Pearce Godwin

A Prayer Remembering 9/11

2011-09-11T02:19:00.000-04:00

Today, on the 10 year anniversary of the most horrific day in my generation, a day none of us will ever forget, I remember the prayer I wrote on the first anniversary of September 11, 2001.

Dear God,

On September 11th our country needed you more than ever and you, as you always are, were there for us. When people all over the world heard the news, they were struck with shock and sorrow. But during that time that it felt like we were living in a nightmare we knew where to turn for peace. As the World Trade Centers fell, our faith in you grew taller than ever.

You, and only you, could give us the peace and reassurance that we so desperately needed. We walked through the valley of the shadow of death, but we feared no evil because you were with us, and you comforted us. On September 11th, there was only one set of footprints on the beach, because on that awful day, you carried us. Some people ask why you left us that day, but we know that just the opposite happened. After the first attack you were right in the middle of the terror. You were in the firefighters, policemen and others who sacrificed their own lives to save others. Lord please empower us with the same strength and bravery that you gave those men and women that day so that we may sacrifice our own selfish desires and live for you and each other every day of our lives.

You have blessed us and our country so abundantly even though we don't deserve it. Thank you so much. Please protect our country against evil and empower our leaders with the wisdom that only you can provide. Continue to be with families who lost a loved one on that day and are still suffering. Bless them with peace, comfort and hope knowing that they are not along but that you are with them.

It is so amazing Lord how you can turn such an awful event into good. We as Americans have never been closer to each other and to you than we were after 9/11. Help us work to keep our country close to you and remain "one nation under God."

In Jesus Christ's precious and holy name,
Amen

Pearce Godwin
September 11, 2002

On a Grand Bargain to Avert Debt Crisis

2011-07-09T12:08:00.004-04:00

Note: It's been eight months since I last wrote on Election Eve. I had the engaging of Chrissy to take care of immediately after the election and have been rather busy since then. I look forward to writing more frequently as Election 2012 comes into focus. It's only 487 days away! In the meantime, follow my political thoughts on Twitter, @PearceGodwin.

Ongoing discussions taking place between the White House and both parties in Congress aimed at finding a solution to raise the debt limit, which America will breach on August 2nd, and returning to fiscal sanity by reducing out of control federal spending have taken an optimistic turn in recent days. As per usual, politicians only get serious and truly come to the table at the 11th hour with their feet to the fire. Reference the deal to avert government shutdown in April. This is true of any opposing parties involved in high stakes negotiation. With their backs to the wall, a compromise tends to result. We see this playing out again as the President reported Thursday that Democrats and Republicans are now coming to the table "in a spirit of compromise" and had "a very constructive meeting" realizing that "there is going to be pain involved politically on all sides." There is no bigger issue facing the U.S. today. If we don't solve this debt crisis and reign in our spending binge, we won't have an economy worth being employed in, never mind one that leads the rapidly evolving and globalizing world.

In light of these developments, I sent the following message in a series of tweets Thursday.

@PearceGodwin: Hoping for a grand compromise in order to take bold and decisive action to pull our country off the financial precipice of our national debt. As much as I favor slashing spending to raising taxes, afraid ruling out half of the balance sheet equation won't cut it. All remedies must be on the table to avert true economic crisis which could cripple America's financial stability and global stature.

Reaction from my conservative Republican friends was swift and provoked a great discussion on spending, taxes and debt. This is exactly the kind of honest and comprehensive discussion I hope is taking place on Capitol Hill and in the White House now. Read the discussion below and then weigh in. Offer your thoughts in the comments section or on Facebook and Twitter, where it has played out thus far. This is what collective problem solving is all about. In this case, the future of America depends on it.

Hill Republican:

Come on, bro. We can't be raising taxes during a recession! Federal budget increases of 20% or more for each of the past two years is simply not sustainable. Just go ahead and say it...you're supporting tax increases.

Larry Shoemaker:

I can tell you from the business side if you raise taxes on business or business owners, businesses will not increase hiring. Will likely decrease employment. Until businesses have some assurance about taxes and regulation, they are not going to expand-too much risk. Texas created more than half of all new jobs. Look at their taxes, tort reform, etc.

Pearce:

Hill, you know I would cut every last ineffective, inefficient and unnecessary government program before even thinking about tax increases. Drastically slashing spending must be priority #1. I just think trying to solve a problem this dire and of this magnitude will unfortunately require looking at both sides of the balance sheet rather than taking an unequivocal hard line to solve our debt problem with one hand tied behind our back. Any way you slice it, tax increases, first via efficiency reform and closing loopholes rather than rate increases, will get us to fiscal solvency faster when added to the X that is the amount cut. We must balance the need to turn the ship around fast with the deleterious effects we know any tax increase will have during a recession. We absolutely should not raise rates on job producers, including the "millionaires" who represent many small business job engines, at a time of such high unemployment. My point is that given the practical reality that we can work both sides of our red ink to reduce the debt faster, it is a conversation worth having.

Pearce:

Larry, agreed, can't punish the job creators, must find any new revenue elsewhere. Excellent example of a conservative vision promoting real growth and job creation. Obama should notice that fact.

Hill:

You can't balance the budget over night, but meaningful, incremental progress will avert a disaster. Can you tell me what is or how you define "tax loophole"?

Pearce:

When I say tax loophole, I'm not taking the negative connotation of an unintended escape hatch. I'm talking about exemptions, deductions and subsidies, some hardened on the books due to robust lobbying and archaic logic. We should take a fresh look at these and only give such breaks when it advances our economic and national interest. They are an important incentivizing and market shaping tool but should be wielded carefully under such a debt crunch. Eliminating some of these out of date or unwise tax breaks would increase our revenue without raising rates at all, especially in sensitive areas critical to recovery, which of course in and of itself will increase tax revenues.

The GOP was right to anchor our negotiating position at the hard line of no tax increases, period. I understand tactical negotiation. However, we all know that neither side is going to lay down and die. Dems have the Senate and White House so must get enough out of the deal to win over Obama and four Democratic senators (or three plus Biden), unless of course we're talking about a supermajority to break filibuster. Therefore, changes to the tax code can't be dismissed out of hand as part of an honest and comprehensive discussion of the issue. If the President is genuine in pushing his caucus to go big in putting entitlements, the biggest components of this crisis which cannot remain untouchable if we are to solve it, on the table, it is fair for us to consider the appropriate level of taxation and subsidy as well. Whatever it is now, isn't perfect, so we should seek to make improvements that will expedite budget balance, promote recovery and strengthen overall economic health.

Hill:

While I appreciate the fresh, centrist tone you posit, I'm afraid the policies you're advocating will have a similar effect on the economy as raising taxes during a recession--which you defacto support. Unfortunately the unemployment rate ticked back up to 9.2% today, a rate that should have been, at the very least, sub-8.5% by now according to our Vice President. That said, the word "subsidy" is just another way of saying "tax credit" as you note and millions of businesses and individuals, both parents that send their kids to college and homeowners that write off their home mortgage interest use these "loopholes" as you refer to them, which incent certain economic activities our government has historically said it supports. Sure we should take a look at them when our economy is back on track, as we should do for every regulation on the book to ensure we don't impede job growth and business activity, but make no mistake about it, eliminating most of these "loopholes" will translate into higher costs for consumers as you learned in Econ 101. If the Dems pass cap-and-trade, then you can expect your electric company to pass the additional costs along to you the consumer in the form of higher electricity rates. The same holds true for most other federal cost-raising activities. I am not certain our economy can handle a fresh impetus for rising consumer prices, especially considering inflationary pressure from the record spending sprees of the past is really starting to take hold and will suppress consumer spending and thus broader economic growth. Let's just be carefule for we aren't out of the woods yet. We can and must pay down the debt without raisng taxes on job producers and consumers.

Chris Mike:

Compromise = lose.

Pearce:

Chris, I disagree that compromise = lose. The Constitution set up a system of government that, because the American people prefer and vote for split government between Democrats and Republicans, requires compromise to pass legislation. There are certainly core principles which should never be compromised, but there is often a vast playing field between the two sides' core endzone positions ripe for bargaining towards a mutually agreeable-enough-to-pass solution. I prefer to think compromise = progress. A stagnant, paralyzed federal government incapable of promoting national interest (i.e. something akin to what we have now) = losing.

Hill:

Yeah, but remember that Republicans only control one chamber of Congress and not the White House. It's not exactly a level playing field, yet at least.

Pearce:

Hill, sounds like our only point of disagreement is the timing of said fresh look at tax credits. Many such credits are prudent and wonderful tools which encourage the invisible hand of incentives among "selfish actors" in the economy, promoting positive choices such as college, home ownership and business expansion. That said, I'm quite sure there are some which are out of date or otherwise unnecessary that are keeping dollars out of our federal account which could be used to pay down our debt and reduce dependency on foreign nations.

Unfortunately, it seems Washington only acts when our feet are to the fire. Right now, our feet are to the fire on the debt limit. Therefore, I see this as a perfect time to pursue every opportunity for correcting and improving the financial mess we've created, including in the bloated tax code. We should not leave any stone unturned at this rare moment of receptivity to bold action on both sides of the aisle.

Any direct or indirect increase in taxes will indeed have an adverse impact on the affected consumers thus depressing economic growth to some degree. That is a cost to reform, a particularly high one in a time of recession toward fragile recovery, but it must be weighed against the long term benefit of tax reform at a moment of possibility to take such action which we may not see again for a very long time.

Hill:

There's little we can do to ensure these spending cuts are adhered to in the future, given annual consideration of appropriations bills. Once the President gets his tax increases, those are much harder to roll back. Any way you want to message it you're advocating for using this "perfect time" to raise federal revenue on the backs of businesses, consumers and other "selfish actors" as you call them during a recession. I know your message has probably polled well in a Facebook focus group, but be careful about who your audience is. We can eliminate our debt without increasing costs to consumers.

Pearce:

Important point on the permanency of the remedies proposed and potentially accepted by each side. Constitutional amendments to balance the budget have been discussed but, as you know, would only become an excuse for raising taxes rather than cutting spending down the road. We cannot raise any tax, including the elimination of credits, with any hope or expectation that the move will be reversed in the future. Therefore, such moves should only be supported if we believe they are good permanent fiscal policy. We cannot fall for the ruse of a temporary tax increase to address the deficit. Not only is this the worst possible time as we "tread water at the bottom of a very deep hole," but, as you point out, there is no more a temporary tax increase than there is a temporary spending increase. That's how we got into this mess. Taxing and spending gone mad over the last decades. And yes, Republicans are rightly blamed for part of this plague, however nothing in comparison to the way in which Obama has floored it towards the cliff.

To be clear, I am not advocating for raising federal revenue. I am advocating for allowing the idea to be part of a comprehensive and exhaustive conversation to avert a debt crisis and promote growth. The reality is that their are two numbers which combine to determine our debt, revenue and spending. There is no doubt about what must be done with spending, and it must be drastic and it should hurt. Any serious discussion will also include the issue of revenue; this is that discussion. There are innumerable problems with raising revenue, especially now, that anyone with an understanding of Econ 101 should get. Therefore, it's entirely possible that after considering the revenue side of the equation, we would rightly determine that it should not be increased in any way, in order to promote rather than depress growth. My objection is to a dismissal out of hand of even considering revenue. That is irresponsible and dishonest. Thoughtful individuals on both sides consider all elements and then draw firm conclusions, not the other way around. You, of course, have a full understanding of both revenue and spending in all of its many forms and implications, but I'm concerned that some are more interested in rhetoric and partisan pride than fully assessing and solving this problem.

Chris:

The real compromise would be to pass some deep spending cuts before we even start discussing anything else. After all, the Republicans did just win a historic election eight months ago. Let's see the conservatives in action! And by the way, you're forgetting Art Laffer and the fact that tax cuts will boost the economy and raise fed government revenue anyway.

Pearce:

I love Laffer. His curve is genius yet so logical. Under the premise that we are at a state of general over-taxation, you're right, leaving more money in people's pockets will increase spending and thus tax revenues. That's why the Christmas deal to extend the Bush tax cuts was positive. Conversely, raising taxes beyond the optimal point will actually depress revenues as Americans stop spending and producing to generate the wealth that is taxed. Not forgetting him. Laffer's concept should be a major component of this comprehensive discussion.

The GOP Hurricane: Updated Forecast

2010-11-01T01:15:00.030-04:00

Happy Election Eve from Wisconsin! Walking the neighborhoods and working the phones in the Cheese State on behalf of Ron Johnson, an Oshkosh businessman poised to send career politician and 18-year Senate incumbent Russ Feingold packing has given me a unique and wonderful opportunity to hear directly from voters in this battleground state who are "mad as hell and not going to take it any more." The anger is real, the disappointment is real and the enthusiasm gulf is palpable. While our incredibly passionate and hard working Get Out the Vote volunteer teams across the state are setting national voter contact records, 160K calls in one day, the Democrats are paying volunteers, an oxymoron and sad commentary on the depressed state of their base, never mind independent and moderate voters.

I have found time since landing in Wisconsin to tweet regular updates and key articles on the state of electoral affairs here in Wisconsin around the country in the final hours of Campaign 2010. I am therefore going to provide you with an updated forecast in several blurbs of 140 characters or less. They story as told by Twitter is below. Follow @PGBlog for up to the minute news and observations over the final 24 hours and on Election Day. I'll be tweeting up a storm... or hurricane, or earthquake or whatever it is now.

After the tweets, enjoy a funny and pretty solid encapsulation of the discourse between Democrats and the American people between 2008 and now. Finally, as I did on Election Eve 2008, I have embedded the Ron Clark Academy kids reminding us that we can vote however we like tomorrow. I will provide a thorough, in depth report and analysis of this historic wave election when the results are in.

This has been a fun ride with never a dull moment. We saw History Made in America at the beginning of 2009 as Barack Obama became president of the United States. Only 1,017 days later, his agenda will be face a devastating repudiation as it is now Republicans' turn to make history and engineer our version of hope and change. God willing, starting November 3rd, both parties will find common cause and move America in a positive direction, restoring her exceptional place in the world, a place our nation has held for 234 years.

PGBlog "Midterm Maelstrom" only 6 days away! Handicappers jacking up House forecast. Cook 48-60. Silver 52. All #s on PGB.

PGBlog Taking off from Virginia to ride out the last 5 days campaigning for @Ron4Senate in Wisconsin! Let's get out the vote GOP!

PGBlog RoJo leads Feingold by 9 @ 53 in new poll 4 days out! Enthusiasm gap manifested in my talks with Wisco voters today.

PGBlog 86 hours away! Forecasts continue to rise. PGB's 60 now midpoint of Rothenberg's 55-65. All #s and countdown on PGB.

PGBlog PG Blog just passed 5,000 site views! On top of thousands of email reads. Thank you!! Make your calls in PGB Polls.

PGBlog @wisgop makes the most calls in the nation today w/ over 160k and takes top spot in the nation for calls made in the 12 day GOTV challenge.

PGBlog Johnson "has been running a devastatingly effective campaign" for senate. Wisconsin voters are ready for hope & change!

PGBlog "WI been run by Dems. Not in very good shape. Feingold's with the in crowd. Johnson's with the out crowd. Case closed."

PGBlog Election Eve Gallup: GOP could gain anywhere from 60 seats on up, with gains well beyond that possible. Obama @ 45%.

PGBlog Nate Silver at 538 has compiled an awesome and dynamic Election Night tracker. His models project GOP +53 in House.

PGBlog Overall, 17 point swing on the generic ballot since Jan '09. 10 of those 17 points were in Obama's first 6 months.

PGBlog Plugging Gallup's GOP +15 Generic Ballot margin into conventional House correlation formula predicts 77 seat gain.

PGBlog @fivethirtyeight points to 5 reasons we could wake up Nov 3rd to Republican gains exceeding high expectations.

PGBlog Final Gallup enthusiasm gap in 1994, before a 54 seat GOP gain? 5 points. Election Eve poll has GOP up 7 this time.

PGBlog Grim Dems cite ObamaCare. "Everybody that is tied will lose, and everyone that is ahead by a few points will lose.”

PGBlog WaPo: At the start of the campaign, House Democrats' 39-seat majority seemed insurmountable. Democrats are in jeopardy from coast to coast.

PGBlog I was very impressed with Sean Duffy of MTV Real World fame yesterday, poised to put Obey's WI-7 seat in GOP hands.

PGBlog Democratic Agenda (Stimulus, ObamaCare, Cap & Trade) and victories in VA, NJ & MA defined this Midterm.

PGBlog Dem Coalition in tatters: GOP winning independents (+20, 28pt swing), women (+4) & college grads (+20).

PGBlog Rossi (R) wins vast student poll in WA Sen race 53-47. RCP tie. Potential 9th GOP pickup. Hope mom & dad listen!

PGBlog Obama world view was "that of a conventional liberal Democrat but he was president of a nation that was center-right."

PGBlog Pres Obama misread his mandate in lurching towards bigger government. His victory resulted from a desire to change Washington, not America.

AMERICANS: “So, the economy is pretty bad and there’s high employment. You think you can do something about that?”

DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA: “We can spend a trillion dollars we don’t have on pork and stuff.”

AMERICANS: “No … that’s not what we want. We’d really like you not to do that.”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re stupid. We’re doing it anyway.”

AMERICANS: “That’s not going to help us get jobs!”

DEMOCRATS: “Sure it will; millions of them … though they may be invisible. You’ll have to trust us they exist. And guess what else we’ll do: We’ll create a giant new government program to take over health care.”

AMERICANS: “That has nothing to do with jobs!”

DEMOCRATS: “We don’t care about that anymore. We really want a giant new health care program. We’re sure you’ll love it.”

AMERICANS: “Don’t pass that bill. You hear me? Absolutely do not pass that bill.”

DEMOCRATS: “Believe me; you’ll love it. It has … well, I don’t know what exactly is in the bill, but we’re sure it’s great.”

AMERICANS: “Listen to me: DO. NOT. PASS. THAT. BILL.”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re not the boss of me! We’re doing it anyway!”

AMERICANS: “Look what you did! Now the economy is way worse, we’re even deeper in debt, and we have a bunch of new laws we don’t want!”

DEMOCRATS: “You’re racist.”

AMERICANS: “Wha … How is that racist?”

DEMOCRATS: “Now you’re getting violent! Stop being violent and racist, you ignorant hillbillies! And remember to vote Democrat in November.”

The GOP Hurricane is Coming Ashore

2010-10-24T13:37:00.087-04:00

The story of the last two years is as simple as it is dramatic. It is the epic story of an administration with a highly ideological agenda encountering a rising resistance from the American people over the major question in dispute: the size and reach and power of government and, even more fundamentally, the nature of the American social contract. An adjudication of the question will be rendered on Nov. 2.

-Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, October 22, 2010

Way back on July 4th weekend, Charlie Cook observed that "recent numbers confirm that trends spotted late [Summer 2009] have fully developed into at least a category 3 or 4 hurricane." Now, 9 days from a historic midterm election, all signs, macro and micro, point to that forecast holding true. Top Democratic strategists and pollster Peter Hart acknowledges "it's hard to say that Democrats are facing anything less than a category 4 hurricane." He adds that "Election Day is coming, the hurricane force has not diminished, and it is going to hit Democrats head on."

Hart, like most analysts, see the House as a goner. The GOP will easily pass the 39-seat net gain mark required to take control of the lower legislative body. Nancy Pelosi's days as Speaker are numbered. Predictions on the number of Republican takeovers in the House range from the mid 40s to 75, a very bullish yet not insane prediction by my friend and colleague Bobby Trivett. (Read The Onion: Democrats Could Lose Up To 8,000 Seats, unfortunately, there are only 435 seats...) Democratic strategists are pessimistic, saying the ceiling for Republican gains is "up to seventy." This upper tier of the window would far exceed even the gains Republicans made in 1994, 52 seats, and be the largest turnover in well over a half-century. In the Democratic wave of 2006, the party won 30 seats in a successful takeover effort. I am sticking with my September 23rd projection of a 60 seat gain for Republicans, which many at the time thought was well out of bounds. Now, 60 seats is midrange among bullish predictions.

The rapid upward movement has resulted from an ever-expanding House playing field. Nearly every day the National Republican Congressional Committee is inserting money and heat into districts previously thought wholly safe for Democratic incumbents, often launching television ads hitting these incumbents for votes in favor of one or more of 2010's "disqualifying issues," Stimulus, ObamaCare, Cap & Trade. Analysts now agree that over 100 seats are in play. Making confident predictions as to how many of these 100+ seats will land in Republican hands is complicated by the fact that, according to those at the top of the Republican House efforts, the polling looks too good. These strategists are sending the polling back to be reweighted, having a hard time believing that the wave could actually be as high as indicated. In many cases, Democrats are seeing disparate results, sometimes to the order of 7 or 8 points, a difference that could flip dozens of races. But even despite their more favorable polling, the DCCC has moved into full triage mode, cutting off long-time incumbents who are beyond hope against the Republican wave.

The Senate, on the other hand, has been a roller coaster since my predictions one month ago. While I don't see enough evidence race by race to change my admittedly bullish projection of a +10 Republican takeover in spite of the Tea Party disaster in Delaware, a half dozen races around the country have seen a natural tightening favoring Democrats as the election draws closer and Democrat voters come home, in some cases aided by unrelenting personal attacks against Republican opponents. Now that Democrats have lost the policy messaging battle on the Stimulus, ObamaCare and Gov't Spending more broadly in spectacular fashion, their only remaining strategy is to disqualify the opposition, making Republican candidates unacceptable alternatives to voters. Admittedly, some GOP candidates in Senate races have made this task all too easy with somewhat extreme or impolitic past statements that have become constant refrains on the airwaves. That word "extreme" is the one thing that Democrats hope will save them from an electoral bloodbath on November 2nd.

Despite the clear tightening, the good news for Republicans is that Democrats have failed to disqualify Sharon Angle, challenging Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, Ken Buck, challenging appointed Senator Michael Bennett in Colorado or Rand Paul, son of presidential candidate Ron Paul running for the open Senate seat in Kentucky. While the establishment, rather than Tea Party, backed Republicans in each of these races would likely be faring better against the Democrats, each of these three primary winners are still an even money chance or slightly better.

The Senate race that has made the most striking move towards Democrats in recent weeks is the open seat race in Pennsylvania. Democrat Congressman Joe Sestak, who toppled party-switching incumbent Arlen Specter back in May with a late surge is attempting to repeat the trick against Republican Pat Toomey who had run out to an 8 point lead as recently as a week ago before seeing it evaporate in recent days. The race had been moved to Lean Republican by most handicappers but now, a two point contest, is considered a toss-up. However, Toomey appears to have stopped the bleeding as Morning Call Tracking shows the race moving back in his direction. Trivett, a Pennsylvania native, observes, "with the Republican candidate from Pittsburgh's Alleghany County, it is hard to see how he loses this race." This logic is predicated on the fact that Democrats in Pennsylvania statewide races rely on very heavy liberal turnout, and a big margin, in the urban areas of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia which bookend an otherwise rural, blue collar, conservative state.

As of today, Real Clear Politics polling averages indicate that Republicans would pick up 8 seats, two short of the 10 needed for Senate control. As discussed in my last post, a Democratic White House necessitates 51 seats for Republican control; the party currently holds 41. On October 12th, RCP polling predicted a 10 seats gain and Senate takeover for Republicans; however, that same day, Illinois slipped to the Democrat's advantage, setting the GOP back. Mark Kirk has retaken the lead in the mud fest that has become the Illinois race, but in the meantime, West Virginia and Washington tipped towards Democrats, which is where we are today. All the while, the marquee Nevada race has teetered and tottered between Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle and the Majority Leader. Angle leads by a fraction of a point today in a race that is all about the ground game now with precious few undecideds remaining. Senate control could hang on the Leader's seat, and we may not know the outcome for some time after Nov. 2.

Underlying each of these horse races that collectively will determine who controls the Senate in the 112th Congress, is the deeper question of whether Republicans may actually be better off, at least long term, taking the House but leaving the Senate in Democrat hands. As much as I enjoy cheerleading for a category 5, historic political hurricane to blow from sea to shining sea, I believe Republicans will be better positioned to challenge and defeat President Obama in 2012 if we do not assume control, and responsibility, for the entire legislative branch of the federal government. This outcome, while celebrated on November 3rd, would give the president a ripe foil to leverage, contrast and offload blame on as the American people predictably remain agitated and impatient with all things Washington over the next two years.

Former President Bill Clinton is the text book example of how triangulation and moderation in a new shared power climate in DC can be used to bolster the electoral prospects and stature of a previously unpopular president. Note the the last Republican wave to which I often draw comparisons was 1994, only two years before President Clinton coasted to a second term by 9 points and 220 electoral votes over Bob Dole. I would rather not give President Obama that environmental advantage; however, many believe Obama is incapable of adapting as nimbly as Clinton did and leveraging such an opportunity to his benefit. Moderation, the key ingredient in Clinton's success in 1995-96 is something we rarely see out of this much more liberal and ideological Commander and Chief.

One of my close friends serving as an aid to a Republican Senator agrees. He notes that "we don't want to be handing Obama a Republican Congress" adding "let's wait until 2012 to take it all back." I think this sentiment is spot on. It is also very likely that, if we fall a seat or two short this year, we would regain the Senate in 2012. This is due to some simple math and the flip side of Democrat's 2006 wave coin. This expansive and thus necessarily weaker class of Senators swept in by animosity towards George W. Bush in '06 will be up for reelection, 22 of them to be exact compared to only 9 Republican seats on the line. Anything short of appreciable Republican gains, more than enough for a Senate majority, under this Senate landscape would require a drastic shift in America's electoral environment over the next two years. Allowing that we've seen a stunning swing, rebellion really, over the last two years, I still see this as highly unlikely. Therefore, as hard as it is not to root for the max this year, we Republicans would almost certainly be better off giving the President a split decision in Congress to better position ourselves to usher him out of the White House and Republicans into Senate control in 2012. However, these long-term strategic considerations will have no bearing on how high the Republican wave rises on November 2nd, so we'll see what happens and seek to make the best of it as all attention turns to the 2012 presidential race on November 3rd.

In the world of politics, the next 9 days will be a lifetime. I will be writing as often as possible on the ripples that will define and comprise the eventual Republican wave set to make full landfall Tuesday a week from now. The existence of such a hurricane force wave is now beyond question; it is its depth and breadth that will keep all of us guessing until the final votes are counted... and with so many races going down to the wire, we could be on the edge of our seats for weeks to come.

The Elephant Waiting in the Wings

2010-09-23T12:59:00.062-04:00

Note from Pearce: I live! After a 6 month hiatis to focus on my real job, microtargeting voters for Republican campaigns around the country, I've finally logged on to the ole blog again. Appreciate all of you who continually asked when this day would come, ha. November 2nd will mark the culmination of a monumental election year, so let's get to it...

One year ago, I wrote that "After two disastrous elections in 2006 and 2008, the Republican Party has found a pulse and looks poised to come back with major gains." I wrote at the beginning of March that 2010 was indeed shaping up to be the Year of the Elephant. Well, it has become just that. Last year, I said "the extent of the GOP revival is unclear but gains are inevitable." Now, 38 days from November 2nd, those inevitable gains have become an inevitable wave. The Elephant proudly respresenting the Republican Party is currently poised in the wings of Congress to accept the shove on the way from ballot boxes across America where voters who are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" plan to throw Democrat members of Congress out, hand House control to Republicans, send a message to Obama and begin to turn the country around. A clarification to my Democrat friends, that's around, not backwards.

The only remaining question mere weeks from the big day is, as a Democratic strategists puts it, whether a category 3, 4 or 5 hurricane is headed for Democrats in Washington. Voter anger and outright disgust at government, and Democrats specifically, has reached a fever pitch. No doubt Democrats' big government initiatives such as the stimulus and health care have offended many in our center-right nation founded on limited government and individual liberties. But they are also victims of their own power and success. Electorally, Democrats are in possession of seats that on paper they have no business in but that were swept up in the anti-Bush blue wave of 2006 and the Obama wave of 2008. These seats will come home to Republicans this year. Psychologically, voters see Democrats controlling every lever of power in Washington and thus, fairly or not, blame them for what ills America. These broad dynamics are driving the 2010 election cycle, a first midterm that, like most, is a reaction to the new President and will be a correction of a balance of power that has been skewed far left in the last two cycles. If the election were held today, the hurricane would be a category five and Democrats recently considered safe would be running for the Hills.

Since the Election is not today, I've taken a first stab at projecting Republican gains in November. (See the new projections feature at the top of the blog, where you get up-to-date projections from the three most prominent political handicappers in the business... and little ole me.) The leader of that trifecta, Charlie Cook, astutely sets the parameters of the wave in his recent column. Republicans must earn a net-gain of 39 seats in the House to "Fire Pelosi" and regain control of the House of Representatives. Most analysts believe Republicans will achieve this mark and perhaps more. I have gone with an even more bullish projection of a 60 seat gain for Republicans. Lest you think I'm crazy, Mark Halperin, of TIME, made waves, pun intended, suggesting this number was looking increasingly likely, and I've had conversations with Congressional insiders in which 60 was highlighted. An additional note, Republicans are contesting 430 of the 435 House seats, the most ever.

In the Senate, where more seats are on the table than any election since 1962, the mountain for Republicans is much steeper. We need to steal 10 seats from Democrats to wrest control. Let's briefly revisit middle-school civics. Republicans currently hold 41 Senate seats, but the Vice President, currently Joe "foot in mouth" Biden is constitutionally designated as President of the Senate and would break a 50-50 tie in Democrats' favor. Therefore, the magic number for Republican control is 51. In recent weeks, this prospect went from a pipe dream to surprisingly and increasingly possible as the GOP enjoyed recruiting success and voter anger put states in play thought out of contention earlier in the year. But hold the phone, just as the GOP Senate takeover effort was building momentum, the Tea Party struck, in a shocking and potentially devastating way.

In the state of Delaware, there is one Republican, one, who was considered capable of delivering the aforementioned Biden's old seat to Republicans. That man is long-time Delaware at-large district Congressman Mike Castle. Luckily for Republicans, he was running and favored to win in November. Then, everything changed. Tea Partiers, riding high after their stunning triumph over incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska primary, set their sites on Delaware, with perennial candidate Christine O'Donnell as their darling. O'Donnell was thought to be nothing but a minor nuisance to Castle's march to the Senate chamber. But in the closing days, the Tea Party Express worked its magic, made much easier in a small state, low turnout Republican primary, and toppled the titan Castle, successfully nominating O'Donnell to fill the Republican line on the November ballot.

All Democrats and most Republicans view O'Donnell as an extreme and wacky candidate with a snow ball's chance of delivering what was becoming a sure Republican pickup to the GOP. Castle's loss may have cost the GOP its best and only chance at a liberal Delaware Senate seat for decades to come. There is no doubt that the Tea Party, in this case, has cost Republicans dearly, even if by some miracle O'Donnell wins. That miracle would require a category 6 hurricane, but I'm finished ruling anything out in an election cycle unlike any this nation has ever seen. Some of you have heard my more colorful commentary on what took place in Delaware, but let's remember, the unrestrained fervor contained in the Tea Party movement, while it hurt in Delaware, can be expected to push the dial higher for Republicans in the House.

With that recent context, my Senate projection. I still believe Republicans will gain 10 seats in the Senate and sweep both houses of Congress. This bold projection is thanks, in large part, to the arrival of the West Virginia senate race to replace the late icon Robert Byrd on the competitive scene. Just as all looked lost in Delaware, businessman John Raese has pulled close to popular Democrat governor Joe Manchin, even leading in one poll. However, my projection requires not only taking the Byrd seat but all of the other 3 toss-up seats including California and Nevada, where Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is fighting Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle for his political life. By the way, the House has not changed hands without the Senate following suit since 1930. How's that for a historical nugget to hold on to.

Finally, in the 37 gubernatorial races across the country, the most ever, Republicans are faring very well. The Republican Governors Association is building on its tremendous success in 2009, resounding wins in Virginia and New Jersey. Democrats currently hold 26 to Republicans' 24 governorships. I project Republican candidates will nearly run the table, gaining 12 seats for a 36-14 advantage following November 2nd. My rationale for this third quite bullish call is a look at each race as with the Senate but more a hunch based on the power and savvy of Haley Barbour and his RGA.

So there you have it, the lay of the land 38 days from what promises to be a historic election. I will bring you more in the coming weeks, but now, I want to hear from you. I've put a few more polls up on the left side of the PGB site. Over or under on my projections of massive Republican gains in November? Will Republicans fire Pelosi and regain control of the House? Will Republicans win the Senate? Will GOP dominance in 2010 and congressional control over the next two years help or hurt Obama in 2012? More on this last question as well as tactical moves and polling in my next post. Fluid races from sea to shining sea will be moving rapidly in the final sprint so stay tuned!

Note: Check PGB often over the next 38 days to see the countdown as well as updated projections from Pearce and the three best handicappers in the business.

Health Care Bill Signed Plus Odds & Ends

2010-03-31T21:09:00.000-04:00

Democrat health care reform legislation, aka Obamacare, has been like a cat hanging on to its ninth life by one whisker, yet last week, on March 23, 2010, President Obama signed the landmark bill into law. As Joe Biden so eloquently put it, "this is a big * deal." That date, indeed, may go down in history along with August 14, 1935 (Social Security Act) and July 30, 1965 (Medicare Bill) as a pivotal moment in the evolution of America's political/social/economic culture.

However, evolution and "change" do not always move us in a positive direction as a nation. The historic nature of this milestone is unquestioned, but whether it will help cure the many ills of our health care system and mitigate our dire financial straits or simply push down the accelerator on an already unsustainable and perilous path will be the subject of rampant debate for the foreseeable future. A key distinction between this historic legislation and the two before is that those enjoyed significant bipartisan support, this bill had none.

First to the policy objections. I have written extensively over the past year addressing many of the pivotal issues and hidden burdens embodied in the 2,000 plus page legislation, so let's take a big picture view. In fairness, there are good and bad features of the legislation. Now that the bill is law, I can only hope it works to slow or reverse our current trajectory of higher cost and higher deficits, but I'm afraid such a hope finds little grounding in reality and rational expectation. For example, it is "politically inconceivable" that future Congresses will show more courage than this one mustered and actually implement the spending cuts and tax increases critical to the cost projections of the bill. I do fear that this bill, focused on more government to fix the problem and more spending to reduce the deficits, will only exacerbate the problem in the midst of already record deficits and out of control spending. When the "doc fix" is included (adding $371 billion) and deceptive double counting eliminated, the deficit actually increases by an additional $260 billion over ten years.

Even with half a trillion dollars in new taxes and another half trillion in Medicare cuts, this legislation does not bend the cost curve down, a cost curve that, if not reversed, will break a lot more than our health care system. Instead it drives up cost and over time could actually reduce access to health care as rationing will likely become our last best hope of staying off the financial precipice. The "disagreeable absence of a free lunch" strikes again. Despite the many budget gimmicks and dodges cleverly built into the package, which paint a deceptively rosy picture of overall cost, it will push our health care costs and deficits only higher. We cannot fail to drastically and boldly reduce health care costs that are crippling an already weak economy. This law fails. It it a "fiscal time bomb" waiting to explode as the revenue will never come and costs soar ever higher.

In light of this already grim outlook, we all, Democrats and Republicans, agree that our health care system is in desperate need of reform, but Republicans tend to believe, rightly in my view, that this brand of reform will only make our current problems exponentially worse and pile new ones on top. The Republican solution is, broadly, to increase consumer choice and competition as a means of immediately reducing costs while correcting a system of perverse incentives and opaque costs by emphasizing tax incentives and state innovations. Viewed through the prism of the philosophical dichotomy between the parties, Democrats favor a solution predicated on increased government involvement and control while Republicans favor greater individual liberties and a free-market approach to the problem.

Now, because nothing that happens in Washington is without wide-ranging and often complex political implications, to the political fallout of Democrat health care reform. Yes, Democrats achieved a goal of paramount importance to the party in pushing through Obama's top legislative priority, but could it do more harm than good for majority and haunt them in November and beyond?

From raucous town halls during the summer months to demonstrations on the Capitol steps in the final hours of the sausage making, Americans of all political stripes have passionately and repeatedly expressed their displeasure with the Democrats' proposals. The will of the American people, expressed in polls from sea to shining sea, notwithstanding, Democrats tirelessly pushed their liberal agenda for health care through the halls of Congress. This seemingly blind and ideological pursuit could cost them dearly at the ballot box and prove to be a "colossal miscalculation." The year-long, tumultuous debate has inflicted significant damage on Obama and the Democratic Party.

As I recently outlined, 2010 is shaping up as the year of the Republican elephant. It's hard to see how the passage of Obamacare, which voters did not want, ameliorates what is looking like an electoral disaster for Democrats in November. Many analysts believe they have now dug the hole deeper, pointing to the voter backlash in 1994 following the failure of Hillarycare. The twenty Democrats hailing from John McCain won districts who voted in favor of the bill have earned bright red targets on their backs, with Sarah Palin and other national Republicans pouncing.

While we're all tired of legislative process stories, it's worth acknowledging voters' distaste for the kind of arm twisting, backroom dealing, logrolling, rules changing and raw politicking they witnessed from Democrats in a no-holds-barred effort to see their will done on a straight party-line vote, not to mention the broken promises. The use of reconciliation to push the legislation through the Senate on a simple majority vote after Democrats lost their 60th seat to Scott Brown in Massachusetts was only the tip of the iceberg.

Following passage, the public is very divided but hardly undecided about Obamacare, less than 10% without an opinion. In the immediate aftermath, Republicans are predictably unhappy, Democrats are happy and Independents are divided but favor Republicans on the ballot. The economy will almost certainly remain voters preeminent concern in November, but both sides will attempt to use health care to fit their own narrative. An improved perception of health care among the electorate is only one leg of the stool Democrats must build between now and November to avoid an unmitigated walloping that could cost them control of one or both houses of Congress. For starters, they need Obama's popularity and the sluggish economy to make marked improvements.

The President has certainly gotten a lot of positive press following the signing, but how long will the afterglow last and will any real bounce show up in the polls? Some polls indicate a slight post-signing bounce while others indicate no real change since the battle lines were drawn last summer. If anything, the Democratic base has ticked up a notch in enthusiasm, something they have been sorely lacking since electing Obama in 2008. Whether any positive bounce is lasting on transient will depend on "salesmanship and implementation" by Obama, his fellow Democrats and the administration. We'll have to wait until November to see how this saga ultimately plays in the minds of the only ones who matter, voters.

PG Poll: Do you support the passage of Democrat health care reform? Vote on the left side of the page.

Texting and driving has been in the news a lot over the last several months, and as someone who has been guilty from time to time, I find it interesting. Unless you're the rare "supertasker," the practice does impair your driving. From distracted driving forums to Senate legislation to an executive order from Obama, lawmakers are cracking down. The practice has even been dubbed a "menace to society." Society agrees. Ninety-one percent favor a ban. In my home state of North Carolina, DWT (I want a patent on that acronym) is now illegal and punishable by a $100 fine. Over a dozen states have passed such laws. Lest we paint texting with too broad a negative brush, remember that soft-hearted texters sent over $20 million to Haiti in one week. Political candidates are now wondering if they can leverage the technology to their benefit. Regardless of why you're punching away at the phone keyboard, make sure you steer clear, ha, of the banned words of 2010. Oh, and watch out for cell phone induced brain cancer.

While we're on technology, see the next generation of must have electronics. To make these gadgets run faster, the FCC is launching a "visionary" plan to expand broadband access across the country, something Google and everyday users have anxiously awaited. Speaking of Google, the behemoth of all things internet played a major role in Scott Brown's stunning victory in Massachusetts. Meanwhile, the White House has been all aTwitter of late, even Obama tweeted, and the GOP has launched a hot new BlackBerry app for congressmen. Check out these two fascinating videos on the power of social media. Finally, after years of rumor, it looks like the iPhone really is branching out from AT&T.

Here's an assortment of particularly interesting pieces:

Turns our jerks are bad decision makers. Tall people are happier than short people. The 50 best YouTube videos of all time or the best and worst in four minutes. Nobody trusts congressmen or car salesmen but give nurses and doctors hight marks, would hope you trust your doctor. Scientific evidence points to life after death as 59% of Americans are "absolutely certain" there is a God. Basic arithmetic illustrates why the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Toyota crisis has demonstrated the "price of modernity." Your race may determine your nighttime and sleep habits. The President has a Facebook feed, sorta. In honor of a midterm election year, brush up on your political lexicon.

I'll end with what we all know is the most important thing gripping our nation this month, March Madness! Even as his health care reform was in its final hours and he was sharpening his 22 pens for the signing, the President was "examining the rubble of his bracket." He filled out a tourney bracket for the second year, but isn't seeing the success he enjoyed last year. With Duke in the Final Four, I (on the right in this ESPN pic) and my fellow Cameron Crazies are boiling over with excitement and anticipation, excitement that brain researchers at Duke and UNC have recently studied. Lest you hate, these Dukies "should be cheered" and are "worth rooting for." Heck, even UNC coach Roy Williams, sweating through an NIT Final Four game as I type, is picking Duke! Senate candidates in Kentucky are actually attacking each other on their Duke ties, love it! Turns out sports viewers generally and college basketball fans in particular are largely Republican, and most of the Final Four teams have GOP fan bases. If you don't quite get what the big * deal is (thanks Biden), see this guide on bluffing your way through the Dance... or follow the hilarious name bracket instead. If you do get it, Let's Go Duke!!

2010: The Year of the Elephant

2010-03-03T22:37:00.079-05:00

In American electoral politics, the great pendulum that is the balance of power between the two major parties inevitably swings from side to side as voters grow weary of ineffectual or excessively ideological rule by the party in power. As we approach the 2010 Midterm Elections, the pendulum, having moved far left in 2006 and 2008, is poised to make a dramatic swing back towards the right. Over the past two elections, Democrats picked up 54 seats in the House of Representatives and 14 seats in the Senate. In 2006, Democrats swept to majorities in both houses of Congress. In 2008, the party stretched its majorities in Congress and elected Barack Obama to the White House.

Only one year ago, Barack Obama was on top of the world and riding a wave of hope into the second decade of the 21st Century. Analysts predicted Democrats would add seats to their supermajority in the Senate, and, while the historic norm of the President's party losing House seats in his first midterm election was expected, no one dreamt that the party's 77-seat majority could be in danger. That was then; this is now.

In the months sinse, three Senate Democrats have announced retirements, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Evan Bayh of Indiana, joining 16 in the House, including one more today, which hands Republicans another solid pickup opportunity. These retirements, with the exception of Dodd, only exacerbate what is already becoming a potentially disastrous cycle for Democrats, and many think the exit number will go higher.

The generic congressional ballot has swung 13 points towards Republicans, from a eight point Dem advantage in 2008 to a five point lead for the GOP. Democrats also fell below the majority support enjoyed since 2005 and saw their affiliation shrink in 39 states. The net favorability of the two parties has converged as Democrats have watched an 18 point positive become a 10 point negative. A full 40% of Americans now describe themselves as conservative, the highest number in years and twice the liberal ID of 20%. There has unquestionably been a significant political climate change across the country, yet Democrats in power haven't seemed to notice.

In his first year, the President's approval has rapidly fallen from 68 to below 50, a record decline. He's suffered an approval index dive of 41 points. Obama's approval in December was the lowest ever recorded 11 months into a president's term. His standing is even worse on major issues with Republicans now trusted more than Democrats to solve many of the nations most salient problems. Much of this drop is due to broken promises, the substance of his policies and what some see as a bait-and-switch operation. Even in the White House press room, the laughter has ended.

The swing has been most dramatic among the ever-critical Independent bloc of voters. This group supported Obama 64-16 in January 2009 but now disapprove of his performance 51-38. They approve of his performance on only one issue, international affairs. Democrats are understandably alarmed as Independents desert the party, due in no small part to the protracted fight for Democrat's health care reform. Independents now give Republicans a 16 point advantage on the generic ballot. What's more, there is a significant intensity gap with Republicans far more interested in November's midterm elections than Democrats. In midterm elections, where turnout is key, this intensity gap could portend the kind of wave Republicans hope for.

At the ballot box, Republicans have swept three state-wide elections. November saw Republicans take over the governor's mansions in Virginia and New Jersey. In January, a cataclysmic shock went across the political world as Republican Scott Brown won the Kennedy Senate seat in Massachusetts. That defeat cost Democrats their supermajority in the Senate, a result applauded by most Americans. Independent voters in these elections resoundingly supported the Republicans, 66-33 in Virginia, 60-30 in New Jersey and 65-34 in Massachusetts, after supporting Obama in 2008.

As the election calendar turns towards the midterms, most analysts are predicting Republican gains of around 25 seats or higher in the House and as many as 7 or 8 in the Senate, leading many to speculate that we could be seeing the landslide of 1994 all over again. Indeed, Stan Greenberg, a top Democratic pollster, acknowledges that his polls are eliciting a feeling of panic as it's beginning to look like that epic election cycle. Indeed, the polling looks remarkably similar. To regain control of Congress, Republicans must flip 40 seats in the House and 10 in the Senate. Senate control is not yet in play. However, top political handicapper Charlie Cook has gone so far as to say it is "very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don't lose the House." He added that you could triple the Republican Party's problems and they'd be better than those currently facing Dems. He blames the White House for "fundamental, total miscalculations from the very, very beginning" about the direction to take the country.

Even in our political system, in which change is the only constant, the seismic shift in the political landscape we've witnessed over the last year is remarkable. Cook notes, Democrats dominated Congress for four decades until the Republican Revolution of 1994. Then Republicans held the House for 12 years before being ousted in 2006. That seems like a lifetime compared to the current outlook for Democrats. Says Cook...

The trajectory of this election looks horrific for Democrats. In this kind of environment, days that go by without some "game-changing" development benefiting the GOP in a state or district are the exception, not the rule...

Whether or not Democrats hold onto their House majority by a sliver -- say, five or six seats -- and hold their Senate losses to five seats or so, the fact is that after just four years in power, congressional Democrats are in trouble.

There seems to be a new impatience among the electorate as voters sour on DC and the politicians, for the time being Democrats, who run it. Members of Congress earn the worst honesty and ethics score of any profession tested by Gallup. Voters see very little "we" in the political process and are sending a strong message to Washington that they've had enough of the perpetual dysfunction that grips the city. Eighty-six percent of Americans believe government is broken and 71% give Congress poor ratings. Some blame the President, pointing out that the US is far from ungovernable, while others blame Republicans. We are seeing a new populism, some call it a peasant revolt. In this environment, all incumbents should beware of the widespread sentiment, but Democrats, as the party holding all levers of power, will bear the brunt of voter backlash, just as they did in Massachusetts.

Fortunately for the majority, congressional popularity has little correlation with midterm election results. Unfortunately for Democrats, presidential popularity is of great import. Despite Obama's attempts to reassure fellow Democrats that the "big difference" between 2010 and 1994 is "you've got me," history tells us that the President will only drag his party down in November. No president has ever gained in approval between the beginning of a midterm year and the November elections. While Obama says the "buzz saw"of opposition won't stop him, it may well end the political careers of his friends, leading some to keep their distance.

While the outlook is quite rosy for Republicans, Cook reminds the GOP that, as I wrote in my last post, the voter discontent and outright anger now aimed at Democrats and elevating Republicans can easily turn on the GOP, particularly if we take control of the House and fail to move the country in a positive direction. If, however, Republicans are faithful stewards of voters' trust, we stand to make many more gains in the years to come. In 2012 and 2014, Democrats must defend a combined 43 Senate seats as Republicans defend only 22. The recent electoral imbalance which helped Democrats achieve a short-lived supermajority will afford Republicans an advantage in the next two cycles. This makes the odds of Republicans regaining the Senate majority in the not-to-distant future very good.

As for the elections in our immediate future, Michael Barone, author of "the bible of American politics," sums it all up saying,

What we have here are the makings of an epic party disaster. Whether it comes to pass is still uncertain. But it certainly could.

Will November, nine short (long?) months away, bring an epic disaster for the Democratic Party and see previously laughable Republican dreams realized or will these next months prove as tumultuous and unpredictable as the last, allowing Democrats to mitigate their own impending demise? While the GOP has all the momentum, alarms are sounding much earlier in the cycle than they did in 1994, which gives Democrats time to try a course correction. The smartest analysts in the business see little hope for such a turnaround, but remember, change is the only constant when talking about the individual political sentiments of 200 million unique voters and a political world in which new developments happen not by the week but by the minute. Here's to Republicans capitalizing on Democrat's failures, not just for the sake of renewed power but for the sake of the American people and a more prosperous future. Republicans must stand ready to govern, to bring the real change and progress we so deeply desire.

PG Poll: Put on your political prognosticator hat. Do you thing Republicans will regain control of the House of Representatives this November? How about the Senate by 2012? Vote on the left side of the page and leave your comments below!

Senate Shock: Voters Voted & Everything Changed in Washington

2010-01-27T20:53:00.008-05:00

This just in: elections matter! Last week, Massachusetts voters went to the polls and sent a message to Washington that shocked the political world. The message sent was in the form of Senator-Elect Scott Brown. A largely unknown state senator, one of only five Republicans in the 40-member body, became the "Scott heard around the world," drastically altering the political landscape in Washington, the presidency of Barack Obama and the course of national policy for years to come, most immediately with regard to health care reform.

In what has been cleverly dubbed a "Mass-acre" and many consider the biggest upset in modern political history, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by five points in a state that, just over a year ago, supported Obama by 26 points over John McCain and had not elected a Republican to the U.S. Senate since 1972. Whats more, there are 3 times as many registered Democrats in the state as Republicans! As recently as November, Coakley held a 31 point lead over Brown in the race to replace the late Ted Kennedy in the United States Senate. The seat had been in the Kennedy family almost every year since 1952. Coakley's election was to be nothing more than a formality as no one gave any Republican a snowball's chance in Hell of taking "The Kennedy Seat."

With only three weeks to go before the January 19th special election, all of that changed. With a Rasmussen poll showing Coakley's lead down to only 9, the media began to wonder if the Senate race is Massachusetts was somehow getting closer, and Democrats grew anxious. With a week to go, everyone realized the "people's seat" was up for grabs; with five days to go it was deemed a toss-up. Democrats launched a full court press, investing millions upon millions of dollars in a state everyone had taken for granted. Despite their best efforts to save the sinking ship, Scott Brown was favored on Election Eve. Even Democrats seemed to be breaking for Brown at the last minute.

On January 19, 2010, the seemingly impossible happened in Massachusetts and everyone was left to do a few double takes then try to digest it all, sorting out fact from myth. Democrats, even before the polls closed were pointing fingers at each other, engaging in a self-defeating blame game. For his part, the President blamed the loss on a failure of his own economic plans as well as voter anger and frustration. It was revealed that the NRSC saw the possibility early and had launched a stealth operation to catch the Democrats with their... well, on Christmas vacation. At the end of the day, there were exuberant winners and stunned losers. One of the winners, Brown's pollster Neil Newhouse (a Dukie I might add) wrote a tongue-in-cheek memo to Democrats, IDed the twelve keys to Brown's victory and unpacked the broader lessons of the recent GOP wins to lay the groundwork for continued success in the Midterms.

Democrats on the Hill were meeting even as Massachusettians were still voting, rethinking their entire strategy, trying to chart contingency plans for their health care reform bills which suddenly seemed to be gasping for last breath. The bill on which Obama has spent so much (all?) of his political capital seems to have dragged down everyone in his party. His decision to go all in on health care is beginning to look like a "disastrous gamble." Indeed, exit poll data in MA revealed that health care legislation was the most salient issue for voters last Tuesday. He has since considered paring down his goals for the bill, which Senate leadership says is on the House as moderate Democratic Senators, ready to move on or take a breather, refuse to use reconciliation to pass the measure with only 51 votes. However, putting it on the House may not bear any fruit for Democrats as Pelosi has declared that she does not have the votes to pass the more moderate Senate bill. Meanwhile, a majority of Americans want Democrats to suspend work on the bill and consider alternatives Republicans would support. Nevermind that, Democrats are now attempting to unite around their "last, best hope" for a strictly Democratic overhaul, using reconciliation to alter the Senate bill enough to garner majority support in the House. Despite these last ditch efforts, many observers believe Obama's top legislative priority is truly dead this time. We shall see.

Who could have imagined that exactly one year after millions of Americans flocked to DC to witness, with fervent hope and excitement, the historic inauguration of our new President, Republicans would be the ones hardly able to contain their jubilance? On that day last winter, President Obama enjoyed sky-high approval among the electorate, but a year is an eternity in politics. Of Democrats' year, Charlie Cook says, "their celebration has turned into a nightmare." In a few short, tumultuous months, a man who once seemed immortal has quickly come down to Earth as he and his party have overreached in their expansion of government and pursuit of a liberal policy agenda which runs counter to the will of a center-right nation. And yes, this downward trajectory for the President, which began in earnest over the summer, was of enormous consequence in Massachusetts this past Tuesday. The President made a last minute visit to the state, a risky gamble, in a desperate attempt to avert political catastrophe for his party. This visit had no tangible impact on the election results. While Obama excited the base, he was unable to move the dial in Coakley's favor. This from a man who regularly brought adoring supporters to tears throughout the 2008 presidential campaign, winning over Democrats and Independents alike.

The Obama magic has left the building. After failing to inspire voters and avoid embarrassing defeats in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts, it is abundantly clear that the electorate, particularly Independents, have rapidly soured on the President. This is why politics is so fascinating and exciting! No matter how strongly and decisively expressed at a moment in time, individual voter sentiments and collective national mood are stubbornly dynamic. Many voted for "change" in 2008 but have been disheartened by the slow progress on some fronts and the type of change pursued on others. Voters are looking for results when they cast their ballots, and if they aren't seeing the kind of results they hoped for, they'll be back in the ballot box before you know it to vent their discontent. Thank God for democracy!

Americans prefer checks and balances in Washington, each political party acting to temper the excesses of the other. If voters sense that the party to which they have entrusted the levers of power is overreaching, irresponsibly wielding the power granted it for its own narrow, idealogical objectives, those same voters will snatch it back, or at least, as in the case of Massachusetts, ensure that the power goes unchecked no longer. By installing Scott Brown as the 41st Republican senator, voters in the bluest of blue states single-handedly broke the Democrats' filibuster-proof supermajority, putting the emergency breaks on the leftist agenda which Republicans were previously powerless to thwart on their own.

Let's not forget one of the key truths realized in Massachusetts and already noted in relation to the President. A few months is an eternity in politics, and neither party is immune to the shifting winds. The thumpings Republicans took in 2006 and 2008, after seeing George W. Bush elected to a second-term only 2 years before, are still fresh memories. The mood of the national electorate could hardly be moving in a more favorable direction for the GOP, which currently holds all of the momentum heading into the Midterms as Democrats have badly damaged their brand, but pride cometh before the fall. It would be a fatal mistake for Republicans to begin taking the favor of voters for granted and assuming the inevitability of the monumental Republican wave which appears to be taking shape towards November 2010. When I asked a veteran GOP aide in the House how Hill Republicans were feeling in the aftermath of Tuesday's astonishing result, he said all were thrilled but not taking anything for granted or resting on their laurels.

There is much work left to rebuild the Republican brand and, much more importantly, put the country back on a prosperous course. Republicans must do all they can with their newfound influence on the Hill to lead a course correction for the good of all Americans, Republicans and Democrats. The same independent voters who came out against Democrats in Massachusetts will have very little patience with obstructionism for obstructionism's sake over the coming months. There are fundamental differences in principle on which Republicans should not waiver, but when prudent for the country, the two parties must learn to work together toward shared objectives such as economic recovery. One thing that became clear this past Tuesday is that voters in every state, even the bluest, have had enough and want a change... change, where have we heard that before?

Merry Christmas!!

2009-12-24T20:06:00.004-05:00

I wish all of my readers a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2010! May you enjoy a wonderful time with family and look forward to the many blessings a new year will bring.

~Pearce

2009 Roundup: Health Care, Afghanistan & The Economy

2009-12-14T16:28:00.065-05:00

UPDATE 12/24/2009: The United States Senate has passed its version of the Democrats' health care bill on a 60-39, strict party-line vote which took place Christmas Eve morning. Democratic leaders in the House and Senate will now work to merge the Senate bill with the much more liberal House bill. Senators Lieberman (I-CT) and Nelson (D-NE) have vowed to veto the final bill if it moves left of the version they supported this morning. With their more moderate interest on one side and disenchanted House liberals on the other, the Conferencing of the two bills promises more drama, deal-making and a still uncertain fate for President Obama's top legislative priority.

ORIGINAL POST: As the pre-teens draw to a close, let's look at the big issues dominating our collective consciousness and political discourse, issues that set the stage for the 2nd decade of the 21st Century and will determine the course of politics and the balance of power for years to come. 2009 began with a monumental event in history as America saw the first black citizen assume the office of the presidency. Most Americans met this milestone with enormous hope, hope that far out-sized any one man's ability, even the most powerful man in the world. Hope has turned to frustration as President Obama has struggled to unite political factions, quickly repair the economy or pass his landmark legislation, health care reform, to this point. The President has three years to recover; Democrats on the Hill have 10 months. Both have seen their fortunes turn rather dramatically since sweeping wins in November of 2008.

Democrats' health care reform legislation remains bogged down in flying sausage, though an end is potentially within site as Democrats desperately fight to give Obama a landmark 1st-year achievement and pass a bill before Christmas. I've written 8 posts on health care with a good bit of background and plenty of my views on the issue. In sum, health care reform is of critical importance to the longterm sustainability and decency of the country we all love, BUT, unlike Americans, all health care reform is not created equal and is not by definition a positive step forward for the nation. Health care reform which fails to address the fundamental issues underlying our health care crisis of costs, quality & coverage and only adds more people, programs and taxpayer dollars to a quickly failing system will only exacerbate the problem and send us faster into the abyss. This type of legislation is indeed far worse than doing nothing. This is not to say that all Democrat ideas embodied in their bills fit this profile, but those which do are a grave concern. Indeed there is room for hope that with some of the pilot projects in the Senate bill aimed at controlling costs, current legislation will be a first step in a long process of getting the system under control. Forgive me for being skeptical and believing Democrats have put the cart before the horse, expanding coverage with very little real effort to first control exploding costs. With all of that said, let's see where we are with 17 days remaining in 2009.

For months now, public opinion has been trending against Democrats' health care reform, with no momentum following passage in the House. The latest CNN poll shows 61% in opposition to the bill. Also, a majority disapprove of the President's handling of the issue. Americans' believe health care coverage is not the government's responsibility and that their costs will increase. They think it is the wrong time for health care reform in light of the economy, unemployment and the growing deficit, which most believe these bills will increase. Perhaps surprisingly, much opposition is from the left.

This has made health care reform an excruciatingly tenuous issue for Democrats facing voters in only 10 months. The fact that they are sitting on a very different political timeline than that of President Obama is causing much concern. These lawmakers are trying to figure out how a vote for health reform against the will of voters will be anything less than a death sentence for their political careers. Despite being the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid is in

more political trouble over health care than most members of his caucus as his state stands firmly against his bill. One idea is to push benefits up to 2010 in order to show tangible, positive results before voters head to the polls. Stu Rothenberg wonders Democrats are trying to walk off a cliff as those most likely to vote in 2010 are against the Democrats' reform.

The bills passed by the House and the one currently at play in the Senate are being decried by smart observers and activists on the right and left. The left complains that the bills do not contain a "robust" public option, aka quick trojan horse to single payer care, that they still leave millions uninsured and that the House bill restricts government subsidies of abortions. The right is incensed by the expansion of government control over patients' decisions and treatments, the fact that the bills bend the cost curve up instead of down as confirmed by the director of the Congressional Budget Office and the CMMS, the increase in individual insurance premiums, that they fail to block illegal immigrants from receiving coverage, that millions will lose their coverage, that they include potentially unconstitutional individual mandates, and that the Senate bill slashes Medicare, an arguably hypocritical stance. Some Democrats and liberals are also raising alarms over the costs of the bills and demanding the ban on taxpayer funds for abortion. These bills indeed send several of the President's promises down the river.

The dean of Harvard Medical School penned a must-read piece in the WSJ saying he gives the current bills a failing grade. In Dean Flier's words,

Our health-care system suffers from problems of cost, access and quality, and needs major reform. Tax policy drives employment-based insurance; this begets overinsurance and drives costs upward while creating inequities for the unemployed and self-employed. A regulatory morass limits innovation. And deep flaws in Medicare and Medicaid drive spending without optimizing care...

The various bills do deal with access by expanding Medicaid and mandating subsidized insurance at substantial cost—and thus addresses an important social goal. However, there are no provisions to substantively control the growth of costs or raise the quality of care. So the overall effort will fail to qualify as reform...
In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it. Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care's dysfunctional delivery system...
In effect, while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

As Harry Reid frantically tries to round of the 60 votes needed to pass his health care bill, even inserting $100 million dollars for Louisiana to get Landrieu's support, Joe Lieberman has become the biggest thorn in his side. Lieberman was one of the Democratic Senators (yes, I know he's technically an Independent following his 2006 loss in the Connecticut Democratic primary, but he caucuses with Democrats) to demand scrapping the public option from Reid's bill. They succeeded. Yesterday, Lieberman announced that he would vote against the current bill, due to its expansion of Medicare (a "compromise" many, including the Washington Post, believe is a faster route to single-payer than the public option). Democrat Ben Nelson is also against the compromise. With only 60 votes in his caucus, including Lieberman, and no Republicans likely to support the bill, Reid has zero room for error. Politico is reporting that Obama has told Reid to give Lieberman what he wants (a report the White House denies), but Reid is holding on as the Senate is in hurry up and wait mode for the CBO score of the latest compromise deal due in the next day or two. Meanwhile, in the House, Speaker Pelosi proclaims she is ready to do "almost anything" to pass reform this year, setting up a potential showdown with her liberal wing who won't like the watered down Senate version. Needless to say, these disputes among Democrats pose a grave threat to the self-imposed imperative of passing reform in 2009. Obama has summoned the entire Senate Democratic caucus to the White House tomorrow for a meeting at this "make-or-break" moment for his health care overhaul.

In the end, as David Brooks says, health care reform rests on a values question, our values individually and as a nation. Their is no clear right answer. It is a "brutal choice." No one in this debate is evil or selfish. With all of our similarities as fellow citizens we have different values. That is as it should be, and those values inform our stance on health care reform. As Brooks explains the dichotomy,

Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one...

We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values.

The other major story as we conclude 2009 is President Obama's bold decision to send 30,000 more American troops into combat in Afghanistan. Obama rightly sees Afghanistan as imperative for our security. As he put it in March, “This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. ... This is fundamental to the defense of our people.” Everything is easier said than done. At West Point, the President turned those strong words into strong action, much to the relief and pleasure of conservatives, who feared weakness, and to the dismay of many liberals. Indeed, on Afghanistan, the President is dealing with reverse coalitions. The political peril in the President's decision makes it all the more admirable.

The President has tried his much discussed soft, outstretched hand approach and against challenges, reality and limited success, has been forced to move on to plan B. His decision process on Afghanistan was long, laborious and, to some, amounted to dithering. It was clouded with leaks and angry conflict between the White House and its own commanders. However, he did come to a firm decision and is moving forward. This President operates in "analytic mode," dispassionate but serious and thoughtful.

In the next sentence after announcing the troop buildup, the President stated that troops would begin withdrawing in July of 2011, an obvious concession to his base. His advisors differ on how firm that date is, but we know now this President is serious about and taking ownership of this war. I, therefore, have little concern that he will cut and run in July of 2011. He said nothing about how steep said draw-down would be.

In Oslo last week, President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. He used the opportunity to give a poignant defense of war. This was no doubt jarring to his immediate audience but encouraging to conservatives at home who have worried this man is too naive and idealistic to lead in our world in which, as he stated, "evil does exist." We learn a lot about Obama the man through his speeches and some see the most recent as a move to the center, a place of strength for an American president, and a foreign policy shift as Obama bows to reality.

The stark reality is that terrorists dreaming of and plotting for the destruction of America are still not tired. We must fight on, steadfast in our commitment to freedom and security. To prevail we must have strong allies, a major question mark in Afghanistan. I hope and pray Obama's decision was right. I hope he found the perfect balance between our national security, his most solemn duty, and the risk to our brave men and women, our most precious treasures. Obama can win in Afghanistan, and if he remains firm in his resolve, conservatives and Americans at large will stand behind him through thick and thin, all the way to victory.

The economy, the one issue in politics that voters think about every single day, every time they pull out their wallets and every time they think about the future. The economy is the top issue for voters now as it has been for most of 2009. With unemployment rising to 10.2 percent in October and the '09 deficit topping $1.4 trillion, Americans are understandably worried and skiddish. The U-6 statistic tells us that a more accurate look at total economic dislocation is 17%, which includes underemployment. For Democrats, that means it's time to put jobs first or risk enraging the struggling electorate. With every passing day, the "rubble" of the economy is increasingly at Obama's feet, and Americans expect him to fix it. Interestingly, Democrats are more likely to be unemployed than Republicans. Blacks are worst hit, with 35 percent of the young unemployed.

While there are green shoots in the economy, recovery is scarcely touching jobs. The White House is doing its best to convince voters that the stimulus package has "created or saved" thousands of jobs, but watchdogs have concluded those advertised numbers are inflated, inaccurate, temporary or just made up. Now, finally, the White House seems to be turning its attention to the deficit, hopefully in earnest. The wave of debt payments facing the government have the potential of crippling the economy, again. Voters rightly see deficit reduction as the top budget priority for Washington, well above health care. At the same time, voters worry the government will do too much for the economy, making the situation worse and hampering recovery. Only 23% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right. 76% prefer a free market economy, and Republicans are now trusted more than Democrats to fix the economy. Mitt Romney, an almost certain presidential candidate in 2012, has outlined his plan.

Americans need economic recovery. We need a renewal of "moral materialism" and the manic energy which has taken America from the banks of Plymoth to the pinnacle of prosperity, power and influence. We've survived the shocks of a year ago, but people are truly struggling and having a hard time seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. We must unleash market power and individual innovation to ensure a bottom up recovery for America, quick, strong and enduring.

2009 LEFTOVERS

Check out the Top 10 Everything of 2009.

As you enjoy the many college football bowl games this holiday season, think about whether or not the government should intervene to push for a playoff to replace the BCS system. Principled conservatives believe this idea, by a Texas Republican, should "draw a 15-yard penalty for unnecessary roughness to the idea of limited government."

On Tiger, how utterly disappointing. Read Bill Simmons' piece on the "zoo."

As far as views on Christmas across the country, 76% believe religious symbols should be allowed on public land, 72% prefer "Merry Christmas" to 'Happy Holidays" and 77% say they've been nice this year. I'm with the majorities!

As we move into decade 2 of the 21st century, we're witnessing the end of the email era as Twitter is changing the way we live.

Consider giving cash or gift cards this year. It's better for the economy.

Finally, I'm very proud of Raleigh-Durham, NC for being ranked the smartest city in America! Let's Go Duke! And Carolina is pretty smart too.

Have a Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!

Seeya in 2010! Midterm elections anyone?!

Independent Swing: GOP Sweeps Big Races

2009-11-17T18:07:00.032-05:00

On November 3, 2009, the Republican Resurgence began. In two races billed as potential bellwethers of political fortunes in the 2010 midterms and watched for signals of the prevailing political winds, the GOP scored enormous victories in two states, Virginia and New Jersey, controlled by Democrats for the last eight years. Debate is fierce over how much, or little, the two local governor's races truly mean on a national scale, but, whatever the extent of their significance, they were bad news for the Democratic Party and the White House as Independents, who loved Democrats in recent years swung hard to the GOP.

Many saw the resounding defeats of the Democratic candidates as a referendum on President Obama, more specifically on his liberal, big-government policies at which much of the country is bristling. Despite Obama winning Virginia by 6 and New Jersey by 15 one year ago, the White House political machine has put forward its best effort at defying logic and claiming that these major defeats in no way reflect on prevailing views of the President and his policies. What they cannot deny is that these elections proved Obama's inability to transfer his own magic in any tangible way to other Democratic candidates. Despite campaigning with Corzine in New Jersey three times and with Deeds in Virginia twice, attempts to leverage his influence in their favor, "Obama surge voters" stayed home, almost all of them. Obama's name will not be at the top of the ballot again until 2012, and if these trends hold, it will be a very long 3 years for Democrats between now and then.

While most voters told exit pollsters that Obama was not a factor in their vote, the policy path he has charted in Washington has been responsible for the backlash against Democrats, particularly among Independents. In Virginia, Obama won Independents only one year ago by one point, McDonnell won them by 31, a shocking 32 point swing! In New Jersey, Obama won Independents by 4, Christie by 27, a 31 points swing! Independents in the first 9 months of Obama's presidency have fled the Democratic party in mass.

Another key segment of voters in Obama's historic win was suburbanites. These voters, like Independents, which many of them are, swung hard to the Republican candidates in both Virginia and New Jersey. What's more, seniors strongly supported McDonnell, by 18, and Christie, by 15. Of voters in Virginia who identified the economy of their chief concern, McDonnell won by 14, another ominous sign for the President and Democrats. Young voters, who are challenging for both parties, actually supported McDonnell. Virginia, a swing state in 2008, swung hard back to the GOP as the Democrats' coalition went into shambles, and the ugly truth for Obama is that he actually hurt, rather than helped Deeds.

The White House may have turned a blind eye to the Republican victories, but Democrats on the Hill realized there was a strong message in them getting "walloped" and began doing some soul searching. For Democrats who cared to pay attention, these results were a wake-up call. They are "feeling angst over 2010" when they are at the mercy of voters across the country. They have been forced into a stark realization that it ain't 2008 anymore. You would expect this to make them quite a bit more cautious on the Obama agenda. Indeed, some Democrats admitted, "I should be worried," and begun rethinking support of the liberal agenda. They would be crazy not to.

Occurring almost exactly one year after Obama and down ballot Dems thumped Republicans for the second straight cycle, these landmark victories offered the GOP enormous hope for a much brighter future. Republican voters proved "fired up and ready to go storm the ballot boxes" which points to great success in the approaching midterms where turnout is the name of the game. Republicans are learning valuable lessons from these victories by looking back at the successful strategies employed. McDonnell, who is already fielding questions about a future in the While House, ran on the Republican middle. His conservative bonafides unquestioned, he focused his campaign like a laser beam on kitchen table issues of jobs, the economy and transportation. This is the model for Republican candidates in the coming cycles.

According to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Obama was not watching the returns on Election Night, and Pelosi had the audacity to say "we won last night." Perhaps they should smell the GOP roses which swept over them and start heeding the clear and poignant message from the American people, slow down and back off, or pay in 2010 and 2012. These races demolished the great realignment myth of 2008. Conservatism in strong in American, and the more brazen Democrats continue to be with their liberal policies, the higher the building GOP tide will rise and the deeper their losses will be in coming years.

Election Day 2009!!

2009-11-03T00:30:00.005-05:00

Election Day 2009 is finally here, and the few key races around the country are providing plenty of drama and excitement! While commentators warn against seeing results in Virginia, New Jersey or New York as bellwethers of what 2010 will hold for the two parties, sweeping conclusions will be drawn as many will see the races, 364 days after the historic election of Barack Obama, as a referendum of his first 9 months in office. With one of the races in the bag for the GOP, focus has turned to a nail-biter in New Jersey and an unusually dramatic Congressional contest in New York. The overall outlook is still foggy on Election Day as I and other political junkies stay glued to the latest polls for any hint of 11th hour momentum for the candidates.

Republicans will see wins in any of the three as a rejection of the Democratic agenda as Obama was victorious in both states and New York's 23rd district in 2008. Democratic losses, the GOP line goes, should spook Democrats in Congress who will face voters in conservative or swing districts next year, making them more timid about supporting Obama and Pelosi's signature liberal initiatives such as health care reform and cap & trade legislation. This will almost certainly prove true given that politicians seek to cover their own hide first, even when that effort puts them in conflict with party leadership. These Democrats will not be anxious to walk the proverbial plank for Obama if he proves unable to turnout the voters who elevated him to the presidency without his name on the ballot. Without a doubt, intensity is now solidly on the side of the GOP, just as it was for Democrats in 2006 & 2008 capitalizing on widespread discontentment with President Bush.

The Virginia Governor's race is absolutely over as the Republican candidate, Bob McDonnell, has opened up a commanding lead over Democrat Creigh Deeds. Given my work on the race, this victory will be especially rewarding. For proof that this one is a lost cause for the Democrats, look no further than the White House. Over a week ago the administration cranked up the CYA machine and began throwing Deeds under the bus for ignoring their wisdom from on high, even before Obama made his final stop with the candidate. The truth of the matter is that Creigh presented no concrete plans and represents a party that is ramming government down people's throats, rubbing all Republicans and most independents the wrong way, especially in Virginia as those swing voters "flock" to McDonnell. As PG friend, Curt Anderson, sarcastically wrote in Politico, Deeds' loss had nothing to do with the president's 25-point drop in job approval, promise.

On Election Day, McDonnell has a substantial enthusiasm gap and money on his side. With the "North Stars" lining up solidly behind the Republican, the only remaining question in this race is how soundly McDonnell will wallop Deeds and how much of a drag the lackluster Deeds campaign will be on down-ballot Democrats running for seats in the House of Delegates. Today will undoubtedly end in a GOP landslide in the Commonwealth, a state Obama won by 7 points one year ago. My latest involvement in the race was in the creation and writing of DiscoverDeeds.com, a website highlighting the DEEDSaster that would be a Deeds governorship. Check out the site, sign up and join the Facebook group!

Oh New Jersey... In years past, New Jersey has given hope to Republicans only to dash it in the end. This scenario could play out again as incumbent Governor Jon Corzine has spent his fortune tearing down Chris Christie, his Republican challenger, in order to compensate for his own dismal approval in the state. This negative effort has been effective in mounting a major Corzine comeback; however, don't confuse this with improvement in Corzine's standing in voters' eyes. He has simply brought Cristie down to his low level while not budging himself.

The X-factor in this race is independent candidate Chris Daggett who has polled as highly as 20 percent and is taking some of the vast anti-Corzine vote away from Christie. Daggett could well play spoiler today, but with 68 percent of voters believing he has no chance of winning, Republicans hope the historic trend of third party candidates under-performing the polls at the ballot box will hold true, handing Christie the victory.

On Election Day, this race is a pure toss-up with polling all over the map in the final days. On average, Christie is up by 1 point, well within the margin of error, but giving the GOP hope in the final hours in a reliably blue state which handed Obama a 15 point victory last November. It all comes down to the ground game today where the historically strong Democratic organization meets the intensity expressed by disenfranchised Republicans. Unfortunately, the outcome may remain a mystery late into tomorrow morning and beyond, recount anyone?

What a dramatic finish we've had in New York's 23rd Congressional district. This race is a special election triggered by Obama's appointment of long-time Republican Congressman John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army. The X-factor, and eventual front-runner, in this race has been Conservative candidate Doug Hoffman. Republican county chairmen selected liberal Dede Scozzafava as the Republican nominee to face Democrat Bill Owens. From the outset, the conservative base was unsatisfied with the choice and began to rally around Hoffman who had unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination. Hoffman went from a footnote to a serious candidate with an endorsement and enormous financial assist by the anti-tax Club for Growth.

In mid-October, observers started to wonder if Hoffman could actually win as polls began showing him neck-and-neck with the Democrat, outpacing Scozzafava. Over the last 10 days, high profile Republicans including Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, both potential Presidential nominees in 2012, started a wave of support by lending their endorsements. By midweek, the talk was of a more likely "miracle" win by the third party candidate, and commentators were trying to figure out what it all meant.

On Saturday, the race took a crazy turn as Scozzafava, noticing her paltry poll number, dropped out of the race leaving only Hoffman and the Democrat, Owens. The RNC immediately professed full support for Hoffman, recognizing that the base had sent a strong message. Upon hearing of her withdrawal, team Obama jumped into high gear seeking a Scozzafava endorsement for the Democrat. They succeeded as Dede gave her party the ole birdy in endorsing Bill Owens with only hours remaining in the race. Even still, conservatives see a Hoffman victory on the horizon. However, with the unprecedented theatrics of the last 72 hours, NY-23 can only be considered a toss-up as polls open in the North Country.

The results in Virginia will be known early tonight; the other two races could keep us up late. In 2004, I welcomed a nice birthday present in the form of W Still the President; in 2006, I was up until the sun rose over Scotland with a less rosy outlook for Republicans back here in the US; in 2008, I stood in Salisbury, NC taking in with sadness Elizabeth Dole's concession speech. Tonight, I look forward to celebrating in Richmond with Bob McDonnell. And, if the wind is blowing just the right way, I'll be celebrating a Republican/Conservative sweep up and down the East Coast!

For real time returns tomorrow night, follow me on Twitter. I'll be tweeting up a storm from Bob's victory party. Here's to another exciting Election Day and a resurgence of Republican enthusiasm and conservative principles with which to meet the enormous challenges facing our great nation.

Health Care Progress & Approaching Elections

2009-10-21T21:13:00.013-04:00

Despite major headwinds, the Democrats' Health Care/Insurance reform bill has made progress on Capitol Hill in the last couple of weeks as Max Baucus' Senate Finance Committee passed its version of the legislation out of committee. It is now one of five versions or reform circulating on the Hill, however, it is by far the most important and most likely to be the vehicle for ObamaCare. Baucus' bill, actually only "conceptual language" when released is the product of months of bipartisan negotiations between 3 Democrats and a dwindling group of moderate Republicans. In the end, Democrats were left with only one Republican aye vote in committee, Maine's Olympia Snowe, a very moderate and independent, thus exceedingly powerful, Senator.

The bill drew fire from both sides of the aisle. Republicans, despite some limited moderation, believe the bill still takes too much power from patients, giving it to government, and costs too much for individuals, families and the country, over $2 trillion by some analysis, sending soaring deficits higher. Liberals, meanwhile, don't believe the bill goes far enough in the direction of government run health care. Both sides regret that the bill falls far short of covering all Americans. There are many problems with this piece of "conceptual language," but the fact that it has been panned by both sides could be a signal that it is approaching some middle ground on the issue, often a positive position from which to launch major reform. I do not support the bill in its current form, but it is a substantive improvement from the more government, more spending, more taxes, more debt approach favored by Pelosi. Unfortunately, given that relative to the other 4 bills this is the moderate alternative, the final bill voted on in the Senate and the product out of the Conference Committee which will merge that bill with a more liberal House bill, will almost certainly be a greater afront to individual liberty and fiscal responsibility.

Public support of health care reform has dropped slightly with the committee passage of the bill. Only 42% of Americans support reform while 54% oppose according to Rasmussen. Even more, 56%, believe health care costs will go up if ObamaCare passes Congress, a rejection of one of Obama's primary justifications for reform. More broadly, Americans by a factor of 2 to 1 believe Government is doing too much, too fast. As for the Baucus Bill specifically, even Democratic Senators recognize it as a "big, big tax" on the middle class, a breach of President Obama's explicit campaign promise to not raise taxes on that group. All bills include an individual mandate, assailed by Republicans and opposed by Americans, which will result in young adults paying a big share of the cost. While the public option was left out of the Baucus bill due to broad opposition, some fear a trap by which it will make it's way into the legislation. Polling has varied of late on the Public Option with one poll showing a sample of doctors favoring it if alongside private care and a new WaPo poll showing support increasing.

The Baucus bill moves closer to fulfilling Obama's "Dime Standard" on reform, but it is still enormously costly, especially in the "out years" of the second decade. Democrats got creative in concealing the real costs from Americans and the CBO by staggering revenue and costs by several years. Many also believe the reform will be bad news for workers as higher costs on employers will be passed to employees. In addition, the bill will cut Medicare benefits for seniors according to the CBO, contrary to what Obama promises. There are other problematic elements hiding in the bill as well. Americans' concerns on these and other aspects of the bill are especially poignant to red state Democrats who are weary of spurning their constituents in supporting ObamaCare. Two-thirds of Americans say that how their member votes on health care will be a major factor in their vote next year.

Let's not forget one of several grand fallacy's in this push for reform. We are going to care for more people with less doctors. No matter how many ways you twist it, this will necessarily and absolutely lead to rationing of health care. The answer is not to turn a blind eye to the uninsured. It is to provide additional incentives and remove the disincentives present in ObamaCare for our best and brightest to join the medical profession in greater numbers. Getting serious about tort reform, despite trial lawyers being one of Democrats' most loyal voting and donor blocks, would be a good start. The shortage of primary care doctors in this country, approaching a crisis, will be a major obstacle to Obama's ideals and would worsen the impact of his reform. Worse, 45% of doctors say they would consider quitting if Congress passes the current health care overhaul!

In the President's lofty rhetoric and grand, counter-intuitive and even nonsensical proclaimations about health care reform, he "implies, misdirects and misleads." To say he lies is too strong, but he is less than honest, forthright and transparent with the American people in his frantic push for reform. Why? He expects, and has seen, that the more voters understand the necessary implications of ObamaCare, the more they fear and oppose it. Only 43% approve of how the President has handled the debate, with a majority disapproving. Perhaps for this reason, he is taking a "hiatus" on the issue so that he can "come back stronger." If only Obama and his Democratic allies would find strength by laying out honestly the enormous challenges facing the system and truly seek a bipartisan solution, many Republicans and Americans would seize the opportunity to collaborate on and get behind reform that is fundamental, critical and historic. Is there still a chance for this kind of progress on health care? Yes, if all involved, think more about Americans' future and less about their own political ambition.

Two major elections which could prove to be bellwethers of electoral successes to come, particularly for Republicans, are turning into the final stretch. The races for Virginia and New Jersey governor have only 12 days remaining and all sides have ratcheted up the intensity. For the GOP the races have been on divergent tracks of late. In Virginia, Bob McDonnell, the GOP nominee, is closing strong and has seen his lead in the polls more than double in the last month with the latest showing him up 19 points over Democrat Creigh Deeds. Meanwhile, in New Jersey the Republican nominee, Chris Christie, has seen his standing slide, not because incumbent Governor Jon Corzine has gained favorability, New Jersey voters still dislike him immensely, but because an Independent, Chris Daggett is gaining a larger share of the anti-Corzine vote. As a result, the race is in a dead heat in its final days. With Corzine hitting a ceiling around 40 percent despite his many fat jokes, the identity of New Jersey's next governor hinges on how many voters pull the lever for Daggett. Traditionally, Independent candidates under-perform their poll standing on election day as voters decide against throwing away their vote.

Bob McDonnell has expanded his lead in Virginia as voters have grown weary of Deeds' incessant negative attacks and his inability to articulate clear plans for confronting the Commonwealth's many challenges. The slide has led Deeds to point blame at "what's going on in Washington," not a good idea when it's the Obama voters you most need to give you a fighting chance. Those voters are unenthusiastic about Deeds to say the least while Bob is reaping the benefits of a "ginned-up GOP" who will likely turn out in force, tipping the expected turnout on November 3rd decidedly in his favor. Stu Rothenberg has responded to the movement in the polls by moving the race from toss-up to lean takeover for Republicans. Although Obama will be campaigning for Deeds this coming Tuesday, the White House has stepped back from the race somewhat so as to not tie itself to the sinking ship that is the Deeds campaign. Down ballot Democratic candidates are pursuing the same strategy of deserting Deeds as the campaign comes to a close. Even more worrisome for Democrats, polling on the race may point to trouble around the country in next year's midterms, including a precipitous drop in black voter turnout from the high of 2008.

Is is of course not over until the fat lady sings and the last votes are counted, but a Deeds Comeback, which Democrats still try to envision, saying it would be the "greatest comeback in the history of American politics," looks less and less likely with every passing day, especially with McDonnell enjoying a 2:1 cash advantage in the home stretch. For Deeds to snatch the Governor's mansion from McDonnell's grasp, he will need both the "sleeping giants" of the Obama surge to rise up and a major game changer to erase McDonnell's substantial lead among Independents before it is too late. Unfortunately for Deeds and Democrats, it probably already is.

The Rising GOP Tide: Republican Gains on the Horizon

2009-10-05T20:20:00.019-04:00

After two disastrous elections in 2006 and 2008, the Republican Party has found a pulse and looks poised to comeback with major gains in upcoming cycles, beginning with the two gubernatorial races less than a month away and next year's midterm congressional races. The tides that were strongly at the backs of Democrats in the last two elections are quickly shifting direction and portent much greater GOP fortunes. The extent of the GOP revival is unclear, but gains are inevitable. American politics is "reliably cyclical," and we love a good comeback story. Therefore, 2010 will be an exciting, perhaps monumental, election cycle.

To make sure Republicans are motivated, Vice President Joe Biden, who likes to say things, announced that a Republican takeover of the House in 2010 would be the "end of the road" for the President's agenda. Ironically, the President's job approval is one of the factors pointing to GOP gains. Democrats have picked up 54 seats in the past four years to establish a substantial majority, but trouble is brewing. Republicans would need to pick up 41 seats to regain the majority, a sweep that was thought impossible, but is now not entirely inconceivable. Charlie Cook believes the "situation has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats." Stu Rothenberg sees 70 Democratic-held seats as competitive compared to only 34 currently in GOP hands. He is predicting a GOP pickup of between 20 and 30 seats. Forty-nine Democrats represent districts won by John McCain in 2008. It is important to note that the President's party typically loses a number of House seats in his first midterm election, but 2010 is shaping up for greater than expected gains for Republicans as the party targets 80 seats, including some of entrenched Democrats. The upcoming midterm is being compared to 2006 election in which Democrats gained 30 seats as well as control of the House and the Republican Revolution of 1994. All experts see double-digit Dem losses in 2010 at a minimum, with statistical forecasting predicting at least 15.

The Senate will also play host to a number of top-notch races in 2010 as Democrats may struggle to retain their 60 vote supermajority. There are some notable Democratic senators who have proven extremely vulnerable as we approach the midterm elections. The most prominent is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who, in the latest polls out of Nevada, is trailing his top challenger by 10 points. Also behind in the polls is embattled veteran senator Chris Dodd and party-switching Arlen Specter. Democrats from blue-states seem to be ignoring the fact that their party has a problem and are putting red-state democrats in potentially perilous positions. Even members not up until 2012 are concerned and raising money years early. In North Carolina, incumbent Republican Richard Burr is vulnerable but leads potential opponents, including Elaine Marshall, by double digits. There will also be a number of additional gubernatorial elections around the country in 2010, where incumbent difficulties are signaling trouble for Democrats.

Fortunately, political junkies, and especially Republican voters, don't have to wait until November 2010 for the excitement of a comeback. Virginia and New Jersey always elect governors one year after presidential elections. This gives these races disproportionate significance and earns them the focus of the political chattering class as well as the national parties and

White House, despite their "hyper-localism." In Virginia, Republican Attorney General Bob McDonnell is leading the race against State Senator Creigh Deeds, in a rematch of the razor-thin 2005 attorney general race, that some see as a model for a GOP comeback. In New Jersey, the Republican Chris Christie is also leading incumbent Jon Corzine. Both races are proving daunting for Democrats.

Living in Virginia and working in Republican politics, I've enjoyed a first-hand view of the gubernatorial race, and the McDonnell campaign in particular. In the last 8 elections, Virginians have elected the candidate from the opposite party of the President. Republicans are hoping the "presidential jinx" continues this year. McDonnell opened up a 15 point lead in the race during the summer, but negative, backward looking attacks by Deeds have closed the gap somewhat as election day approaches. However, Deeds stumbled mightily as he was caught on camera talking out of both sides of his mouth, incoherently, on raising taxes. The video, particularly his condescending snap at a female reporter has gone viral and is now featured in a major ad buy for McDonnell in Northern Virginia. Also, with Obama's popularity now upside down in Virginia, it is unclear whether he would help or hurt Deeds, who is facing a major enthusiasm deficit and is struggling to motivate NOVA liberals, in the closing weeks. McDonnell now leads by an average of 7.3 with four weeks to go. In New Jersey, where the race has also tightened, Christie leads by 3.8. (Note: Follow RCP polling charts on both races at the bottom of the PG Blog.)

It's not too early to look a bit further ahead to the 2012 presidential election in which President Barack Obama, who has been on the defensive quite a bit, will have to again face voters and, perhaps, pay a price for his rapid move towards further government intervention which has angered a large segment of Americans and dramatically hurt his standing in the polls, leading to major losses among Independents who now disapprove of the President. If I had to make a prediction today, it would be that one of the two men pictured on the left, Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty, will challenge Obama for the White House. These are two of the most influential Republicans, and both are making clear moves towards a presidential run, the second for Romney who came up short in 2008.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, called the gut of the party, announced in early summer that he would not seek reelection, a move understood as allowing him to focus on a presidential campaign. He has already traveled to eight states in recent weeks, assembled a campaign team and started a PAC. Meanwhile, Romney's 2012 team is poised for another run. Some commentators are going so far as to predict that Romney will be our next president; he is after all "next-in-line." However, in addition to Romney and Pawlenty, there are other formidable candidates who may mix up the field, including rising star John Thune and grassroots conservative favorites Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.

A major voting blog Republicans must better attract in 2012 is young voters, aged 18 to 29, which Obama won 66-32. The GOP challenge to win those critical voters back will be a major storyline in the next three years as the campaigns heat up. Some argue that to attract these and other Obama voters, Republicans should move off base. Meanwhile, Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele works to merge all factions of the party into one cohesive and effective organization. Indeed, Obama is losing support with Hispanics and young voters. Seniors, who make up a disproportionate share of the electorate in midterm elections will also be critical in the upcoming cycles.

Ideologically, more Americans identify themselves as conservative than liberal by a two-to-one margin. What's more, also by a two-to-one margin, Americans report becoming more conservative in recent years. In each of the 50 states, conservatives now outnumber liberals. The term "liberal" is actually the least popular of all political labels. However, on specific policy issues, public opinion seems to be tilting more liberal.

These days, politics is money. For better or worse, exorbitant amounts of money shape races and can determine elections. On that point, Republicans are off to a better start than Democrats in 2009. The Senate campaign arm for Republicans, the NRSC, has outraised the DSCC two months in a row as Democrats have been jarred by a drop in fundraising. Meanwhile, on the generic ballot, Republicans have recovered from their deep deficits which preceded the last two election and pulled to even or slightly ahead, major signs of a changing political reality as Democratic Party ratings have plummeted.

In a sign that Republicans learned something from the dominance of the Obama campaign in Web 2.0, the GOP has taken a great liking to Twitter and is dominating the medium compared to their Democratic colleagues. With more Americans paying "very close" attention to politics than ever, Twitter provides a unique and direct way for elected officials to communicate with their constituents and supporters. Even John McCain, who did not know how to use a Blackberry as he ran for president, is now one of the most prolific tweeters on the Hill.

Aided by a variety of factors from Twitter to the mortalizing of Obama, Republicans will make gains in Congress in 2010 and may very well pick up wins in both gubernatorial races only 28 days away. How significant, or even historic, the GOP comeback will be a year from now remains to be seen. I look forward to following the races as excitement builds and news breaks. Stay tuned to the PG Blog for all the latest, follow on Twitter and send in first-hand accounts of campaigns around the country. It promises to be a fun ride.

Additional Challenges: The Economy & Afghanistan

2009-09-22T20:55:00.002-04:00

With the fierce debate over health care reform dominating the headlines and Washington dialog, it is easy to forget that there are several other issues at least as, if not more, important demanding the attention of the President, Congress and engaged Americans. The first is our still fragile but likely recovering economy, indeed rated as the most important issue by voters, twice as important as health care. You wouldn't know it by looking at unemployment numbers, as this has been and will be for quite a while a jobless recovery, but other indicators give reason for optimism that we have indeed come back from the brink and that the recession is over. Just how close we were to the proverbial brink is only known by the wonks who spend sleepless nights a year ago this month working to prevent an historic, and global, total collapse, but from what I've heard, the American people are better off not knowing how close we were to economic catastrophe. Even with the economy stabilizing, worries linger and people are understandably skiddish, planning to refrain from boosting their spending, a much needed catalyst to recovery.

We have seen the federal government take drastic, and in some cases unprecedented, steps to rescue major sectors of the economy: from bank bailouts begun under W to taking ownership of GM and passing a $787,000,000,000 "stimulus" package which a majority of people don't believe is working and some see as an utter failure. One study warns that Obama is making "Great Depression" policy mistakes. Americans, who by and large still believe in limited government, have begun to balk at these interventions, fear the government will do too much to fix the economy and oppose new regulation of the financial system. Many also see some of the policies coming out of the White House as job killers that could doom Democrats. The intensity of opposition is working against the President as 65% believe he has taken on more than he should have.

The August jobs report showed the unemployment rate increasing to 9.7% on its way to double digits according to most analysts, including the White House, which promised no higher than 8% if the stimulus passed. Based on the President's pledges on job creation, he is now running a 5 million job deficit; will he be held accountable for his rosy claims? Conservatives criticize Obama's policies as a major reason job creation is not happening. With 79% knowing someone out of work, the dire unemployment situation is personal. In addition, while most Americans believe tax hikes hurt the economy and favor tax cuts over more government spending, more than two-thirds believe Obama will break his campaign promise and raise their income taxes in his first term.

President Obama's actions on the economy have drawn criticism from across the oceans as well. He has increased tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, leading the Wall Street Journal to call him a protectionist president and charge that he is abdicating U.S. trade leadership. I am a big believer in the universal value and net benefit of free trade, so this is very troubling. Warren Buffett explains the consequences of the astronomical deficits we are now running, financed by our friends overseas, which are set to "soar" with Obama's new programs to $1,500,000,000,000 in 2010. Obama is set to triple the national debt to $14,200,000,000,000 by 2019. This is creating doubts about the longterm viability of the dollar among investors and the international community, with the UN calling for a new global currency. The United States has lost it's top spot as the world's most competitive economy for the first time as a result of the crisis, placing 2nd to Switzerland.

The President continues to lay blame for the economy at the feet of Bush, although more view his presidency as a failure than did Bush's after 6 months in office, but Americans will only buy the blame shift for so long. More now disapprove of the President's handling of the economy than approve, and his numbers continue to fall including a 19 point drop since January in his leadership rating. Some speculate that piling up debt, gaffes and hypocrisy are sinking Obama and that, thus far, he has "failed miserably." Eventually this will be his economy alone, and he will have to answer for it. If that time comes before the 2010 midterm elections and unemployment is still hovering around 10%, something no one is hoping for, it could spell major electoral trouble for Democrats. After all, "it's the economy stupid."

Earlier this month, we remembered the day that will forever mark my generation, the day our grandchildren will ask us about. Our grandparents lived the horror of Pearl Harbor; our parents learned from their teachers that their President had been assassinated; we watched on our school TVs as America came under attack and the twin towers crumbled. No, we will never forget where we were that day or the feeling of shock we felt as our bubble of security was violently burst by evil terrorist with no regard for innocent human life. However, 8 years after that tragic day, the War it provoked is facing new challenges and losing public support as 49% believe the impact of 9/11 has been forgotten by most.

Commanding General McChrystal has told Obama he will need more troops or else the war "will likely result in failure." The President, under pressure from lawmakers on Capitol Hill has said he will not rush his decision and is demanding a clear strategy before sending any more Americans into combat. The Pentagon has delayed its call for additional forces pending a review of the strategy. July and August were the deadliest months for our troops in the conflict. Obama is facing waning support across the nation, with 20% saying we should pull out immediately, and major doubts among his Democratic friends on the Hill. Among conservatives, some believe it is time to get out, while others see no choice but to try. All agree that the War presents President Obama with a major test of his leadership as the AP reports he may change course again.

Security issues threaten to steal the spotlight that has been on health care for the last several months as Obama cannot avoid the great challenges and hard choices which face him. The world's atomic watchdog believes Iran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb as the U.S. says the rogue nation could expedite the process. Meanwhile, President Obama has scrapped plans to deploy a ballistic-missile defense shield in Central Europe. This very controversial move, domestically and abroad, is based in a "gamble that scaling back defense ambitions will improve security in the long run." Members of both political parties in Congress have expressed concern over the decision as Heritage calls the move a "shameful surrender." As for the American people, 31% agree with the President while 38% disagree. Voters still trust Republicans more than Democrats to keep the country safe.

For a fresh look at the dynamics of international affairs, I highly recommend this fascinating piece in Foreign Policy magazine in which Marc Lynch illuminates the American primacy debate with an analogy to a feud in the hip-hop world involving Jay-Z.

For your laughing pleasure, definitely check out Sh&% My Dad Says and People of WalMart. I think every other picture was taken in North Carolina, Raise Up! Also, this dog really doesn't want a treat from Obama, and a space butterfly!

Make your opinion known in the PG Polls: Do you think the economy will hurt Obama and Democrats in future elections? Should we remain committed to the Afghan War, even sending additional troops, or abandon the effort?

The PG Blog has gained over 60 new fans in the past week. You can be the 300th! Thanks for the support!

Obama's Uphill Battle on Health Care

2009-09-15T19:33:00.023-04:00

President Obama welcomed members of Congress back from the most tumultuous August recess many of them had ever faced with an address to a joint session in the House chamber in which he hoped to regain control of a debate that got away from him in August as public opinion soured drastically on his health care reform proposals, dragging the President's own approval down. Analysts called his speech a make or break moment for his signature legislative initiative as everyone hoped he would be more definitive and specific about what exactly he supports in health care reform and what he doesn't. The President offered a few more specifics, but left some of the most contentious questions, such as his bottom line on the public option, unanswered. Fact checkers, including the AP, found "a variety of oversimplifications and omissions" as well as "spurious" claims.

After a post-speech bounce in public support for Obamacare, opinions on the reform proposals have fallen back to August levels as voters still aren't convinced the changes will help them. This is bad news for Obama and his allies and indicates that even after employing his inspirational rhetoric and unquestioned speech making talent, the President faces a major uphill battle, with 23 Democrats vowing to vote no, to see anything close to his original ideas for reform make it to his desk. Worse for the President, 54% of voters say the more they hear about his plan, the less they like it. With public opinion mirroring that of Clinton's failed effort in 1994, perhaps it would be wise for Obama to step back and start over.

It has indeed been a rocky road for the President as he has "turned mortal" right before our eyes and even his strongest supporters are beginning to call he and the Democratic Party out. Camille Paglia, called one of the left's sharpest minds and someone who is as liberal as it gets, has taken Obama to task and even called for Pelosi, presiding over the most unpopular Congress in decades, to step aside. She writes about "Obama's healthcare horror," the administration's "grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform" and the President's "vague and slippery promises" which she exposes as nonsensical and false; others have called them fantasies. "It isn't conservative rumors or lies that are stopping healthcare legislation; it's the justifiable alarm of the electorate." She wonders "who is naive enough to believe that Obama's plan would be deficit-neutral? Or that major cuts could be achieved without drastic rationing?" Paglia concludes that "after a summer of grisly hemorrhaging, too much damage has been done" as "liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government." Read her pieces, brilliantly written, to see that she has no tolerance for Republicans either, but as a prominent liberal, I believe her reasoned and objective criticisms of Obama and his health care proposals carry a particular weight and credibility.

Nothing more needs to be said in this space about the public option, which as I've laid out before is by design intended to be a gateway to a single payer system of health care which voters firmly reject as contrary to American liberty and capitalism. Given that, to Obama's surprise, the public option has become a flash point in the debate and deeply unpopular and is thus likely dead, other watered down proposals, such as "triggers" to activate the public option at some later date, have been put forward to accomplish some of its same ends.

One idea is to use co-ops to provide competition to private insurers and help cover those who are currently unable to get health insurance. Co-0ps have a rich tradition in the US, but they can come in two very different varieties which would make all the difference as it concerns the health care debate. A co-op run by the government and funded by the government which offers health plans chosen by the government would simply be one step back from the public option- a trojan horse for the trojan horse for single payer. On the other hand, a co-op run by its members, funded by its members and controlled by its members could be a successful mechanism to reach some of our mutually agreed upon goals in the health care system. As you might expect, the Democrats warming to the co-op idea have in mind the former variety. Also troubling are proposals for individual and employer mandates to purchase health care, a specific, highly regulated service, or face stiff penalties, something that the CBO says would be unprecedented in this country.

One of the best opinion pieces written on health care recently caused one of the most absurd reactions from the left I have ever seen. John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, a favorite of progressives, wrote a piece in the WSJ in which he argues against a government takeover of the health care system and deficits that will bankrupt our country by presenting eight quality reform ideas geared towards "less government control and more individual empowerment."

From the incredible reaction by his liberal patrons, you would have thought he was promoting terrorism; he was indeed called evil and worse. They absolutely vilified a CEO who, in 2007, gave up his salary for charity. His exercising of his right to free speech, typically sacred to liberals, presenting well-reasoned alternative ideas to the liberal solution incited a massive boycott and caused his company's brand perception to drop. It is truly pathetic and a sad commentary on the state of our political discourse that civility, tolerance and respect have given way to vitriol over policy disagreements. It it not only those on the left who are guilty, but this episode was telling. Americans supportive of his ideas and disgusted by the reaction responded with "buycotts" around the country.

One of the points Mackey made is fundamental to the health care policy issue. He observes,

Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care. Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America.

A Duke professor, after analyzing exactly what is in the House's reform bill, recently wrote on the same issue, pointing out that "There was no right to such care before doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies produced it." While Obama has favored addressing the issue as one of choice and competition rather than as the moral imperative many liberals see for the government to provide health care to all, it is an interesting point to consider. There is no fundamental right to healthcare. We, as a compassionate nation, should see to it that policies are in place to allow all of our fellow citizens to reap the benefits of one of the very best health care systems in the world. There are strong proposals for doing just that without putting the government in between patients and doctors, artificially rationing new procedures and technologies and bankrupting the country with new entitlements. Government exists to preserve our natural, inalienable rights; it does not exist to control our access to critical and personal services.

Check out the comment Danny Mammo of Duke left on my last post critical of some of my evidence. I responded, defending the validity of the Lewin study and shedding light on the discrepancy with the CBO. We dove deeper into the specifics of the bill, including some of the more inflammatory charges made by conservatives: death panels, abortion funding and health care for illegals. Please share your thoughts as well!

Note: Thank you so much for a great first year for the PG Blog with more than 3,500 views and over 200 Facebook fans!!

The August Slide: Health Care & Obama

2009-09-02T19:58:00.024-04:00

August has been a great month for Democracy, an active, passionate and vocal democracy, very American and created by a perfect storm that has resulted in the President suffering a precipitous fall in public opinion and his signature policy initiative going on life support in one of the "most rapid turnabouts in recent American political history." All Presidents fall at the end of their honeymoon, but no president has ever fallen this far this fast. The "August Slide," as David Brooks calls it, is not personal. Pollster Glen Bolger observes that the major hit Obama has taken in the past month is a function of a populace that still likes the President as an inspiration figure and positive image on the foreign state but is growing very skeptical and quite wary of his big government policies, as well as his leadership, down 19 points from January. The health care debate "is at the fault line" of a larger debate about the role of government. The damaging path of the debate caught Obama by surprise, and Charlie Cook believes the situation has "slipped completely out of control" for the President and Democrats.

Americans are waking up to the doublespeak the President and his Capitol Hill allies, to whom he has outsourced an inordinate amount of his policy formulation, continue to employ in frantically pushing their version of health care reform; Time calls these obvious paradoxes the fatal flaw of ObamaCare. The WSJ also describes the President's many contradictions, pointing out that voters aren't stupid and it's because they are listening that ObamaCare is in trouble. As the White House likes to say, "facts are stubborn things." Notice we haven't heard much from Obama lately about his unequivocal promise that "if you like your insurance, if you like your doctor, you can keep them." Why? It turns out saying something over and over with increasing force and conviction does not make it true. The Lewin Group, in a major analysis of the bill, estimates that 83 million people would be forced onto the "public option" under Obama's plan, losing their current, private coverage. Truly, no study was necessary to see the fallacy in Obama's claim. His purpose is sweeping health care reform that would transform the entire system... yet no individual would need to change their coverage. It's difficult to enact fundamental change if none of the players in the system change their behavior. Many Americans saw the wool being pulled over their eyes and reacted indignantly.

Speaking of wool being pulled over our eyes. Can we put to bed the debate about whether or not ObamaCare with a public option, not only would, but is designed to lead to single-payer care? Over the course of the debate, Democrat after Democrat, including Obama, has been caught telling friendly crowds that that is indeed the whole idea. The public option, it turns out, was part of a grand strategy developed in 2007 as a "stealth single payer." Hillary Clinton's chief strategist says the public option "was always meant as a transition to single payer, not merely as an aid to competition with private insurers." Case closed.

Obama would prefer single-payer, so why use the public option to get to the liberals' dream? Krugman explains that "politically it's hard to do in one step." I wonder why... Perhaps because only 32% of Americans favor single-payer health care. The rest understand what it would mean. Liberal leaders are being forced to confront a centrist nation. Realizing they've been found out, and with a plurality now opposing the trojan horse, the public option looks increasingly less likely to be included in any reform that passes. Meanwhile, Pelosi says she can't pass a bill in the House without it. In case you've forgotten why conservatives oppose the public option, here's Heritage...

The bottom line is that a public plan will grant the federal government unprecedented power to constantly tinker with the health care sector in ways that will make one sixth of our entire economy completely dependent on decisions made in Washington, DC. This is not the way free societies operate.

Democrats would also like us to believe their sweeping reform would be deficit neutral as Obama has demanded. It was a rude awakening for them when the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office scored their bills between $1 and $2 trillion dollars. Director Elmendorf said that rather than "bend the curve" on health care cost as Obama has promised, his proposals would "significantly expand the federal responsibility for health care cost." We are then to believe that health care and all of Obama's other big government initiatives can be paid for by pillaging the wealthiest Americans with a variety of surtaxes. The Washington Post has called this a "mirage." As Margaret Thatcher said of Socialism, "the problem... is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

Obama is right to preach the dangers of inaction on health care. Health care spending, especially in the form of entitlements, is on an unsustainable and dangerous path, one that could bring down the entire economy. However, the President loses me in using this fact as rationale for passing legislation that we now know would only make our bleak budget outlook much worse. CBO director Elmendorf told congress that ObamaCare would "put an additional long-term burden on top of an already unsustainable path." Indeed, doing nothing would be better than accelerating our dive into the red; 54% of Americans agree.

Time Magazine laid out the challenge for Obama very well:

The hard part is making sure that in transforming a system that is bankrupting the country, Washington doesn't create a new one that does it even faster. Or that in expanding health coverage to the minority of Americans who don't have it, Washington doesn't leave the majority who do have it — and who like what they have — with less.

Unfortunately, the President's proposals fail on both counts.

Obama and Democrats in Congress have simply lost credibility with the American people, including their strongest supporters. Republicans are not trusted much more, but have overtaken Democrats on the question for the first time in years. Only 27% of Americans believe members of Congress have a good understanding of the health care issue as they look to reshape one-sixth of the American economy; voters think they know the bill better. The polls were turning against the President in the early summer and by the end of July, only 36% thought ObamaCare was a good idea. Gallop presented the top 10 takeaways of public opinion on health care at the time and the numbers all look bad for the President. Obama's power has been dwindling ever since, leading some to conclude that he does not know how to legislate. In August, voters came to appreciate more of the reasons the plan is bad for America. At this point, Obama has been dealt a major blow in the polls with his approval dropping to 46% in one poll and losing 17 points with Independents.

The last hope for a bipartisan bill rests with six Senators on the Finance Committee, but talks appear to be breaking down on irreconcilable differences. Desperate to pass their signature piece of legislation, regardless of what the American people think, Democratic leaders on the Hill are considering twisting Senate rules to force through a bill with no Republican support, a move that many commentators believe would be ultimately suicidal. Mr. Obama's pledge to be a post-partisan president has quickly fizzled as he wages a permanent campaign, employing the politics of fear and blame, instead of governing. He is also providing a variant, incoherent message, the result of allowing focus groups to dictate his language. The carefully crafted phrases that Obama has used repeatedly have thus far not convinced a skeptical public. He now faces a "politically explosive mix of unpopular policies and an angered electorate." Some believe Obama's smartest move would be to "pull the plug on ObamaCare" and find an exit strategy in order to save his presidency, but I'm not holding my breath. He is indeed pushing ahead with a new strategy and plans to address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday night in an attempt to regain control of the debate.

Clearly a lot has transpired in Washington and around the country in the last month in the tumultuous world of health care reform. There is more to discuss, but it can wait until next week as I anticipate being able to post more regularly. We'll address the question of health care as a right and the co-ops alternative, look at the absurd reaction from the left to this great piece in the WSJ by the CEO of Whole Foods as well as cover the economy, the GOP and other issues that have been muffled by the town hall volume of health care in August.

In the meantime, cast your vote in the latest PG Polls: Do you think President Obama will sign a major health care reform bill this year? Will Obama ever fully recover from his downward slide?

Obama Honeymoon is Over, Health Care, Sotomayor & More

2009-07-21T20:47:00.010-04:00

Capitol Hill has gotten hotter in the past few weeks. Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic nominated for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, withstood her confirmation hearings as fighting continues over health care reform with formal debate on a Democratic overhaul of the system taking to the floor in the near future.

On health care, Obama has hit major speed bumps in his frantic push for liberal health care reform. It would seem that the slower the sausage making of health care reform bills takes, the lower the chances they end up on the President's desk. This is no accident. As the American people get a better look at the Obama-Pelosi plan for our nation's health care system, the more weary they become. This is bared out in all recent polls which show support for the plan at new lows and falling fast. Even independents now have a negative opinion of how the President is handling health care reform.

At least as troubling to Obama as the recent polling is the enormous problem he is having coraling votes from his own party, from moderate and swing state Democrats. Nevermind the Republicans, whom Obama has decided he doesn't need, Obama's party is sharply divided on several aspects of the proposed policy and cannot seem to reach consensus. He is, in fact, losing support from nervous Democrats. The greatest recent blow came courtesy of the director of the Congressional Budget Office who said that the overhaul would increase, rather than reduce, long term health care costs facing the nation. His testimony was seen as a potentially devastating blow to the plan.

Despite being muzzled on many issues, the GOP has landed some punches on the Obama plan which have helped turn the tide of public opinion away from the President. The public is beginning to realize that the "public option" favored by Obama and his more liberal allies, is nothing more than a Trojan Horse for single-payer, government-run health care. Don't take my word for it, listen to Obama and his allies admit as much. Americans are also recognizing that it is a giant "taxapalooza" primarily, but by no means exlusively, on the wealthy at a time our economy can least afford it. Rather than reduce costs, the Democratic bill, like most things Obama has signed, will explode the deficit... even his argument about Medicare's administrative costs doesn't hold water. Here is a great look at Obama's "top five health care lies." Also, see this memo from the "message man" of the GOP which lays out the detrimental effects of the plan and advises Republicans on how to get our message across. One prominent member of the GOP who has stepped up is Louisiana Governor and rising star Bobby Jindal who penned a thoughtful op-ed on the issue. Michael Steele also spoke this week about the dangers of the "Obama experiment."

In response to the shifting tide on his idea of reform, the President has been in the forefront on a daily basis telling his party not to lose heart and the country that health care reform must happen now. He has even gotten down into the fray, directly attacking one of my favorite Senators, Jim DeMint from South Carolina.

The bottom line is this, ObamaCare is not inevitable. It has slowed and now faces enormous head winds resulting from inescapable facts and a related drop in public opinion. Charlie Cook believes that if Democrats are to get anything out of their health care overhaul effort, then must now settle for half the loaf. As a friend of mine said in admonishing me for drinking Diet Coke, half the french fries is still bad, but half the loaf would be better than the full weight of government's inefficient, ineffective, controlling and costly bakery in our health care.

The confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor which transpired last week were wholly uninteresting and without drama. There is no doubt whatsoever that the first Hispanic justice will sit on the Supreme Court, and, despite her significant flaws in philosophy, it will be a good and proud day for the fastest growing segment of the great melting pot that is the United States of America. On Sotomayor, Republicans decided to pick their battles and decided to pass on this one. Note my previous comment about the fastest growing segment of our population if you need a good reason.

The one interesting development surrounding the Sotomayor hearings was the Supreme Court, yes the one she'll sit on, just before the hearings began, overturning her indefensible decision in the Ricci firefighter case which I have previously outlined. Wondering what the public thinks about Sotomayor? Only 54% of Americans can name a single Supreme Court justice. Enough said.

Obama's honeymoon is officially over. As I reported last month, Obama's poll numbers are coming down to earth fast and keep falling, particularly on his biggest issues, as Americans do the math on his policies. Speaking of doing the math, a new Rasmussen poll shows Obama tied with Mitt Romney in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Less than half of Americans now believe the President has a clear plan for solving the country's problems although independents maintain a relatively positive opinion of him.

One significant effect is that Democrats are seeing their agenda slipping as the whole thing gets bogged down and Obama's momentum dramatically slows. Rather than sequentially address the most pressing issues of our time, our "Shuffle President" is taking a seemingly chaotic stab at all the above in an effort to remake America. The fate of all of his priorities could now be in danger. Peggy Noonan wisely suggests that Obama slow down and focus his administration on a sentence, not 10 paragraphs, saying "an administration about everything is an administration about nothing. The administration is so aware of this trend that it has put off the scheduled release of the latest budget update which it knows will greatly diminish its chances of pushing more record spending through Congress. Polls around our nation's birthday show that Americans still overwhelmingly believe in limited government, not the more expansive, expensive and intrusive government Obama desires.

LEFTOVERS:

The economy is still in shambles and showing timid signs of recovery. Faced with his own broken promises and a disappointed public, the President is attempting to move the economic goalposts. Here's a look at how he's doing on job growth since passing the $787 billion stimulus package. The budget deficit has topped $1 trillion for the first time while unemployment rose to 9.6% last month and has risen over 10% in 16 states, including several swing states critical to Obama in 2012. There is even talk of another stimulus bill. Shall we look at how the last one has fared so far?

Sarah Palin has decided to resign as Governor of Alaska. Bam! Wow! What? Many suspect she is resigning to focus on a Presidential run. Most see the move as puzzling at best as only 33% of Republicans think she has the ability to be an effective president. Despite the definite unorthodoxy of the move, a leading political commentator does not think she's crazy. As with all major developments in the political world, there are winners and losers. In the end, it appears that Palin, viewed favorably by 72% of Republican leaning voters, is here to stay. She adds evidence for that belief with a recent op-ed on Cap and Trade legislation.

The House of Representatives passed the economy killing Cap and Trade bill late last month, even with 44 Democrats voting nay, but thankfully it has dim prospects in the Senate where there are too many reasonable, moderate and vulnerable Democrats for easy passage of what would likely be the biggest tax in American history. Meanwhile, climate change, the underpinning of the legislation, is facing increasing scepticism.

Republicans are looking good in the two major races of 2009. McDonnell leads Deeds by 6 and 3 points for Virginia governor in recent polls while New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie leads wildly unpopular governor Jon Corzine by 7 points.

A bipartisan blueprint for immigration reform.

Why are Southerners so fat?

I want to stand here.

Iran's Clenched Fist, Obama's Sliding Polls, Health Care Sticker Shock & More

2009-06-24T11:56:00.024-04:00

The declaration that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was reelected as Iran's president has led to an unexpected uprising that has brought to light the fragile ground on which Ahmadinejad's repressive regime stands. The protesters believe, and the evidence indicates, that the election was rigged in favor of the incumbent regime which has responded with the iron fist of violence and attempts to extinguish what it sees as dangerous demonstrations of freedom.

President Obama has been exceedingly reluctant to speak out strongly against the violence of the government against peaceful demonstrators and offer support for the people hungry for true freedom and democracy. Some caution is understandable as he is in a "no-win situation." As Reuters explains, "strong criticism could backfire but a muted response leaves an impression of weakness." His response indeed looked weak to many, leading Obama to shift his stance and strengthen his language in recent days "condemning" unjust actions and saying he is "appalled and outraged" by the violence. It has also been pointed out that this presents the President with a dilemma within his own liberalism. No one knows how the crisis in Iran will resolve, but here are four potential outcomes.

This is all happening against the backdrop of Iran and North Korea continuing to pursue nuclear weapons that would be a grave threat to the US, its allies and the world at large. This has weighed heavily on the President's response. Both rogue nations, along with other Mideast setbacks, seem to have intruded on Obama's diplomatic hopes although Secretary of State Clinton insists that, even in light of the "appalling" human rights violations we have seen in the last week, the administration will continue pursuing talks with the regime. Some on the right believe the election has exposed the flaw in Obama's approach to Iran, which has been to do the opposite of what his predecessor did.

As for North Korea, our President now stands accused of plotting nuclear war. This in response to the USS John McCain trailing a N Korean ship suspected of carrying nukes and other weapons. Meanwhile, residents of Hawaii are on edge as North Korea is reportedly planning to fire a long-range missile towards the islands on or around July 4th. To protect our 50th state, the Defense Department has moved ground-to-air missile defenses into position off the coast of Hawaii. These developments have increased criticism of President Obama's plan to cut missile defenses and the defense budget in general.

An interesting subplot of the Iran uprising story has been the essential role played by new media, particularly Twitter. Whereas in the past, Ahmadinejad's repressive actions of expelling journalists and cutting off communication from Iran would have succeeded in preventing the voices of demonstrators from reaching sympathetic ears around the world, today, we have Twitter, Flickr and Facebook, all serving as a "virtual mosque." Twitter has proved so critical to breaking through the information blackout, the US State Department actually asked the site to delay a schedule maintenance outage so as not to interrupt one of our only means of monitoring the situation. New media taking a prominent position in these events of global importance has led many in power to look at the fun tools of teenagers in a new light as even Defense Secretary Gates calls on the Pentagon to look for ways it can use social networking. Indeed, Twitter may change the way we live.

President Obama held a press conference yesterday, attempting to hit the "reset button" on several of his major issues on which he is losing public support. In the words of the RNC, Obama hoped for a hail mary as his agenda collapses on Capitol Hill. The President has been putting his high approval numbers to work on a myriad of major policies, but as the public looks more at his policies and less at him, the honeymoon appears to be coming to an end and his poll numbers are "starting to wilt." Gallop's daily tracking has Obama's job approval hitting new lows this week as his disapprove numbers steadily climb. As you see in the graph, the President's approval index hit 0 for the first time this week and actually fell as low as -2.

The big story is the gulf developing between Obama's still high favorability ratings and the much lower ratings for his specific policies. On his biggest policy priority, health care, Obama finds far less public support for rebuilding the system now than existed in 1993 when HillaryCare failed. The public is also wary of the growing deficit and actually opposes some of Obama's economic interventions. On the stimulus, confidence continues to fall as barely half now think it will boost the economy and Joe Biden concedes that "everyone guessed wrong." In a separate poll, a substantial majority do not believe Obama has a plan to deal with the budget deficit and many people disapprove of his health care plan, auto industry rescue and plan to close Guantanamo Bay. The public still does not blame Obama for the current state of the economy, but as time passes, unemployment continues to rise and people look at what the President does rather than what he says, it is becoming his to own.

Health Care is now, by far, the most dominant policy issue on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. The President and his allies on Capitol Hill have run into two different headwinds that threaten to derail their desired policies. The first is the public polling discussed above indicating less than an enthusiastic desire on the part of Americans for key parts of their plan. The second speed bump is sticker shock courtesy of the Congressional Budget Office which scored one Democratic proposal at $1 trillion over 10 years and another at $1.6 trillion amounting to a prognosis of debt. Some called the dose of reality a "death blow" to a government run health plan. This has led to concern within Obama's own party, finding themselves responsible for making unpleasant choices, that his health care plan lacks the votes needed to pass. The issue is sure to test Obama's resolve in the coming months as he continues pushing ahead and tries to keep his options open even as a bipartisan consensus looks increasingly unlikely. Try seeing the whole process from his perspective.

The issues and proposals at play in this debate are many, but I will highlight a few. Some believe doctors, the ones writing the bills, are the linchpin of real reform. These are, of course, some of the same doctors who booed Obama when he addressed them last week. A new Gallup poll shows that Americans trust doctors significantly more than Obama on health care.

The greatest point of contention to this point in the debate has been the public plan favored by Obama and the more liberal Congressional Democrats. Some believe the final reform bill is likely to have the public plan although the Senate Finance Committee's version leaves it out and Obama has signaled that he would be open to reform without it. Conservatives argue that the public plan would be the only plan and is a one-way-ticket to single payer health care but that it can be stopped. On the other side, Liberals say we need a public plan to force the private sector to improve. There is a fear that we could be creating a Welfare State that takes our country down the same path as GM as some even claim government health care would be unconstitutional.

When pressed at yesterday's press conference, Obama was forced to walk back his promise that even with a public plan, Americans would be able to keep the insurance they have, acknowledging that, as conservatives have repeatedly argued, the government plan could trump private plans leading some employers to dump their employees' coverage, this is what Americans worry about. Some believe you can't trust Obama on the issue, especially in light of past statements calling for a single payer system. They believe Obama is naive, hypocritical and dishonest in his claims that he will control health spending when his proposals have a good chance of doing the opposite.

Another point of debate is the rationing that conservatives fear would accompany a government takeover of the industry. Liberals push back that rationing will happen with or without the public plan. Also in the conversation, capping or eliminating the employer tax exclusion, which would be a goldmine of new revenue but is vigorously opposed by Obama supporters, and new taxes to pay for the overhaul. A proposal that has long been discussed is reining in medical malpractice lawsuits which have been credited for a large chunk of exploding costs. Obama's idea of extending Medicaid has met stiff resistance from governors of both parties who are facing record state deficits. Finally, Obama makes an argument about the global competitiveness of American busisnesses, one the WSJ finds hypocritical for a Democrat. On health care and other issues, Barone has picked up on an Obama pattern of dodging facts, skipping details and governing Chicago style.

Most Americans want health reform but express broad anxiety about its potential impact on their own care. Before trying to comprehend, much less form an intelligent opinion on this incredibly complex issue, it is important to gain some background and contextual knowledge. To this end, I have found Ezra Klein of the Washington Post helpful. While his views on the issue are decidedly liberal, he does a nice job of framing the debate. He offers a telling graphic showing that while the US pays more than other countries for health care, our results are rarely better and sometimes worse. He also explains the Dartmouth Atlas Studies showing the same phenomenon among US states. In his series Health Reform for Beginners, Klein explains the employer tax exclusion, a key player in McCain's proposals, as well as health insurance exchanges, both key players in the current debate. He also explains why it's the Senate Finance Committee that takes the lead on Health Care. He lays out why a reform aimed at bringing costs down long-term may come at a staggering initial cost and what a public plan is. Finally, he defines the difference between socialized medicine, single-payer health care and the unique system we are more likely to have. For a case study close to home, take a look at Massachusetts' experience with health reform under Mitt Romney.

Government Motors, The Obamathon, Health Care, Economy & More

2009-06-14T23:10:00.036-04:00

In the 20th Century it was said "What's good for GM is good for the country." Not a decade into the 21st Century, the county, more specifically the federal government, has taken over the company and is deciding what is good for GM. On June 1, 2009 General Motors collapsed into the government's arms. GM is the latest in a string of company takeovers in our history and the second biggest ever. Despite overwhelming public opposition, only 21% support, as well as opposition from many conservatives, the President took a 60% ownership stake in the company and fired its CEO. President Obama has repeatedly asserted that he has no interest in owning a car company and will not interfere in its day-to-day operations, but his administration's actions so far call those words into question. Obama taking on the job of GM CEO is a move that some think he will come to regret and others warn could drag the economy into a deeper recession. It is certainly a move that has been noticed around the world as Hugo Chavez joked to Fidel Castro that they risk being more conservative than Barack Obama.

The fact is Obama now owns GM; its success or failure will be his. As to the prospect of GM failing, George Will says, "if GM has not already failed, New Coke was a success." Be that as it may, Obama faces an incredible challenge to crack the infamously insular culture at GM. Some see Obama diving into a quagmire with no exit strategy. Many experts have a hard time seeing how GM will ever make money and do not believe we, the taxpayers, will ever get our $70,000,000,000 back. Some Senators such as Mike Johanns and John Thune are calling for much greater oversight in light of the administrations use of TARP money, meant for troubled bank assets, to purchase GM. Indeed, who would have thought we would see this happen. The public remains very unhappy with the move, 17% of Americans calling for a boycott of the company and only 42% of GM owners saying they are likely to buy GM again. We have been told the government intervention was necessary because GM was too big to fail. Really? Will points out the absurdity of this argument. Currently GM is worth about the same as California Pizza Kitchen, a nice restaurant but far from vital to US interest.

If America hopes to remain the world economic leader, we must understand and embrace the concept of creative destruction and comparative advantage. If other countries have proven themselves better able to efficiently manufacture automobiles, our country will do better by allowing the natural destruction of the inept parts of our automotive industry and creating greater value in other endeavors that will enhance, not detract from, our global competitiveness. "Out of destruction, a new spirit of creativity arises." The President should not have taken this dramatic step, blurring the fundamental line between government and business, the free enterprise that defines the capitalism on which our nation was founded. I hope for the sake of taxpayers and our economy that this experiment works. If it does not, Obama will not be the only one to suffer.

It's not news that the main stream media in this country has a liberal bent; it's even less surprising that they love Barack Obama. What is rather amazing is the fawning, constant and utterly uncritical coverage he is receiving from most of the press. When Bill Maher says "enough with the Obamathon" you know it's gotten out of control. I must admit, the wall to wall coverage of the President's every move did lead me to a great burger joint in Arlington, but burgers aside, the free press is failing at their duty of checking our politicians and offering critical analysis of their actions. This is not healthy for America. Pew Research Center found that Obama has enjoyed "substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush." This infatuation with Obama has allowed him unquestioned authority that no president should have. Cal Thomas points out that we have many houses of worship in this country but newsrooms should not be one of them. Some in the press have even said that Obama is "sort of God." I beg to differ.

Despite the dangerous lack of critical press, the public is paying attention and is growing more and more uneasy with many of the President's policies. Obama is holding strong in public opinion polls due to his very high personal favorability numbers and the fact that many Americans still place the majority of blame for current problem on former President Bush. However, if you look at polling on individual Obama policies, his issues seem to be crumbling. Even with a press in love, if Obama's policies do not succeed, patience will run out, and Americans will make him pay.

The debate over what could be the greatest change to this country's health care system in history has begun in earnest and is heating up. While both sides of the aisle agree that something must be done to fix a system with cost running out of control, the points of agreement do not extend much farther into what the solution should look like. There are many, many facets to this debate, but the "rock" that threatens to derail the entire process is the public option which Obama and liberal Democrats support. There are many flavors of a public plan, but the one Obama would like to see in a health care bill has drawn loud criticism from the right and raised great concerns among the more moderate members of his own party. As Democrats fight amongst themselves over the legislation, Republicans are making their case to the American people with an alternative and are gaining trust from voters on the issue.

Some on the left believe conservative arguments are meant only to scare the public and ensure that Obamacare goes down just as Hillarycare did in the mid-90s. This is far from the truth as conservatives have very legitimate concerns about what decision making power being centered in Washington would mean to the future of health care in this nation. Conservatives, consistent with the age-old debate between big government vs. individual freedom, believe that decisions about health care should be left to individuals and their doctors. Which solution will improve a system in dire need of change is the question which we better hope Washington gets right. There is good and lively debate taking place between those who are wholly against a public plan, believing it will not improve health care, and lay out good arguments for that view and those who support such a solution and offer counter points. Before deciding which side has it right, it's prudent to get a basic understanding of and context for the debate.

Americans believe in prevention to improve our health care system and lower cost, but until we see it actually happen, there are a number of questions, in addition to the one on the efficacy of a public option, that must be answered. The most important, and the one that has the least clarity at the moment is how any new policy would be paid for. The Washington Post has criticized the administration for releasing reports on cutting the cost of health care that contain "few details about how those ambitious goals would be achieved" and do not "address any increased spending needed to implement reform." Such lack of a cost cutting plan lead conservatives to believe Obama is not addressing the problem and led USA Today to say that the Republican plan is more detailed and bolder than the one coming from the White House. Several ideas have been floated to pay for reform. Obama has considered taxing the wealthy to fund a health mandate. He has also said that it is ok to borrow more money, adding to our already approximately $1 trillion deficit for this fiscal year alone, to pay for health care. Some on the left have also floated the idea of taxing employee based health care, an idea that, when proposed by McCain, Obama vehemently attacked. The current House bill includes $600 billion in tax increases and $400 billion in cuts to Medicare and Medicate, which hospitals oppose. Another idea is to have those Americans who are already insured pay more in taxes for greater security in their coverage. Observers on the right fear that cost will ultimately be cut by rationing care and limiting choice, which is what has led to the infamously long waits for care in Canada.

Some see Obama's rhetoric not matching up with reality and fear that he will kick the harder questions of funding down the road, to be dealt with when we are financially on the brink. Health care reform is, without a doubt, one of the President's top priorities, and he is realizing that he must take on a greater role if he hopes to see something pass. Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal suspects that all the rush is because Democrats don't think their bill can stand public inspection. As Gerson notes, "the political fight on health care remains lopsided in Obama's favor, but the policy argument is growing more balanced." Therefore, as the debate becomes more complex, the outcome is less certain.

Pressure is mounting on the President as the economy continues to lag well below the predictions he used to push his stimulus bill through Congress, a bill that has shown little to no evidence of helping to jump start us out of recession. We lost another 345,000 jobs in May, an improvement but still enough to send our unemployment rate well past 9 percent. Meanwhile, benefit spending under Obama has soared to new highs at an average of $17,000 for each household. Also, oil has spiked above $70 and is rising fast signaling another summer of pain at the pump. Obama's tax proposals also promise to do more harm than good as Microsoft pledges to move jobs overseas if they pass. Some see the policy proposals as so anticompetitive that every firm could need a bailout, as if Obama is telling businesses to drop dead. With our budget deficit soaring out of control, almost $1 trillion this year alone, China is voicing fears and looking to diversify from the dollar. If and when that happens, the fun really is over.

Mindful of the disastrous consequences of losing fiscal credibility, Obama boldly proclaimed that he is reinstituting "paygo" rules for Congress to reign in the deficit. Let's just say that, with exceptions for every major Obama program including health care, the proclamation was worth little more than the teleprompter from which he read it. The president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget likened the President's announcement to quitting drinking but making an exception for beer and hard liquor. The WSJ sees a pattern emerging of spend, repent, spend again, repent and believes the paygo announcement is nothing more than a coverup. Obama has also started making a renewed push for his stimulus package, which has only spend 6% of its funds to date. How can that be stimulative? The AP called out Obama's rhetoric as spin and said his proclaimations are simply summer reruns. The stimulus was passed with Obama warning that if Congress failed to pass it, we could see unemployment rates of 8.5%; that aweful scenario would, of course, be avoided with the stimulus package. Oops, with the stimulus package, we are already at a rate of 9.4% and rising.

My favorite line oft repeated by Obama is that he will or has "saved or created" x number of jobs. What? Saved or created? How can you measure that? Answer, you can't. Therein lies the magic for Obama. As Democratic Senator Max Baucus observed, "you created a situation where you cannot be wrong... you can take any scenario and make yourself look correct." Somehow, see infatuation piece above, the media has fallen for this empty and baseless claim.

David Brooks believes we have moved from the Age of Leverage to the Great Unwinding and that politically difficult action will be required to pull the nation back up. Some economists and lawmakers are beginning to question whether Obama's activist agenda is helping or hurting the economy. Most believe that Obama's presidency will rise or fall on economic results. He himself has staked his success on his economic policies. However, his spending plans may pose political risks. Polling is now showing significant vulnerability for Obama on the economy as his policies are not working and the public has noticed.

The Obama administration has begun its public relations offensive for the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Republicans continue to have concerns about the Justice as I outlined previously. Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican Party, wrote in Politico that Sotomayor's is a milestone nomination but that her record requires scrutiny. Peggy Noonan has ideas about how Republicans should approach her nomination hearings, as grown-ups asking serious and legitimate questions that require thorough answers if she is to sit on the Supreme Court. In more thoroughly examing Sotomayor's record, it seems that gender and heritage are frequent topics for her, particularly how they affect her judging. In fact, she has repeatedly referenced 'wise woman' in her speeches over the years. Stuart Taylor of the Nation Journal takes an excellent, in depth look at the contoversial Ricci case and concludes that the more you examine the case, the more indefensible her decision looks. Meanwhile, Chris Dodd, the veteran but vulnerable Connecticut senator, is dodging questions about the case. Patrick Leahy, the Democratic Senate Judiciary Committee chairman who will oversee her confirmation hearings has unilaterally decided to begin the hearings on July 13th despite protest from Republicans that the schedule does not allow enough time for careful examination of her record. Please see the comments on the last post for a challenge of my assessment of Sotomayor and my response.

Virginia is one of two states holding a Governor's election in November of this year. As such, it has great national importance, to the psyche of the two parties going into the midterm elections of 2010 if nothing else. The Democratic primary in Virginia to determine who will face Republican and former Attorney General Bob McDonnell was very exciting, not least because Terry McAuliffe, Clintonite and Democratic fundraiser extraordinaire was in the race. In the end, this past Tuesday, Creigh Deeds, a state legislature from rural Virginia surged at the last minute to a "stunning win." How he did it is truly fascinating. Remember, in politics, it ain't over until the fat lady sings. Deeds' win has many implications for the general election race and beyond. For starters, the WSJ saw it as Clintonism going down. In addition, with Deeds the most moderate of the three Democratic candidates, some believe it sets up a tougher race for McDonnell. A key question for Deeds will be whether or not he can capitalize on the "Obamacization" of Virginia that took place in 2008. Turnout will be key, and it will be difficult for Deeds to recreate the massive turnout Democrats saw for Obama. Michael Barone looks at what Virginia voters were telling us on that and other points.

President Obama went to Cairo, Egypt, the heart of the Islamic world to deliver a much anticipated speech that some think could be a turning point in the history of US relations with Muslim nations. He saught "common ground" with Islam by highlighting our shared values and interest, which I believe was effective. Interestingly, after making his middle name off limits during his presidential campaign, in Cairo, he found value in using his middle name, Hussein, several times. Surrounding this speech, Jake Tapper saw the emergence of Obama's Muslim roots.

Some level of humility is necessary to earn the trust and ear of such an audience; however, some believe, and I agree, that he was overly gracious to the Islamic countries while simultaneously downplaying the great deeds of the United States in that part of the world throughout history and continuing his trend of highlighting our supposed downfalls as a nation and sounding an apologetic tone, which is rare for a president on foreign soil. While refusing to utter the word "terror" or directly challenge the human rights atrocities that take place every day in that part of the world, he declared that the United States is one of the largest Muslim counties on Earth. Curious given that we are only the 48th biggest Muslim country. I hope that after this first step of opening dialogue, he will feel able to be more frank with an Islamic audience in the future.

One of the most significant parts of his speech was his reiterating support for a Palestinian state to resolve the seemingly eternal Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He even went so far as to call on Israel to cease settlement activities, something Krauthammer calls a myth. These strong stands, in some ways against Israel, have caused growing anxiety in one of our closest allies. Israelis are beginning to wonder how much support they now have from Washington, and some are lashing out in anger at Obama. Feeling the pressure from the US President, Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister has endorsed a Palestinian state but rejected Obama's call to freeze settlements.

To be clear, I thought the President merely going to Cairo was a positive move and thought parts of his speech were very good and praiseworthy. In fact, the WSJ recognizes that just as Obama has validated much of George W. Bush's security agenda and foreign policy, parts of his speech in Cairo were "artfully repackaged versions of themes President Bush sounded with his freedom agenda." I agree with Thomas Friedman saying "when young Arabs and Muslims see an American president who looks like them, has a name like theirs, has Muslims in his family and comes into their world and speaks the truth, it will be empowering and disturbing at the same time. People will be asking: “Why is this guy who looks like everyone on the street here the head of the free world and we can’t even touch freedom?” You never know where that goes." I do believe there can be immeasurable, profound and history changing good done by us reaching out more proactively and humbly towards the Muslim world. While not without objections, I appreciate the effort the President is making and hope his greatest aims of improved relations and greater peace are realized.

Sotomayor for SCOTUS? Affirmative Action & More

2009-06-01T01:14:00.012-04:00

Just over 100 days into his Presidency, Barack Obama has excercised what some argue is the greatest power of the President, appointing a Supreme Court justice. This person's influence over our nation will extend decades after Obama's administration has ended and is thus of huge consequence. His pick, Sonia Sotomayor, is an Appeals Court justice with a compelling life story but a very troubling judicial philosophy as understood by looking at her past statements and cases.

A quote most have seen by now is from a speech she delivered at Berkeley in which she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Try to imagine what would have happened to a White male who had made the same comment, only about his inherent superiority as a justice to a hispanic woman. His career would be over. In the face of growing pressure from Democrats, the White House has attempted to address the statement with Obama saying he is "sure she would have restated it."

Another problem for Sotomayor is the Ricci case in which white firefighters were denied promotions despite passing the necessary test because no black candidates scored high enough to be promoted. Sotomayor dismissed the case, drawing harsh criticism from a colleage appointed by Clinton. Her decision is likely to be overturned by the Supreme Court just before she would assume one of its chairs.

Finally, at my alma mater Duke, she stated that "the appeals court is where policy is made." A comment that flies in the face of the constitutional role of the judicial branch of government to interpret, not make, law. There is very little doubt the Sotomayor will assume the bench as the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, but I agree that while Republicans may lose the vote, they can win the argument by making a good case against judicial activism. After all, "there is something in our political DNA that wants impartial umpires who apply the rules, regardless of who thereby wins or loses."

Obama’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has brought to the forefront the issue of affirmative action, both because she, a Hispanic woman, was chosen and as it relates to her court decisions and statements. In light of the nomination, I have thought and talked more than ever about the issue of affirmative action and have decided to address the issue here and open up the comments section and PG Polls for each of you to share your view.

I’ve always viewed affirmative action as a temporal issue. By that I mean that, like most policy problems, it is not black and white, and furthermore, that it is a matter of timing. The day after blacks were emancipated from the tragedy of slavery in America, they certainly needed a boost to assimilate into the already advanced white society and economic market. At some later point, affirmative action becomes counterproductive and detrimental to its own ends of racial equality.

Affirmative action, without question, accentuates and perpetuates division based on the color of one’s skin. The more we artificially elevate or suppress opportunity for a person based on race, the more we highlight color differences, foster resentment and cheat equality. Any special treatment, positive or negative, someone receives based on nothing more than the color of his or her skin is quite literally racist and not the ideal for America. The ideal is for there to be no material differentiation between people based on the color of their skin. As an aside, I believe the “melting pot” that is the United States affords us a wonderful opportunity to celebrate and learn from diverse cultures, races and ethnicities. I do not believe we should ever be “color blind.” That is unrealistic and undesirable. We all benefit from people who are different from us and rightly celebrate our shared heritage with those who are similar. However, there is a stark difference between celebrating disparate races and scoring a person differently based solely on skin color.

As I said, I believe affirmative action was necessary after slavery and at some point becomes detrimental and wrong. Now, whether that “tipping point” has been reached or is still some point in the future is a matter of honest debate. I do not pretend to have the answer; however, I suspect we are not quite there yet. To be clear, based on my experience, I believe affirmative action is still appropriate in certain circumstances but is growing less so. A friend of mine, arguing against affirmative action, pointed to the election of President Obama as proof that the ultimate end of affirmative action had been reached and thus it is no longer necessary. Leaving politics aside for the moment, the election of Barack Obama was an inspiration to the entire world and a huge step toward racial equality in this nation. The intangible impact of a black man taking the oath of office in a nation where 146 years before such a man may have been a slave is enormous. However, it is not necessarily indicative of the end game in racial equality. Equality will have been achieved when over a 100 or 200 year span the proportion of black presidents approximately reflects the proportion of blacks in society. Barack Obama is a remarkable man who has accomplished a first; however, I’m not sure that means we can honestly expect those proportions to equalize without a little more boosting of previously suppressed minorities.

The impact of Obama's election illustrates one of what I see as the three major justifications of affirmative action. A black man serving as president, or CEO or doctor serves to shatter glass ceilings that children of the same race may have believed existed, giving them hope that they too can reach for the highest levels of position and success, even to be the most powerful person in the world. When later generations are not constrained by the weight of what has never been done before, they will reach higher and achieve more, further equalizing the races, erasing the opportunity and achievement gap and moving the nation towards a time when the color of one’s skin says nothing about who the person will grow to be and need not be considered in getting them there. For proof of this point, I look no further than the new hip hop song by Maino entitled All The Above. In the song, Maino says, “This what the ghetto done made me; I put that on my father. Tryna hope for tomorrow. When I think that I can't, I envision Obama.”

Second, all parties benefit from an educational environment that is diverse in ideas, talents, backgrounds and race. My education at Duke was much richer for living with and learning from people of different races and cultures. Admissions officers at Duke have told me that Duke, like most universities, practices affirmative action in making admissions decisions. To the extent that practice enriched the diversity of my experience and thus quality of my education, I am glad they do.

Third, in professions such as law and medicine, it can be important that the demographics of the practitioners reflect that of the general population. This is principally a matter of trust, and trust is crucial between a patient and doctor. By and large, people are more trusting of those they see as similar to themselves, yes, even in terms of race.

The issue of affirmative action has of coursed come before the Supreme Court numerous times. Chief Justice John Roberts said in 2007 that, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” In 2003, writing the majority opinion for a Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of racial preferences in university admissions, Sandra Day O’Connor said, “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

In conclusion, I believe affirmative action is unarguably unfair on the individual level (to the white applicant who is rejected to allow for a minority’s acceptance) but is beneficial to society as a whole both today and into the future. A world where the most qualified applicants are people of a variety of races is better than a world in which all of the most qualified applicants are white. I, like most Americans, agree with Martin Luther King that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” I look forward to the day when all glass ceilings are broken and affirmative action is abolished forever.

Please comment and vote in the new polls on the site: Do you agree that affirmative action is a temporal issue? Do you believe affirmative action should be practiced today?

Axis of Evil Heats Up, Health Care & More

2009-05-25T19:23:00.041-04:00

VOTE IN THE POLLS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE!

Memorial Day 2009, the day two spokes of Bush's "Axis of Evil" reared their ugly heads and significantly raised the stakes for our new president and the security of our nation. While we slept last night, North Korea performed a nuclear test, its second, and test launched three short-range missiles. The nuclear weapon tested is reportedly as powerful as the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima. At the same time, Iran sent warships into international waters in a move that is historically unprecedented after itself testing a ballistic missile earlier in the week. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rejected the West's request that Iran freeze its nuclear work and said the nuclear issue is 'over.'

The White House released a statement in response to North Korea's tests at 2:10am this morning, evoking thoughts of the proverbial "3am phone call" that was featured in campaign ads of 2008. The president expressed "grave concern" over the bold move and said we must "stand up" to the North Koreans as nations around the world expressed outrage. The U.N. Security Council held an emergency meeting unanimously condemning the act. The Wall Street Journal says this amounts to N Korea testing Obama.

President Obama said in his inaugural address that "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist." Unfortunately, neither North Korea nor Iran has unclenched its fists in the slightest. The President must now begin to pull back his hand and take decisive action against these nations. As much as we wish otherwise, there will always be evil people in the world who will never respond to an outstretched hand or welcoming smile. This is not a superficial misundersanding; this is a fundamental difference in values. We value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. North Korea and Iran do not. As the most powerful nation on Earth, we must now act, in whatever way necessary, to protect ourselves, our allies, and the security of an entire globe from these ruthless leaders. We can leave nothing off the table, and our enemies must get that message loud and clear.

For the first time in his young presidency, Barack Obama is squarely on the defensive over torture and Guantanamo. Top Hill Democrats pressured Obama into giving a speech on Thursday to address the issue, the day after his request for funding to close Gitmo was overwhelmingly rejected by a vote of 90 to 6 in a chamber that holds 59 Democratic votes. The vote has a lot to do with him saying that some of the terrorists would be transfered onto U.S. soil, perhaps indefinitely, while being unsure of what exactly to do with them. Obama's own FBI chief said Wednesday that tranfering prisoners to the U.S. could fuel terrorism inside the country. As Obama seeks middle ground on Guantanamo, a Pentagon report saying 1 in 7 of the 534 detainees released have returned to terrorist activity does not help his case that closing the prison is in the best interest of national security. Meanwhile, his spokesman, Robert Gibbs let it slip that closing Gitmo was a "hasty decision." The Fix explores "Obama's Gitmo Gambit" and concludes that closure will depend on Obama keeping his own party in line. He is obviously not off to a good start on that front. The Wall Street Journal sees the whole thing as a vindication of Bush's decisions on Gitmo while Charles Krauthammer says we are seeing Obama in Bush clothing on many issues of national security, if not yet Gitmo.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, not surprisingly, has failed to climb out of it this week, despite fleeing the country for China. CIA Director Leon Panetta has suggested that Pelosi's critique of the CIA could be detrimental to American national security. The Washington Post looks at how much trouble she's in as Former Speaker Newt Gingrich says she has disqualified herself from the job. Dick Morris agrees that Pelosi must go. George Will believes Pelosi needs to answer the questions about what she knew when and, furthermore, what she did about it. Stu Rothenberg says that the whole thing is a political pothole that could have been avoided, recognizing that Republicans have found the "soft underbelly of Obama's administration." She's known as Madam Speaker.

Chatter over health care policy is getting louder and louder as an actual bill is expected sooner rather than later and Obama's entire domestic agenda hinges on the supposed savings and revenue from his plan. The President met with a group of leading health-care providers earlier in the month in an attempt to bring them on board with his plan even as the New York Times says his push to cut costs faces tough odds and the Wall Street Journal warns that the path only ends with rationed care and looks at how Washington will ration when life and death decisions are determined by politics. They rightly say that anyone who buys Democrat's claims about choice and affordability will be in for a very rude awakening. In the face of Obama's public option, Republicans have offered their own health care plan, coauthored by North Carolina Senator Richard Burr. Unfortunately, Democrats are threatening to misuse a Senate parliamentary tactic in order to ram Obama's health care plan through congress without any Republican support. As to the public option, the Washington Post cannot imagine a public option aiding consumers without undermining competition. Dick Morris, blunt as usual, explains why rationing means the death of U.S. healthcare.