By bowing to Sen. Joseph Lieberman and his obstructive pals in both parties on health care reform, President Obama has confirmed what Republicans always say about Democrats: They simply aren't strong enough to govern. Or at least the Democrats elected last year -- and their colleagues in the Senate leadership -- don't seem to be.
How does a group where the majority of members voted in favor of health care reform get in the liberals' doghouse? Just ask the Blue Dog Democrats. The Blue Dogs are a coalition of 52 fiscally conservative U.S. House members who have made headlines for their ardent negotiations with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Although more than half of the Blue Dogs voted for the initial House health care bill, the coalition still provided 24 of the 39 Democratic "no" votes, cementing their place on the liberal naughty list.
While Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrambles to assemble 60 Democratic votes for health care legislation that, according to the realclearpolitics.com average of recent polls, is opposed by a 53 percent to 38 percent margin, several Democratic members of the House are scrambling for the exits on what is starting to look like a sinking ship.
One of the oldest clichés in the book defines insanity as doing the same thing “over and over again” and expecting a different result.
As the Democrats in Congress approach the end of a frustrating first year's legislative effort, their leaders and the White House are being tempted by three possible shortcuts around the regular lawmaking process.
Whatever it takes.
Whatever Joe wants.
That's the short answer to what the Democrats will do to get health care reform passed. If Joe Lieberman doesn't want 55-year-olds to buy into Medicare, they won't. Poof. Gone.
Sly industry-sponsored ads in which ordinary Americans worry about some scheme in Congress generally irritate me. A grunt greeted the TV spot you've no doubt seen: A woman unloading groceries frets over a proposed "tax on juice, milk and soda" as Americans like her count every penny.
The U.S. Senate defeated an amendment last week to restrict taxpayer funding of abortions under Obamacare. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., voted against the measure, arguing that it would require women to buy special riders to purchase abortion coverage.
"Evil does exist in the world." This bald assertion is probably not what the Norwegian grantors of the Nobel Peace Prize expected to hear from Barack Obama. It sounds like something that the definer of the axis of evil might say, without the Texas twang.
First, the good news on the economic recovery that everybody loves to hate: Retail sales totally beat Wall Street estimates with a huge 1.3 percent gain in November. Core retail sales have increase 5.6 percent at an annual rate over the past three months. Family net wealth has rebounded $5 trillion over the past six months.
I like Hanukkah. It's a very nice holiday, as Jewish holidays go; one of the few where the Jews actually won, as opposed to having the Temple destroyed, or fleeing the divided sea, or being spared from the evil Haman. Usually, it's enough if we survive. Often, we don't even do that.
Evading the challenges of climate change -- and the human responsibility to save the planet -- is simple enough even for the laziest citizen. Pay attention only to the theories that support the comforting skepticism of the oil industry. Focus on a set of purloined emails that prove nothing except that scientists can be as unpleasant to each other as any other group of people. Get the "facts" from Fox News Channel, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Moonie-controlled Washington Times and all the other conservative outlets that are as fair and balanced as an Exxon press release.
"Knowledge is becoming more specialized and more dispersed, while government power is becoming more concentrated," writes economist Arnold Kling in his new book, "Unchecked and Unbalanced." "This discrepancy creates the potential for government to become increasingly erratic and, as a result, less satisfying to individuals."
So it's come down to this. Republicans and some Democrats wouldn't vote for a government-run health plan that competed with private insurers -- though it would enjoy no special taxpayer subsidies. That's socialism.
Nine women. And counting.
When did this guy find time to play golf?
A sense of unreality overshadows our debate on Afghan war policy across the spectrum of opinions. The unreality derives from the simple fact that we do not have enough troops to rationally implement an adequate defense of our national interests. So every argument for Afghanistan policy tends to seem unserious, perhaps pointless.
The United States used to be the can-do country. A respect for science married to the entrepreneurial spirit propelled America to the forefront of global progress and made it rich. But a late-20th century malaise had crept in, fueled by a conservative hostility to modern science and public investment.
Every time I visit the White House, I am struck by its military environment.
As soon as President Obama had finished his West Point speech in which he pledged to send 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, conservative pundits started poking at the president's demeanor and message. Big mistake. If Obama's delivery seemed, well, unenthusiastic, so be it. What is important is that Obama delivered a policy that will keep Afghanistan from devolving into a terror pit. He offered the best plan that conservatives possibly could expect.
People keep asking me whether I agree with the president's troop surge in Afghanistan. I am a lawyer. I know what to do with a hard question: Answer another one that is so similar that even the person asking may not notice you've changed it. So I answer that I absolutely support the president on this one, that I absolutely approve of the process and the decision and the way he's handling his responsibility as commander in chief.
