Jonathan Chait spins desperately on the health care reform outcome.  According to him, Republicans are the big losers in the debate.  He writes:

At the outset of this debate, moderate Democrats were desperate for a bipartisan bill. They were willing to do almost anything to get it, including negotiate fruitlessly for months on end. We can’t know for sure, but Democrats appeared willing to make enormous substantive concessions to win the assent of even a few Republicans. A few GOP defectors could have lured a chunk of Democrats to sign something far more limited than what President Obama is going to sign. And remember, it would have taken only one Democrat to agree to partial reform in order to kill comprehensive reform. I can easily imagine a scenario where Ben Nelson refused to vote for anything larger than, say, a $400 billion bill that Chuck Grassley and a couple other Republicans were offering.

This strikes me as an incredible, almost unbelievable, bit of revisionism.  From where does Chait get his bizarre assertion that Democrats “appeared willing to make enormous substantive concessions”?  Apparently he’s referring to Ben Nelson and the moderate Democrats in the House and Senate.  Let’s accept, for a moment, that Chait is right- that Ben Nelson would, ideally, prefer to vote for a $400 billion bi-partisan bill, than the current monstrosity that will be rammed through the public’s throat on fewer than 60 Democratic votes.  How does this get us closer to Chait’s conclusion?

Ben Nelson does not the Senate-make.  He only APPEARS to be the most powerful  senator because A.)  This bill has become broadly unpopular and B.)  The debate has moved from left to right; i.e, we started off with a bill that was much closer to the ideal of the left-wing of the Democratic Party, than it was to the ideal of the center of the Democratic Party.  Progressives were on-board, from the beginning, and the Democratic task was to move the bill to the center and pick up the centrists without losing the progressives.  That task was made easier because the bill was unpopular and because the President refused to commit to anything terribly specific.  Progressives lost their leverage when it became clear that even a moderate-liberal bill would be a hard sell to the public.

What would have changed had Republicans like Grassley, negotiating “in good faith”, convinced Nelson and Lieberman and Bayh to come aboard a more modest bill which, perhaps, preserved sections like guaranteed issue, but focused more on breaking down barriers between state insurance, than on increased subsidies,  and which didn’t seriously touchMedicare?  What if we started off with something more like Chait’s chimerical $400 billion  bi-partisan compromise.  Well, there are really two possibilities, which lead to more or less the same outcome.

Possibility one:  the bill is pretty popular with the general public.  In this scenario, progressive senators, who wanted far more to begin with, have all the leverage.  Moderates like Nelson no longer have the argument that “anything more liberal than this kill’s our careers”.  Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t.  At any rate, there are about 50 gazillion progressives and about 18 moderates, so they’re bound to try to move the compromise substantially to the left.  At which point, the Republicans probably bolt and it becomes partisan again.  And we’re back at the original Democratic calculus: i.e, if Republicans aren’t going to give us bi-partisan cover, we might as well move as far to the left as we can while still passing the bill.  So the bill moves farther to the left.

But, in this scenario, it’s not at all clear that even a bill as relatively “modest” as the current effort would pass.  For one thing, all the public inertia that’s built against the bill, in a pretty much sustained wave since it’s introduction, would be slowed down dramatically.  If the “death panels” are introduced, at the 11th hour, after a bi-partisan compromise has broken down and after public attention had waned a bit, would the average American even notice?  If the bill wasn’t as unpopular as it is now, it’s hard for me to see Lieberman or Nelson having any leverage.  Dems just go reconciliation, get their public option and maybe end up, after the backlash,  with a bill that’s no more unpopular than the current effort.

The second possibility is that even Chait’s moderate compromise is pretty unpopular, though perhaps for different reasons.  Maybe the left-wing of the Democratic Party isn’t just confined to the activists, and that actual rank-in-file Democrats draw a line in the sand somewhere to the left of the compromise effort.  In which case, again, the progressives have all the leverage, as they’re able to argue that only a more progressive bill will be truly popular.  Even though they’d be wrong, it’s hard to see how they’d be dissuaded from taking pretty much the same steps I’ve outlined above: move the compromise to the left, lose the Republicans, move the compromise further to the left, and win themselves a big political victory.

And this all depends Obama  just sitting willingly on the sidelines, throughout: that he has no preference between a centrist bill (Chait’s compromise), a center left bill (the current version), and a progressive bill (public option, single payer, what have you)- that he’s just a neutral referee arbitrating between competing factions in the Democratic Party.  That seems an incredible assumption though one I’m not surprised Chait makes, given his ideological leanings.  True, Obama hasn’t exactly gone to bat for, well, anything on health care, but the bill has never been in anything other than liberal territory.  Until two weeks ago, a public option- albeit a watered down version- looked like a genuine possibility to many commentators.  At any rate, that’s where the bill was.  He could afford to let the it drift a little bit to the right.  Or so he thought.  Had we started off with something that made Romneycare look mildly liberal, is it really reasonable to imagine that Obama would have been as indifferent a player?

Here’s the bottom-line: the Democratic Party is 70-80% progressive at the congressional level.  Progressive Democrats have the least to fear from great public outcries; they have the weakest personal interest in making deals, watering down bills, caving on their preferences.  Centrist Democrats, in contrast, are dependent on both independents, for votes, and progressives, for funding and organization.  With the numbers being what they are, and the facts being what they are, progressives were never going to let a bill much more conservative than the current effort pass.  They would almost certainly have demanded something far more liberal had the polls not turned so decisively against them.  They may still demand something more progressive, what with the threats from house progressives and Senators like Sanders. Republicans may not have won the debate- it was probably unwinnable- but the Democrats have lost it.  It verges on delusion to suggest otherwise.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

We may not have the sort of “public option” Rand had in mind when she wrote this in Atlas Shrugged, but it’s still a potent reminder of why we fight against statism:

“I quit when medicine was placed under state control, some years ago,” said Dr. Hendricks. “Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything — except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the ‘welfare’ of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter, was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only ‘to serve.’ That a man who’s willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards — never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind — yet what is it that they expect to depend upon, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of man who resents it — and still elss safe, if he is the sort who doesn’t.

Sizzling prose. Few ever talk about how the doctor works so hard to achieve what he does — his labor is talked about like it’s silly putty for the state to play with. Shouldn’t the doctor be able to choose the terms he sees his patients on, how much he charges, and what their relationship is? No, says the state. No, says the Democratic Party — and much of the Republican Party, sadly. Voluntary relationships based on mutual agreement are a thing of the past. And it would be awfully selfish to not submit your will to what politicians want — or, worse still, what the “people” want. Right?

I debated whether to write this post for some time. Iran’s Grand Ayatollah Montazeri is not necessarily someone that we, as American conservatives, look up to. He was a supporter of Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1979 revolution, and was for many years the designate to succeed Khomeini as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

That said, on the day of his death, we remember Montazeri today not as member of the Iranian establishment, but as the country’s senior dissident and the spiritual leader of this years pro-democracy protests. We remember the man who was an early critic of Khomeini’s human rights record, and whose falling out with Khomeini cost him his chance to lead Iran (he was replaced at the least minute with hard-liner Ali Khamenei).

We also remember the man who had come to view the Iranian regime as illegitimate and undemocratic – counter to the ideals of what he thought the revolution against the Shah had been about in the first place. We remember the courageous cleric who went so far as to issue a fatwa against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and whose name had been purged from Iranian textbooks  despite his significant role in  the nation’s history.

Grand Ayatollah Montazeri’s legacy will always be a matter of debate to those of us who view the world through a Western, libertarian paradigm. However, I think we can safely conclude that he left this world today as a force for good and a hero to Iranians who hunger for freedom. 

It remains to be seen whether his loss will galvanize or depress the Iranian resistance – but that question can be addressed tomorrow. Today, we remember.

Salaam aleichem, Ayatollah.

The last few days have produced some interesting polls from the great white North, and considering that I have been focusing on a number of Canadian stories lately (and apparently there are a number of Canada-watchers in the comments section) – I thought I’d share.

The first is relevant to the Wildrose Alliance story that I have been watching in Alberta. The insurgent libertarian-conservatives in the Alliance have surged to the lead in the Albertan polls, but the governing Progressive Conservatives have insidted that the Wildrosers aare a flash in the pan and that the province will return to supporting the PCers and Premier (Governor) Ed Stelmach. However, a new Angus Reid poll shows that  Stelmach’s problems may run much deeper than he thinks. Angus Reid measured approval ratings for most of Canada’s premeirs, and here’s what they found:

Approval Ratings for Canadian Premiers

Danny Williams (Newfoundland – Progressive Conservative)
78%

Brad Wall (Saskatchewan – Saskatchewan Party)
58%

Darrell Dexter (Nova Scotia – New Democratic Party)
43%

Greg Selinger (Manitoba – New Democratic Party)
29%

Jean Charest (Quebec – Quebec Liberals)
25%

Gordon Campbell (British Columbia – BC Liberals)
21%

Shawn Graham (New Brunswick – Liberal)
20%

Dalton McGuinty (Ontario – Liberal)
18%

Ed Stelmach (Alberta – Progressive Conservative)
14%

That’s right – Ed Stelmach is dead last with only 14% approval. Wildrose or no Wildrose, that is not an easy hole to crawl out of. The elections are still a ways off – but these numbers show that the only an internal meltdown can stop Danielle Smith’s Wildrose Alliance from taking over Alberta.

Meanwhile, on the national level, Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff has seen a total collapse in support in recent months. Another Angus Reid poll measured approval for the leaders of Canada’s three nationwide parties, and while none of them have anything to be happy about (all have negative favorable/unfavorable numbers), Ignatieff in particular should be very afraid.

Favorability/Unfavorablity Ratings

PM Stephen Harper (Conservatives) – 32%/49% (-17)

Michael Ignatieff (Liberals) – 15%/53% (-38)

Jack Layton (New Democrats) – 29%/36% (-7)

To those of you in the Liberal Party who thought you couldn’t do any worse than Stéphane Dion - you were wrong.

I finished reading John Derbyshire’s We Are Doomed.

Derbyshire’s writing style is a little grating as he writes in a snobbish tone and writes down to the reader.

That said I appreciate the general message of the book.

Derbyshire points to the research of Robert D. Putnam to show massive immigration is dividing us along ethnic lines and leaving us isolated from each other unlike immigration of the past.

Further he argues that the teacher’s unions and education bureaucrats are soaking up more public money and accomplishing less each year because they ignore intrinsic ethnic differences in aptitude.

He points to a debt that is approaching a point where it cannot even be dealt with.

Derbyshire believes a bleak future awaits America and he wants conservatives to recognize this.

It seems Derbyshire (who admits to being morose) instinctively rejects facts that might point to optimism and addresses those who disagree with snobbery and not a rigorous response. That said Derbyshire has a fair share of wit and the book won’t be as humorless as you’d think.

Despite my criticisms I suggest We Are Doomed as an antidote to excessive optimism on the challenges America faces. I strongly suggest every atheist read his chapters on nature versus nurture.

Well, they’ve secured the votes of Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman, and something — we don’t know what; Harry Reid won’t tell us — is probably going to pass shortly. The progressives, led by patron saint Howard Dean, are up in arms over the lack of a “public” “option” and would rather see this bill defeated, which means, in other words, that we more or less won this battle, given what we were up against.

The worst that’s going to happen now is that the cost of care will once again increase, given that it’s almost certain that denial of coverage based upon pre-existing conditions will be banned. Apparently, millions more Americans will get health insurance, but we don’t know how yet, since nobody will tell us what’s in the bill. It probably won’t be an individual mandate, since the public option is out. But again, we can’t say for sure, since, again, we don’t know what’s in the bill. It’s a secret.

If they’ve gotten to 60, though, then don’t head for the hills just yet — all things considered, we’ve probably made out pretty good, here. If MoveOn, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Dean hate what’s happening, then we’re in a good place.

1. Mitt Romney – Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination, however the fallout from Gov. Mike Huckabee’s clemency of a cop killer may hurt Romney as well. If the clemency problems force Huckabee out of the race, then Gov. Sarah Palin could consolidate social conservative support in the early states and pose a serious threat to Romney’s chances.  On the other hand, Romney has held steady throughout the year, experiencing none of the problems that have plagued his potential rivals.  That doesn’t mean that trouble isn’t rearing it’s head around the corner.  Gov. Romney’s healthcare plan will likely loom large throughout the next year, with the New Hampshire Union Leader firing the first major shot across the bow in a recent article that also showed signs of support for another Romney rival, Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Although this is a major hurdle, Romney’s rivals also have major obstacles, from Gov. Palin’s resignation, Gov. Pawlenty’s cap-and-trade problems, to Gov. Huckabee’s clemencies.  Whomever handles these problems the best will likely be the front-runner. The slow and steady approach of Gov. Romney has earned him the top spot in the final rankings of 2009.
2. Sarah Palin – After taking hits early on, Palin has stormed back with her wildly successful book, Going Rogue, and has seen a marginal increase in her numbers among republicans and independents.  But the success of her book is not the most important factor in her return to contention, but rather the damaging clemency revelations that could mortally wound Gov. Huckabee’s political career. With her chief rival for social conservatives badly damaged, Palin has become the top rival to Gov. Romney at this point.  Palin can now galvanize the social conservative movement behind her, making the former Alaska governor the overwhelming front-runner in the all important Iowa Caucuses. This  potential, as well as a natural base of support in South Carolina, could help the governor build an unstoppable momentum towards the nomination. For now, she lacks the organization and staff to compete with Romney, but retains far greater grassroots support.
3. Tim Pawlenty – Minnesota’s governor has made some significant moves in his pursuit of the 2012 nomination.  He has created a PAC, Freedom First, and announced several major hires from previous campaigns.  He has also taken direct aim at both Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan, likely to be a favorite line of attack as Pawlenty sets out to overtake 2012 frontrunner. He is quickly becoming an establishment alternative to Romney, and attracting early insider support.  His efforts have earned him some early praise from key players in 2012, namely an early indication of support by the influential New Hampshire Union Leader.
4. John Thune – Senator Thune continues to quietly build for a 2012 run. While having no announced opponent yet for his 2010 reelection bid, Sen. Thune still has amassed an impressive war chest, retained a top-level campaign manager, started a PAC, and fundraised for candidates in Iowa.  Slowly but surely the media is beginning to catch on, with new profiles about the junior senator from South Dakota appearing on CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Thune’s social conservative credentials could also allow him to join the chorus of candidates likely to benefit from Huckabee’s problems. Thune brings both the social conservative credentials needed to win over the early states like Iowa, as well as significant establishment support that is needed for overall success in the primaries.
5. Newt Gingrich – The former Speaker may have lost some face with the conservative base in endorsing Dede Scozzafava in the NY-23 election, but he may have gained support from the crucial GOP establishment.  Despite the Speaker’s impressive resume and historic electoral successes, his bombastic past still leaves many in the establishment wary. But being a team player in NY-23 may get the establishment on board the Gingrich train, granting the former Speaker a chance to make history and complete a legendary comeback.  Nixon accomplished it, and Newt may be next.
6. Haley Barbour – Governor Barbour is perhaps the greatest strategist in the party.  He showed off that talent earlier this month, helping to lead two GOP candidates to victory in Virginia and NJ, a great start for the head of the RGA.  With his sights set on major races all over the country in 2010, from California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Florida, and Texas, Gov. Barbour could not only continue to help revive the party but could also collect enough chits along the way to make himself a strong contender in 2012.  With Speaker Gingrich’s mishap in NY-23, it could be Gov. Barbour who emerges as the 1994er to lead a new generation of Republicans back to power, and himself to the White House.
7. Mike Huckabee – The former Arkansas governor has run into serious trouble with the revelation that he granted clemency to notorious cop-killer Maurice Clemmons.  The revelation has opened a Pandora’s Box of information on Governor Huckabee’s history with pardons and clemencies.  The sheer amount of clemencies and pardons is jarring, with the governor having granted more clemencies and pardons then several surrounding states’ governors combined.  The volume alone would lead you to believe that Clemmons will not be the last we hear of the people released or commuted by Governor Huckabee.  While Huckabee’s die-hard supporters will likely stick by their man allowing his poll numbers to hold steady, this will certainly come back to haunt him, as rivals hammer the former governor with his poor judgment in these cases.  A GOP establishment already wary of Huckabee now has the last reason they will ever need to abandon him completely, and will work to force him from the 2012 race. If Huckabee was reluctant to leave his TV show before this news broke, I imagine his Fox News deal will grow only more enticing as the primaries get closer.
8. Rick Perry – The long serving Texas Governor has bounced back from poor early polls to take a solid lead in the GOP primary against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.  A successful primary followed by likely reelection will help raise Gov. Perry’s profile further in the national party.  He is already winning populist support for his anti-Washington screed, and won the endorsement of Gov. Palin.  But it’s his state’s strong economy that just might push the Texas Governor into contention. As blue states like California and New Jersey head into spiraling fiscal crisis, Texas stands as a strong example of successful conservative economics in the face of a President pushing tax-and-spend liberalism.  This factor, combined with a long, experienced career can put Perry in a very strong position. The uniting of the Tea Party base and his large, deep-pocketed Texas donors would give him a strong chance in the early states.
9. Mitch Daniels - A very successful Rust Belt governor, Mitch Daniels proved himself by running what many call the best governor’s campaign of 2008 despite the dreadful climate for republicans. He is a graduate of Princeton and Georgetown, and served as Director of the OMB, while also sitting on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Oh and he’s Arab-American(Syrian to be exact), proving once again that the GOP is far more inclusive then advertised.  Recently Daniels has stepped up not only his criticism of Obama’s policies, but of the GOP’s current standing too, sounding a lot like someone who wants to lead the party out of the wilderness. The Blade’s continued economic success during a period of recession continues to earn him praise, and despite his denials, inspires hope that the Governor will consider running for higher office in 2012.
10. Rudy Giuliani – America’s Mayor is potentially gearing up for a run against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010, and if that race happens, a likely victorious Senator Giuliani could instantly be back among the front-runners in 2012.   Rudy remains a popular figure in polls both among Republicans and independents, and in an environment of a poor economy that is likely followed by high crime rates, the former mayor and potential senator could find himself in a strong position.  Lessons learned from 2008 could serve Rudy well in the early states, and with no McCain to compete with he could become the consensus leader among the GOP’s moderate and national security wing.  If another Presidential bid isn’t in the cards, a VP slot may not be far off, helping to balance the ticket with a more conservative nominee.

Honorable Mention: Jeb Bush, Eric Cantor, Mike Pence, Dick Cheney, Liz Cheney, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal

Follow Max Twain on Twitter.

So it appears Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) will support the final Senate bill being brought forth by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Nelson fought for an abortion compromise in the bill; unfortunately for his efforts, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has stated its opposition to the compromise.

Obviously, the USCCB has a limited impact on any bill; however, it does provide a framework from which to base one’s pro-life support on. If a compromise is not supported by the USCCB, that definitively shows the final bill will not be pro-life in nature. Good for the Church in standing for its principles, especially given how much of the nation’s medical care is provided by the Catholic Church: “615 Catholic hospitals account for 12.5% of community hospitals in the United States, and over 15.5% of all U.S. hospital admissions. In addition to hospitals, the Catholic health care network also includes 404 health care centers and 1,509 specialized homes.63 In 20 states, Catholic health care facilities account for more than 20% of admissions.64 Catholic hospitals employ over 598,934 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs).65 In 2005, there were more than 15.4 million emergency room visits and more than 86 million outpatient visits in Catholic hospitals. 66 In 2005, the number of Catholic residential homes for children, or orphanages, totaled 235, serving a total of 50,264 young people.”

Fortunately, even if Nelson did cave and does vote for the bill (he’s expected to announce tonight), there is hope for those of us against the final enacting of a Democratic health care bill. The Washington Examiner does a good job in yesterday’s editorial in explaining how the rest of the process could very well shut down the Democratic version of health care reform, and Time’s blog also a brief summary of how the rest of the process will work. Too, the left is rightfully revolting against the bill. There’s still a chance to prevent this disaster from becoming legal.

P.S. The so-called “manager’s amendment” has come out. It’s coming down to the wire for this particular part of the process- reports are that Christmas Eve there will be a vote.

P.P.S. Senator Nelson’s contact information is here. For good measure, here is Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) information- Sanders is the self-declared Socialist who is leaning against the bill- and Senator Roland Burris’s (D-IL) information. Burris has said he would not vote for a bill without a public option. The last liberal opponents of the bill may want to contact is Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who is leaning against the bill, and of course the always-shaky Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) might vote for it, so her information is here.

… is my prediction.

Kudos to Matt Lewis for posting this story before it appears on the Union Leader web site.

This is our first indication that the conservative media in New Hampshire is going to continue their campaign against Governor Romney, and who they plan on supporting in 2012.

Today’s New Hampshire Union Leader featured an editorial which most of the world has not yet seen.  The reason is that they only post one editorial online each day, and this one has not yet made it onto the world wide web (hence, no link).

In any event, here’s the editorial (we will discuss below…):

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty attacked Obama-care in an interview with this newspaper and in his speech to New Hampshire Republicans on Wednesday. He advocated a market-driven, rather than regulation-driven, approach to health care reform.

Though Pawlenty’s criticisms were directed at Democrats in Washington, the underlying message to New Hampshire Republicans was inescapable: We don’t want Romneycare.

In an August op-ed for The Washington Post, Pawlenty directly attacked the Massachusetts health care reform then-Gov. Mitt Romney created in 2006. In October, Pawlenty introduced his own reform plan in Minnesota. It involved reducing regulations and creating incentives for people to spend less on health care.

Pawlenty correctly sees health care as a defining issue for the 2012 presidential race. Knowing that his biggest potential rival in 2012 created a mandate-heavy “universal coverage” plan that is similar to Obamacare in some ways, he is positioning himself as the guy with the free-market, limited government solutions. Not a bad opening salvo for the 2012 primary.

(Emphasis mine)…

So why is this of interest?

First, as everyone knows, winning the Granite State’s “first in the nation primary” is vitally important for anyone hoping to win the Republican nomination.

Second, just The Des Moines Register still carries a lot of weight in Iowa, New Hampshire Republicans put a lot of stock in what The New Hampshire Union Leader editorializes.  It is, after all, the daily newspaper for Manchester, the largest city in the state.  It’s also the only statewide daily.

The Union Leader was tough on Mitt Romney in ‘08, and he, of course, lost the state to John McCain (though it’s fair to say there were a variety of reasons for McCain’s victory).  And while the 2012 primary may still be a long way off, this implies the editorial page hasn’t softened on him.

What is more, the health care debate arguably makes the 2012 political environment tougher for Romney to navigate than ‘08.   Of course, things will change between now and Election Day, but if this editorial is a harbinger of things to come regarding the way Romney may be treated in the Union Leader’s editorial pages, it may be rough sledding for him in the Granite State.

Remember what I said back in September about Pawlenty and New Hampshire…

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

We really have no reason to be winning this health care debate. The Democrats were swept into the Oval Office with a sweeping mandate, they have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a commanding majority in the House, and, at the beginning of the year, they were popular in the eyes of the public and had a plethora of political capital to spend.

After spending some of it on the ill-conceived stimulus package, health care was next. One year ago at this time, I would have said: it’s done for. The public wants reform, they want a “public option,” they have their votes, they’re going to get it. I was very wrong. I overestimated this president.

To this day, we have no idea what the president wanted in the bill. He voted present. Public option? Co-ops? Medicare expansions? Individual mandates? “He couldn’t choose between yes…or no. It was too tough!” — He doesn’t know how to corral a group of testy senators and Congressmen together. He’s never worked in an executive position, and he’d only gotten a few short years (most of them spent on the campaign trail) to see the inner workings of the Senate.

Obama’s political life has been a series of things magically falling into place — in 2004, Jack Ryan imploded, and in 2008, the sheer force of his speeches carried him to victory over an arrogant Hillary Clinton campaign. In the fall, the economy’s collapse locked in a victory for him that otherwise looked fairly shaky. But he doesn’t know how to be an executive. He’s never done anything like this before.

So he’s succeeded at pissing off the right, the progressives, and independents. Straggling moderates, blacks, and mainstream liberals are still with him, but that’s an awfully weak political coalition: by their nature, they don’t make much noise and aren’t especially motivated to vote in off-years.

Nobody with any political influence is saying anything other than “Kill this Bill!” And because he has successfully pissed everyone with convictions off, 2010 is shaping up to be very, very bad for Obama. And he’s got no one but himself to blame.

We ought to very, very thankful for the fact that we have such a neophyte to deal with — and an arrogant one, at that. We’re beating him, against all odds, on all fronts — health care, global warming, spending, Guantanamo — in the eyes of the public.

What will he do now? A second stimulus? A jobs program? More cap-and-trade? Immigration? What a mess. 2010, here we come.

PPP (D) North Carolina Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of President Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 48% (47%) [45%] {45%} (46%) [49%]
• Disapprove 47% (47%) [49%] {51%} (47%) [44%]

Among Independents

• Approve 46% (41%) [41%] {39%} (40%) [44%]
• Disapprove 50% (57%) [51%] {56%} (46%) [44%]

Among Men

• Approve 41% (45%) [39%] {40%} (43%) [46%]
• Disapprove 55% (50%) [57%] {56%} (53%) [49%]

Among Women

• Approve 55% (49%) [51%] {49%} (49%) [52%]
• Disapprove 39% (43%) [42%] {46%} (42%) [39%]

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 41%
• Oppose 50%

Among Independents

• Support 37%
• Oppose 51%

Among Men

• Support 34%
• Oppose 57%

Among Women

• Support 47%
• Oppose 43%

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s approach to Afghanistan?

• Support 54%
• Oppose 31%

Among Independents

• Support 56%
• Oppose 32%

Survey of 593 voters was conducted December 11-13. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 47% Democrat; 34% Republican; 20% Independent. Political views: 45% Conservative; 37% Moderate; 19% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted November 9-11 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted October 2-4 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted September 2-8 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 4-10 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted July 10-12 are in square brackets.

Today, the Hill did a great job of summarizing the discontent with the President rapidly forming among the liberal base of the Democratic Party, personified by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR):

Rep. Peter DeFazio’s phone rang. On the other end was Rahm Emanuel.

The White House chief of staff last month expressed frustration with DeFazio’s resignation calls for President Barack Obama’s top two economic aides — Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and White House chief economist Larry Summers — and appealed for cooperation, according to DeFazio.

…Others are learning that DeFazio, who has served in the House since 1987 and describes himself as a “progressive populist,” is not easily intimidated. He has emerged in recent months as one of the most vocal liberal critics of the Obama administration, blasting the president’s team for not getting tough enough with Wall Street. He’s also taken on his own party for failing to move left-leaning legislation through the Congress.

Personal calls from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and former Vice President Al Gore couldn’t persuade him to vote for the Speaker’s climate change bill. He also opposed the $787 billion stimulus, citing concerns that only 7 percent was devoted to infrastructure spending.

DeFazio was one of only two Democrats to vote against those measures and the $700 billion bank bailout. (The other was Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) a Blue Dog conservative.)

…Obama himself has taken notice.

“Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother,” Obama told DeFazio during a closed-door meeting of the House Democratic Caucus, according to members afterward.

…DeFazio has been a leading liberal voice complaining that the Democratic Congress and White House have failed to capitalize on significant victories in last year’s elections. His latest target is the Senate, where he says Democrats’ struggle to move healthcare legislation is preventing the Congress from sending a job-creation bill to the president’s desk. With the unemployment rate at 10 percent, House Democrats see jobs as the No. 1 campaign issue heading into the midterm election year.

“It’s just incredible frustration,” DeFazio said. “The killing ground of the Senate is ultimately, potentially, the killing ground of the Democratic Party.”

So, let’s take a head count: Republicans by and large have always opposed Obama, Independents have begun to sour on him en masse and now Democrats have begun criticizing him? If these trends continue (a likely proposition, with high unemployment persisting for the foreseeable future and little of the President’s agenda having a good chance of passing), Obama will truly find himself in a tough spot. One can easily conceive of a tough 2012 primary challenge coming from a Liberal favorite, like Howard Dean. Unfortunately for the President, with less than a plurality of Independents approving of him, he won’t stand to gain very much by moderating in a re-election campaign.

In time, history may show that Obama erred majorly by taking such a hands-off approach to his legislative agenda, by delegating virtually all architectural authority to Congress and consequently facilitating bills laden with special interest kickbacks. In short, Obama is in big political trouble.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

It is very difficult to unseat an incumbent President, for a variety of reasons.

George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter have been the only two elected post-war President’s that were defeated in their re-election campaign.  Both gentlemen entered their campaigns after they had raised taxes, increased the debt and failed to reduce unemployment.

With our nations track record of voting out our commander in chief during economic difficulties, could President Obama be facing an almost certain defeat in 2012?

Contrary to predictions made by the Fed and the White house, many economists are predicting that unemployment will remain high through to 2013, with some even suggesting that gross domestic product growth will slide back to the negative in late 2010, fueled by a falling dollar, rising tax rates and an unsustainable debt.  Even if we are able to sustain positive economic growth for the next 34 months, if unemployment remains above 8%, will the American public re-elect our President with one in ten unemployed?

Probably not.

James Carville, our nations top political strategist, was correct in 1992 and early 2008 when he advised both Clinton’s to focus on the economy.  Scandal, foreign policy (when we are not waging a major military offensive) and domestic legislation has very little bearing on the outcome of Presidential campaigns.  The citizenry votes with their pocketbook, and when their pocketbook is low on funds, incumbents are replaced.

The Obama administration and the Fed have been painting a positive outlook for job creation over the next 3 years, but after reviewing the break-down on the Fed’s analysis, I am beginning to doubt that our unemployment rate will drop below 8%.

Let’s start with a look at the Fed’s 2012 forecast where the band is 6.1% to 7.6%.

Using Bernanke’s estimate that it takes 100,000 jobs a month to keep up with birthrate and demographics, the economy will have to create 260,000 jobs every month in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to hit an unemployment rate of 6.17% by the end of 2012.

To get to 7.6% by the end of 2012, the economy would have to average 200,000 jobs a month for the next three years.

2000-2009 Perspective

• At the height of the internet bubble with a nonsensical Y2K scare on top of that, the economy managed to gain 264,000 jobs a month.
• At the height of the housing bubble in 2005, the economy added 212,000 jobs a month.
• At the height of the commercial real estate bubble with massive store expansion, the economy added somewhere between 96,000 and 178,000 jobs per month depending on where you mark the peak.

Neither the housing boom, nor the commercial real estate boom is coming back. Nor is there going to be another internet revolution. If anything, outsourcing of internet jobs to Asia is likely to remain intense.

No Genuine Driver For Jobs.

• The retail sector has massive overcapacity. We do not need more Home Depots, WalMarts, Lowes, Sears, Pizza Huts, Targets, Safeways, etc etc.
• Commercial real estate is flooded with vacant offices and plagued by falling rents.
• Housing inventory is enormous.
• Boomers will be looking to downsize their lifestyles.
• There is not going to be another internet boom.

It is well beyond absurd to expect the economy to average even 200,000 jobs a month, let alone 260,000 jobs a month when neither the housing boom nor the commercial real estate boom could manage those numbers over a sustained period.

In short, the Fed’s unemployment projections must be for some other planet or for some other alternate universe somewhere because they do not reflect reality here.

-

If Mike “Mish” Shedlock is correct is his analysis, President Obama will face certain defeat in 2012.  In fact, I doubt the President will he even stand for re-election, knowing that he is destined to be a one term President.

With the White House and the Fed projecting praying that the unemployment rate for 2012 will range between 6.1% to 7.6%, I believe that David Axelrod has identified 8% as the magic number that will determine whether or not President Obama is re-elected.  This spells bad news for not only the political aspirations of the Obama clan, but also for the American investor and worker.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli is the Senior Editor of Race42012 and can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Quinnipiac Pennsylvania Senatorial Survey

(If registered Democrat) If the 2010 Democratic primary for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak, for whom would you vote?

• Arlen Specter 53% [44%] (55%)
• Joe Sestak 30% [25%] (23%)

If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Arlen Specter the Democrat and Pat Toomey the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Arlen Specter 44% [42%] (45%)
• Pat Toomey 44% [43%] (44%)

Among Men

• Pat Toomey 52% [48%] (52%)
• Arlen Specter 40% [41%] (39%)

Among Women

• Arlen Specter 47% [43%] (50%)
• Pat Toomey 37% [39%] (37%)

If the 2010 election for United States Senator were being held today and the candidates were Joe Sestak the Democrat and Pat Toomey the Republican, for whom would you vote?

• Pat Toomey 40% [38%] (39%)
• Joe Sestak 35% [35%] (35%)

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Pat Toomey 35% [34%] (34%) / 10% [12%] (10%) {+25%}
• Joe Sestak 20% [21%] (23%) / 9% [8%] (7%) {+11%}
• Arlen Specter 43% [42%] (45%) / 45% [46%] (44%) {-2%}

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Arlen Specter is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 47% [44%] (47%)
• Disapprove 45% [48%] (46%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bob Casey Jr. is handling his job as United States Senator?

• Approve 53% [53%] (53%)
• Disapprove 29% [29%] (25%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling his job as president?

• Approve 49% [49%] (56%)
• Disapprove 45% [42%] (37%)

Looking ahead to the 2010 election for United States Senator, do you feel that Arlen Specter deserves to be reelected, or do you feel that he does not deserve to be reelected?

• Yes/Deserves 38% [37%] (40%)
• No/Does Not 50% [52%] (49%)

(If registered Democrat) Does President Obama’s support of Arlen Specter for United States Senator make you more likely to vote for Specter, less likely to vote for Specter, or doesn’t it make a difference?

• More likely 23% [24%]
• Less likely 3% [4%]
• Doesn’t make a difference 73% [71%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the economy?

• Approve 45% [46%] (50%)
• Disapprove 50% [47%] (43%)

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling health care?

• Approve 37% [39%]
• Disapprove 56% [53%]

Do you approve or disapprove of the way Barack Obama is handling the situation in Afghanistan?

• Approve 51%
• Disapprove 41%

Survey of 1,381 Pennsylvania voters was conducted December 8-14. The margin of error is +/- 2.6 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 22-28 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 14-19 are in parentheses.

Last week, a financial reform bill passed the House of Representatives and an immigration bill was introduced in the House of Representatives. Given the health care debacle on the Senate side of things, these bills have gotten little notice.

My latter point is not a critique of our media- there has been a lot going on in health care that needed front page attention, and the average citizen is very much caught up in the health care reform debate. Too, the immigration bill was merely introduced, and won’t be addressed until 2010. However, it will be a very tough fight on all sides, and politically interesting since Republicans will have to watch what they say in order to not further alienate Hispanics, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), one of the major sponsors of the failed 2007 bill, is facing a tough primary challenger who is a staunch illegal immigration supporter. Too, McCain has been accused of becoming more and more conservative on the issue, particularly since he has said he would not vote for the 2007 bill he once supported.

The financial reform bill has slid under the radar partly because it has taken an incredible amount of time to get it going. I know I expected it to take precedence over health care reform, and I think many other Americans did as well. Fortunately, news media and columnists have spread some word. For example, The New York Times ran an editorial earlier this week pointing out that “too big to fail” has gotten even bigger. Times columnist Paul Krugman thinks the financial reform fight will be really difficult, and offers some advice on how Democrats to win. Too, the newest edition of National Affairs includes an essay that does a great job of explaining how we got where we are and where to go in the future.

I’m not offering an opinion on these bills; I haven’t done the proper research as of yet. However, I think it important that we all prepare as the debates and barbs start this year and extend into 2010.

The Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway takes it away with this one:

“A new analysis of the $157 billion distributed by the American Reinvestment and Recovery act, popularly known as the stimulus bill, shows that the funds were distributed without regard for what states were most in need of jobs.”

Later: “The Mercatus Center analysis also found that Democratic congressional districts received on average almost double the funding of Republican congressional districts. Republican congressional districts received on average $232 million in stimulus funds while Democratic districts received $439 million on average.”

Lastly: “Finally, the Mercatus analysis shows that a majority of the funds allocated went to public rather than private entities — nearly $88 billion to $69 billion.”

What a surprise- you mean to tell me the stimulus is failing again? I’m shocked. Really. (Okay, not really.)

This is really bad, for four reasons: first, since a majority of public employees are members of unions, the money is going to sources of voting power for Democrats as opposed to helping all Americans (assuming, of course, it did help, which is doubtful). Secondly, the money was not distributed for efficienty of employment- even though that was its selling point. Thirdly, the money was spread by two departments not Congress, which means either those departments are biased (unlikely) or they are following a formula, as the study Hemingway quotes concludes, and that means the formula is skewed. Fourth, this is almost exactly 20% of the $770 billion approved by Congress, and it’s been ten months or so since it was approved.

George Will called it- “Which suggests that Stimulus II is…primarily designed to save a few dozen jobs — those of Democratic members of the House and Senate.”

This was originally published at THE LOBBYIST.

I’ve said it before: Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein is really good. He explains how the exchanges created under health care reform will increase competition, and I think all three make sense. He explains how regulators will help create competition through laws- I think regulators are important, though I believe the form they are taking under Klein’s analysis increases the scope of government too much- as well as how basic economics will help create competition. Too, the tax on large plans will help bring the costs of plans down as well as the vast overutilization of resources prevalent in this country.

A couple areas of contention with Klein I must point out:

1. He says there isn’t enough competition within insurance companies, and he’s right. However, he misses the fact that this is because of an anti-trust exemption by the federal government to insurance companies as well as the lack of interstate insurance competition in our current system. Changing those two rules would do a lot to help competition, and wouldn’t require expanding the scope of government, as the exchanges do.

2. Regulators are needed in health care insurance- however, let’s scale it back a bit. Much as there is a need for food and pollution standards on a national level, let’s create a few basic regulations on the federal level and let the states handle the rest. (No, I am not a health care wonk, so I do not have any suggestions as to the specific federal regulations.) No need to have them stepping in as heavily as Klein indicates they would if they felt they were “necessary” (quotes added) to keep things “fair” (quotes added).

All in all, Klein does his typically excellent analysis, though of course from his liberal perspective. He is regularly linked to Real Clear Politics, so I recommend checking him out when he’s linked there, as he was today.

This was originally posted at THE LOBBYIST.

This year, I decided to form a state political action committee, called Kansans for Government Reform.

This week, I announced the creation of an advisory board, whose members will vote on many of the PAC’s activities, including candidate endorsements.  It’s likely that we’ll be endorsing in both state and federal races.

You can join us on Facebook, here, at the page “Kansans for Government Reform.”

An Email from earlier this week:

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Announcing PAC Advisory Board:

Sen. Kay O’Connor, Wayne Flaherty, Rep. Judy Morrison, Steve Weatherford, and Joel Yourdon (Wichita)

I am excited to announce the creation of an advisory board for the Kansans for Government Reform PAC (Political Action Committee). The following five individuals have agreed to offer their support and counsel to Kansans for Government Reform:

• Former State Senator Kay O’Connor, Olathe
• Wayne Flaherty, limited government proponent, Overland Park
• Former State Representative Judy Morrison, Shawnee
• Steve Weatherford, Olathe-area pastor
• Joel Yourdon, Wichita-area financial advisor

Each of these five people has an impressive background, and I thank them for their commitment to this reform-focused political group. I believe that their advice and support will significantly impact the PAC’s ability to effectively support candidates and to fight for government reform at the state and local levels.

Sincerely,

Benjamin Hodge

Read a Web page version of the recent Email by clicking here.

______________________________________________________________

Benjamin Hodge publishes KansasProgress.com, based in Greater Kansas City. From 2005-2009, Hodge was a trustee at Johnson County Community College (JCCC), representing 300,000 voters and 40,000 students. He was a state representative from 2006-2008 and was elected in 2008 as a delegate to the Kansas Republican Party. Hodge’s record is recognized by AFP, the NRA, the Kansas Press Association, the Kansas Association of Broadcasters, Kansans for Life, and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. Connect with Hodge on Facebook, at Hodge’s political Web site, and on Twitter at @benjaminhodge.

Rasmussen Michigan Gubernatorial Survey

• Pete Hoekstra (R) 46%
• John Cherry (D) 32%
• Some Other Candidate 6%
• Not Sure 16%

• Mike Bouchard (R) 42%
• John Cherry (D) 32%
• Some Other Candidate 6%
• Not Sure 20%

• Mike Cox (R) 39%
• John Cherry (D) 34%
• Some Other Candidate 9%
• Not Sure 17%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Pete Hoekstra 50% / 26% {+24%}
• Mike Bouchard 48% / 27% {+21%}
• Mike Cox 47% / 32% {+15%}
• John Cherry 39% / 35% {+4%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 28%
• Somewhat approve 20%
• Somewhat disapprove 9%
• Strongly disapprove 41%

Note: In the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama received 57% of the vote in Michigan.

How would you rate the job Jennifer Granholm has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 9%
• Somewhat approve 23%
• Somewhat disapprove 17%
• Strongly disapprove 49%

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

• Strongly favor 25%
• Somewhat favor 22%
• Somewhat oppose 8%
• Strongly oppose 40%

Overall, how would you rate President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan?

• Excellent 11%
• Good 31%
• Fair 30%
• Poor 27%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s proposal to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan?

• Favor 50%
• Oppose 34%

Do you favor or oppose the President’s commitment to a timetable that would begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in 18 months?

• Favor 44%
• Oppose 42%

Overall, do you favor or oppose President Obama’s new plan for the war in Afghanistan?

• Favor 32%
• Oppose 36%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted December 16. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Mark asks, with apparent seriousness:

So here is the question. What is the difference between the arrogance of the Democrats in forcing unwanted health-care “reform” down our throats “because they know what’s best” and the arrogance of those who condemn the Massachusetts Governor and Legislature for passing what the clear and away majority of their people wanted and the bipartisan majorities in the Legislature supported? You who condemn them would deny them what they wanted “For their own good because you know what’s best for them”? (Sounds familiar, does it not?) So what is the difference between the arrogance of the Democrats in the first case for ignoring the will of the people of the Nation, and the arrogance of the condemners in the second case for ignoring the will of the people of Massachusetts?

Let’s break this down. To begin with, except when playing language games, there is no such thing as the “will of the people.” Who are these “people” and why do they have the right to tell me what’s best for me? That’s my question.

Presumably, Mark means the majority of the entire citizenry. But whether a statist scheme is instituted with the support of seventy percent of the people or thirty percent, it’s something to oppose on conservative principles, not out of some populist rage. I do not oppose the abomination making its way through Congress merely because of some resentment that “they’re trying to tell me what’s best for me.” I oppose it because it interferes with individual rights. Mitt Romney’s “health care reform” package also did that. I would oppose both schemes even if every other person on Earth supported it. I’m not sure when our party became such a big fan of direct democracy and an exponent of “the people,” but I’m one of those old-fashioned “we’re-a-republic-not-a-democracy” guys who says “Damn the people! It’s about the rights of the free individual.”

By Mark’s own logic, he would be compelled to support Obamacare if 51% of the nation began to support it. After all, Mark, wouldn’t it be awfully arrogant to tell the people, in their infinite wisdom, that they don’t know what’s best for themselves?

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

The Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress are trying their hardest to push through a major Health-care bill that will make major changes in one sixth of our nation’s economy. Surveys show more people are against this than for it. Poll after poll shows at least a plurality of Americans against the bill. The margin between the percentage of people who want it and those who don’t usually range from a handful of points to the neighborhood of 20. In Congress, there is almost zero bi-partisan support. Support is almost entirely from the Democrats.

The Democrats insist they are doing it for our own good. They argue that they know what is best for us. For this many people roundly condemn them and call them arrogant for ignoring the will of the people.

When MassCare passed in Massachusetts, all polls showed overwhelming majorities in favor of the measure. Some showed approval as high as the 70′s, while most showed more modest approval numbers in the sixties. This means the margins were at least 20% or better. In other words, MassCare was supported by far greater numbers than those who oppose ObamaCare. In the Legislature, large majorities from both sides of the aisle voted for the bill. All parties favored it. It passed with high praise from nearly everyone involved.

So here is the question. What is the difference between the arrogance of the Democrats in forcing unwanted health-care “reform” down our throats “because they know what’s best” and the arrogance of those who condemn the Massachusetts Governor and Legislature for passing what the clear and away majority of their people wanted and the bipartisan majorities in the Legislature supported? You who condemn them would deny them what they wanted “For their own good because you know what’s best for them”? (Sounds familiar, does it not?) So what is the difference between the arrogance of the Democrats in the first case for ignoring the will of the people of the Nation, and the arrogance of the condemners in the second case for ignoring the will of the people of Massachusetts?

Any takers?

Aminatou Haidar is returning to Western Sahara!

Not many Americans will understand the significance of that statement – but if you’re North African or Spanish, that news comses as a bombshell development.

Ms. Haidar, a campaigner for Western Sahara‘s independence from Morocco, has become an icon in the last month – gaining support from prominent Spanish celebrities such as actor Javier Bardem. What has she been doing? Not much, actually – just sitting in an airport in the Canary Islands and starving herself to death. However, as of today, she has won her war with the Morocan government without firing a shot.

Haidar arrived in the Canary Islands on November 13th – she was returning to Western Sahara (a former Spanish Colony now occupied by Morrocco) after acceptng a human rights award in the United States, but the Morroccan authorities stopped her at the airport, confiscated her passport, and sent her plane to the Spanish-controlled Canary Islands. Of course, she couldn’t leave Spain without a passport, so essentially she was stuck. So, she did what any sensible revolutionary would do – refuse to leave the airport and go on hunger strike.

As of today – she hasn’t eaten in a month, says she won’t eat until the Morroccans let her come home to Sahara, and has gained a huge following in Spain. Then, today, the situation got worse. A month without food is not good for the human body, and today she had to be rushed to intensive care by Spanish authorities (and still won’t eat anything although accepting treatment).

So – the Moroccans now have a pickle on their hands. They can give in and say that the woman intimidated them into submission – or they can let her starve to death, inflame the passions of the entire population of Western Sahara, and risk a massive outcry for Saharan independence. It’s a damned-if-you-do-damned if you don’t situation, but it’s a pretty easy choice to make. Needless to say, Ms. Haidar is leaving the hospital today, going back to the airport and boarding a no-strings-attached flight back to Western Sahara.

Personally, I’m glad that hunger strikes don’t generally work in the West (both because we see starving oneself as petulant action and because most of us are too lazy to actually go through with a fast to the death), and while I support Saharan self-determination, I’m not particularly supportive of the “Polisario” rebels that Haidar supports. That said – kudos to the “Gandhi of the Sahara”. She has single-handedly brought her issue back to global significance – and she’s a breath of fresh air in a part of the world where rebel movements tend to be violent rather than Gandhian.

Wow…

Joe Lieberman may have been wondering if his colleagues’ respect for him went out the same window that he tossed the public option and the Medicare buy-in compromise that was to replace it.

He got an answer of sorts Thursday afternoon as he came to the end of a floor speech, and ran out of time.

“I’m sorry. The senator has spoken for ten minutes,” Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), as the chamber’s presiding officer, told Lieberman. Customarily, senators ask unanimous consent for a bit more time, consent that is always given.

“I wonder if i could ask unanimous consent for just an additional moment,” Lieberman said.

“In my capacity as the senator from Minnesota, I object,” said Franken, in what appeared to be a dramatic departure from the long and stifling tradition of Senate collegiality.

“Really?” responded a stunned Lieberman. “Okay. Don’t take it personally. I will ask unanimous consent that the remainder of my remarks be included in the record as if read.”

Franken was okay with that. “Without objection,” he said.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) rose to his friend Lieberman’s defense.

“I must say that I don’t know what’s happening here in this body, but I think it’s wrong. And so I — it’s fine with me that it be 10 minutes, but I’ll tell you, I have never seen a member denied an extra minute or so, as the chair just did,” said McCain, whose presidential campaign Lieberman backed in 2008.

People of Minnesota — what is wrong with you? First Mondale ’84, then 9/11 Truther Jesse Ventura, now this clown?

Check out the disgraceful comments at Huffington Post, too. The progressives love this buffoon.

So, I’m sitting here watching Mitt Romney on Hannity, whining that the Democrats’ new health care bill will cut Medicare by $500 billion, saying that it makes “no sense at all.”

This comes straight off the heels of the minority leader’s memo bashing the Democrats for the same thing. What a mistake it would be to cut Medicare! How can they do this?

And let’s not forget Michael Steele’s recent “health care bill of rights” proclaiming that seniors have the right to their Medicare and that plans to cut it must be opposed.

I recall, when reporting on the 9/12 March, that someone actually said to me that the government needs to “give people the Medicare they need and get out of health care.” You can’t make this stuff up.

Since when has our party pimped for the insolvent, anti-market Great Society monstrosity known as Medicare? Can someone answer me this?

Mark McKinnon, a columnist at The Daily Beast, gave this as his current rankings of the possible 2012 GOP hopefuls:

1. Mitt Romney: He’s next in line.
2. Sarah Palin: Conservatives love her. Huckabee’s implosion leaves her in second place.
3. Tim Pawlenty: Doing everything right.
4. John Thune: The Bob McDonnell of the 2012 GOP field.
5. Mike Huckabee: The Clemmons affair really hurt him in the law-and-order GOP.
6. Joe Scarborough: Morning Joe is young, articulate, and telegenic. He has core republican bona fides—but is also enough centrist ideas to appeal to moderates and young voters.
7. Haley Barbour: Smart enough to outfox Obama
8. Newt Gingrich: Generates talk but not likely to run.
9. Mitch Daniels: An extraordinarily successful and effective governor in Indiana, a state that has been recently more blue than red.
10. Rick Perry: He’s already the longest-serving governor in Texas history and has the best conservative record of any contender.

Honorable Mentions:

• Rick Santorum
• Mike Pence
• Ron Paul
• Eric Cantor
• Jeb Bush
• Jim DeMint

Note: These are my summations of McKinnon’s comments. They do not necessarily represent my thoughts.

Rasmussen Illinois Gubernatorial Survey

• Pat Quinn (D) 41%
• Andy McKenna (R) 33%
• Some other candidate 11%
• Not sure 15%

• Pat Quinn (D) 45%
• Bill Brady (R) 30%
• Some other candidate 13%
• Not sure 13%

• Pat Quinn (D) 41%
• Kirk Dillard (R) 30%
• Some other candidate 10%
• Not sure 19%

• Dan Hynes (D) 43%
• Andy McKenna (R) 30%
• Some other candidate 5%
• Not sure 21%

• Dan Hynes (D) 46%
• Bill Brady (R) 27%
• Some other candidate 8%
• Not sure 19%

• Dan Hynes (D) 42%
• Kirk Dillard (R) 29%
• Some other candidate 8%
• Not sure 21%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Dan Hynes 52% / 30% {+22%}
• Pat Quinn 52% / 44% {+8%}
• Andy McKenna 42% / 34% {+8%}
• Kirk Dillard 38% / 36% {+2%}
• Bill Brady 36% / 37% {-1%}

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted December 14. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.

Zogby International/AIF Florida Political Survey

If the primary for the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate were held today, and the candidates were Charlie Crist and Marco Rubio, which would you choose?

• Charlie Crist 45.0%
• Marco Rubio 36.4%
• Someone else 2.2%
• Not sure 16.4%

If the primary for the Republican candidate for Governor were held today and the candidates were Bill McCollum and Paula Dockery, which would you choose?

• Bill McCollum 38.2%
• Paula Dockery 7.2%
• Someone else 5.7%
• Not sure 48.9%

Currently, if workers want to form a union, they sign special cards, and if at least 30% of the employees do so, a secret ballot is held to determine if a union will be formed or not. If 50% sign the cards, the employer can choose to recognize the union, or if not, the employees can then vote. A proposed federal law would change these rules. Under the proposed legislation, if 50% of employees sign cards, the union is automatically created and recognized. Do you support or oppose this legislation, known as Card Check?

• Strongly support 26.9%
• Somewhat support 13.6%
• Somewhat oppose 12.6%
• Strongly oppose 37.6%

Survey of 801 likely voters was conducted December 7-11. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points. Questions regarding the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial Republican primaries were posed to 303 randomly-selected likely Republican primary voters with a margin of error of +/- 5.7 percent.

Yesterday, Gov. Pawlenty traveled to the Granite State, where he headlined a fundraiser for the state-based Republican Senate Majority Committee PAC. Many media outlets have touted this appearance as Tpaw’s way to introduce himself to New Hampshire residents, in preparation for a 2012 run. With that in mind, I figured it would prove useful to gauge reception of the Governor’s speech, as relayed by the New Hampshire Union Leader:

Tim Pawlenty scored an early victory last night when he became the first of the potential Republican candidates mulling a run for President in 2012 to come through New Hampshire.

His appearance at the Grappone Center for the Republican Senate Majority Committee PAC fundraiser played well with the movers and shakers in the state party.

…In his speech, Pawlenty warned that excessive federal spending should be stopped with a constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets.

He praised the state’s “Live Free or Die” motto and said the federal government’s motto has become “Grow Government and Stagnate.”

“The federal government is running a Ponzi scheme, a Ponzi scheme on the Potomac, and it needs to come to an end,” he said.

“We’ve got the federal government equivalent of the subprime mortgage crisis unfolding before our very eyes,” Pawlenty said. “This is no longer a matter of conservative versus liberal, this is no longer a matter of right versus left. This is now a matter of basic mathematics.”

In addition to the constitutional amendment, Pawlenty also called for ending earmarks, giving the President line item veto power and impounding any unspent money from the government’s Troubled Assets Relief Program or stimulus funds.

…The governor’s focus on restraining spending resonated with Frank Tilton of Laconia, a former state lawmaker and current chairman of the Belknap County Republicans.

“What he points out about uncontrolled spending has been happening in New Hampshire,” he said.

Tilton said Pawlenty made a good impression, but most Republicans are focused on 2010, not 2012, for now.

In contrast to his trip last month to Iowa, Pawlenty didn’t touch on abortion or other social issues in New Hampshire, where Republicans tend to be more fiscally conservative and socially moderate. He did emphasize that Republicans must become more inclusive but denied that doing so would require moving away from conservative ideals.

“I think that’s a point of confusion with the pundits and the media,” he told reporters after the speech. “They always confuse growing the party with being more liberal.

“This is not about conservatives or Republicans pretending to be Democrats or more liberal, it’s about convincing Democrats and independents why they should be Republicans and conservatives.”

So, it appears that the event went well. Pawlenty did himself a favor by focusing right off the bat on spending (the article’s title: “In speech to aid GOP state senators, Pawlenty calls for federal fiscal restraints”), as New Hampshirites should now have a first impression of him as a deficit hawk and friend of the taxpayer (somewhat similar to the image Sen. McCain cultivated during his two Presidential campaigns). As Tpaw will face stiff competition from potential 2012 opponents like Govs. Romney and Palin, he will need to make more early trips to the state and distinguish himself from the pack. With arguably more credibility on cutting spending than any of the 2012 possibles, Pawlenty should maintain the message he sounded yesterday. All in all, it seemed like a good night for the Governor.

The left is revolting over health care reform. Almost all Americans agree the country does need health care reform, but not the kind the current crop of Democratic Senators and Representatives want. The left and far left- as well as some of the middle- were leaning towards passage of the health care reform package going through the Senate. However, since Senator Lieberman (I-CT) broke the Medicare buy-in into pieces the other day, Keith Olbermann, Markos Moulitsas- the founder of Daily Kos- have come out against the bill, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has as well and former Vermont governor Howard Dean is against it. Too, an opinion piece featured on Huffington Post calls Dean “a genuine hero” for the way he is opposing the current bill, and the SEIU is calling out the President.

Part of me feels badly for these guys and gals. They worked really hard to put President Obama and his Democratic majority into power and are being rejected on what has been their biggest issue all along. Despite being what many consider a far-right conservative, I greatly respect their stand on their principles, and hope they will continue to work to create real reform, as Dean referenced here in his Washington Post column today: “Any measure that expands private insurers’ monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.”

Except for forcing companies to cut unnecessary administrative expenses, I like what Dean for health care reform results. Hopefully he, Kos and the rest of the left will join The Heritage Foundation, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) and other conservative organizations and individuals in bringing choice, competition and lower costs to American health care.

*This was initially posted at THE LOBBYIST.