SUNDAY,  DECEMBER 20,  2009

DON'T CANCEL YOUR DOCTOR APPOINTMENT JUST YET - AT 8:55 P.M. ET:  Despite all the bravado coming from Harry Reid's office - for a man who seems at death's door, he sure makes a lot of noise - the final passage of health-care "reform" is anything but certain.  There are still powerful forces in contention, as The Politico reports:

Despite a last-minute weekend deal that put the Senate on the brink of passing health care reform this week, liberal and moderate Democrats remain on a collision course over the bill, as both sides dug in Sunday for the next phase of negotiations.

President Barack Obama’s liberal base and powerful union leaders once hoped the expected House-Senate conference would partly undo a year of retreats and compromises, with Obama weighing in to nudge the moderate Senate bill to the left.

But the titanic struggle to lock in Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) as the 60th senator for the first key test vote early Monday morning has changed all that. The need to hold Nelson and other moderates in line means major changes on the public option, abortion, taxes, Medicare and Medicaid are unlikely — and that the Senate’s vision of health reform is likely to prevail over the House’s in the final talks.

“It is very clear that the bill — the final bill — to pass in the United States Senate is going to have to be very close to the bill that has been negotiated here,” Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said on “Fox News Sunday.” “Otherwise, you will not get 60 votes in the United States Senate.”

And...

House Democrats acknowledge that they will be limited in how far they can tweak the Senate compromise. But House leadership also knows that its rank and file need to force some changes, however small, before they will accept the final package — as a face-saving measure to be able to swallow late changes to the bill in the Senate, most notably the decision to eliminate a public option.

COMMENT:  I love it when they fight among themselves.  And yet, let's not be too gleeful.  Even if the whole thing does go down in the end, the American people will have a question:  Okay, Republicans, what's your solution?  Republicans better have one. 

Remember, in 1948, Harry Truman ran against the "do nothing" Republican Congress, and he won with that line, and others.  Voters may dislike the Democrats, but Republicans don't yet have them on board as lovers.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

HILLARY IN 2016? - AT 8:36 P.M. ET:  It's much too early to be discussing the presidential election of 2016.  Or is it?  This column is pure speculation, but it's an entertaining, and discerning British look at Hillary Clinton, and her prospects for that year:

Having elected Barack Obama amid near national euphoria, America is experiencing something akin to buyer's remorse.

Obama's popularity is the lowest of any American president at the end of his first year in office since polling began. Yet as his approval ratings have nose-dived, those of his Secretary of State have curved elegantly upwards.

A recent poll by the Clarus Research Group found that Hillary Clinton had a 75 per cent approval rating compared to 51 per cent for the man who defeated her in their epic battle for the Democratic nomination.

Okay, there are many caveats, but let's go along for this ride.  At minimum, it's fun.

During the past year, Mrs Clinton has done just what she did when she entered the Senate in 2001 - knuckled down to the hard grind of policy while building relationships with wary sceptics.

The woman who was one of the most polarising figures in American politics now has a glowing 65 per cent approval rating among Independents and healthy 57 per cent among Republicans.

Even sworn enemies on the Right marvelled at her toughness in refusing to concede to Obama until the bitter end in the summer of 2008 and now view her as more hawkish than the president.

It's the "hawkish" part that's most intriguing.  Valuable in a general election, but no asset in today's Democratic party, whose base probably thinks Harry Truman was an atom-bomb-dropping monster.

Mrs Clinton, moreover, has lived in Arkansas and won over conservatives in upstate New York as well as trouncing Obama in states like West Virginia and Pennsylvania - establishing a connection with Middle America that has eluded the president.

Again, great in the general election, but the Aspen-addicted party elite will frown.

Mrs Clinton can afford to be assiduously loyal because her critique of Obama - "a lot of talk, no action" is how she acidly described him in March last year - is already out there and increasingly resonant. She now has unassailable credentials in the one area where she appeared weak in 2008 - foreign policy.

This assumes no foreign-policy disasters.  Given the man in the Oval Office, that's quite an assumption.

Two months ago, Mrs Clinton answered, straight-faced, with a flat "no" when asked if she would ever run for president again, even adding that "it never crosses my mind".

Perhaps that patently implausible denial was the surest indication of all that Mrs Clinton is better placed than ever to become America's first female president - and she knows it.

COMMENT:  Okay, all right, as we said, this is pure speculation.  Many, many things, including the stark reality of biology, can intervene. 

But let me add something:  Why think only of 2016?  What about 2012?  What if Obama, facing catastrophic poll numbers, decides not to run again?  While his ego will probably nullify any rational decision, it could still happen, especially if Michelle prevails upon him.

One thing I certainly don't think will happen will be a Clinton challenge to Obama for the party's nomination, reminiscent of Ted Kennedy's challenge to Carter in 1980.  If Clinton attempted to challenge Obama, the African-American community would never forgive her, would stay home on election day, and cost her the election.

But hey, you never know.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

IT ISN'T JUST NEWSPAPERS - AT 7:30 P.M. ET:  There's a myth that it's only the print press that's in trouble.  Not true.  From The New York Times:

The Citadel Broadcasting Corporation, one of the biggest radio companies in the United States, filed for bankruptcy on Sunday in New York after reaching a pact with its creditors over an accelerated Chapter 11 filing.

Radio companies like Citadel and Clear Channel Communications have struggled with mounting debt woes and declining advertising revenue.

The troubles of Citadel, which owns 223 stations across the country and syndicates Don Imus’s radio show, have been well documented over the last year. Its chief problem has been coping with debt acquired in a 2006 merger with the Walt Disney Company’s ABC Radio.

In its most recent regulatory filing, made last month, Citadel reported a 16 percent drop in operating income, to about $38 million. The company also warned then that it was likely to breach certain financial covenants early next year.

COMMENT:  Again, the issue is debt.  Another big deal gone wrong.  And we keep increasing our national debt, as if there are no consequences down the road.  There are.  Happy birthday, kids.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

READ THE FINE PRINT - AT 5:28 P.M. ET:  Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is sounding stern toward Iran, but you have to read the fine print.  From AP:

The administration is now beginning a push to get international support for additional penalties against Iran as a result, and Mullen suggested he thinks that backing was there.

''I think signals are very clearly in the air that another set of sanctions, another resolution, that that's coming,'' he said.

''I grow increasingly concerned that the Iranians have been non-responsive. I've said for a long time we don't need another conflict in that part of the world,'' he said. ''I'm not predicting that would happen, but I think they've got to get to a position where they are a constructive force and not a destabilizing force.''

COMMENT:  Yeah, yeah, yeah.  The issue isn't sanctions.  There already are sanctions on Iran.  The issue is the kind of sanctions.  Hillary Clinton has spoken of "crippling" sanctions, but what are the real chances that Russia or China would go along with them?

I suspect that, after all the yapping, it will come down to a decision to attack, or not to attack.  Bottom line:  The Iranians will probably get the bomb, but maintain ambiguity about having it.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

A WARNING FROM THE YARD - AT 12:24 P.M. ET:   The British health-care system may be falling apart, choked by its socialist model, but at least British counter-terror operatives are awake.  The warning from Scotland Yard is in contrast to the Obama administration's description of terror attacks as "man-caused disasters."  From The Times of London:

Scotland Yard has warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style attack on the capital.

In a briefing in the City of London 12 days ago, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, said: “Mumbai is coming to London.”

The detective said companies should anticipate a shooting and hostage-taking raid “involving a small number of gunmen with handguns and improvised explosive devices”.

The warning — the bluntest issued by police — has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early next year.

It was issued by the Met through its network of “security forums," which provide business leaders, local government and the emergency services with counter-terrorism advice.

During a “commando-style” raid by 10 gunmen on hotels and cafes in Mumbai in November 2008, 174 people were killed and more than 300 injured over three days.

Of course, we must not be culturally insensitive enough to ask who might be planning such an attack.  No, no, no, it's all a misunderstanding.

Officials now report an increase in “intelligence chatter” — communications captured by electronic eavesdropping agencies. One senior security adviser said the police warnings had intensified and become much more specific in the past fortnight.

“Before, there has been speculation. Now we are getting what appears to be a definite plot to carry out a firearms attack on London,” he said.

Earlier this year, police, military and intelligence services held an exercise in Kent to see whether they could defeat a commando raid in London by terrorists.

“The exercise brought out to those taking part that the capability doesn’t exist to deal with that situation should it arise,” said a military source.

COMMENT:  Given the number of terror-related incidents on American soil in the last year, including the rampage at Fort Hood, the same warning can probably apply to the United States.  There are so many potential targets.  A hotel, in particular, is one of the softest targets imaginable.  All the terrorists have to do is check in.  That is a particular danger with "homegrown" terrorists, who speak with no accent and appear to be ordinary citizens. 

December 20, 2009   Permalink

WELCOME TO OUR HEALTH-CARE FUTURE - AT 11:32 A.M. ET:  The dream of the left is for us to have a "single-payer" health-care system.  That's government speak for socialized medicine, where the government pays the bills...and makes the rules.

Here is a story from Britain, where they have the mother of all single-payer systems.  This may be our future:

Women with signs of breast cancer are waiting months for a diagnosis amid the failure of one of Labour's key manifesto pledges, the Government's cancer tsar has admitted.

All patients with symptoms of the disease should be seen by a specialist within two weeks of visiting their GP, following a promise made before the last election.

Labour said the NHS would meet the pledge by 2008 – a deadline it later extended to the end of this month.

Now the Government's cancer tsar Prof Mike Richards has disclosed that the health service is about to miss that target, with thousands of worried women waiting weeks and sometimes even months to see a hospital specialist.

COMMENT:  Note the term "cancer tsar."  Ah, for the good old Soviet days.  How some people miss the big red star. 

You would think that women's groups - the so-called "feminists" - would be in an uproar over this.  But are they?  Of course not.  Modern feminism - as opposed to true women's rights movements - has its origin on the far left.  And modern feminism has made its peace with the left, and has accepted its third-rate status on that same left.  It's disgraceful.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

NEBRASKA CIVIL CONFLICT - AT 10:49 A.M. ET:  Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) is catching it back home for his cave-in on health care.  True, he got some dollars for Nebraska, but there still are some people with pride left.  From the Lincoln, Nebraska, JournalStar:

Sen. Ben Nelson's dramatic decision Saturday to vote for enactment of historic health care reform ignited a predictable firestorm.

Nelson negotiated a number of concessions that will strengthen health care services in rural Nebraska and lift an expanded Medicaid funding burden from the state.

But the anti-abortion funding language in the agreement leading to his support triggered some political dynamite.

In a stunning choice of words, Republican Sen. Mike Johanns described the abortion compromise negotiated by his Nebraska colleague as "reprehensible."

"If you are pro-life," Johanns said, "you cannot vote to end debate on this bill."

During a telephone interview moments later, Nelson said he believed it's "not appropriate for someone to cast any aspersions on someone else's principles and whether they're pro-life enough."

Well, Ben, that's exactly what your Senate colleague from Nebraska did.  And he wouldn't have done it without knowing what people back home were thinking.

National Right to Life rejected the compromise and warned it will consider any votes supporting the bill as "votes in favor of legislation to allow the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand."

The organization said the abortion language is "light years removed" from stricter anti-abortion funding legislation approved by the House.

Silvio Canto Jr., on whose radio show I appear frequently, has an excellent wrapup of the full Nelson betrayal here.  Silvio notes that, for Nelson, this was a "profile in courage" moment.  Not much courage.

Nelson, a Democratic senator from a Republican state, is a major Republican target in next year's midterms.  The target just got bigger.

December 20, 2009   Permalink

PRESIDENT REMAINS IN POLL DOGHOUSE - AT 10:27 A.M. ET:  What strikes us about the polls is the president's inability to reverse them, no matter what he does...or says.  And "saying" is a big deal with this non-silent president. 

In recent weeks the president has 1) spoken at West Point, announcing a decision to intensify the Afghan war; 2) picked up the Nobel Peace Prize, accompanied by what was probably the best - at least the most pro-American speech - of his career; 3) gone to Copenhagen to try to get a global warming agreement.

And yet, his poll numbers remain steady or continue to sink.  This is not good news for this very political White House.  Today's Rasmussen report has 46% of likely voters approving of Obama's performance, with 53% disapproving.  While those are not the president's worst numbers in Rasmussen, they are close.

While some pollsters assure us that President Obama remains personally popular, instinct tells us that his poor performance ratings must be do in part to an increase in personal dislike.  He is overexposed on television, and often seems cold and disengaged. I would like to see pollsters ask this question:  "If there were a major international crisis today, do you trust Barack Obama to do the right thing for the United States?  High level of trust?  Moderate trust?  Little trust?  No trust?

Just asking.

December 20,  2009   Permalink

SATURDAY,  DECEMBER 19,  2009

HOW WACKED OUT IS THIS? - AT 10:04 P.M. ET:  The Washington Post has one of those stories that could not have been written without the ghostly influence of the 1960s.  Apparently, there is great frustration because the pursuit of real domestic terrorists is interfering with "outreach" operations by the FBI, designed to cuddle up to the Muslim community.  Oh the anguish.  Oh the decisions.  What will happen to the church of multiculturalism?

At a retirement party last week for the head of the FBI's Washington field office, Muslim and Arab leaders presented the guest of honor with a crystal plaque.

It thanked Joseph Persichini Jr. for reaching out to the local Muslim and Arab communities. Yet even as the tribute on Capitol Hill went on, his agents had a different mission. They were flying to Pakistan to interrogate five Washington area Muslim men arrested in a terrorism probe. The outcome of that investigation threatens to undermine the very relationships their boss tried to foster.

No disrespect meant to the reporter, who does a fine job, but is this serious?  Is there any question about which is more important - protecting the American people or playing nice-nice with people who ask to be "understood"?  Apparently there is.

As U.S. officials consider whether to file criminal charges against the men and how aggressively to prosecute any potential case, some Muslim leaders are calling for leniency, saying the tough approach often used by the Bush administration would alienate a community whose relationship with law enforcement is uneasy.

Huh?  The tough approach is directed only at those who seek to harm us.  Innocent Muslims have nothing to worry about, and a prosecution should not interfere with reasonable outreach to them.   Every community must understand that criminal activity must be prosecuted.

But the law enforcement imperative could clash with President Obama's desire to improve relations with Muslims abroad and in the United States. When asked about the arrests in Pakistan, Obama praised "the extraordinary contributions of the Muslim-American community."

Where's the contradiction?  There are criminal elements within most subgroups.  Why is this one special?

Members of the Muslim community came forward with information about the chaps now in Pakistan, and they should be praised.  But cooperation is only one factor:

Current and former law enforcement officials said the families' actions will not affect the FBI's intensifying investigation. "When you come upon information that the law may have been violated, the way you receive that information does not change your obligation to respond to it accordingly," said Michael A. Mason, who preceded Persichini as head of the FBI's D.C. field office.

Well said.

The case is unfolding against a backdrop of increased tension nationally between the FBI and the Muslim community. A coalition of two dozen Muslim groups in March suspended most contacts with the FBI over what it called inappropriate infiltration of mosques.

But the mosques were infiltrated for a reason.  The Muslim community must understand why, and take action against those whose actions are seen as a danger.

Nawar Shora, legal director for the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee -- who, with a representative from a Muslim group presented the award to Persichini -- said the Arab and Muslim communities will accept any charges against the men arrested in Pakistan as long as they are treated fairly.

Yet he indicated that tensions could flare, depending how the government approaches a case. "If the FBI and the prosecutors say these were five Muslims and they were trying to commit jihad, and they throw out all of these incendiary religious terms, that's different," Shora said.

Oh please.  This country has been, since the 9-11 attacks, remarkably tolerant toward Muslims, and correctly so.  Our response to the Muslim community, in light of the attacks, is a model for other nations.  But I think the leaders do protest too much.  They seem to be asking for a special position, special consideration, and that we don't do. 

I have no doubt that some in the Muslim community have wounded feelings, and we must always be clear in separating the guilty from the innocent.  But more work within their own communities is in order.  Recently, the FBI broke off contact with CAIR, the Council of American-Islamic Relations, out of concern over some of their activities and advocacy.  The FBI was correct.  It's the practices and the advocacy that need to be changed.  The FBI is not a babysitting agency.

December 19, 2009   Permalink

COPENHAGEN AND TEHRAN - MORE TIED TOGETHER THAN YOU THINK - AT 7:31 P.M. ET: 

The weak accord with which the United Nations climate summit closed is a harbinger of world leaders' likely future failure in efforts to impose tougher sanctions against Iran, diplomats said Saturday.

The historic climate talks ended Saturday after a 31-hour negotiating marathon, with delegates accepting a U.S.-brokered compromise that gives billions in climate aid to poor nations but does not require the world's major polluters to make deeper cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions.

Following the end of the summit, diplomats said that China's flexing of its political muscles in its disputes with the United States at the conference should serve as a warning of what will happen when the Obama administration seeks to bring tougher sanctions against Iran for UN Security Council approval.

COMMENT:  I'm afraid it's true.  China bested the U.S. by quite a bit at Copenhagen.  It stood up to a president who's easy to stand up to you, especially if you're a foreign dictatorship.

President Kennedy failed in foreign policy during his first year in office, largely because he projected an image of inexperience and weakness.  Obama is failing the same way.  Kennedy was bright enough, and political enough, to understand what had happened.  He improved in his second year.  While that can be the case with Obama as well, Obama's instincts are far to the left of Kennedy's, and he is backed up by a university/college complex whose proprietors believe that the Vietnam War was the greatest catastrophe in human history, and maybe beyond that, into the Solar System. 

Even Hugo Chavez dumped on Obama during the Copenhagen conference.  As usual, Obama didn't snap back.  That lack of snap will be noticed in Tehran, where they notice everything.

December 19, 2009   Permalink

IT'S IN THE AIR - AT 7:04 P.M. ET:  Reparations for past "grievances," that is.  Now even the Iranians are playing the game.  From the Jerusalem Post:

Teheran will seek reparations from the UN for damage done to Iran's economy during the Allied invasion of the country in 1941, Press TV reported on Saturday.

According to the report, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said during a Friday press conference in Copenhagen that he would write a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "asking for Iran to be compensated" for suffering caused to its people during the war and for the usage of its resources by Allied powers.

COMMENT:  Apparently, the president of Iran has no problem with the Nazi side in World War II.  But that follows, doesn't it?

December 19, 2009   Permalink

YOU KNOW, I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED - AT 11:54 A.M. ET:  One by one, news stories document the shady side of the global-warming industry.  Fox News reports:

The top cops in Europe say carbon-trading has fallen prey to an organized crime scheme that has robbed the continent of $7.4 billion -- a massive fraud that lawmakers and energy experts say should send a "red flag" to the U.S., where the House approved cap-and-trade legislation over the summer amid stiff opposition.

That $7.4-billion could have built a lot of schools or bought some needed defense equipment.

In a statement released last week, the Europol police agency said Europe's cap-and-trade system has been the victim of organized crime during the past 18 months, resulting in losses of roughly $7.4 billion. The agency, headquartered in the Netherlands, estimated that in some countries up to 90 percent of the entire market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.

"These criminal activities endanger the credibility of the European Union Emission Trading System and lead to the loss of significant tax revenue for governments," Rob Wainwright, Europol's director, said in a statement.

Launched in 2005, the Emission Trading System seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- which many scientists believe contribute to global warming -- by allocating carbon pollution allowances to member states to fulfill its obligations under the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol. Companies that emit less than their allowance can sell the difference on the trading market to firms that exceed their established limits.

COMMENT:  Why do I get the feeling that money is behind much of the global-warming business?  A lot of people seem to be getting rich, while we're expected to write the checks.

December 19, 2009    Permalink  

COPENHAGEN FIASCO - AT 11:13 A.M. ET:  Things continue downhill in Copenhagen, which has been hit by a major snowstorm in the midst of the huge climate-change conference.  An "agreement," announced just hours ago, is unraveling.  From The New York Times:

COPENHAGEN — With the swift bang of a gavel on Saturday morning, a prolonged fight between nations small and large over an international pact to limit climate risks that was forged the night before by the United States and four partners came to a somewhat murky end.

To put it mildly.

The chairman of the climate treaty talks declared that the parties would “take note” of the document, named the Copenhagen Accord, leaving open the question of whether this effort to curb greenhouse gases from the world’s major emitters would gain the full support of the 193 countries bound by the original, and largely failed, 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.

COMMENT:  We just get the feeling that we're back in a 1930s style of diplomacy.  Nothing actually gets done, but everyone works to be sure there's an appearance of progress. 

The failure of the conference is, as we've noted, probably good news.  It gives time for the thoughtful skeptics to build their forces. 

No rational person is opposed to making the air cleaner and developing more modern, cleaner energy sources.  And no rational American is opposed to making us less dependent on foreign oil.  But the behavior of many delegates in Copenhagen, especially from "developing" (read corrupt) countries, makes it obvious that the real agenda wasn't climate change, but extortion - getting advanced countries to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars, without much accountability, on an extended guilt trip.

President Obama's appearance at the conference was a disaster.  Maybe it will be an important event in his political education.  Once again he's learned that his rhetoric, effective in an election campaign, is far less effective when actually governing.  Foreign nations fawned over Obama when he ran, and now they want payback for making him temporary king of the world.  He hasn't got the goods to give, and his own nation, increasingly, is not behind him.

December 19, 2009   Permalink

RIGHT ON SCHEDULE - AT 10:35 A.M. ET:  We don't do predictions here, but we have discussed the probability that Iran, just before President Obama's deadline for progress in nuclear negotiations, would throw us a bone.  That deadline is less than two weeks away.  And sure enough...

Iran is prepared to review the P5+1's fuel exchange proposal, Iranian Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with the Iranian news agency published Saturday.

During the interview, Mottaki stated that Teheran recently offered to move nuclear fuel to the island of Kish, in the Persian Gulf. The proposal, he said, was a gesture of goodwill which "aimed to open a door for the other side."

In recent weeks, US officials warned that the window of opportunity for talks with Iran was rapidly closing.

And...

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Friday night said that Teheran was prepared to reach a nuclear fuel agreement with the West if the US and Western powers stopped threatening the Islamic republic, the French News Agency reported.

"Everything is possible ... but not in a climate where they threaten us. They have to change their vocabulary, in respect and legality," Ahmadinejad told AFP in an interview on the sidelines of the UN Climate Summit in Copenhagen.

"In this case we will say, very good you want to keep your word, in this case we are ready to sit down at the table to reach an agreement," the Iranian premier was quoted as saying.

COMMENT:  This is what is commonly known as a charm offensive.  It actually means nothing.  The Iranians haven't agreed to a thing, and any "agreement" they make with the West would have to be measured against their remarkable technological progress, which would continue.

However, the charm offensive may work.  It worked for the Soviet Union many times.  There are plenty of people who want to avoid any confrontation with Iran, and are perfectly prepared to put the blinders on to do so.  This latest Iranian "gesture" will give ammunition to Russia and China, who oppose severe sanctions on Tehran.  It will help those Europeans who are only interested in contracts with Iran.  And it may well help President Obama appease his left wing by giving him cover to extend negotiations and avoid serious decisions, something at which he is expert.

This reminds us of Churchill's notion that there are people who will feed the alligator in the hope of being eaten last.  I would imagine that these latest Iranian "gestures" will allow the appeasement crowd to open their cupboards and start sending the Twinkies to Tehran. 

December 19, 2009   Permalink

REID NAILS IT - AND NAILS US - AT 10:19 A.M. ET:  Late news on health care:  Harry Reid has apparently rounded up the votes needed to prevent a GOP filibuster and pass health-care "reform" by Christmas.  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats said they neared agreement Saturday on a major overhaul of the nation’s health care system, putting them within reach of approving legislation by Christmas.

As the Senate convened in a driving snowstorm, Democratic lawmakers and senior officials said a breakthrough came when Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, agreed after hours of negotiation Friday to back the legislation, making him the pivotal 60th vote.

Same old story - a Dem moderate caving in.  Nelson will vote for a measure that is demonstrably unpopular in his home state.  But he'll be bringing in some extortion money for his efforts.  Harry Reid will introduce an amendment just for old Ben:

Mr. Reid’s amendment includes major restrictions on abortion that were intended to win support for the bill from Mr. Nelson....

...Mr. Reid’s amendment also includes a substantial increase in federal contributions to Nebraska’s costs of providing Medicaid coverage to the poor.

And that is the way the game is played.

At the same time, we're happy to report that Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, who might have emerged as the sole Republican to vote for the Senate health bill, has announced her opposition:

Republicans remained deeply opposed to the proposal and Senator Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who had been considered a possible Democratic ally, said she would oppose the measure, saying it was being rushed through.

“It is a take-it-or leave it package,” she said.

COMMENT:  One of the most extensive pieces of legislation in American history, dealing with the life-and-death question of health care, and designed to rearrange a sixth of the nation's economy, will apparently be passed in the Senate without a single Republican vote. 

That does not mean full Congressional passage.  The Senate bill will have to be reconciled with the already-passed House bill.  But the momentum is now with the Democrats. 

Barack Obama will probably have something to sign very soon, despite public opposition, registered in virtually every poll.

December 19,  2009   Permalink