Politics Daily

Midterm Mud: Making a Mess of Elections

Jeffrey Weiss — 2010-10-25T23:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Mitt Romney, Media, Polls, Culture, 2010 Elections, Public Option, Ethics, Tea Party, Health Care Reform, Barack Obama, Gay Rights

How nasty is politics in 2010?

One telling sign is the shout-out given to Jerry Patterson and Hector Uribe recently by the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News. If you know who these guys are, you're not just a world-class political junkie, but a world-class Texas political junkie. There aren't many elections more obscure beyond the Lone Star borders than for state land commissioner.

What did the News laud the two for?

"These two, both born in 1946, hark back to a time when political rivals could compete for election, yet still be civil with one another."

Yup. They got their very own house editorial (Patterson is the incumbent, a Republican, and Uribe is the Democratic challenger) because they managed to engage in spirited debate without sliming each other into the gutter.

Sigh. Is the bar really that low?

These are surely not the vilest of American political seasons. My memory goes back to "Hey, hey! LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?" And the many "expletive deleteds" from the transcripts of President Nixon's secret Oval Office tapings. Historians will cite actual physical fights on the floor of the Senate, and attacks on Lincoln and Jefferson that make most of the worst of the current political effluvia smell like perfume in comparison.

But it's bad enough now. No kidding, this is an era where news organizations declare a (left-leaning) comedian's semi-joking rally for civility to be a partisan political event.

It's hard to decide how far back to go to set a starting point. The yelling matches at the public meetings about heath care reform that set the stage for the Tea Party? "You lie!" shouted at President Obama during his first State of the Union address? Posters of President George W. Bush as Hitler? Clinton's impeachment?

Regardless of where the recent slide started, we're in the mud now. And no account of this current political season is complete without a litany of some of the greatest hits. What's your favorite?

The "death panel" lie is not only scurrilous but is harder to kill than a cockroach.

"Bretibarting" was introduced to the language when right-leaning blogger Andrew Breitbart distributed a video edited to reverse the meaning of a speech by hitherto unknown federal bureaucrat Shirley Sherrod. The feat was duplicated on the left in one of the worst ads of the season, where Florida Congressman Alan Grayson edits his opponent to reverse the meaning of a religious point.

Joe Miller's Alaska campaign handcuffing a reporter?

Jack Conway's "Aqua Buddha" ad?

So many examples, so little space.

Some folks who study this sort of thing say the current situation is worse than at any time in recent history. (If we go back far enough, incivility, not to mention slavery, actually produced a Civil War here once upon a time.)

Afghan War: In 10th Year, No End in Sight

David Wood — 2010-10-06T21:49:00+00:00

Filed under: Terror, Foreign Policy, Obama Administration, Afghanistan, Public Option, Military

Entering its 10th year, the war in Afghanistan, which started as a violent, feel-good strike back for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has ballooned into a nasty and dirty conflict whose purpose is unclear and end point unknown.

But the growing price tag -- in money and lives -- can be roughly tracked: on average each month sees $5.7 billion in direct costs and 40 American battle dead and 79 wounded, not counting those struggling with traumatic brain injury as well as combat stress and other non-physical consequences of repeated combat tours.

And no end is in sight. Winning the war, Gen. David Petraeus says, "is going to be a long-term proposition, without question.''

American troops have been deployed in Afghanistan since the first Special Forces, Marines and Army Rangers began landing there Oct. 7, 2001. Within 10 weeks, with the help of spectacular air strikes, they had demolished the Taliban regime which had provided safe haven for Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda operatives who had planned the 9/11 attacks at a mud-walled compound just outside Kandahar.

In the following eight years, U.S. strategy in Afghanistan shifted and drifted and military assets -- Special Forces, intelligence-gathering drones, armored vehicles, ammunition, fresh troops -- were diverted to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. Taliban fighters flowed back across the border from Pakistan, newly trained and equipped, funded by the opium trade and wealthy Gulf extremists. And the relatively few soldiers and Marines there to oppose them struggled and fought and died. In direct engagements, the Taliban proved no match for Americans and allied troops. But the U.S. troops, about 10,000 to 12,000 strong during 2003 and 2004, simply were out-manned.

Administration officials argue that the war didn't really begin in earnest until President Obama took office and almost immediately sent 21,000 troops into the fight and ordered a strategy review to figure out how to win, or end, the war. Rejecting an earlier Pentagon demand that the U.S. "defeat'' the Taliban, Obama declared a new, narrowed goal: to deny al-Qaeda a safe haven, to "reverse'' the Taliban's momentum and prevent it from coming to power, and to strengthen Afghanistan's own army and police.

The last of those Obama "surge'' troops arrived in Afghanistan only a few weeks ago, enabling officials to ask for more patience.

In a meeting with reporters last week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said, " it's really only been, I would say, since the beginning of 2009, with the president's first decision to add another 21,000 troops, and then his decision in December to add another 30,000, and the increase in civilians, that we have actually begun -- and I would say a tripling of the foreign -- of our partners' troops -- that we have actually got the resources in Afghanistan to partner with the Afghans and have some prospect of dealing with a resurgent Taliban.''

Gates and other senior officials are fond of saying that at last the U.S. has got the "inputs'' right in Afghanistan -- the right strategy, enough troops and other resources -- and now it's time to let those inputs work. And they have to work before next July, when the president has promised to begin withdrawing U.S. troops, on the assumption that Afghan security forces will be good enough, and the Taliban battered enough, that fewer Americans will be needed.

Skepticism on that score is deep and widespread. Traveling through Afghanistan this summer, I spoke to many ground combat commanders, all of whom felt excited and optimistic about the strategy. But all of them said it would take years to take effect.

In Washington, there is growing concern about that disconnect between Obama's announced strategy, which rests heavily on long-term counterinsurgency tactics developed by Petraeus, and the July 2011 "transition'' date. There is little confidence that the goals Obama set can be reached by then. And in that case, what is the acceptable goal, and what is the real strategy?

A second cause of doubt about the future is Afghan President Hamid Karzai, portrayed in journalist Bob Woodward's book, "Obama's Wars," as a manic-depressive who according to U.S. officials occasionally goes "off his meds.'' The senior U.S. diplomat in Kabul, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, has argued that Karzai is corrupt and incompetent and unfit as a strategic partner in the war. If that is the case, on whose behalf is the United States fighting?

Last week Karzai again lashed out at the United States and the troops of 46 other nations deployed in Afghanistan, complaining that after nine years of war there is no discernible progress.

"NATO is here and they say they are fighting terrorism, and this is the 10th year and there is no result yet," Karzai groused in the Sept. 28 speech. "Our sons cannot go to school because of bombs and suicide attacks...It has been about 10 years...and "the result remains unclear."

Small wonder that the public has turned decisively against what was once a proud instance of American muscle-flexing. When President Bush announced on Oct. 7, 2001, that "the United States military has begun strikes against al-Qaeda training camps ...'' a palpable thrill of pride electrified the country.

But now, public opinion polls show most Americans think it was a bad idea, that the United States is not winning, and that it will probably get worse.

In the face of mounting public doubts about the war -- and detailed accounts by Woodward of deep disagreements over strategy within the Obama administration -- senior administration officials find themselves having to insist they know what they're doing. Typical was an exchange at the Pentagon news briefing last week with Gates.

Question: "A year after the Afghan strategy review, can you both say without reservation that the strategy that emerged is coherent and sound enough to justify the expenditure of American lives and money?''

Gates, sharply: "Yes. I wouldn't sign the deployment orders if I didn't believe that.''

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Shiny, Happy Health Care Reform

Robert and Donna Trussell — 2010-10-06T00:18:00+00:00

Filed under: Humor, Health Care, Chaos Theory, Public Option, Medicare, Unemployment, Health Care Reform

Follow the Trussell cartoons
on Twitter at ChaosTheoryPD

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Psychotherapy: That'll Be $100,000. Sorry, No Warranty

Donna Trussell — 2010-08-25T19:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Economy, Health Care, Woman Up, Public Option, Unemployment

My colleague Mary C. Curtis writes that Betty Draper has returned to the therapist office. "Mad Men" is set in the 1960s, and there's a good chance Draper's health insurance picked up 80 percent of that tab, if not the whole shebang.

Ah, those were the days. Now, you're more likely to get three visits a year. That is, if you're still employed and even have insurance at all.

With real unemployment soaring near levels last seen in the 1930s, I doubt people will be able to pay the premiums offered by private companies. (Public Option, was it something I said?) My colleague Delia writes about the ways talk therapy can help. But she lives in England, land of health care for all.

Maybe it's just as well therapy goes the way of the carrier pigeon. A long time ago, I figured out that therapists fell into three distinct categories: 1) He/she is creepy. 2) He/she is sane, but a dim bulb. 3) He/she doesn't take your insurance.

And marriage counseling was little more than a personal Judge Judy. When some friends of mine were having problems, I asked the standard: Have you seen a marriage counselor? Can't afford it, she said. Doesn't your insurance pay part of the cost? She laughed. "We're too complicated for Maxicare."

Oh, aren't we all? Besides, no matter whom you see or how long you go, marriage counseling really boils down to three sentences: Be nice to each other. Can't? Here's the name of a lawyer.

As for individual therapy, that too can be neatly summed up: Get over yourself! Here's some meds. Now, go out there and have fun.

Of course, it's not in the therapist's interest to help you connect those dots, or to realize that he/she is little more than a rented friend who echoes back to you what you'd like to hear, but maybe with a little more edge to it, so you'll feel like you're getting bang for your buck.

Some people never tire of forking over their cash. Witness Daphne Merkin, who spent 40 years in therapy.

In a long thoughtful essay in the New York Times, Merkin stated, "I failed to grasp that there was no magic to be had, that a therapist's insights weren't worth anything unless you made them your own and that nothing that had happened to me already could be undone, no matter how many times I went over it."

Take that, therapy. And there's more. Merkin reported that Ferenczi, a friend of Freud, observed: "Neurotics are a rabble, good only to support us financially and to allow us to learn from their cases: psychoanalysis as a therapy may be worthless."

After four decades, Merkin wised up and quit. Her daughter, coming on the heels of the world-weary "Avenue Q" generation, never bought the idea of therapy in the first place. Merkin writes that her daughter once "referred to therapy as 'emotional prostitution,' and although I thought the term a bit reductive, there was a piece of unpleasant truth to it."

Among the comments Merkin got on her opus was: "The entire experience described here seems like endless squirrel caging." Another commenter wondered why Merkin didn't just make some friends, noting that they're "cheaper than highly trained doctors. They tend to be better listeners and even help you get things done, like moving, picking out an outfit or meeting you at the airport."

A friend costs nothing. Same with Alcoholics Anonymous, which is where one young woman ended up, but only after her parents paid $21,000 per month for her stay at Yellowbrick, the country's only "emerging adult" residential treatment center, located in Evanston, Ill.

You could have a lot of fun with $21,000. Like . . . oh, you know . . . live.

Times are hard. If the economy remains on its current trajectory, Yellowbrick may find they've run out of emerging adults to treat. Adults will emerge as naturally as butterflies from cocoons once parents start plowing the back 40 and ordering their teenagers to go slop the hogs. The road will beckon, as it always has.

As for the other House of Pain therapy dispensaries, tumbleweeds will blow through their corridors any day now, and therapists will hit the soup lines with the rest of us. That's the way the fortune cookie crumbles.

Click here to follow Donna Trussell on Twitter.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Blanche Lincoln Scores Surprise Win Over Bill Halter in Arkansas Senate Runoff

Suzi Parker — 2010-06-08T23:29:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Democrats, Woman Up, 2010 Elections, Campaigns, Public Option, Moderates

Call incumbent Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln the Comeback Kid; even the former holder of that title is calling her that. In an e-mail to supporters after her victory speech late Tuesday, Lincoln said, "President Clinton called me tonight when it was clear we were going to win and said, 'Blanche, you're the new Comeback Kid.' "

Lincoln scored a surprise -- and most would say downright shocking -- win in the runoff against her fellow Democrat Lt. Gov. Bill Halter. She defied pundits and the anti-incumbent sentiment that previously took out Pennsylvania Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter and Utah Republican Sen. Bob Bennett.

Halter had been favored to win even though Lincoln had narrowly bested him in the primary on May 18. That night she squeaked by with 44.5 percent of the vote to Halter's 42.5 percent, with a third candidate receiving 13 percent.

Lincoln faced deep anti-Washington sentiment in her home state, but when Bill Clinton showed up on Memorial Day weekend to campaign for Lincoln, he took on the unions and what he called the outside interests that had bombarded Arkansas for 14 weeks during the primary. His appearance in a closing ad for Lincoln argued that it was Lincoln, not Halter, who was the true Arkansan, with deep roots in his home state. She and Clinton made the case that Halter's campaign was made up of outsiders who had come in from other states to get out the vote for him, and that message resonated.

More Election Coverage
- Women Win Big in Key Primaries
- Tuesday's Real Winners and Losers
- Nikki Haley Heads for Runoff in S.C.
- Tea Partier Will Face Reid in Nevada
- Army Vet Alvin Greene to Face DeMint
- Reid, Angle Vulnerable to Ridicule
- California's GOP 'Thelma & Louise'
- The Power of Palin Endorsements
- Is Tea Party Losing Its Strength?
- So Much for Conventional Wisdom
- The Right Wins, the Left Loses
- Elections Boost Tea Party, Women

Now, though, Lincoln faces an uphill battle against Republican John Boozman, who won the May primary with 57 percent of the vote. Some polls have shown Boozman ahead of Lincoln by as much as 20 percentage points.

The Lincoln win shows that Arkansas is still a Blue Dog state where unions and progressive groups like MoveOn.org have limited power, and where rural voters can still sway an election. Such groups spent millions on behalf of Halter on media, mailers and GOTV efforts.

Earlier Tuesday, there was serious talk of lawsuits and recounts, particularly in Garland County, a populous county where only two polling stations were opened. But in the end, Halter conceded. "I'm not sure my campaign could have done anymore than they did in 98 days," Halter told me. He said the party should unite behind Lincoln, with whom he'd previously said he had nothing in common beyond party affiliation. When the crowd at his party Tuesday night booed at the mention of her name, he said, "No, no, no, that's not how we play."

On Wednesday, Lincoln heads back to Washington, where her bill requiring large banks to spin off their derivatives trading units will be heard on Thursday.

Results

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Iraqi Elections Bad News for U.S. Troops

David Wood — 2010-03-27T19:27:00+00:00

Filed under: Iraq, Terror, Foreign Policy, Obama Administration, National Security, International, Public Option

The almost-dead-heat election in Iraq, which leaves Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and long-time rival Ayad Alawi in a virtual tie, thrusts the struggle for power in Iraq away from the internationally monitored voting process and into what could be months of bitter maneuvering in back rooms and back streets.

That's not good news for the 83,970 U.S. Army troops currently running joint security operations with Iraqi forces and helping guard key facilities. The longer the political struggle goes on, U.S. officials say, the higher potential for widespread violence.

After all, it was during post-election political maneuvering in 2005 that the full-scale insurgency erupted in outlying provinces and pockets where Shia and Sunni neighborhoods clashed. Within weeks, as American and Iraqi civilian casualties skyrocketed, U.S. officials conceded that Iraq was "on the edge'' of civil war.

Precisely that kind of violence broke out Friday night in Diyala, a mostly Sunni province northeast of Baghdad. Iraqi police said Saturday that twin bomb blasts in a crowded marketplace killed 59 and wounded 73 people. A police spokesman told Reuters news agency that the attack had "al Qaeda's fingerprint.''

Although U.S. military operations in Iraq have mostly faded from the news, Iraq is still a dangerous place for American soldiers. Army Spec. Robert M. Rieckhoff, a 26-year-old trooper with the 10th Mountain Division's 2nd Brigade Combat Team, was killed in Baghdad a week ago Thursday when insurgents attacked his unit with rocket-propelled grenades. Rieckhoff was from Kenosha, Wis.

On the political front, the parties behind al-Maliki and Alawi have begun bargaining with other power blocs, including that of the Shiite firebrand Muqtada al-Sadr to assemble a big enough coalition to dominate parliament and to form a new government.

Nervous U.S. diplomatic and military officials are worried that prolonged political wrangling will go on for months, with no clear winner in sight and an effectively disenfranchised caretaker government in charge, and that political and sectarian violence will explode in the vacuum.

Christopher Hill, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, recently recalled that political wrangling went on for months in 2005. "And before you knew it, you had an insurgency which grew up during the vacuum created during this government formation period,'' he said.

Hill and Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, have expressed the hope that a new government can be formed within 60 days. "I don't want it to be five months,'' Hill said at a Washington forum last month, adding that "there's a great deal of concern in Washington'' about the next few months.

Apart from the immediate risk of rising violence to U.S. troops and to ordinary Iraqis, prolonged political turbulence could upset the timetable for the drawdown of American troops. According to a U.S.-Iraqi agreement, the American military presence will be thinned out to about 50,000 personnel by the end of August.

Odierno has said the speed of the draw-down will depend on whether Iraq is able to weather the next 60 days without the political struggle turning violent.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

George Gallup, Health Care and the Peril of Legislating by Polls

Carl M. Cannon — 2010-03-21T23:30:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Health Care, Polls, Voting, Obama Administration, Mobile Lead, Public Option, Health Care Endgame

To John Boehner, the top Republican in the House, the health care bill coming up for a vote on Sunday boils down to a single question: Which party is heeding the will of the American people? "Americans want Washington to scrap this job-killing government takeover of health care," says the Ohio Republican.

Picking up on this theme, Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia asserts flatly that the American people have already "rejected" the Democrats' proposed health care legislation, citing a Wall Street Journal poll showing that 57 percent of respondents fear it would hurt the economy.

Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia and Charles Boustany of Louisiana made the same point directly to President Barack Obama at the White House-sponsored health care summit on Feb. 25. "We don't care for this bill. I think you know that," Cantor told the president. "The American people don't care for the bill. I think that we've demonstrated in polling that they don't..."

The public opinion surveys cited by the Republican leadership do indeed report such findings. And Eric Cantor is a bright, attractive guy, and Charles Boustany was a practicing physician with first-hand knowledge of the problems in medicine. Nonetheless, this line of argumentation is all wrong. For months, Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators have brandished public opinion surveys like shillelaghs over the heads of health care reform's proponents, threatening mayhem to the Democrats and their party should they dare to ... legislate.

You will hear more of this all weekend -- and in the future after the health care debate in Washington comes to a climax. But it strikes me as bad social science, bad government, and bad history -- with a dose of hypocrisy thrown in. Using polls in this way is not only unscientific, it's not how a Republic can, or should, operate.

Personally, I do not look forward to the passage of the president's package. I would have few qualms about voting against it if I were in Congress. I'd prefer less government involvement in health care, not more, and less insurance, too. (I think Americans should pay out of pocket for routine medical care, that insurance should be for truly expensive procedures, and that the whole thing should be uncoupled from employment. My views were informed by an eye-opening Atlantic Monthly cover story last summer, "How American Health Care Killed My Father," an article that should have altered the national debate, but didn't.) My views aren't important, and I only mention them because this is not a back-door argument for the Democrats' bill. It's a front-door argument for better debate and better governance.

Let's start with the concept of governing by polls. Bill Clinton did this, to a fault many believed, the nadir coming when he tasked pollster Dick Morris to ascertain whether vacationing each summer at Martha's Vineyard sent the right re-election message for 1996. (I never saw any actual survey on this question, but after Morris reported back to Clinton, a president who neither rode horses nor fly fished ended up in Wyoming for his family's summer holiday.) Clinton's successor veered toward the other extreme: George W. Bush took obvious pride in ignoring public opinion. "I make decisions on what I think is right for the United States based upon principles," Bush told Chris Wallace of Fox News in a February 2008 interview. "I frankly don't give a damn about the polls."

Let's leave for another day a discussion of whether this was a bridge too far for a wartime president. This much is certain: Many influential Republicans and conservatives simply loved this aspect of the 43^rd U.S. president 's personality. "Some call it stubbornness; I call it principled leadership," Rudy Giuliani proclaimed as Republicans met in New York to re-nominate George W. Bush in 2004. "President Bush has the courage of his convictions."

And a week before George W. Bush left office, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, singled out this trait as perhaps Bush's most impressive attribute. "President Bush knows that it is tough to lead when you are following the polls," Hatch told his colleagues in a Jan. 14, 2009 tribute to the outgoing president on the Senate floor. "George W. Bush is not leaving the presidency with chapped fingers from holding them up to the wind."

Not to belabor the obvious, but how can it be political courage when a Republican president ignores public opinion polls and high-handed arrogance when a Democratic president does the same thing?

And what of these polls anyway? Do they deserve to be accorded the great weight Republicans are putting in them? I wouldn't think so. Polling the public on something like a 2,100-page health care bill is more akin to junk science than social science -- even though this kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of modern polling.

* * * * *

In 1936, a college journalism teacher named George H. Gallup came out of Iowa with a doctoral degree and an idealistic streak to famously embarrass Literary Digest magazine, which ran a poll predicting a huge victory by Alf Landon over Franklin Roosevelt. Literary Digest had conducted its quadrennial straw poll without mishap since 1920. And in 1936 the magazine's editors were confident that the 2.3 million post cards they'd received -- the names came from subscription lists, automobile registrations and telephone books -- were more than enough to give them an accurate picture. This proved spectacularly wrong: The Digest had Landon besting Roosevelt by 55 percent to 41 percent. It turned out that Literary Digest's cohort was probably a more affluent sample than the country as a whole in the height of the Great Depression. An even worse flaw in the Digest's methods was the response rate: The magazine had sent out 10 million cards -- and the Americans who didn't want to waste the money on a stamp were disproportionately voting Democratic that year.

George Gallup wasn't the only political scientist who'd figured out how to build a better polling mousetrap in the mid-1930s. Elmo Roper and Archibald Crossley, for example, had also learned that with a relatively small sample size of between 2,000 and 2,500 people, they could take the pulse of a nation with 128 million people. It was eye-opening, and the public followed closely as these three men engaged in a spirited competition with themselves, as well as Literary Digest. Whose methods would prove the best?

In political lore, Gallup was the victor, although in real life the competition was won by Elmo Roper. Crossley's model had FDR winning with 53.8 percent of the vote; Gallup had the Democratic ticket winning with 55.7 percent, and Roper said it would be a whopping 61.7 percent -- very close to Roosevelt's actual total of 62.5 percent. George Gallup's coup was that he also predicted that Literary Digest would be wrong, a prognostication that helped make him become a household name. It also attracted Franklin Roosevelt's attention: By 1940, the president quietly retained Roper and Gallup to poll for him on his plans for having the U.S. government help the British in their war against Germany, a plan of action that became known in headline-ese as "Lend-Lease."

It sounds so sensible in hindsight -- and God knows Roosevelt was in the right about Nazi Germany. But in George Gallup, in particular, FDR had hit on a socially conscious innovator who was less interested in horse-race polls than in plumbing the minds of the American people about the issues he cared about, education reform, criminal justice and quality of life. This turns out to be a mixed blessing. To this day the official company biography asserts that George Gallup's name is "synonymous with integrity and the democratic process," and this is true enough. But the democratic process is not as tidy as George Gallup or his public opinion polls, and the very notion of polling Americans about complex policy issues that they often know little about is problematic on its face.

In 1995, for instance, at the behest of CNN and USA Today, Gallup polled about the verdict in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. The questions ranged from the straightforward (agree or disagree with the verdict) to the absurd (would Simpson have been convicted if he were white.) OK, that kind of thing helps get a pulse on racial attitudes, but how about these questions: Did Judge Lance Ito do a good job? Did the jury reach a verdict too quickly? These are technical legal questions that were posed to non-lawyers, who typically watched little of the actual trial, and who may never have set foot in a courtroom in their lives. In other words, everyday Americans who had no basis for registering an original opinion at all. You probably see where I'm going with this. Aren't similar problems present in the health care debate -- and also when pollsters try to determine public opinion on other intricate policy questions, in which the key participants themselves cannot agree on what the legislation would accomplish -- or even on what it should be called?

Take "cap and trade," for instance. The concept itself is not easy to comprehend, but what the shorthand phrase means in policy-speak is having the government set a limit (a cap) on various types of pollutants that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Companies with aging plants can buy credits (that's the "trade" part) from firms with cleaner emissions. The theory is that by essentially charging companies for polluting -- and rewarding companies that build cleaner plants -- government creates market incentives to lower greenhouse emissions. I have no opinion on whether this is the right approach to global warming, but I have a definite opinion on the efficacy of polls purporting to show where the public is on this issue.

A 2009 Zogby Poll claimed that only 30 percent of Americans support cap and trade, while a CNN Poll done last fall asserted that 6 in 10 support it. Who is right? Who cares? The most enlightening, not to mention entertaining, polling done on cap and trade reveals that Americans have no earthly idea what the thing means -- or even what issue realm it belongs to. This Pew Poll shows that in an open-ended question only 23 percent of Americans correctly knew (guessed?) that cap and trade concerns energy and environmental policy. And fully 55 percent acknowledged knowing "nothing at all" about cap and trade.

Polls about both cap and trade and the health care bill made the Top 10 Dubious Polling Award. This little-known, but important annual list (it started in 2009) is compiled by George F. Bishop and David W. Moore, two veteran pollsters, authors and political scientists who display appropriate skepticism of their brethren -- and of the media outlets that promote such goofy social science.

One obvious possible lesson of the health care polls may simply be that the Republicans did a better job of criticizing the legislation than the Democrats did at promoting it. Or maybe it's just too complicated an issue, and the public doesn't trust something it doesn't understand. Or perhaps Americans even like the features of the bill well enough, it's Democrats they can't stand -- or Congress itself. (There are actually numerous polls that tend to bolster that last postulate.)

Of course, things could be worse. Ross Perot could be president. I don't mean that as a personal dig at Ross Perot -- I'm using him as a symbol here. Nearly two decades ago, Perot anticipated the interactive nature of the Internet. The phrase 2.0 wasn't in vogue -- the technology did not yet exist -- but this is what the twangy Texas tycoon was talking about in his call for governing via "Electronic Town Halls." California and two dozen other states have for nearly a century practiced a controversial form of direct democracy with their referendum systems. Perot's fantasy of governing via insta-polling would have made California look namby-pamby. In Perot-ville, America would (theoretically) have been spared the messiness and corrupting influence of lobbyists, legislators, political consultants, special interest groups and the media.

"With interactive television every other week, we could take one major issue to the American people ... have them respond, and show by congressional district what the people want," Perot explained. Or think they want. One thing is certain, however: Although the Founders of our Republic couldn't have known about the Internet, a Webocracy would have given them pause. They had enough qualms about democracy.

The Framers had fought a revolution against monarchy, so they knew they didn't want that. But unchecked democracy struck them as too close to anarchy. And so checks and balances were built in to the system. The Supreme Court: lifetime tenure. Senators serve six years, presidents four, House members two. A deliberate body (the Senate), the people's House, a chief executive with veto power. It's all there, mechanisms to be responsive to the people's whims, while being responsible to posterity -- and minority views -- at the same time. In a "pure democracy," James Madison worried in the Federalist Papers, "there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual."

In a letter to a friend named John Taylor written while Madison was in the White House, John Adams amplified on this sentiment. "Remember," he wrote, "democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

John Adams was right about a lot of things, but our democracy hasn't committed suicide -- not yet -- and one reason it hasn't is that a critical mass of men and women remember that it's a democracy, yes, but wrapped inside a Republic. That shouldn't be a hard word for Republicans to remember.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Historic Health Care Vote Goes Down To the Wire

Patricia Murphy — 2010-03-20T21:05:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Health Care, Obama Administration, 2010 Elections, Congress, Harry Reid, Public Option, Health Care Endgame

With a controversy over abortion funding still unresolved and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi seemingly just short of the votes necessary to pass the bill, the House of Representatives is expected to cast its final votes on health care reform Sunday afternoon.

The votes will come after a weekend of tense, last-minute negotiations, and more than a year after Congress began debating how to reform the health care system in America.

The weekend began on Capitol Hill with an unusual Saturday Rules Committee hearing, where Democrats and Republicans clashed over the procedure known as "deem and pass." The process would have required a roll-call vote only on a set of changes to the Senate bill -- without a vote on the underlying bill itself. Pelosi confirmed this week that it was among the procedures she was considering to move the legislation through the House.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) implored Democrats to put the Senate bill to a full roll-call vote. "This process corrupts and prostitutes the system," he said. "We are about to unleash a cultural war in this country if we use this process and don't allow the differences to be debated and hopefully moderated in compromise. Don't do this deem and pass."

Although several committee Democrats defended the process, at least two did not. One, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), said he would pull his support for the bill if Democrats went ahead. "I want to make the announcement in the committee right now that I don't support that, and won't support a rule that does it that way," he said.

With criticism mounting from Republicans and Democrats alike, House leaders announced they would abandon the "deem and pass" plan and move ahead with three Sunday votes-- first a procedural one on the rules of the debate, then a vote on the changes House Democrats have sought to the Senate health care bill; and finally a vote on the Senate bill itself.

Whether those three pieces of legislation can win passage remained unclear Saturday night as a small but crucially important faction of anti-abortion Democrats, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), continued to withhold their support for the final bill because of language drafted in the Senate that Stupak said amounts to taxpayer funding of abortion.

Word circulated Friday night that Pelosi would try to win over Stupak's group with a vote of the full House Sunday on Stupak's more restrictive language. Pro-abortion rights Democrats, led by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) balked at the idea and by Saturday afternoon, it was clear an agreement with Stupak had fallen apart. "The bill is the bill," Pelosi told reporters.

Still eager to persuade Stupak and his coalition to support the overall measure, Democratic leaders floated the idea of having President Obama write an executive order confirming that no federal money in the new law could go to abortion services or coverage that includes abortion services.

As the abortion drama played out behind the scenes, President Obama traveled to Capitol Hill in the afternoon to make his final pitch to undecided lawmakers, calling health care reform the most important piece of domestic legislation since the enactment of Medicare in 1965. (See video below and transcript here).

He acknowledged that the legislation falls short in many people's eyes, including his own, but called it a vast improvement over the status quo. "There are some who wanted a single-payer, government-run system, that's not this bill." he said. "The Republicans wanted what I call the fox is guarding the hen house approach."

Ultimately, he told the Democrats, helping average Americans with the approval of health care is why many of them joined the Democratic Party in the first place, and he said the bill's success depended on the people assembled in that caucus room.

"We have been debating health care for decades. It is in your hands," he said. "It is time to pass health care reform for America and I am confident you are going to do it tomorrow."

Before Obama spoke, Speaker Pelosi took the podium to the roaring applause of the members of her caucus. After predicting all week that she will have the votes to pass health reform on Sunday, Pelosi told her members, "We are on the verge of making great history."

With the stakes as high as any vote could get, several whip counts reported that Pelosi and the Democrats head into Sunday's showdown still shy of the necessary 216 needed to win approval of the bill -- but with 20 Democrats still undecided about how they will vote.

Although seven Democrats who voted against the bill last year have changed their votes to yes, three yes votes from November have announced they will vote no this time. The Hill reported that of the 37 votes that Democrats could afford to write off and still gain passage of the bill on Sunday, 36 have announced that they will vote no or are leaning in that direction.

The House will begin the final debate on the health care bill at 1 p.m. Sunday.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Memo to the Left: The Public Health Insurance Option Is Dead, Get Over It

Jill Lawrence — 2010-03-16T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Health Care, Public Option

As the climactic votes approach this week on health care, some groups on the left seem more interested in throwing a wrench into the process than putting a landmark law on the books.

MoveOn.org is in the latter camp. It is asking its 5 million members to back primary challengers to Democrats who don't support the reform package, and at least one union is sending similar signals. MoveOn also is running an ad featuring Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. "Which side of history will you be on?" it asks. The spot starts Tuesday on national cable, with a six-figure buy behind it, and will run until the House votes on a final package at week's end. The goal is to nudge wavering Democrats into the yes column.

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee and Democracy for America are applying a different kind of pressure. They're crusading until the last possible moment to revive a government-run insurance plan, or public option. Though Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others say a public option could not win the needed 51 votes to pass the Senate, these groups insist she is wrong. That is the premise of this ad expected to start Wednesday on national cable and in Pelosi's San Francisco district -- two or three days before the House takes its final action in a 15-month process.

"This is not helpful," a Democratic aide on Capitol Hill told me, exercising a restraint rarely encountered in the health debate. Let me be a bit more blunt: It's futile, distracting and possibly ruinous at a time when Democrats need every ounce of party energy focused on passing the bill.

This is, finally, the endgame. If you really care about achieving health reform and improving Democratic prospects in November, why would you spend time and money on a cause that could derail the whole project? "Our goal is to pass a good bill, the best bill possible," Progressive Change co-founder Adam Green told me. "We are trying desperately to save Democrats from themselves and turn this bill from a political loser into a political winner."

The public option was included in the health bill passed by the House. It could not get the 60 votes needed to become part of the Senate bill, which is the basis for a final package negotiated by the House, the Senate and President Obama. Liberals say there is a window of opportunity now that the Senate has decided to amend its bill using reconciliation, a process that requires 51 votes as opposed to a 60-vote supermajority. "The Senate has 51 votes for a public option and we can prove it," Democracy for America wrote Monday in an e-mail to members.

Progressive Change breaks it down this way on a Web site called Whip Congress for a Public Option: "24 have signed a letter to Harry Reid asking for a public option in reconciliation. 19 have given statements to us, reporters or their constituents. 4 more have made statements on video. And 4 are extremely likely based on their previous support for the public option and Senate leadership." The groups' new commercial concludes: "The Senate has the votes. The public option is in Pelosi's hands."

But old YouTube videos and vague statements, some from before the bruising debate unfolded, do not constitute a definitive Senate vote count. The idea that a public option has majority support in the Senate is mythical, according to Pelosi and other Democrats. It's also tactically naïve or blind. First, a public option could complicate passage in the House. Pelosi is trying to balance potential loss of support from anti-abortion Democrats against gains that may come from moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats who prefer the Senate bill. They like it in part because it has no public option.

Second, although majorities support a public option in polls, it is unclear how it would actually play in elections. Democrats already are fighting off Republican claims that they are socialists trying to stage a government takeover of health care. That charge would be harder to refute, at least from a PR standpoint, if a public option were in the mix.

Third, assuming a package clears the House, it will be one that has been worked out by House Democrats, Senate Democrats and Obama. Any amendments would start the bill ping-ponging between the chambers until final agreement is reached. And that process could implode at any time - which is why Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois has said he'll tell Democratic senators to oppose all amendments. We can't risk it, said Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate and a public option supporter. For that, Progressive Change treated him to an e-mail blast headlined "Durbin Betrayal."

MoveOn has aligned itself with Democratic leaders in the final days of the fight. In a vote last week, 83 percent of its members said MoveOn should support the final health care bill "if it looks like the plan recently proposed by President Obama" (that is, the Senate bill with fixes reflecting House and White House concerns). "Since then we are taking all that member energy and using it to push forward the momentum to getting health care passed," said Ilyse Hogue, the group's director of political advocacy and communications.

Members still believe a public option is the best way to control insurance costs and spur competition, she told me, and won't let the idea die. "They've fought very hard for progressive positions, including a public option," Hogue said. "They will continue to fight for them after this bill is passed."

That's good old practical politics: Take what you can get and try for the rest later. There will be plenty of time in future months and years for drives to set up a public option or let people buy Medicare coverage. Right now there's a chance to make enormous strides toward universal coverage and set in motion steps to control soaring costs. Democrats who are relitigating settled issues at best are getting in the way and at worst are jeopardizing the future of their party.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Hey, Congress: You're Fired!

Patricia Murphy — 2010-02-27T11:42:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Environment, Economy, Humor, Budget, Health Care, Taxes, Polls, Social Security, Energy, The Capitolist, Culture, 2010 Elections, Congress, Conservatives, Campaigns, Public Option, Liberals, Moderates, Deficit, Unemployment, Jobs

It's hard to believe that most members of Congress, if they worked at any private company in America, would still be employed after their last year on the job.

How would Democratic and Republican leaders fare on the basic performance review that most workers encounter annually? When graded on a scale of "exceeds expectations," "meets expectations" or "fails to meet expectations," what grade would they get on improving health care? Or focusing on the economy? Or teamwork?

Judge for yourself. After a year of debating, cajoling, refusing and posturing, Congress seems no closer to agreeing on health care reform after the president's hire-wire bipartisan summit than they did before it. It's the president's top domestic priority, but he's done little to bridge the differences that are splitting the Democratic caucus, or to win over Republicans to make up for the difference.

As Americans continued to struggle with double-digit unemployment, home foreclosures, and access to credit, the latest victim of congressional infighting this week was the Democrats' economic agenda, including a jobs bill and an extension of COBRA and unemployment benefits, which expire Sunday for more than one million out-of-work Americans.

The week in Washington opened with what seemed like a victory for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, as the Senate passed a jobs bill he crafted by a vote of 70 to 28. Reid had infuriated Democrats and Republicans alike the week before by scuttling a popular, bipartisan $85 billion jobs package for his own smaller version, but his risk seemed to pay off when 13 Republicans crossed party lines to support his revised bill.

Reid's measure would put $15 billion toward several plans designed to create jobs, including $13 billion for a payroll tax holiday for small businesses to hire new workers, a reauthorization of the highway trust fund to kick-start road building, and a bond issue to finance construction of schools and energy projects.

But the House of Representatives had passed its own jobs bill in December, a far broader measure that came in at $154 billion and was so different from Reid's bill that the lower chamber would have to take up the Senate measure instead. By Thursday the House Democrats had refused to go along with the Senate legislation. They felt burned by moderates in the Senate for leaving them at the altar on an energy bill and the health care reform public option earlier this year, but three factions had more specific objections.

Rep. Jim Oberstar, the top Democrat on the Transportation Committee, wanted to know where the $75 billion in transportation moeny from the first bill had gone. The Blue Dog coalition, the fiscal hawks in the House Democratic caucus, complained that Reid's bill violated the pay-as-you-go rules that the House had passed just weeks ago, while members of the Congressional Black Caucus said that the Senate bill had too many tax cuts and not enough spending to actually create new jobs for the people that they represent.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi assured reporters on Friday that the House would pass the bill. But the potential mutiny from Democrats' different factions pushed a vote to next week, when Pelosi and her lieutenants will try to muster more support for Reid's scaled-back bill.

As the Speaker attempted to whip her members into line on the House side, another jobs-related mini-drama broke out across the Capitol on the Senate side, where retiring Kentucky Republican Sen. Jim Bunning began a filibuster on a portion of the jobs bill. It was a section that Reid had stripped out days earlier but then brought back up for a vote-- an extension of unemployment insurance and COBRA subsidies for more than 1 million Americans whose benefits run out this weekend.

Bunning's objection to the measure, he said, was that it would add to the ballooning federal deficit, an outcome he suggested could be avoided by using unspent stimulus funds to pay for the bill. But Democrats attacked the Kentucky senator as being nakedly partisan.

Sen. Dick Durbin, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, lambasted Bunning during an unusual late-night session, as Bunning objected to every effort by Democrats to pass the measure Thursday night.

"The most vulnerable families in America are going to suffer because of this political decision by one senator," said Durbin, (D-Ill.) "We will be back, we will try to get this done. And to those families: Hang in there."

Bunning promised, "I'll be here as long as you are here."

Believing they have a winning issue on their hands, Democrats mobilized against Bunning Saturday, with the White House accusing the Republican of "political gamesmanship" and several Democratic senators holding a conference call to blast Bunning's moves. "Democrats understand that real Americans count on these benefits every week to keep the bills paid and put food on the table," the Democrats press release read.

Without action, jobless benefits will run out Sunday for those who have been out of work the longest. But with even more deficit spending, experts warn the income taxes of future workers will have to double just to pay the interest on the national debt.

The Senate will gavel back into session for votes Tuesday, with Durbin and Bunning both promising to be there to argue their sides,but whether anything gets accomplished is anyone's guess.

A job review for most of these members of Congress is coming up in November when voters will decide if they should keep their positions for this kind of performance. Most Americans don't seem to think so. In Gallup's latest poll, voters gave Congress a job approval rating of 18 percent, while a New York Times/ CBS News poll showed just 8 percent of Americans think most members of Congress deserve to be re-elected.

The message to Congress in those numbers-- the unemployment benefits you extend next week could be your own.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Governors in Washington, Worried About Health Care Inaction

Tom Diemer — 2010-02-20T16:26:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Economy, Budget, Health Care, Taxes, Obama Administration, Governors, Congress, Public Option, Deficit, Unemployment, Lobbying

In a rite of late winter, the nation's governors rolled into Washington Saturday, worried as ever about what the federal government might do to them, and their states.

The three-day National Governor's Association winter meeting opened in the nation's capital with states still struggling to close budget gaps, find jobs for their unemployed workers and some how comprehend what is happening in Congress with regard to health care reform legislation.

"Health care costs are such a large and rising part of every state's budget," said Vermont Gov. James H. Douglas, a Republican who is chairman of the governor's association. "We have to confront it. We cant wait for the federal govenment... We're going to move forward. When the federal government comes along, we'll see how we can integrate their reforms."

President Barack Obama will entertain the governors at a black tie White House reception Sunday night and then meet privately with them on Monday, The Hill newspaper reported.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer said when Congress talks about health care reform, "they say 'maybe we what we ought to do is kick it all out to the states and see if they can figure this out.'

"Well, we'd be more than happy to figure this out, but the only time they listen to us is when we come to town," Schweitzer said. "And by the way, Congress is on vacation."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama: I've Backed Some GOP Health Care Ideas All Along

Tom Diemer — 2010-02-20T14:33:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, House, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, John McCain, Economy, Abortion, Budget, Health Care, Taxes, Obama Administration, 2010 Elections, Congress, Conservatives, Campaigns, Public Option, Deficit, Jobs

President Barack Obama said Saturday he hopes neither political party tries to turn the upcoming White House summit on health care reform into "political theater with each side simply reciting talking points and trying to score political points."

Obama has invited Republican and Democratic lawmakers to the White House on Thursday in an attempt to break the Capitol Hill stalemate on health care legislation.

In his weekly radio address, the president insisted that he had "sought out and supported Republican ideas on reform" from the outset,

"Some Republicans want to allow Americans to purchase insurance from a company in another state to give people more choices and bring down costs. Some Republicans have also suggested giving small businesses the power to pool together and offer health care at lower prices, just as big companies and labor unions do," Obama said. "I think both of these are good ideas -- so long as we pursue them in a way that protects benefits, protects patients, and protects the American people."

Republicans leaders have approached the meeting warily, not wishing to be upstaged by the president of the United States.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Republicans May Skip White House Health Summit

Patricia Murphy — 2010-02-08T23:22:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Economy, Health Care, Obama Administration, The Capitolist, 2010 Elections, Congress, Rahm Emanuel, Public Option, Unemployment, Lobbying

House Minority Leader John Boehner and the Republican whip, Rep. Eric Cantor, have notified the White House that Republicans may not participate in the president's bipartisan health care summit unless the ground rules of the meeting are changed.

In a lengthy letter to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel released Monday night, Ohio's Boehner and Cantor of Virginia balked at the idea of Republicans attending the Feb. 25 event simply to react to Democratic proposals already on the table. "If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate," they wrote.

Boehner and Cantor have repeatedly called for Democrats to scrap the health care legislation that narrowly passed the House and Senate, and they did so again in their letter. "Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people?"

They also asked that any new legislation be made available for 72 hours before it's voted on (a process that Democrats have already adhered to), and that Democrats abandon the possibility of using a parliamentary move called reconciliation to pass health reform through the Senate with 51, rather than 60, votes.

The letter is a blow to Obama's plans to publicly press Republicans for more cooperation on his agenda, but data show the Republicans have little to lose with the gambit. Gallup's most recent poll puts Obama's approval rating on handling health care at an anemic 36 percent.

The full text of the letter:

February 8, 2010

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama's announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is "absolutely not" resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have "experts" participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such "experts?" Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs - just the opposite of their intended effect - and jeopardize seniors' access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can't afford and don't support. 'Bipartisanship' is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President's rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President's recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican 'obstruction' when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are 'sitting on the sidelines' just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Obama Braves Snow, Talks Politics, as Monster Storm Paralyzes DC

Tom Diemer — 2010-02-06T14:58:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Barack Obama, Environment, Health Care, Fundraising, Conventions, Energy, Obama Administration, 2012 President, 2010 Elections, News Media, Campaigns, Public Option, Transportation

President Obama ventured out of the White House on Saturday, but he was among a mere handful of Washingtonians willing to brave blizzardy conditions, as a record snow storm paralyzed the nation's capital and left tens of thousands without power.
Even the president of the United States had to defer to the elements.

Obama's motorcade was delayed for a few minutes by a fender-bender on its way to the Democratic National Commitee winter meeting. The DNC event was only a few blocks from the White House at the Washington Hilton Hotel, but it was slow-going after one vehicle in the presidential motorcade slid into a press SUV, Politico reported.

At the Democratic Party meeting, Obama acknowledged missteps during his first year in office, but again vowed not to "walk away from health care insurance reform." The DNC is the national party's main fundraising and organizational unit.
"Sometimes we may be moving forward against the prevailing winds," Obama told the party loyalists. "Sometimes it may be against a blizzard. But we are going to live up to our responsibility to lead."

Outdoors, yet another small weather adventure awaited the determined president.

On the way back to the White House, a medium-sized tree branch snapped under the weight of the still-falling snow and landed on top of the same SUV that was nicked in the early incident, Politico said, quoting a pool report.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Latest Round-Up of Obama Polls by State

Bruce Drake — 2010-01-10T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Barack Obama, Polls, Obama Administration, Poll Watch, Public Option

The latest round-up of President Obama's job approval or favorability ratings by state updates or adds Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Massachusetts and Nebraska. Some of you have asked why some states do not appear in this list and the reason is there has not been polling that we have been able to find in those states.

Alabama

SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13

2008 election: McCain 60 percent, Obama 38 percent

SurveyUSA says 61 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 35 percent approve, with 4 percent undecided. Independents, who make up 23 percent of the sample, disapprove by 75 percent to 21 percent. Obama's support among fellow Democrats is only 63 percent. White voters (73 percent of the sample) disapprove by 75 percent to 21 percent while black voters (24 percent of the sample) approve by 81 percent to 18 percent. This is little changed from polls done in November and September.

Arizona

Arizona State University/KAET, Nov. 19-22; Rasmussen Reports, Nov. 18

2008 election: McCain 53 percent, Obama 45 percent

Arizona voters split at 48 percent each on whether they approve or disapprove of the job Obama is doing, with 4 percent expressing no opinion. They believe by 45 percent to 40 percent that he should send more troops to Afghanistan. Fifteen percent expressed no opinion.

Rasmussen says 60 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 40 percent approve.

Arkansas

2008 election: McCain 59 percent, Obama 39 percent

Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 5; Daily Kos/Research 2000, Nov. 30 - Dec. 2

Rasmussen says 61 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 38 percent approve. Fifty-three percent put themselves in the "strongly" disapprove camp. Sixty percent oppose the health care overhaul advocated by Obama and congressional Democrats compared to 35 percent who support it, with 51 percent describing themselves as "strongly" opposed. Forty percent say Obama's handling of Afghanistan is poor, 28 percent grade it fair and 31 percent say it is excellent or good.

Daily Kos/Research 2000 says 55 percent view Obama unfavorably and 42 percent see him favorably. Independents see him unfavorably by a 64 percent to 31 percent margin.

California

SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13; Public Policy Institute of California, Dec. 1-8; Los Angeles Times/USC, Oct. 27 - Nov. 3

2008 election: Obama 61 percent, McCain 37 percent

SurveyUSA says 55 percent of Californians approve of the job Obama is doing while 41 percent disapprove, with 4 percent undecided.

PPIC says 61 percent approve of the job Obama is doing compared to 33 percent who disapprove, with 6 percent undecided. Forty-two percent said Obama's economic policies have had no effect on conditions since he took office while 31 percent say they are better and 21 percent describe them as worse. Fifty-two percent support the proposed health care changes advocated by Obama and Congress while 39 percent oppose them, with 9 percent undecided. Forty-four percent say the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan should be decreased over the next year, 33 percent support an increase, 14 percent say they should be kept the same and 9 percent are undecided. Obama's timeline for bringing troops home is longer than that, with withdrawals to begin in July, 2011.

The LA Times poll says Californians approve of the job Obama is doing by 60 percent to 34 percent with 6 percent undecided. Sixty-five percent view him favorably while 33 percent see him unfavorably. By 59 percent to 35 percent, voters want a senator elected in 2010 who will support Obama.

Colorado

Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 6

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 45 percent

Rasmussen says 54 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's performance while 45 percent approve.

Connecticut

Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 6; Public Policy Polling, Jan. 4-5

2008 election: Obama 60 percent, McCain 38 percent

Rasmussen says 56 percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing while 43 percent disapprove.

PPP says voters approve of Obama's performance by 54 percent to 38 percent with 8 percent undecided. They support the health care overhaul he is advocating by 47 percent to 43 percent with 10 percent undecided, with the poll's 4.3 point margin of error.

Delaware

Public Policy Polling, Nov. 30 - Dec. 2; Daily Kos/Research 2000, Oct. 12-14

2008 election: Obama 62 percent, McCain 37 percent

PPP says 53 percent approve of Obama's job performance while 41 percent disapprove, with 6 percent undecided.

Research 2000 says Obama is viewed favorably by 64 percent and unfavorably by 32 percent with 4 percent expressing no opinion. Independents view him favorably by 69 percent to 25 percent with 6 percent having no opinion.

Florida

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 14; St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald/Bay News 9, Oct. 25-28

2008 election: Obama 51 percent, McCain 48 percent

Rasmussen says 55 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 44 percent approve.

The St. Petersburg Times poll says 51 percent rate Obama's performance as fair or poor while 46 percent say he is doing a good or excellent job.

Illinois

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 9

2008 election: Obama 62 percent, McCain 37 percent

Rasmussen Reports says percent approve of the job Obama is doing while 42 percent disapprove. Fifty percent favor the health care plan advocated by Obama and congressional Democrats while 42 percent oppose it. Forty-five percent support Obama's overall Afghan strategy compared to 38 percent who oppose it, with 13 percent undecided. Fifty-five percent back Obama's decision to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan while 33 percent oppose it and 12 percent are undecided. Forty-nine percent back him on setting a timetable to begin withdrawing troops in 2011 while 38 percent disagree, with 13 percent undecided.

Iowa

Des Moines Register, Nov. 8-11; Daily Kos/Research 2000, Oct. 12-14

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 44 percent

The Register says 49 percent approve of Obama's performance while 44 percent do not, with 7 percent undecided. That's a falloff from 53 percent in September and 19 points lower than January. Fifty-five percent of Iowans disapprove of how Obama is handling health care, up from not quite half in September. Nearly two-thirds of likely voters in Iowa disapprove of Obama's budget policies when it comes to the burgeoning size of the deficit.

Research 2000 says Obama is viewed favorably by 55 percent and unfavorably by 36 percent with 9 percent expressing no opinion. Independents view him favorably by 56 percent to 32 percent with 12 percent voicing no opinion.

Kansas

SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13

2008 election: McCain 56 percent, Obama 41 percent

SurveyUSA says 59 percent disapprove of Obama's performance while 36 percent approve, with 5 percent undecided. Obama's approval rating among fellow Democrats is only 66 percent. But unlike other states where his approval is in negative territory, disapproval among independents is not as high, with 47 percent giving him negative marks and 42 percent positive ones, with 10 percent undecided. This is little changed from last month.

Kentucky

Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 6; Public Policy Polling, Dec. 18-21; SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13

2008 election: McCain 57 percent, Obama 41 percent

Rasmussen says 59 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's job performance while 41 percent approve. Sixty-two percent oppose the health care overhaul Obama and congressional Democrats are pushing while 34 percent favor it. Fifty percent put themselves in the "strongly" oppose category. Thirty-four percent say Obama is doing a fair job in handling the situation in Afghanistan, 31 percent rate it poor and 23 percent give him good marks.

PPP says 59 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 35 percent who approve, with 6 percent undecided. Obama gets only a 57 percent approval rating from fellow Democrats; independents (11 percent of the sample) disapprove of Obama by 67 percent to 23 percent. Sixty-two percent oppose the health care reform legislation advocated by Obama while 28 percent support it, with 10 percent undecided. Democrats in the state back the reform proposal by a bare 46 percent to 41 percent margin, with 13 percent undecided. Independents oppose it 69 percent to 19 percent with 12 percent undecided.

SurveyUSA finds 58 percent disapproving of the job Obama is doing while 38 percent approve, with 4 percent undecided. Only 60 percent of fellow Democrats voice approval of his performance. Independents disapprove of the job he is doing by a 62 percent to 32 percent margin. This is little changed since last month.

Maine

2008 election: Obama 58 percent, McCain 40 percent

Daily Kos/Research 2000, Oct. 26-28; Public Policy Polling, Oct. 16-19

Daily Kos/Research 2000 says 67 percent of voters view Obama favorably compared to 25 percent who see him unfavorably with 8 percent undecided. Independents see him favorably by 73 percent to 18 percent.

Public Policy Polling says voters approve of Obama's job performance by 49 percent to 41 percent with 10 percent undecided. They are split on his health care reform proposal with 41 percent favoring it, 40 percent opposed and 19 percent undecided.

Massachusetts

Public Policy Polling, Jan. 7-9; Rasmussen Reports, Jan. 4

2008 election: Obama 62 percent, McCain 36 percent

PPP says Massachusetts voters are split with 44 percent approving of Obama's performance while 43 percent disapprove and 13 percent are undecided. Forty-seven percent oppose Obama on health care reform while 41 percent support him, with 12 percent undecided.

Rasmussen says 57 percent approve of the job Obama is doing while 42 percent disapprove. Fifty-five percent disapprove of his handling of Afghanistan while 44 percent approve. Fifty-three percent back Obama and congressional Democrats on health care reform while 45 percent do not.

Michigan

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 16; Epic-MRA, Oct. 11-15

2008 election results: Obama 57 percent, McCain 41 percent

Rasmussen says 50 percent of voters disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 48 percent who approve. Forty-eight percent oppose the health care reform proposal he and congressional Democrats are pushing while 47 percent favor it, with 5 percent undecided. Thirty-six percent oppose Obama's strategy for Afghanistan, 32 percent support it with 31 percent undecided. On its specific components, 50 percent back sending more troops to Afghanistan while 34 percent are against doing so, with 16 percent undecided. Forty-four percent support Obama's decision to set a timetable to begin withdrawal in 2011, 42 percent oppose it and 14 percent are undecided.

EPIC-MRA says Obama is seen favorably by 51 percent and unfavorably by 45 percent with 4 percent undecided. In June, this poll reported that 60 percent regarded Obama favorably and 34 percent unfavorably.

Minnesota

St. Cloud State University, Oct. 26 - Nov. 4

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 44 percent

Fifty percent say Obama is doing an excellent or good job, 22 percent rate him only as fair, and 25 percent as poor.

Missouri

SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13; Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 15; Public Policy Polling, Nov. 13-15

2008 election: McCain 49.3 percent, Obama 49.2 percent

SurveyUSA says Missourians disapprove of Obama's performance by a 52 percent to 45 percent margin, with 3 percent undecided. Independents disapprove by 52 percent to 46 percent. This is an improvement for Obama over SurveyUSA's poll last month when 58 percent disapproved while 38 percent approved.

Rasmussen says 53 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 47 percent approve. Fifty-seven percent oppose the health care reform plan that Obama and congressional Democrats are advocating while 40 percent support it. Forty-seven percent fall into the "strongly" oppose category. Thirty-eight percent oppose Obama's overall new strategy for Afghanistan while 34 percent support it and 27 percent are undecided. (The margin of error is 4.5 points). But 55 percent approve of his decision to send more troops compared to 27 percent who do not, and 51 percent favor the timetable he has set for beginning to bring troops back home while 40 percent do not.

PPP says Missourians disapprove of the job Obama is doing by 52 percent to 43 percent with 6 percent undecided. They oppose his health care plan by 55 percent to 34 percent with 12 percent undecided.

Nebraska

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 28

2008 election: McCain 57 percent, Obama 42 percent

Rasmussen says 61 percent of Nebraskans disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 38 percent approve. Of those, 47 percent are in the "strongly" disapprove category. Sixty-four percent propose the health care overhaul advocated by Obama and congressional Democrats (with 53 percent of those opposing it "strongly") while 35 percent back it. Forty-two percent say Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, who provided the crucial vote in the Senate on the health care reform bill, is too supportive of Obama's agenda. Thirty percent say his support of Obama is about right and 13 percent consider him too opposed.

Nevada

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 9; Las Vegas Review-Journal/Mason Dixon, Nov. 30 - Dec. 2

2008 election: Obama 55 percent, McCain 43 percent

Rasmussen says that 55 percent of voters approve of the job Obama is doing while 46 percent do not. (Rasmussen explains the 101% result of adding those two numbers this way: "In the world of statistics, it is generally recognized that results from a given survey may not add to precisely 100% due to rounding of individual results. Reported numbers can accurately end up tallying anywhere from 99-101% due to rounding.") Fifty-four percent oppose the health care reform plan advocated by Obama and congressional Democrats while 44 percent support it. Forty-four percent oppose Obama's announced strategy for Afghanistan while 34 support it and 22 percent are not sure. Fifty-seven percent support sending the additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan while 28 percent do not and 15 percent are undecided. Forty-seven percent oppose the timetable for withdrawal outlined by Obama while 44 percent back it and 9 percent are undecided.

The Mason-Dixon poll says 44 percent of Nevadans see Obama favorably and 43 percent see him unfavorably, with 13 percent undecided.

New Hampshire

Rasmussen Reports, Sept. 14

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 44 percent

Voters split 50-50 on Obama's job performance.

New Jersey

Fairleigh Dickinson University, Oct. 22 - Nov. 1; Public Policy Polling, Oct. 31 - Nov. 1; Rasmussen Reports, Oct. 29; Quinnipiac, Oct. 20-26

2008 election: Obama 57 percent, McCain 41 percent

Fifty-three percent approve of the job Obama is doing compared to 37 percent who don't with 10 percent undecided, according to Fairleigh Dickinson.

Public Policy Polling has voters divided at 45 percent each on whether or not they approve of Obama's performance with 10 percent undecided.

Rasmussen says 55 percent approve of Obama's performance and 44 percent disapprove with 1 percent undecided.

Quinnipiac says voters approve of the job Obama is doing by 55 percent to 39 percent with 6 percent undecided. The New York Times says Obama is viewed favorably by 62 percent and unfavorably by 25 percent with 12 percent not expressing an opinion.

New Mexico

SurveyUSA, Sept. 27-28

2008 election: Obama 57 percent, McCain 42 percent

Fifty percent approve of Obama's performance compared to 45 percent who do not with 4 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4.1 points. Whites disapprove by 59 percent to 38 percent while Hispanics, 39 percent of the sample, approve by 68 percent to 29 percent.

New York

SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13; Quinnipiac University, Dec. 7-13; Siena Research Institute, Dec. 6-9

2008 election: Obama 63 percent, McCain 36 percent

SurveyUSA says New Yorkers approve of the job Obama is doing by a 56 percent to 40 percent margin, with 4 percent undecided. Independents disapprove by 53 percent to 42 percent. This is a slight improvement over last month

Quinnipiac says 59 percent approve of Obama's performance compared to 27 percent who do not, with 11 percent undecided. That's the first time he's been under 60 percent in this poll.

Siena says 63 percent of voters see Obama favorably while 32 percent regard him unfavorably, with 8 percent undecided.

North Carolina

Public Policy Polling, Dec. 11-13; Elon University, Oct. 26-29

2008 election: Obama 49.7 percent, McCain 49.4 percent

PPP says that Obama's job approval rating is back in positive territory for the first time since July...although not by much. Forty-eight percent approve of his performance, 47 percent do not and 5 percent are undecided. Fifty percent oppose his health care plan while 41 percent support it, with 9 percent undecided. Fifty-four percent support his Afghanistan strategy while 31 percent oppose it, with 15 percent undecided.

Elon University says 52 percent approve of Obama's performance compared to 44 percent who disapprove with 3 percent undecided. Forty-nine percent disapprove of his handling of the economy while 43 percent approve and 7 percent are undecided. Thirty-four percent trust Obama to deal with the key issues facing the country compared to 12 percent for congressional Democrats and 26 percent for congressional Republicans. Twenty-one percent don't trust any of them and 5 percent are undecided. Forty-three percent disapprove of Obama's handling of the war in Afghanistan compared to 41 percent who approve with 12 percent undecided.

North Dakota

Rasmussen Reports, Dec. 15

2008 election results: McCain 53 percent, Obama 44 percent

Rasmussen says 58 percent of voters disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 41 percent approve.

Ohio

Rasmussen Reports, Dec, 7; Quinnipiac University, Nov. 5-9

2008 election: Obama 51 percent, McCain 47 percent

Rasmussen says 53 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 46 percent approve.

The big news in the Quinnipiac poll was that for the first time more Ohio voters disapproved of Obama's job performance than approved, with 50 percent giving him negative marks compared to 45 percent who viewed him positively with 5 percent undecided. Obama's approval had been in the 60s from February through May, dipped to 49 percent in July and stood at 53 percent approving and 42 percent disapproving in September. And, for the first time, when asked who voters trusted more on handling health care, congressional Republicans tied Obama at 40 percent with 21 percent undecided. In September, respondents favored Obama by 49 percent to 28 percent. Voters oppose Obama's health care plan by 55 percent to 36 percent with 9 percent undecided and disapprove of his handling of the issue by a similar margin. They disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy by 53 percent to 42 percent with 5 percent undecided, compared to 48 percent who approved and 46 percent who disapproved in September

Oregon

SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13

2008 election: Obama 57 percent, McCain 40 percent

SurveyUSA says 50 percent approve of Obama's performance while 47 percent don't, with 3 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4.1 points. Independents are split, with 49 percent approving and 47 percent disapproving. Last month, Oregonians were split at 47 percent each.

South Carolina

2008 election: McCain 54 percent, Obama 45 percent

Public Policy Polling, Dec. 3-6

PPP says 49 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 46 percent approve, with 5 percent undecided.

Pennsylvania

Franklin & Marshall, Oct. 20-25; Quinnipiac University, Sept. 22-28

2008 election: Obama 54 percent, McCain 44 percent

F & M says Obama is seen favorably by 45 percent and unfavorably by 39 percent with 13 percent undecided, the first time since taking office that his favorable number was below 55 percent. Forty percent say he is doing an excellent or good job, 31 percent rate his performance as only fair, and 28 percent give him poor marks.

Quinnipiac says voters approve of the way Obama is handling his job by 49 percent to 42 percent with 9 percent undecided. They are split on his handling of the economy with 47 percent disapproving, 46 percent approving and 7 percent undecided. They oppose the health care plan Obama is pushing by 47 percent to 41 percent.

South Dakota

Public Policy Polling, Dec. 10-13

2008 election results: McCain 53 percent, Obama 45 percent

PPP says 52 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 41 percent approve, with 8 percent undecided.

Texas

Rasmussen Reports, Nov. 11; University of Texas/Texas Tribune, Oct. 20-27

2008 election: McCain 55 percent, Obama 44 percent

Rasmussen says that 58 percent of Texans say the stimulus plan that Obama and Congress enacted earlier this year has hurt the economy, 26 percent said it has had no impact and 12 percent believe it has helped. Eighty-seven percent oppose the health care reform package being pushed by Obama and congressional Democrats (with 76 percent "strongly" opposing it) while 12 percent are in favor.

The University of Texas poll says 52 percent disapprove of Obama's performance compared to 41 percent who approve and 7 percent who have no opinion.

Utah

2008 election: McCain 62 percent, Obama 34 percent

Deseret News/KSL-TV, Nov. 19-23

Sixty percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 38 percent approve.

Virginia

2008 election: Obama 53 percent, McCain 46 percent

SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13; Public Policy Polling, Oct. 31- Nov.1; Suffolk University, Oct. 26-28; Roanoke College, Oct. 21-27; Rasmussen Reports, Oct. 27; Virginia Commonwealth University, Oct. 21-25

SurveyUSA says 54 percent disapprove of Obama's performance while 44 percent approve, with 2 percent undecided. Sixty-eight percent of whites (72 percent of the sample) disapprove while 88 percent of blacks (18 percent of the sample) approve. Independents disapprove by a 63 percent to 35 percent margin.
Last month, 60 percent disapproved and 37 percent approved.

Public Policy Polling says Virginians disapprove of Obama's performance by 52 percent to 41 percent with 6 percent undecided.

Suffolk says 50 percent approve of Obama's performance, 42 percent disapprove and 8 percent are undecided.

Roanoke says 46 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance, 45 percent approve and 10 percent give him mixed marks.

Rasmussen says 51 percent disapprove of Obama's job performance while 49 percent approve and 1 percent is undecided.

VCU says 49 percent rate Obama's performance excellent or good while 48 percent say it is fair or poor with 3 percent undecided.

Washington State

SurveyUSA, Dec. 11-13

2008 election: Obama 57 percent, McCain 40 percent

SurveyUSA says 50 percent approve of Obama's performance while 46 percent don't, with 4 percent undecided. The margin of error is 4.1 points. Independents disapprove by a 54 percent to 40 percent margin. Last month, Washingtonians were split at 48 percent each.

Wisconsin

University of Wisconsin, Oct. 29 - Nov. 20; Public Policy Polling, Nov. 20-22

2008 election: Obama 56 percent, McCain 42 percent

The University of Wisconsin survey finds that 60 percent of adults approve of the job Obama is doing while 37 percent do not. His approval margin among independents is lower at 54 percent to 43 percent.

PPP says those approving or disapproving of Obama's job performance are tied at 47 percent each with 6 percent undecided. Voters oppose his health care plan by 52 percent to 37 percent with 11 percent undecided. Independents (37 percent of the sample) disapprove of Obama's performance by 50 percent to 42 percent with 7 percent undecided, and they are against his health care plan by 58 percent to 21 percent with 11 percent undecided.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Goodbye, Public Option, Hello Senate Bill? Hoyer Vows, 'Not Going to Happen'

Patricia Murphy — 2009-12-15T12:09:00+00:00

Filed under: House, Health Care, The Capitolist, Public Option

Setting up yet another intraparty battle, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said Tuesday that although he thinks the House would be willing to vote for a bill without a public-run insurance option, they will most definitely not accept the Senate bill in full without a conference committee to debate the competing versions of a reform package.

"Many of you have asked me whether (the House) is simply going to take the Senate bill," Hoyer said to reporters. "That's not going to happen."

With his statement, Hoyer debunked the latest Capitol Hill rumor that the House leadership is negotiating with the Senate to vote on whatever passes the Senate, thus avoiding a possibly lengthy and contentious conference and ensuring swift final passage of the bill.

"We have to figure out what the Senate will pass and then look at it," Hoyer said, adding later, "There are significant and important differences between what the Senate is proposing and what we proposed. Those matters will have to be discussed and it will take some time to resolve those differences."

In addition to the question of the future of the public option, the House and Senate proposals currently have significant differences on who will see increased taxes to pay for reform, how abortion services are treated, and whether illegal immigrants could access insurance plans created by health exchanges if they pay with their own money.

Finally, Hoyer also addressed the Senate's unwieldy debate thus far, including Sen. Joe Lieberman's insistence the the public option and Medicare expansion be removed from the bill. "I often talk about the psychology of consensus," Hoyer said. "To often, it appears as if the psychology in the Senate is the psychology of one."

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The Joe Lieberman Debate: Good Jew or Bad Jew?

David Gibson — 2009-12-14T19:45:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Barack Obama, Religion, Health Care, Disputations, Independents, 2010 Elections, Congress, Public Option

Sen. Joseph Lieberman's cold shower announcement that he will filibuster just about any version of health care reform with a public option or Medicare expansion has set off sharp political debates about whether a reform bill can pass and whether the Democrats -- with whom the Dem-turned-Independent Lieberman caucuses -- should punish the mercurial (that's the kindest cut) pol from Connecticut.

But it has also launched an intense discussion of almost Talmudic complexity about Lieberman's Jewish bona fides.

Jewish organizations in the United States have been among the strongest supporters of health care reform of the kind that Lieberman's opposition may scuttle. They say that reflects the largely liberal and Democratic tendencies of their community, but also the longstanding tenets of Jewish tradition and teaching--as they see it.

"Senator Lieberman is looking at the same Jewish texts that we are, and reaching opposite conclusions," Mark Pelavin, associate director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, told The Forward, a leading Jewish weekly. "I've spent a lot of time in talks with Senator Lieberman, and he is not an easy person to sway."Not that Jewish leaders and lobbies aren't trying. As we reported last month, several rabbis in Lieberman's home state -- some of whom had not spoken out before on political issues -- have been pressuring Lieberman with prayer vigils and public petitions.

"Because he invokes his Jewish identity and Jewish values so frequently, we, as a community, should speak to what he is saying," Rabbi Ron Fish from Congregation Beth El, a Conservative synagogue in Norwalk, said about his decision to pen an open letter to Lieberman calling him out on his opposition to the health care bills.

But The Forward reports that local rabbis are also using quiet diplomacy, trying to get 25 of the state's 50 pulpit rabbis to sign on to a private letter to Lieberman to convince him to change his stand. The more liberal rabbis--Lieberman himself is Orthodox--apparently prefer a more confrontational approach. "There is a good cop, bad cop routine," one of them told the paper. "On the one hand, there are demonstrations outside his home; on the other, there are people trying to reach out behind the scenes."

Just like his foes, Lieberman sees his opposition as grounded in Jewish ethics, arguing that the health care proposals on the table would hurt America and would not help those who need i t-- although, as The Washington Post reported, his varying explanations of his varying positions have left various observers scratching their heads over his real reasons.

Whatever the motives, Lieberman is so committed to his political views and his religious traditions that he walked more than four miles to Capitol Hill from his Georgetown synagogue on a recent frigid Saturday to take part in a rare weekend health care debate -- one of just two dozen or so times during his senate career that he has made that trek on the Sabbath, when strictly observant Jews do not drive. "I have a responsibility to my constituents, really to my conscience, to be here on something as important as healthcare reform," he told The Hill.

Such high-minded talk grates on many Jewish leaders, who see passing health care reform as integral to the Jewish principal of tikkun olam, or repairing the world, which undergirds much of Judaism's longstanding tradition of social and political activism, mainly of the liberal variety.

Other factors are at play as well: Jews are immigrants whose history of persecution and constant exile have made them especially sensitive to the plight of the marginalized, and as a minority they know that liberal social policies that protect the weak from the strong can help them, too; Jews also tend to be better educated and wealthier than most Americans, both markers of socially progressive views. (And something that makes the fierce band of neo-con Jews like Norman Podhoretz, author of the recent "Why Are Jews Liberal," even more furious than Lieberman's liberal critics.)

But Lieberman himself held up tikkun olam as the guiding principle for his political life, as he explained in his autobiography In Praise of Public Life:

"The summary of our aspirations was in the Hebrew phrase tikkun olam, which is translated 'to improve the world' or 'to complete God's Creation.' It presumes the inherent but unfulfilled goodness of people and requires action for the benefit of the community. These beliefs were a powerful force in my upbringing and seem even more profound and true to me today. The ideal of service [is] fundamental to my religious faith."

At his SpiritualPolitics blog, Trinity College's Mark Silk cites the excerpt above and then notes that in 2000 and as recently as three months ago Lieberman advocated letting those as young as 55 buy into Medicare as a way to fix the health care system. But now that such a proposal is part of the reform package Lieberman is invoking it as a reason he will filibuster the bill. "What's the opposite of tikkun olam, Joe?" Silk asks.

So what explains Lieberman's seemingly contrarian stance not only on politics--his constituents as well as his co-religionists strongly support health care reform with a public option--but also on Jewish teaching? Some cite Lieberman's connections to the insurance industry in Connecticut, others think it's about paybacks for the Democrats dissing him during his reelection bid.

Writing in The New Republic, Jonathan Chait doesn't think it's all that complicated:

"I think one answer here is that Lieberman isn't actually all that smart. He speaks, and seems to think, exclusively in terms of generalities and broad statements of principle. But there's little evidence that he's a sharp or clear thinker, and certainly no evidence that he knows or cares about the details of health care reform."

Chait -- he's Jewish, too, so he can say this -- actually thinks Lieberman's upfront Jewishness has obscured the better question about his intellectual chops:

"I suspect that Lieberman is the beneficiary, or possibly the victim, of a cultural stereotype that Jews are smart and good with numbers. Trust me, it's not true. If Senator Smith from Idaho was angering Democrats by spewing uninformed platitudes, most liberals would deride him as an idiot. With Lieberman, we all suspect it's part of a plan. I think he just has no idea what he's talking about and doesn't care to learn."

In the end, it's unclear exactly what influence Lieberman's Judaism, or his fellow Jews, could have on his political decisions. These days, arguments over the good or bad faith in a pol's position are often associated with Roman Catholicism. But Judaism has no eucharist to withhold, no effective way to excommunicate an adherent, no real hierarchy to lay down the law -- and no widespread desire to implement any of those mechanisms. In fact, a hallmark of Judaism is disputation, so in a sense the arguments between Lieberman and his critics are only cementing their claims to being members of the tribe. Whether those debates seal the fate of health care reform will ultimately be decided on the floor of the Congress.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Fate of Health Care Reform Changes Dynamics of Next Year's Midterms

Bruce Drake — 2009-11-23T12:20:00+00:00

Filed under: Democrats, Republicans, Health Care, Polls, Poll Watch, Independents, 2010 Elections, Congress, Public Option

Measuring how a vote for health care reform will play politically in next year's midterm elections is tricky business, and Public Policy Polling says its latest survey shows two things: Democrats will be hurt if they don't get a bill passed, and if they do, they may be in a delicate position with independents, who showed what a force they could be in this year's elections.

On a straight "generic" ballot, 46 percent of voters said they'd vote for the Democrat if the election for Congress were held today, 38 percent support the Republican and 16 percent are undecided, according to the poll conducted Nov. 13-15.

If Congress fails to pass a health care bill, that Democratic advantage evaporates, leaving the two parties tied at 40 percent each with 20 percent undecided. If the bill passes with a government-sponsored "public option" to compete with private insurers, the Democrats lead 46 percent to 41 percent with 14 percent undecided.

But the concern for Democrats is how independent voters, who polls indicate are getting antsy about President Obama and the Democrats, see these outcomes. Independents break 37 percent to 30 percent for the Democrats with 33 percent undecided on the overall generic ballot, but that number drops to a 31 percent tie with the passage of the health care bill, with 38 percent undecided. And, if a health care bill passes with the public option, independents turn against the Democrats by a 44 percent to 37 percent margin with 20 percent undecided.

"The political damage for Democrats of passing a public option is not as bad as the damage from doing nothing," said PPP. "But they would still be better off passing something that's not perfect than passing nothing at all. Most voters aren't following this debate really closely and don't understand the nuances of it all. At the end of the day voters are likely to see this as either a bill was passed or it was not. . . . Democrats would still be better off, at least for next year's election, with a weaker bill than no bill at all."

PPP's 46 percent to 38 percent margin for Democrats on the generic ballot differs from what Gallup found in its poll conducted Nov. 5-8, which had Republicans ahead by 48 percent to 44 percent. PPP is a Democratic-affiliated pollster.

Another poll released today -- this one by Rasmussen Reports -- said that public support for the health care reform proposals pushed by Obama and the Democrats has fallen to 38 percent, the lowest level since June. Fifty-six percent oppose the proposals, with 43 percent of those "strongly" opposing them and 6 percent are undecided.

Other measures of public sentiment in the poll also were more negative.

Fifty-four percent believe that the quality of health care will get worse under reform legislation, 20 percent say it will get better, 19 percent predict it will stay the same and 6 percent are undecided.

Sixty percent say costs will go up if the legislation passes, 18 percent say they will stay the same, 16 percent believe they will go down and 6 percent are undecided.

The poll was conducted Nov. 21-22.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

The How-To Guide for Improving the Health Care Bill

Walter Shapiro — 2009-11-23T05:00:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Health Care, Congress, Public Option

Now that the Senate version of the health-care bill has survived its first filibuster, the next stage in this Perils-of-Pauline legislative drama is courting the recalcitrant moderates, who all have their own ideas about how to amend the bill.

The buzzword over the weekend was "improvements," as if all the legislative process required was a quick stop at Home Depot.

In advance of Saturday's Senate vote, Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson - a human weather vane - courageously declared, "I'm not for or against the new Senate health-care bill." But Nelson voted to choke off the Republicans filibuster because he craved "the opportunity to make improvements."

Democrat Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who did not blanch at being Saturday's deciding vote against the filibuster, stressed the need to "begin debate on how to improve the health-care system." And Maine Republican Olympia Snowe, whose name is atop the White House's to-woo list, said flatly, "I'm prepared to continue to work to improve this legislation."

When spoken by a Senate centrist, the verb "improve" invariably means "water down." None of the fence-sitters seem upset that the Senate bill, even when fully implemented, would still leave 23 million people without health-care coverage. Instead, their concerns revolve around overall cost, the public option to establish a government-run insurance program and - that Capitol Hill perennial - the centrists' need to be the center of attention.

In the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, Thanksgiving pumpkin pie, responsible journalism and the inability to read one more word about the public option or the Stupak amendment (don't ask), here are some legislative improvements guaranteed to break the Senate logjam:

The Page-Count Adjustment:

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was on television Sunday railing against what is unquestionably the worst single element in the health-care bill - its length. "What we don't think America wants is another 2,000-page bill. We don't think that's the way to go," filibuster supporter McConnell declared in a clarion call for brevity. The Senate bill is undeniably wordy. Its title, "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," could easily be shortened to the "Patience and Fortitude Act."

But far more politically potent would be a save-the-trees reduction in the bill's type size. Just switch to the font that health-insurance companies routinely use to explain why coverage for emergency open-heart surgery is being denied. Add in a few tricks with margins and spacing, and soon McConnell would be reduced to decrying the un-American horrors of a 17-page health-reform bill

The Joe Lieberman Relief Act:

Every time Lieberman, the Democrats' 2000 vice-presidential nominee, threatens to bolt his party on a key vote, liberal activists demand that the Connecticut senator be stripped of his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. It is an empty threat, since the Democratic leadership knows that it has no choice but to tolerate the Lieberman's vexing style (he campaigned for John McCain for president) if it ever hopes to win his vote. Now Lieberman is threatening to join the Republican filibuster because of his principled opposition to the public option. (It is, of course, coincidental that many leading insurance companies are based in Connecticut.)

The best way to insure Lieberman's support for final passage is to give the Connecticut independent what he wants most of all: chairmanship insurance. All it would take is a brief amendment (which even McConnell might support) granting Lieberman lifetime stewardship of the Homeland Security Committee, regardless of what party controls the Senate or what party he caucuses with. Just to avoid any wrenching future transitions, Lieberman would also get to keep his chairmanship even if he is defeated for reelection in 2012.

The Ask-Your-Doctor Tax:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's brave attempt to place a 5-percent surcharge on cosmetic surgery (a Bo-Tax) has led to a predictable uproar from voters sympathetic to self-improvement. A far more effective way to raise revenue (and eliminate any accusations of gender bias) is to slap a 25-percent tax on all visits to the doctor that are inspired by watching drug-company ads. Just because a TV pitchman tells you to "Ask your doctor if Placebo is right for you . . ." does not mean that you have to clog up the medical system with your gullibility and hypochondria. The tax would double to 50 percent if the ad in question featured a virile-looking late-middle-aged guy throwing a football through an inner tube or showed a filled-with-ardor couple in his-and-her outdoor bath tubs. And if a man feels compelled to brag to his physician about side effects lasting more than four hours, then the surcharge would extend to 100 percent.

The Young Immortals Safety Net:

It is nearly impossible for any reform plan to work if the healthiest Americans (those under 35) refuse to buy insurance because they have convinced themselves that the normal rules of human decay do not apply to people as special as themselves. When the Senate bill finally phases in (just in time for the 2016 presidential election), individuals who stubbornly refuse to buy insurance would have to pay a $750-a-year fine. But that is not much of a financial deterrent.

Far more effective would be an amendment requiring anyone who refuses to buy health insurance to be sheathed from head to toe in ugly foam padding. The laudable public policy goal would be to protect the young from accidents and to avoid their expensive-for-the-rest-of-us trips to hospital emergency rooms. A better option, once the technology is perfected, is to require the young to choose either buying insurance or strapping on a personal airbag that would inflate with every stumble in a pick-up basketball game and every accident while mountain biking.

Many other aspects of the health-care bill also could benefit from creative re-jiggering. An obvious contradiction exists between the anti-obesity provisions of the legislation and the effort to eliminate the so-called "donut hole" in the Medicare prescription drug program. An easy fix would be to combine the reduction in prescription drug costs with a ban on the serving of donuts in senior citizens centers that receive federal funding.

Obvious improvements like these are examples of why the coming Senate debate will be so uplifting for all Americans, regardless of political views. The never-ending quest for betterment is built into our national character and led America to tame the frontier, conquer outer space and win the Cold War. Watching this same restless drive for perfection be applied to the health-care bill should make us grateful for the Mod Squad of Senate moderates who do so well by doing so little while they anguish so loudly.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Health Care Bill Still Faces Huge Hurdles in the Senate

Bruce Drake — 2009-11-22T12:21:00+00:00

Filed under: Senate, Barack Obama, Health Care, Harry Reid, Public Option

There seemed to be enough lawmakers on the Sunday news shows the day after a major health care reform vote to make up a quorum, but the one clear message that emerged was the long and difficult road the legislation has to go in the Senate.

While New York Sen. Charles Schumer said on CBS Face the Nation that "now, the wind is at our back," Democrats wrestled with questions about how to keep aboard some in the party who were willing to vote to get debate started on the Senate floor, but still harbored serious reservations about provisions in the bill, particularly the government-sponsored "public option" to compete with private insurers.

Republicans - Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and senators Tom Coburn, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Lamar Alexander - asserted that the public is opposed to the Democratic measure because of its cost and extent of government intervention. They said the cost and mandates in the bill would hurt the economy and job creation, with Tennessee's Lamar Alexander saying on Fox News Sunday, "The best job summit we could have is to beat the health care bill."

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, on CNN's State of the Union, echoed Alexander, calling the bill a "job-killer" because of the costs it would impose on small businesses.

McConnell pointed to what even several Democrats acknowledged was their potential Achilles' heel in getting passage of the bill produced by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid - namely the small group of moderate Democrats, plus independent Joseph Lieberman, who oppose parts of the legislation.

"If the majority is hell-bent on ignoring the wishes of the American people, they have 60 votes in the Senate. You would think that they might be able to do this, but I believe there are a number of Democratic senators who do care what the American people think and are not interested in this sort of arrogant approach," McConnell said.

Lieberman, on NBC's Meet the Press, said "I don't think anybody thinks this bill will pass as written" and added that while he voted yesterday to bring the measure to the floor, he might not again side with Democrats to head off filibusters on provisions, like the public option, which he staunchly opposes.

"Once the bill is on the floor ...amendments will be offered, but essentially every amendment is subject to a filibuster and will take 60 votes to pass," Lieberman said. "My only resort and every other senator ...and there will be others who feel exactly the way I do about the public option ... if the public option is still in there, the only resort we have is to say 'no' at the end to reporting the bill off the floor."

Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson said on ABC's This Week he voted to bring the bill to the floor, despite his reservations, because "when I saw the bill, I said, 'This can be amended. It can be improved.'"

Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who were the two Democratic votes in doubt yesterday, also have problems with the public option position, but when asked if the Democratic leadership could find the votes to keep it in the bill, Schumer expressed optimism because the version Reid included was more modest than some had been pressing for.

"I believe we can (get the votes)," Schumer said. "This is a modest public option. Many of those folks, when I spoke to them over the course of the last several months, their great fear was ...that this would transmogrify into a government plan and would knock out everybody else... I think the proposal that Leader Reid wisely put into his bill, which is a moderate, modest proposal, sort of, in the middle of public option land -- there are some on the left who don't like it; they want it to be more liberal, some on the right -- will, at the end of the day, be where we end up."

Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown struck a more aggressive note than Schumer on CNN, saying "I think, in the end, I don't want four Democratic senators dictating to the other 56 of us and to the country, when the public option has this much support, that it's not going to be in it."

"In the end, this is going to be a compromise," said New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen on CNN. "It's not going to be a perfect bill, but it's going to be a very important starting point."

Sen. Richard Durbin said on NBC that it was a "must" to get the health care legislation approved before the end of the year so that Congress could refocus its attention on the economy and getting people back to work.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Politics Daily

Midterm Mud: Making a Mess of Elections

Related Stories

Afghan War: In 10th Year, No End in Sight

Shiny, Happy Health Care Reform

Psychotherapy: That'll Be $100,000. Sorry, No Warranty

Blanche Lincoln Scores Surprise Win Over Bill Halter in Arkansas Senate Runoff

Results

Iraqi Elections Bad News for U.S. Troops

George Gallup, Health Care and the Peril of Legislating by Polls

Historic Health Care Vote Goes Down To the Wire

Memo to the Left: The Public Health Insurance Option Is Dead, Get Over It

Hey, Congress: You're Fired!

Governors in Washington, Worried About Health Care Inaction

Obama: I've Backed Some GOP Health Care Ideas All Along

Republicans May Skip White House Health Summit

Obama Braves Snow, Talks Politics, as Monster Storm Paralyzes DC

Latest Round-Up of Obama Polls by State

Goodbye, Public Option, Hello Senate Bill? Hoyer Vows, 'Not Going to Happen'

The Joe Lieberman Debate: Good Jew or Bad Jew?

Fate of Health Care Reform Changes Dynamics of Next Year's Midterms

The How-To Guide for Improving the Health Care Bill

Health Care Bill Still Faces Huge Hurdles in the Senate