charge, and let us resolve that the state of a family's health shall never depend on the size of a family's wealth.

The President, the Vice President, the members of Congress have a medical plan that meets their needs in full, and whenever senators and representatives catch a little cold, the Capitol physician will see them immediately, treat them promptly, fill a prescription on the spot. We do not get a bill even if we ask for it, and when do you think was the last time a member of Congress asked for a bill from the Federal Government? And I say again, as I have before, if health insurance is good enough for the President, the Vice President, the Congress of the United States, then it's good enough for you and every family in America.

There you have it.  "National health insurance," complete with wage and price controls dictated in Washington.  The second paragraph I include simply for the amusing child-like innocence on the part of the speaker, and the assumption of a similar innocence in the listening audience.  Could he really have no clue as to what the government (i.e., taxpayers) paid for the health insurance and subsequent care that he received?  Could he really believe that because he is a Senator the government is in control of the finances of the private sector doctors and hospitals he visits?

Well, the ultimate Ted Kennedy legacy may be written next Tuesday: the election of a Republican for what was his Senate seat by the voters of Massachusetts, one who is campaigning with the looming healthcare monstrosity (and his opposition to it) front and center.

"He’s making health care a front-and-center issue in the most liberal state in the country, and it’s working for him,’’ said Whit Ayres, who cofounded Resurgent Republic, a group of conservative pollsters and strategists formed to shape the national debate. “That’s the major message - that this bill is an albatross around the necks of the Democrats, and if it works this well in Massachusetts, just imagine how well it will work in less liberal states."...

He has called for Congress to “go back to the drawing board’’ and come up with a new plan. And he has capitalized on speculation about whether Democrats might try to delay his confirmation if he wins in order to ram the health bill through, stoking concerns about transparency and fairness raised by special deals Democratic leaders made last year to entice fence-sitters to vote for the bill.

“Threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level,’’ the Brown campaign said in a recent statement, in a burst of rhetoric that has been typical of his camp. A spokesman for Brown declined to comment for this story.

Polls have the race swinging dramatically to Republican Scott Brown.  A robo-poll from Pajamas Media shows an even bigger gap, one which would be shocking if accurate for a state like Massachusetts.  Jennifer Rubin writes:

Since September, the country has witnessed the visible battle over ObamaCare — late-night votes, Cash for Cloture deals, and a bill that offends a wide array of groups. Democrats have never looked up or paused to consider the public’s views on the matter. They tell us they will “sell it” to us later. That arrogant defiance of public opinion and the unseemly legislative process that produced a grossly unpopular bill have fueled a resurgence of anger and determination among conservatives and even usually apathetic independents. They now are anxious to send a message to Washington: stop ignoring the voters.

Exactly.  Speaking in generalities majorities are in favor of "the government" taking care of people who need help.  Once the majorities see what the nuts and bolts of such a commitment entails with health care those majorities flip, which is precisely what we're witnessing.  The people of Kennedy's own state, now that they see the devils in the details - higher taxes, ballooning federal spending, scarcity in health care, reduced quality, waits and rationing - are realizing that a system that provides quality care to even those without insurance is better than a system designed to insure everyone at, eventually, the cost of that quality.

Senator Kennedy called nationalized health care "the cause of my life."  The people of Massachusetts, now that they see what that entails, may say to forget it.  As for his legacy, it may always have been ... well ...  something else, regardless.

1/17/10 2300: Jeff Jacoby with more:

What Obama and his party delivered, however, was not uplifting and transparent bipartisanship.

It was trillion-dollar increases in government spending. It was party-line votes on 2,000-page bills. It was “cash-for-cloture’’ backroom deals. It was tone-deaf boasts about millions of jobs “created or saved,’’ even as unemployment soared into double digits and millions of American jobs disappeared.

Above all, it was the attempt to force through a radical health-care overhaul that would drive up the cost of medical insurance, slash Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and subject one-seventh of the US economy to government micromanagement...

A year ago, Americans were enchanted with their new president. Today they are suffering from severe buyer’s remorse. Massachusetts may be the bluest state, but voters here are fed up too.

It's Not Circumstances, Harry, It's You

The Review-Journal reports that Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, has seen his approval ratings slide to the lowest they've been.

More than half of Nevadans are unhappy with Sen. Harry Reid, according to a new poll commissioned by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It's the worst "unfavorable" rating he's received in the newspaper's surveys for this year's election, and it comes amid quiet speculation -- or perhaps wishful thinking by his opponents -- that it's time for the Nevada Democrat to retire rather than lose re-election.

In response, Reid told the Review-Journal Friday he wouldn't consider stepping aside...

Senator Reid's rationale for standing firm is symbolic of the shaky ground his party's policies have worsened.

"I am absolutely running for re-election," said Reid, 70, in a statement. "These are difficult times for Nevada and as the majority leader of the Senate I have been able to take action to address those challenges. But I know there is more work to do to turn our state's economy around and create jobs and I am committed to seeing it through."

In other words, he wants you to think that Nevadans are merely unsatisfied with the state of the economy, jobs and health care, support the policies he is pushing to fix these problems, and once he gets these wildly popular policies in place everything will be hunky dory.

Given the President's plummenting poll numbers, the unpopularity of current health care reform proposals even in blue states, the unpopularity of Congress, the threat of a Scott Brown win in true blue Massachusetts, among other markers, I have one question.

Anyone buy his explanation?  My take?  That attitude will only cause further erosions in his pathetic support numbers.

Gruber: Analysis Spiced With Bias

The Politco's Ben Smith reports that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber has been on the government health care analysis payroll, to the tune of about $300,000 this year.

One of the key voices for Congressional health care legislation, MIT economist Jon Gruber, is taking fire from the precincts of the left that oppose the Senate plan over the fact that he is on contract with Department of Health and Human Services.

He's been paid $297,600, according to federal documents, to produce "a technical memorandum on the estimated changes in health insurance coverage and associated costs and impacts to the government under alternative specifications of health system reform." The contract, which was awarded June 19, wasn't widely known or regularly disclosed.

"[D]on’t you think it’s rather, um, dubious that the guy evaluating the heath care reform–for $300,000–is also the package’s single biggest champion? And no one has been transparent about this contract?" writes Firedoglake blogger Marcy Wheeler of the contract, which was first mentioned on DailyKos.

Mr. Smith asked Dr. Gruber about the contracts and appearance of "pay for play," and Dr. Gruber responded that "at no time have I publicly advocated a position I did not firmly believe."  It is obvious when you read his material published in the New England Journal of Medicine that he indeed does firmly believe in what he espouses.  But it's also apparent in reading the articles that his analysis glosses over areas that are major issues in the health care debate with breezily worded dismissals of criticisms.

For example, in a January, 2009 article, "Universal Health Care Coverage Or Economic Relief - A False Choice," Dr. Gruber first leads cheers for the push:

These are exciting times for advocates of universal health care coverage, with sizable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress and a Democratic president who made universal coverage a central pledge of his campaign.

Sen. Nelson's Late Realization

But perhaps not too late.

Sen. Ben Nelson said Tuesday it was a mistake for the Obama Administration to take on massive health care reforms in 2009, and suggested efforts would have been better spent addressing the economy.

Nelson, who provided the crucial 60th vote to advance the bill toward Senate passage on Dec. 19, has been active ever since trying to explain his actions to Nebraskans. Ads have aired on television and Nelson is making the rounds with the state’s media.

He requested Tuesday’s interview with the Tribune.

“I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy,” he said...

“I would have preferred not to be dealing with health care in the midst of everything else, and I think working on the economy would have been a wiser move,” he said.

Senator Nelson has been underfire both within his very red state and nationally for, well, quite a lot really.  For being the 60th vote for the Senate healthcare bill, for doing so by either getting the other 49 states to pay Nebraska's added Medicaid costs in perpetuity, or getting America to pay all additional Medicaid costs for all states - which would have changed the CBO scoring dramatically, and for "selling" his vote so cravenly on a bill with such enormous impact and importance.  This is an attempt to walk back that vote, and to quiet the criticisms.

There is, of course, a better way to do that.  He could just say no next time he gets the chance.  After all, if it's the worng time to take up health care, he does have it in his power to make that statement more forcefully.

Bad News Spun, The AP Way

Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press Reports this morning on three high profile Democrats dropping their runs for re-election: Senators Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Governor Bill Ritter of Colorado have pulled out of re-election bids scheduled for 2010.  The upcoming midterm elections were setting up nicely for Republicans in general, what with

• continued high unemployment, a fact emphasized by the failure of the so-called "stimulus" to generate economic recovery and jobs
• the threat of another such unsuccessful stimulus
• the unpopular cap and trade bill
• the unpopular health care monstrosity now being cobbled together by one party (D-DC) in secret
• fecklessness in Copenhagen in the wake of the ClimateGate scandal
• the successful boarding of a US bound plane by an Al Qaeda backed Islamic extremist wearing explosive underwear, highlighted by the President (3 days later) as the actions of an "isolated extremist" and initially at least by his DHS secretary, Janet Napolitano as a system that "worked"
• the ridiculous treatment of foreign terrorists just as US citizen criminals would be treated, including KSM's expensive and risky NY show trial
• the plummeting approval ratings of the President
• the popularity of the Tea Party movement, NPR's disdain notwithstanding
• the mountains of spending and debt ($1.5 - $2 T per year), coupled with increased taxes and redistribution, that will cripple the economy for years to come,
• the general trend away from the party in power in midterm elections
• scandals from prominent Democrats, including Mr. Dodd, noted "Friend of Angelo" that he was, and a treasury secretary who didn't pay his taxes

to list just a few.

Ms. Sidoti, however, while noting that it's the "party in charge" that looks to be in the most trouble, tells us that it's a "sour political environment for incumbents" that's largely responsible.  Not exactly.  I think an itemized list like the one above might be helpful as the AP tries to wade through the analysis seeking a clearer explanation.

IN fairness, other than that one assertion about incumbents, most of Ms. Sidoti's piece sticks to facts.  And Dodd's retirement may actually improve the Democratic chances in Connecticut.

1/6/10 1335: The Politico has a more realistic view.

The grim outlook for Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections just got a little worse...

With Dorgan’s stunning retirement announcement Tuesday evening, Democrats are now facing their bleakest election outlook in years — and the very real possibility the party will lose its 60-40 Senate supermajority after the November elections. On the House side, the prospect of a 20 to 30 seat loss is already looking increasingly likely.

“It’s not good news for Democrats,” said Roy Temple, a Democratic strategist. “The reality is this is going to be a challenging year, and this is an additional challenge you would prefer not to have. Because of the success of the last two cycles, there are a lot of seats to defend. This is just an additional complication.”

1/6/10 1830: More evidence, as if more was necessary.

Republican candidates start the year by opening a nine-point lead over Democrats, the GOP's biggest in several years, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 35% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

Rasmussen notes that it's falling support for Dems more than rising GOP support that's the source of this generic gap.  Why?  Could it be that, having seen what the Democrats would do to the country (and, by extension, the people of this country) they are shocked and dismayed, and are trying to send a message to cease and desist?

Naw, can't be.  What we really need is government health care, skyrocketing debt, more union workers, more government workers, higher taxes and even higher energy costs.  Yep, that's the ticket.