Democrats' New Label: "Party Of Arrogance, Corruption, Hypocrisy, Lies & Scandals"

Rash Of Scandals Tests Democrats At Sensitive Time



The ethical woes facing Democrats are piling up, with barely a day passing in recent weeks without headlines from Washington to New York and beyond filled with word of scandal or allegations of wrongdoing.

The troubles of Gov. David A. Paterson of New York, followed by those of two of the state’s congressmen, Charles B. Rangel and Eric J. Massa, have added to the ranks of episodes involving prominent Democrats like Eliot Spitzer, Rod R. Blagojevich and John Edwards.

Taken together, the cases have opened the party to the same lines of criticism that Democrats, led by Representatives Nancy Pelosi, now the House speaker, and Rahm Emanuel, now White House chief of staff, used effectively against Republicans in winning control of the House and Senate four years ago.

The mix of power and the temptations of corruption can be a compelling political narrative at any time. But with voters appearing to be in an angry mood and many already inclined to view all things Washington with mistrust, the risks for Democrats could be that much greater this year.

With Election Day still eight months away, there is time to avert a history-is-repeating-itself storyline. But Democrats, who are already on the defensive over the economy, health care and federal spending and are facing a re-energized conservative movement, suddenly have a set of ethical issues to deflect as well. “Speaker Pelosi famously promised the most open, honest and ethical Congress in history,” Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Thursday. “Yet here we go again.”

In 2006, when Democrats were battling for control of the House, the message of their campaign against the Republicans could be boiled down to a three-word slogan: culture of corruption. Democratic leaders aggressively seized on each indictment of a Republican member of Congress or lobbyist, building an argument that the controlling party had become arrogant and was in urgent need of a housecleaning.

So is that moment — in reverse fashion — now approaching for Democrats?

Tim Kaine, a former Virginia governor and chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said Thursday that the recent spate of allegations against several political figures in his party was troubling.

But he said the recent cases — largely revolving around New York politicians — had hardly reached the nationwide pitch that buffeted Republicans four years ago. Then, Tom DeLay, the Republican House leader, was indicted in Texas, and the influence-peddling scandal tied to the lobbyist Jack Abramoff touched several Republican members of Congress.

“I would never say that folks should be blithe about their ethical responsibilities. But I think it’s quite a bit different,” Mr. Kaine said Thursday in an interview. “But a couple things that happened in the same week in one state is different than the kind of corruption that roped members of Congress in from all over the country.”

Ms. Pelosi moved quickly this week to deal with escalating criticism surrounding Mr. Rangel, who was admonished by the House ethics committee for accepting corporate-sponsored trips to the Caribbean. He remains under investigation on more serious accusations.

Mr. Rangel stepped down on Wednesday as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, heading off any possibility of a drawn-out political battle over his fate. The National Republican Congressional Committee has been intensifying its pressure on Democratic lawmakers in districts across the country to return political contributions from Mr. Rangel, who was among the most generous contributors to fellow members of Congress.

“All Aboard for the Ride to Victory,” screams a poster depicting Mr. Rangel against a train, showing how many Democratic campaigns he helped finance. Republicans have sent around the old Rangel campaign posters this week to highlight his influence.

Since last Friday, 29 House Democrats have given back or donated to charity more than $400,000 in contributions from Mr. Rangel’s three political fund-raising committees. But several others have not returned the money. Representative Michael E. McMahon, Democrat of New York, is among those who have not returned the money, in his case more than $70,383.

Ms. Pelosi dismissed the criticism on Thursday that Democrats had not lived up to their promise to sweep away a culture of corruption on Capitol Hill. She also noted that she had established an outside group to receive complaints about members of Congress, which could be easily referred to the House ethics committee.

“My commitment to the American people is that the public trust will always be honored,” Ms. Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “And on the floor of the House, that happens.”

President Obama, who built his campaign around a pledge to change the way Washington works and to strengthen transparency and ethics, has followed a practice of generally not commenting on the scandals or allegations involving the Democratic politicians. Months ago, several of his senior advisers worked behind the scenes to try to dissuade Governor Paterson from running for election, a pitch that failed.

Last week, Mr. Paterson conceded that he would not be on the ticket in the fall, but he has declined to step down. The White House has said that it has no intention of wading into the Paterson situation again, but several advisers said they were following the developments with interest.

It is the case of another governor, perhaps, that has drawn even more attention from those inside the West Wing.

Mr. Blagojevich, who was impeached last year as the governor of Illinois, faces a criminal trial in June. The proceedings are expected to be unfolding at the very moment that Democrats are battling in several races, including a campaign for the Senate seat once held by the man who now sits in the Oval Office.


View Larger Map

Sources: NY Times, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

Democrats & Obama Using "Bi-Partisanship" To Destroy GOP Victories

Democrats now have a new strategy to erase the GOP's edge and destroy Republican chances of winning in November.

Bi-Partisanship!

That's right Bi-Partisanship is now the new killjoy for Republicans in Congress and Republican Candidates.

How can this be?

I'm happy you asked, allow me to explain.

Democrats including Pres. Barack Obama invite Republican Leaders to share their ideas and draft Bi-Partisan Legislation.

Democrat Leaders (Harry Reid) keep the good, commonsense ideas from Republican Leaders and use those ideas to make the Democratic Party look competent.

After the legislation is drafted Congress tells the Mainstream Media that a Bi-Partisan bill will be passed.

What's wrong with this approach you ask?

Well after keeping good ideas from Republicans, Democrats than scale back the proposed Legislation and pass a much smaller version of the original legislation.

Slashing the bill is done so without notifying any Republican Leaders who shared their good, commonsense ideas which of course causes Republicans to complain or try to defect.

Once the Republicans start complaining or attempt to no longer participate, Democrats (actually Pres. Obama) than reports to Mainstream Media organizations (MSNBC & CNN) that Republicans don't want to work with Democrats and their still being uncooperative "Obstructionists".

This is the exact SAME sneaky, shady tactic Harry Reid used to draft the Health Care Bill when he brokered deals with Ben Nelson ("Nebraska Compromise") and Mary Landrieu ("Louisiana Purchase").

So in essence when Pres. Obama defined his version of Bi-Partisanship ("Bi-Partisanship is not just Democrats accepting all Republican ideas and rejecting Democrat ideas) he lied and flipped everything around to benefit his party.

Pres. Obama is using this familiar "Unity" strategy ("Keep your friends close and your enemies closer") to win.

Remember Pres. Obama is a Professional Politician without any real convictions.

His inexperience (18 months in Congress prior to his election) has been exposed in his inability to effectively govern our nation.

This is exactly why many, many American citizens are now suffering from Voters' Remorse.

He doesn't really care about helping other people as widely proclaimed on the campaign trail.

(Has anyone noticed he seems to care nothing at all about America's Middle Class, Low Income or Senior Citizens?
All he does is give them Food Stamps and Welfare as if that's all they are worth.)

Instead he ONLY cares about being in Control and Winning!

Apparently its more important for him to not offend Wall Street Bankers in order to keep those huge Campaign Donations rolling in, than assist citizens with keeping their homes from Foreclosures.

Pres. Obama will also throw ANYONE under the bus who gets in his way or disagrees with him.

If Republicans soften their edge or allow Pres. Obama to fool them into this fake Bi-Partisanship game, they will continue to lose.

Wake up Republicans!

If it looks like Bi-Partisanship but smells like a dirty "chicago politics" trick, believe me it probably is.

I caution Republicans not to abandon their Fiscal Conservative Principles and don't be fooled by wolves in sheep clothing or you will all be led astray to early political graves.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans Don't Need To Follow Obama's Script


The president has invited congressional Republicans to sit down and talk through health care at a big "bipartisan summit" on Feb. 25. Some think it's a little late for such a conversation. After all, the Democrats have built their health care palace from the ground up, using only Democratic labor and Democratic input; they just can't get it to pass inspection. So general contractor Obama invites Republicans to debate the blueprints, and just the blueprints. Oh, and he wants to debate them, not change them. Not really.

"The president doesn't think we should start over," White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer explained. President Barack Obama himself has said he's committed to the existing bill(s) in the House and Senate. He just wants to hash out ideas with Republicans, in front of TV cameras, at a much-hyped summit because he thinks it would be good for America, or something. The Republicans can get whatever fixtures they want in the guest bathroom. Beyond that, they should just co-sign ObamaCare and shut up.

The best you can say about the effort is that it fits into the White House's universal answer to all of its problems: "We just need to explain to these confused Americans how we've been right about everything." To that end, the White House wants to use Republicans as a skeptical prop-audience in one last infomercial for the ShamWow of ObamaCare.

The worst you can say is that it's a cynical trap, designed to make the GOP look out of touch, ill-informed and ideological. Indeed, there's a bipartisan consensus growing in Washington that the whole thing is a setup. Obama is going to say "nice doggie" to Republicans right up until the moment he smashes them with a rolled-up, 2,000-page health care bill.

Liberals like the idea because they want the Republicans to get brained. They believe the GOP either doesn't have real ideas on health care, or that conservative ideas won't go over well with voters. They hope that Obama the law professor and community organizer will expose all of this, forcing the American people to come to their senses and support legislation they've been hearing about nonstop for a year. Again, liberalism is never wrong, it just has a problem explaining to the mule-headed electorate it's right about everything. Liberalism is always one more tutorial away from sunshine and lollipops for everyone.

Even so, the GOP should go.

Boycotting the event, as some have recommended, would rightly be seen as a sign of cowardice. Although there's no reason why the GOP has to play to the White House's script. Republicans should be respectful and serious, but they should also designate one or two representatives to speak for them. That's what Democrats did when they designated then-Senator Obama as their sole voice in the White House meeting on the financial crisis in September 2008. Sen. John McCain had conceived that meeting as a grand showcase for his statesmanlike leadership. That didn't work out too well for McCain, and there's no reason to expect that Mr. Obama's plan is any more foolproof.

That's the great irony in this whole stunt. Since he took office, Mr. Obama has been trying to use Republicans as one kind of foil or another. He started by castigating them as mindless drones of Rush Limbaugh. When Republican leaders opposed Obama's hyper-partisan stimulus, the president chastised them. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told them.

Then the White House and its supporters started casting the GOP - and the burgeoning tea party movement - as a Hieronymus Bosch scene of racists and gun nuts. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid compared opponents of ObamaCare to opponents of civil rights legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi flatly questioned the patriotism of anyone who objected to Mr. Obama's policies. And so on.

At every turn, Mr. Obama's agenda became less popular, his support among independents cratered, his promises to change the tone in Washington looked ever more transparent, and his magic spell over the press weakened. Gallup now has Mr. Obama in a statistical dead heat against a generic Republican opponent, and the Democratic Party is in near total freefall, despite the fact it still has almost total dominion over Washington.

Now the president has another brilliant plan. Once again he has Republicans exactly where he wants them. Only someone who thinks Mr. Obama is one explanation away from total victory should think the GOP has reason to worry.














Obama Says Bipartisanship, But What He Wants Is GOP Surrender



Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties.

"Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.

It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup.

In this 13th month of his presidency, he's anxious to pass a jobs bill and be seen addressing an unemployment rate that only last week declined from double digits. And his efforts to enact bills on energy, financial regulatory reform and especially health care are stuck in Congress despite the solid majority his party holds in both chambers.

He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike "to put aside matters of party for the good of the country."

It's a familiar refrain from U.S. presidents who can't get their way in Congress.

"We must put aside our political differences if we're ever to set our economy to rights," said President Reagan in 1982.

"It is time to put aside partisan rivalries and work together for our nation's future," said President Reagan in 1987 in trying to get Congress to enact deficit reduction

"We must put aside partisanship for the sake of our nation," said the first President Bush in 1990 in appealing for congressional cooperation on the budget.

"We must now put aside bitterness and rancor, move beyond partisanship," urged President Clinton in 1993 in trying to get Congress to pass his economic plan.

What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.

Mr. Obama said he "won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party." But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.

And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he "won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience."

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its "obstinacy" and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.

Mr. Obama again said the American people are frustrated by the political stalemate in Congress. And he can be counted among the frustrated as well.

He wants to be seen calmly pursuing his legislative goals – and he told reporters today that his meeting with congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle went well. So well, in fact, he joked that the Senate leaders, Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell had gone out to the South Lawn to make snow angels – together."


Sources: MSNBC, CBS News, Politico, NY Times, Baltimore Sun

Democrats Are Losing Labor Union Support & Millions Of Voters

Labor Unions Steam Over Democrats' Inaction



Labor groups are furious with the Democrats they helped put in office — and are threatening to stay home this fall when Democratic incumbents will need their help fending off Republican challengers.

The Senate’s failure to confirm labor lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board was just the latest blow, but the frustrations have been building for months.

"Here's labor getting thrown under the bus again," said John Gage, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 600,000 workers. "It's really frustrating for labor, and a lot of union people are thinking: We put out big time in money and volunteers and support. And it seems like the little things that could have been aren't being done."

The 52-33 vote on Becker — who needed 60 to be confirmed — really set labor unions on edge, but the list of setbacks is growing.

The so-called “card check” bill that would make it easier to unionize employees has gone nowhere. A pro-union Transportation Security Administration nominee quit before he even got a confirmation vote. And even though unions got a sweetheart deal to keep their health plans tax-free under the Senate health care bill, that bill has collapsed, leaving unions exposed again.

Union leaders warn that the Democrats' lackluster performance in power is sapping the morale of activists going into the midterm elections.

"Right now if we don’t get positive changes to the agenda, we’re going to have a hard time getting members out to work," said United Steelworkers International President Leo W. Gerard, in an interview.

“There’s no use pretending any longer.”

The biggest threat, of course, is apathy from a Democratic constituency that has a history of mobilizing for elections.

"You're just not going to be able to go to our membership in the November elections and say, 'Come on, let's do it again. Look at what the Democratic administration has done for us!'" Gage said. "People are going to say, 'Huh? What have the Democrats done for us?'"

Kim Freeman Brown, the executive director of a D.C.-based nonprofit called American Rights at Work, acknowledged "frustration" with the lack of movement.

"I implore Congress to listen to the voice of their constituents who want change, and so far we haven't delivered good enough on that promise," she said. "To the degree that we don't address these real bread-and-butter issues, we will have failed America's workers."

Gage warned that Democrats will struggle to energize blue-collar voters if they don't score a few victories soon. Union leaders say they will closely watch as a new "jobs bill" emerges to see if it includes more labor-friendly provisions or tax cuts for small businesses.

When you talk to labor officials these days, much of their animus is directed at Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who helped filibuster Becker's confirmation.

"Ben Nelson has got principles until you buy him off," Gerard said.

A group affiliated with the Service Employees International Union, called Change That Works, had defended Nelson's support for an unpopular health care reform bill in his home state.

But the Nebraska director of that group, Jane Kleeb, now criticizes Nelson for not allowing the Becker nomination to come to the floor for an up-or-down vote. And Bill Samuel, legislative director for the AFL-CIO, accused Nelson of following a "double standard" since he had argued that the nominees of then-President George W. Bush should get up-or-down votes.

Another AFL-CIO spokesman, Eddie Vale, pinpointed Nelson, saying he had "let down" working families.

Nelson said Becker’s stance on labor issues made him worry whether he would be "impartial" in making NLRB decisions.

But labor unions can’t pin all their blame on Nelson. The failure of a wide range of union priorities has been deflating for the labor movement, which seemed destined to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Barack Obama’s presidency.

And with unemployment hovering around 10 percent, special treatment for unions has only served to harm the movement.

On health care, unions found themselves in a defensive posture. They worked in early January to carve out an exception from an excise tax on so-called Cadillac insurance policies, only to see the package fall apart, with recriminations about just the kind of back-room deal making they had engaged in.

Obama said he would push for greater unionization at the Transportation Security Administration, but it hasn't happened. Obama has pushed for education programs that have long been unpopular with teachers' unions. And then, in his State of the Union address, the president called for Congress to strengthen trade relationships with South Korea, Panama and Columbia.

The support for those trade agreements irked Gerard, the leader of the steelworkers union, who praises Speaker Nancy Pelosi but blames the upper chamber.

"Our problem is the Senate," Gerard said. "The only thing they can pass is the washroom. I don't want to tar Democrats. Not all Democrats in the Senate are problems."

The situation in the Senate became more frustrating when Democrats lost their 60-seat supermajority with the election of Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown.

Brown’s first significant vote was a “no” on Becker.

"I think you see how working people feel by how they voted in Massachusetts," Gerard said. "In Massachusetts, it wasn't an anger that the government had done too much. It was an anger that there hadn't been enough change."

Democrats are now scrambling to shore up support for labor unions, but they don’t seem to have a game plan for more union-friendly legislation in advance of the midterm elections.

But Katie Packer, executive director of the anti-card-check Workforce Fairness Institute, said labor groups would have achieved a lot more if they hadn't overreached.

"I'm from Detroit, so the concept of labor overreach is not lost on me," she said. "What we've seen more than anything is an attempt by big labor is to be especially greedy and grab for things that weren't achievable."


Sources: Politico

Ben Nelson (Dem.) To Block Obama's Labor Union Rel. Nominee

Ben Nelson Will Back GOP Filibuster For Obama's Nominee


Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) announced Monday evening that he will support a Republican-led filibuster over President Barack Obama's nominee to serve on the National Labor Relations Board.

The move is likely to infuriate labor groups who have fought hard for Craig Becker's nomination to serve on the five-member NLRB - and will likely give Republicans enough support to sustain a filibuster Tuesday.

“Mr. Becker’s previous statements strongly indicate that he would take an aggressive personal agenda to the NLRB, and that he would pursue a personal agenda there, rather than that of the administration,” Nelson said in a statement. “This is of great concern, considering that the board’s main responsibility is to resolve labor disputes with an even and impartial hand."

Nelson, a conservative Democrat up for re-election in 2012, has seen his approval ratings drop sharply since he lent his support for Obama's health care bill in December and secured deals for Nebraska's Medicaid payments.

His latest decision could help him tout his independent credentials back home, but will likely generate anger from the left, which says Becker is a well-qualified nominee who has been denigrated by his opponents.

Republicans have tried to make Becker's nomination a referendum on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier to unionize. In his statement, Nelson said Becker has made several statements that "fly in the face of Nebraska’s Right to Work laws."


View Larger Map

Sources: Politico, Google Maps

Health Care Reform Now Rests On Harry Reid's Shoulders...Poor Guy

What to watch for in today's Health Care Reform debate



Nancy Pelosi did it. Can Harry Reid?

Two Saturdays ago, Pelosi passed health reform on a squeaker of a House vote. Today, Reid can’t spare a single Democrat as the Senate decides whether to start debate. If not, President Barack Obama’s reform hopes suffer immeasurable harm.

That said, things were looking good at daybreak, as Reid can be reasonably confident of 59 votes, with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) a yes vote and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) leaning yes. The holdout: Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who has been a fan of reform generally but faces a tough 2010 re-election fight.

In theory, Reid’s job should actually be easier than Pelosi’s. The House voted on final passage. Reid is just asking the Senate to begin debate. But the vote is more than that – it’s a test lab for the ideas, arguments and battle tactics that both sides will carry into an epic showdown over health reform next month.

The debate runs all day with the vote scheduled for 8 p.m. To cut through all the speechifying and straight to what matters, POLITICO offers these things to watch.

Harry Reid’s three-step.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is now a fully owned subsidiary of the Senate Majority Leader’s office and its fate and the political fortunes of its author are intimately intertwined. Reid needs to deliver reform.

“His entire political future is predicated on a campaign that ‘I get things done and I can get things done for this nation and Nevada,’” said Nevada political analyst and columnist Jon Ralston. “It really undermines that campaign if he can’t get it done.”

Reid’s decision to include a public insurance option was largely viewed as a political move to satisfy the labor unions and progressive activists he’ll need to campaign for him when he runs for re-election next year. That’s Harry Reid, the endangered Senate candidate.

But Reid comes to the chamber in two other roles. As Senate ringmaster, he’s trying to keep his diverse constituency safe and away from too-tough votes. But as White House point man, he’s trying to deliver Obama-style reform, on an Obama-style schedule, before the end of the year.

Those roles can conflict on the Senate floor. Already, the White House has signaled a preference for the “trigger” on a public option but Reid picked the plan with a state opt-out, arguably a more liberal version that could cause him trouble with moderates.

Listening to Lincoln

Look for Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson and fellow centrists to go to great lengths to explain how their vote is not a vote for reform, but simply an OK to talk about reform.

“If you don’t like the bill, then why would you block your own opportunity to amend it?” Nelson said earlier this week.

Aside from the obligatory nods to small-d democracy, the real clue to Harry Reid’s future headaches is what else they say. Expect to hear Nelson’s concerns about federal funding for abortions, Sen. Joe Lieberman’s stiff opposition to a public insurance plan and Landrieu’s worries about how the plan will affect small businesses.

Already, Lieberman and Nelson have said they’ll join Republicans in blocking the bill if their concerns aren’t met. Watch to see if any other moderates go that far Saturday.

And listen for how forcefully the centrists make their demands. Landrieu spoke up and got an extra $100 million in Medicaid funding sent to Louisiana.

But what will Lincoln say? She’s been cagey for months and has tried to calibrate her remarks – particularly on the public option – to avoid upsetting either side of the debate. Today’s her day to speak up and lay down the must-haves – part of the maze of moderate demands Reid must navigate before he can pass a bill.

The future Republican TV ads

In many ways, Saturday’s vote is the real kickoff to Campaign 2010 for the Senate. Republicans will begin sharpening their attacks into what will become familiar refrains over the next year should reform pass.

First off, Republicans will push back hard against Democrats “procedural” argument and call the vote an implicit endorsement of Reid’s bill. And they’ll say it greases reform’s path to final passage. A Congressional Research Service report found that over the past decade, 97 percent of the bills subject to a 60-vote threshold to begin debate eventually passed.

But health care reform plays into the larger GOP narrative of an Obama White House bent on wrapping its fingers around every industry and taxpayer until it has plucked every ounce of capitalism from the economy. So look for Republicans to cast the bill as a government takeover of health care that raises taxes and premiums on Americans while endangering seniors with drastic Medicare cuts.

“It's a quarter- trillion in Medicare cuts; between $400 billion and $500 billion in new taxes; and higher insurance premiums for 85 percent of the American people who already have health insurance. That's the core of the bill,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Friday.

One problem for Democrats – polls show a lot of the American people are worried about just that. So naturally, they’ll be highlighting the other parts of the bill that are surefire winners, like ending denials of coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Hot-button pushing

They are some of the debate’s most familiar and much-debated issues. The public option: government takeover of health care, or honest competitor to the private sector? Rationing: is it in the bill, or not?

Each issue has flared and then cooled in almost regular cycles throughout the year and a floor debate may spark any one of them again. Federal funding for abortions almost derailed reform in the House two weeks ago. So keep an eye out for new developments that could reignite these always-smoldering issues.

Charges of health-care rationing are likely to get a lot of play Saturday, as Republicans seize on confusing new guidelines for mammograms and pap smears to raise questions about government interference in health care.

And if there’s a contender in the Senate bill for a surprise last-minute fight, it could be immigration reform, as Reid put in tough language that bars illegal immigrants from buying health insurance in the exchange and bars legal immigrants from government health services for five years, measures that Hispanic Democrats oppose.

The Mainers

Don’t forget the two GOP senators from Maine who Democrats see as their best opportunity to bring a splash of Republican red to a very blue bill.

The spotlight has largely subsided since Sen. Olympia Snowe endorsed the Senate Finance Committee bill last month. But Reid and President Obama continue talking to Snowe and her colleague Sen. Susan Collins.

“The conversations have to translate into something specific,” Snowe said on Thursday, illustrating her frustration that the reform has only moved further left since October.

Democrats may get a better sense of just how much those talks have swayed the senators – if at all – should they take the mike today. Their comments over the past few days suggest it’s going to be a tough sell.

“When Americans understandably are so upset about the high cost of health care and when health insurance premiums are going up by double digits, making it so difficult for most Americans to afford health insurance, the last thing we should be doing is to make the situation worse,” Collins said in a Friday floor speech.

But here’s the twist – Obama has hinted to his fellow Democrats that he’s in favor of one thing that’s not in the Reid bill, a public option “trigger” that only kicks in if the private sector fails to expand coverage enough. It's a provision Snowe supports. If Reid can’t muster the votes for his version of a public option, the trigger could make a reappearance, and with it, the hunt for even a single GOP vote.





US House passes historic Health Care Reform bill


The House of Representatives passed legislation for the first time Saturday night that would provide health coverage to almost every American after nearly a century of false starts and un-kept campaign promises.

The final vote was 220-215. In all, 219 Democrats voted to approve the measure in a largely party-line vote, with 39 Democrats voting no. One Republican supported the bill, Rep. Joseph Cao (R-La.).

The bill has a steep cost – both in dollars, $1.2 trillion, and political capital – but Democrats hailed its passage as the next chapter in a governing legacy that produced Medicare and Social Security.

“Oh what a night,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi said moments after the vote, after fielding a congratulatory call from President Barack Obama. “Without President Obama in the White House, this victory would not have been possible. He provided the vision and the momentum for us to get the job done for the American people.”

Obama has made health care reform his signature legislative priority — and he put his personal prestige on the line Saturday by traveling to the Capitol to rally Democrats, telling them to “answer the call of history” by passing the bill.

In a written statement after the vote, Obama hailed the House bill as one that would “make real the promise of quality affordable health care for the American people.”

But Republicans were equally sweeping in their condemnation of the bill. “This is perhaps the worst bill I have seen come to the floor in my 11 years in Congress,” said Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan.

The bill includes fundamental changes to the American health care system – creating a public health insurance option to compete with private insurers and for the first time, requiring employers to offer health insurance.

The path ahead remains shaky – for the bill and for many of the Democrats who voted to approve it. Party leaders need to mend the bruised feelings that will linger from this debate before they can address whatever legislation the Senate can produce.

And in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid is still struggling to find 60 votes for Senate legislation and made clear he might not meet the White House’s Christmas deadline to pass a bill. Obama said in his statement, however, that he expects to sign a bill this year.

Fights over abortion, immigration and the size of the federal government exposed long-standing cultural and regional divides within the disparate Democratic caucus. A last-minute abortion fight left a particularly bitter taste in the mouth of Democratic women who spent the early part of their careers fighting for reproductive rights.

“People are furious,” said Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette.

After hours of negotiations with a group of abortion opponents, led by Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pelosi made a final painful sacrifice to pick up crucial support, allowing a vote on an amendment sponsored by Ellsworth and Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak that would bar any insurance company participating in the exchange program from covering the procedure.

Stupak’s amendment passed with a vote of 240 -194-1. Republican Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona was the one present vote.

On abortion, the two sides engaged in a fevered debate on the House floor hours before the House approved the overarching health care bill, with DeGette calling the amendment “a wolf in sheep’s clothing” and Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Pelosi ally, saying, “It attempts an unprecedented overreach.”

But in the end, Democrats, like DeGette, subverted their political prerogatives and personal anger for a bigger goal – providing health care to 96 percent of the country.

“I don't believe any of us believe we can hold up what we've been fighting for ... and that's health care," said Rules Committee Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who left her own chamber when the panel granted Stupak his vote.

The bill would expand coverage to 36 million uninsured Americans through a mix of subsidies and incentives and mandates on individuals and businesses. Under the plan, individuals would have to secure insurance through their employers or through an insurance exchange established by the bill. Authors set aside subsidies to help lower- and middle-income Americans who don’t qualify for Medicaid pay for that insurance.

In an effort to lower premiums across the marketplace, House Democrats would create a government insurance option to compete with private insurers that would operate in the exchange. And businesses with more than $500,000 in annual payroll would be required to cover their employees or pay a penalty of as much as 8 percent of the combined salaries.

Republicans oppose almost every aspect of the bill, from the cost to the requirements on individuals and small businesses. They characterized the creation of a so-called public plan as a “government takeover of the health care system.” And members of the minority malign the president and his congressional allies for failing to make a genuine effort at bipartisanship.

Republican Leader John Boehner called the requirement that individuals purchase insure "the most unconstitutional thing I've seen in my life."

The GOP is also gambling that voters will reward them for their unified opposition to the package. For months, Republicans have been chomping at the bit to hang this vote around the necks of vulnerable Democrats. The National Republican Congressional Committee chastised those who were on the fence and tore into anyone who publicly supported it. Throughout the floor debate Saturday night, Republicans referred to the bill as “The Pelosi Plan,” in a bid to tar the legislation with her label.

The vote amounts to a big win for Pelosi and her leadership team. Her No. 2, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), spent much of the year patiently working the caucus, and a roster of supporting players ushered the bill through three committees of jurisdiction and two turbulent months of internal negotiations that produced the final bill.

Pelosi and her team got a big push Saturday morning from Obama, who steered clear of legislative details to focus on the historic impact of the vote, comparing the reform push to the establishment of Social Security and Medicare – and reminding Democrats that both were criticized by those who predicted they would eventually lead to the country's collapse.

Obama also reminded them that voting no on the health care bill wouldn’t insulate them from Republican attacks anyway.

“Remember why you got into politics in the first place and when you do, remember we can’t afford to let this moment pass,” Obama told Democrats during a 30-minute speech in the Cannon Caucus Room Saturday morning, according to the notes of one attendee. “When I’m in the Rose Garden signing a piece of legislation to give health care to all Americans, we’ll look back and say that was our finest moment.”

Congressional Democrats echoed their president all day Saturday by highlighting the historic context of this vote.

Michigan Rep. John Dingell, who presided over Medicare’s passage in 1965 and whose father first introduced universal health care in 1943, presided over debate again from the speaker’s chair. Pelosi and others invoked Ted Kennedy’s name repeatedly. And Democrats were quick to remind each other that Saturday was the third anniversary of the 2006 election, when they bounced Republicans from power for the first time in 12 years.

When Dingell closed, he hobbled from the podium back to his seat as his colleagues rose in applause. He then exchanged a hug with Pelosi, and Hoyer came from his seat to shake his hand.

But the day belonged to Pelosi. The speaker spent months leaning on her members to iron out their issues. And the ever-practical former whip abandoned her own priorities when the votes weren’t there on abortion and a stronger version of government-sponsored insurance.

The speaker, in resplendent red, got a surprise Saturday when her grandkids made an unexpected visit to the Capitol as she scrambled to corral the final votes she needs for this historic bill. Her two grandsons ran through the hallways of her office as she called wavering Democrats, an aide said. At least one member could hear them in the background as Pelosi tried to secure that lawmaker’s vote.

“For nearly a century, leaders of every party and political philosophy – as far back as Teddy Roosevelt - have called for health care for the American people,” Pelosi said. “For generations, the American people have called for affordable, quality health care for their families. Today, the call will be answered.”



View Larger Map

Sources: Politico, Google Maps