Senate Health Care Bill Facing The Death Panel?

It's the Perils of Pelosi and Reid - the NY Times is suddenly overcome with gloom about prospects for the Senate health care bill.  Check this progression of headlines:

Tuesday, the process is chugging along:

Liberal Senators Press for Expansion of Medicare

Wednesday we see a triumphant headline about Reid's 'deal':

Reid Says Deal Resolves the Impasse on the Public Option

Careful readers can find this seemingly rhetorical nod to the possibility of trouble in paradise:

A bill approved last month by the House calls for a government-run health plan. So even if Senate Democrats reach consensus and pass their bill, they would not have the last word.

"Even if"?  C'mon, this bill is too big too fail, isn't it?  Well, by Thursday, maybe not:

Senate Democrats See Hope on Health Bill

They see hope?   They better be seeing hope or there will be a change in the Senate leadership.  Let's wallow in the gloom:

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats said on Wednesday that they were not sure exactly what was in a deal that the majority leader said would surmount a disagreement over a proposed government-run health plan. But they voiced guarded optimism that it would ultimately help them pass major health care legislation.

...

In the floor fight over the health care proposal, now 10 days old, Senate Republicans continued their efforts to torpedo the bill, citing polls that they said showed mounting public opposition. And Democrats, rather than trying to perfect the bill, seemed intent primarily on just keeping it alive.

“Any big agreement is progress,” said Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania. “Even if we do not know any of the details.”

Keep hope alive!

The majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, on Wednesday sent the tentative proposal to the Congressional Budget Office for cost analysis, and Democrats acknowledged that the bill’s fate hinged on the results. In that sense, the deal was less a comprehensive accord than a decision to keep the process moving.

Mr. Reid described the broad outline of the plan at an hourlong meeting of his caucus late Wednesday afternoon. But as they emerged from the session, many senators, including some who helped broker the agreement, said that they had learned little and that there were many outstanding concerns.

“General concepts, but nothing very specific at all,” said Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, who was in the group of 10.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said: “There was no explanation. It was sort of go team, go.”

It's fate hinges on the CBO!  Reid doesn't have a deal, he has a desperate attempt to keep the process alive!  Such drama, and so suddenly.

My guess - Congress needs a bill to avoid a rout in 2010.  Obama, on the other hand, needs a bill by 2012, in the same way that Bill Clinton needed welfare reform prior to his re-election bid.

So - Obama will provide modest rhetorical cover to Congressional efforts and will certainly sign anything they send him, but he is done with the big speeches promoting a bill that is even less popular than he is.  Of course, his silence may not hurt; it certainly does not appear that his speaking has helped.

Pelosi and Reid are on their own - they can ride the wave of Congressional approval without Obama's help (Nancy, needless to say, is on the left in this pic; good luck, Congresscritters!).

Comments

[clarice]

As Jane notes already 20% of Americans want Obama impeached. The breakdown is at LUN

As for Cap & Trade it is in worse shape. And as far as the effort to blackmail Congress by saying the Administration will impose a cap thru regs..frontpage argues persuasively, let the EPA bring it on:

It would be nice for the GOP to go after this full throttle though probably Sarah will have to lead them (again)

http://frontpagemag.com/2009/12/10/how-to-stop-cap-and-trade-by-rich-trzupek/

[Jim Ryan]

Rush said Webb might vote against the bill. Anyone have any dope on that?

[anduril]

Congress needs a bill to avoid a rout in 2010.

Congress needs to pass a wildly unpopular bill to avoid a rout? What am I missing? My guess is that passage of a bill may LEAD to a 2010 rout.

Obama, on the other hand, needs a bill by 2012, in the same way that Bill Clinton needed welfare reform prior to his re-election bid.

Let's see. Welfare reform was wildly popular with conservatives and independents, leading to enough independent support to get Clinton re-elected. Obamacare is wildly popular with the hard left and wildly unpopular with independents. Exactly how does passage of this bill help Obama get re-elected when he needs AT LEAST strong independent support--which is tanking BECAUSE OF Obamacare.

[narciso]

You would think Webb, making such a big deal of his hardy Scotch Irish forebearers, would be an easy mark against this bill. But he has
been a doctrinaire lib on the stimulus, health
care, hopefully cap n trade would be a deviation, but I doubt it

[Old Lurker]

Just haggling over the price, Jim, just haggling.

[Neo]

Speaking of "death panels" ...

Nielsen Business Media made the decision to cease operations for Editor & Publisher and Kirkus Reviews.

[Neo]

I saw that 10% of Democrats want Obama impeached last night .. too funny.

[Neo]

Congress needs a bill to avoid a rout in 2010.

There was a poll out a couple of weeks ago that show that the Congressional Democrats were screwed no matter what happened. If it passed .. death, if it failed .. death.

This is a Congress of "Dead Men Walking"
... and they said Social Security was the "3rd rail"

This now looks like "24" with bad writers.

[Clarice]

Wow, Neo, the death of that carp-azine editor and publisher touches my heartstrings.

[narciso]

Or last season's of '24, which amounts to the same thing. I'm having a bear at the sound of that decision by NBM

[Neo]

If it passed .. death, if it failed .. death.

If I were a gambling Democrat, I would have found a way to push it aside as quickly as possible, figuring that most Democrats have nowhere to go (but home to mama) and hope I can lure back some independents by Election Day.

The longer this goes on the more those commonfolk, who ignore most everything political, will start to notice that something bad is headed their way. I've run into a few of them. If you can get their attention and give them particulars, they gasp.

At this point, though, I'm not sure there is much more for the Republicans to milk from this tired cow. My guess is that Democrats are drawing straws to see who will vote to let cloture fail, all of them hoping it will be Lieberman.

[Theo]

The Democrats have convinced themselves that they need a bill -- any bill -- or they look incompetent. The left's talking points are best summarized by Nate Silver's headline -- "Damned If They Do And Damnder If They Don't." I think that they are damned either way. The public will not give them credit for NOT passing a bill they hate after pushing it hard for a year.
My question is why would moderate Dems give the liberals something in exchange for the public option? It has to be a fear that the liberals would walk away from the bill unless they get something else.....If only....

[Neo]

Obama is convinced that they need a bill -- any bill -- or he looks incompetent.

They are afraid of him.

[Porchlight]

Oh, you guys, I want to be optimistic on this, but I've been burned so many times before.

They do sound like they're running out of steam.

[centralcal]

Bye Bye E&P - don't let the door hit ya on the way out!!! You will not be missed.

[Jane]

I agree Porch. I think the bill is toast - and I know I'm very far out on a limb.

[Rick Ballard]

"that show that the Congressional Democrats were screwed no matter what happened"

Purty much. The client base of the Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus seems pretty restive and the fear and loathing of the two groups by "moderate" Dems seems to be increasing. The Muddle doesn't like the taste of their cud much and appears amenable to an amble through the gate to the other side of the fence - even though there is not currently much there.

I believe that the utter incompetence of Barry the Buffoon and those surrounding him is being exploited fairly well. I appreciate Sarah attracting the slings and arrows of the slobbering idiots who think Alinksyite tactics will work forever and I'm rather curious as to whether the reluctance of any other opposition leader to take a loud public stand is a workable piece of strategery.

IOW - if the Reps drown this bad seed of a bill without hanging a bulls eye on any particular Rep Senator it will screw up the Alinskyite playbook. That mirrors the Buffoon's "above the fray" tactic.

[Jane]

This is something I can get really excited about.

Andrew Breitbart's new venture.

[daddy]

I sure hope you guys are right about this Health Care thing dying in the Senate, but last night caught Senator Begich calling in to the Dan Fagan Show, and Begich certainly sounded positive.

Begich had all the talking points down well and presented them fluidly, with homilies about talking to our Alaskan elderly, and how the Freshmen Senators are principled and will in no way vote for a bad plan etc, but the bottom line in my opinion is Begich will vote yes for anything to pass Health Care.

Was interesting listening to the skeptical host get Begich to admit, after Begich said he was opposed to a public option, that in the past he said the Public Option was not a deal breaker for his yes vote. Begich grudgingly admitted it, but said now it didn't matter since Reid's option is out.
"What if it gets put back in in Committee? asked the Host.
Well, we'll have to look at it then but we're principled etc, blah, blah, blah was basically Begich's response.

Begich also said that if it does get down to the stage where only a 50 vote majority can pass it, that it won't pass and he won't vote for it because he and the Freshmen Senator's are again too principled to vote for such a thing and have so stated. I'm sure we'll all take that to the bank.

Last, Begich said passing Health Care would lower costs, then immediately corrected himself to saying it would not raise costs, then immediately corrected himself to saying well yeah it would raise costs but then costs would stabilize and no longer raise like they are now or have in the past, so it's a good idea whose time has come.

Disingenuousness from start to finish, and apparently the interview undertaken as long as the topic of Begich skipping town while Mayor and secretly saddling the following Administration with a secret 30 Million dollar shortfall was not brought up---that topic was not to be resurrected, probably because it would shine a light on his previous track record of lying straightface to the public about the cost of things while leaving it to successors to have to deal with.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Self-servingly off-topic: you can hear me on Melisssa Clouthier's podcast here.

[Clarice]

Drudge reporting Reid has asked the Reps for the weekend off as he has a fund raiser..So much for the urgency of this.

[centralcal]

Jane: You beat me to it.

E&P closing up shop. Breitbart about to launch Big Journalism:

Big Journalism will be run by former Time Magazine staffer Michael Walsh, who is also a former journalism professor and film & television professor at Boston University. Walsh and Breitbart met at a casual gathering of like-minded people and hit it off. When Breitbart made the decision to launch a new site covering journalism, he says that Walsh was first person that came to his mind. The fact that Walsh is a media veteran going back to the early 70s didn’t hurt, he said.

Walsh and Breitbart share a similar distaste for the day-to-day work of “institutional journalists.” In an interview, the new editor of Big Journalism boiled down the mission of the site thusly: “Our goal at Big Journalism is to hold the mainstream media’s feet to the fire. There are a lot of stories that they simply don’t cover, either because it doesn’t fit their world view, or because they’re literally innocent of any knowledge that the story even exists, or because they are a dying organization, short-staffed, and thus can’t cover stuff like they did before.”

“Big Journalism will be the go-to site for solidly backed-up stories, sharp points of view, and really great writing,” he said. “We are defenders of the First Amendment and resolute enemies of political correctness. That’s the key to the site’s philosophy.”

[Clarice]

Wow--
" Big Journalism is the next “big” thing, it’s only one part of what Breitbart hopes will become a much larger empire. He plans, in the not-too-distant future, to unveil new sites as part of his “Big” network, including Big Education, Big Tolerance, Big Jerusalem, and Big Peace, among others. Each site will be a mix of aggregation and group blogging. "

Breitbart's a genius and this is exactly what the center-right needs to get things on a more even playing field.

[narciso]

I really hate Alinsky, since I've come to know of him and his tactics. He borrows from
Machiavelli and Sun Tzu adds the Leninist phillip common to that profile by Pipes. Much like that poster, cited earlier, she is learning about those tactics in a crash course, but it is unleavened by the amorality of the original/

[Clarice]

Daddy, thanks to you we know exactly how principled he is.

[Janet]

God bless Andrew Breitbart.

[narciso]

Daddy, the only thing noticeably Alaskan about Begich, is that Eskimo tradition of putting the elderly on ice floes, which is
right in line with the health care bill

[anduril]

Megan McArdle: The Healthcare Polling Data That Has Democrats So Freaked Out.

After the nice graph:

For reform advocates, this is not good news. At 40% approval, it probably passes. At 30% approval--what Social Security reform enjoyed by the time it imploded--it's not going to no matter how the Senate massages their plan. Democrats cannot pass a bill this large on a straight party line vote if the only people in the country who want it are Democrats. Where is the line crossed between "probably will" and "probably won't"? In September, a seasoned political reporter told me that the numbers could not go "much lower" before Democrats were forced to abandon the bill. Well, it's lower--and the disapproval is spiking.

...

A new poll out from PPP may shed some light on the issue. They're a Democratic-affiliated outfit, so they can hardly be accused of stacking the polls. Their poll, like everyone else's, shows support in a continued, slow collapse. In September, they polled it at 45% for and 46% against, while the latest poll says 39% for, 52% against. More interestingly, they asked a variant of the question Nate examined, and got very different results:

Are you opposed because it gets government too involved in health care or because it would not involve government enough?

Too much government involvement: 90%

Not enough government involvement: 6%

Not sure: 4%

All the polls I've seen show that the independents are already heavily in the "against" camp, and steadily moving further in that direction. I don't see this rallying many troops to the Congressional front lines.

[Porchlight]

Good for Breitbart. I agree this is exactly what we need. Thank goodness he came along when he did.

[Extraneus]

I didn't get the impression from his comments that this POLITICO article's headline was accurate.

Lieberman's encouraged

Here's an example:

Lieberman remains open to a proposal to allow people from 55 to 64 to buy coverage under Medicare, but warned, "We must remain vigilant about protecting and extending the solvency of the program, which is now in a perilous financial condition."

Does that sound like he's encouraged or like a prelude to a NAY?

[Frau Skeptisch]

daddy's report is probably the way this is going. It will be voted through so the "exhausted" politicians can all go home to enjoy the holidays (...and tell themselves that no matter what happens in 2010, they and their families will continue to enjoy that life-time pension and *special* federal employee health insurance).

[Porchlight]

Thanks anduril for that excerpt - I hadn't seen the PPP question broken down like that. Obamacare supporters had hoped that some people were opposing it because it didn't go far enough in the single payer direction. Clearly, that's not the case.

Anyone think Obama has telegraphed to Harry and Nancy that he's willing to withdraw to fight another day? I can't believe Reid is so confident he has the votes that he's willing to jet off to Louisiana for a fundraiser.

[anduril]

Sorry if the excerpt was a bit brief.

[Extraneus]

"I look forward to analyzing the details of the plan and reviewing analysis from the Congressional Budget Office and the Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid." - Lieberman

Kinda sounds like he's a NAY no matter what they do with the public option.

[Extraneus]

Heh, anduril.

[Frau Skeptisch]

It seems the Democrats are not allowed to see the negative polls.

[Theo]

New CNN poll might really kill health care bill. We shall see if Harry has any more tricks....

[fdcol63]

My fear is that all this hoopla over sweeping, omnibus legislation for "healthcare reform" and "cap & tax" are simply loud diversions which they are willing to sacrifice, while they quietly pass a bunch of smaller, more numerous "stealth" bills that accomplish their nefarious goals anyway.

[Theo]

Here is the link to the new poll:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/10/rel18h.pdf

[anduril]

Four stories that all spell trouble for the Dems, and for Obama:

The Death Month is Coming: A Crushing Unemployment Number Is Due Out February 4, 2010

The Death Month. That would be January, and after a lousy Christmas spending season this won't go down well.

Obama's Big Wall Street Sellout

This is the Rolling Stone speaking:

Virtually all of the Rubinites brought in to manage the economy under Obama share the same fundamental political philosophy carefully articulated for years by the Hamilton Project: Expand the safety net to protect the poor, but let Wall Street do whatever it wants. "Bob Rubin, these guys, they're classic limousine liberals," says David Sirota, a former Democratic strategist. "These are basically people who have made shitloads of money in the speculative economy, but they want to call themselves good Democrats because they're willing to give a little more to the poor. That's the model for this Democratic Party: Let the rich do their thing, but give a fraction more to everyone else."

Even the members of Obama's economic team who have spent most of their lives in public office have managed to make small fortunes on Wall Street. The president's economic czar, Larry Summers, was paid more than $5.2 million in 2008 alone as a managing director of the hedge fund D.E. Shaw, and pocketed an additional $2.7 million in speaking fees from a smorgasbord of future bailout recipients, including Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. At Treasury, Geithner's aide Gene Sperling earned a staggering $887,727 from Goldman Sachs last year for performing the punch-line-worthy service of "advice on charitable giving." Sperling's fellow Treasury appointee, Mark Patterson, received $637,492 as a full-time lobbyist for Goldman Sachs, and another top Geithner aide, Lee Sachs, made more than $3 million working for a New York hedge fund called Mariner Investment Group. The list goes on and on. Even Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who has been out of government for only 30 months of his adult life, managed to collect $18 million during his private-sector stint with a Wall Street firm called Wasserstein-Perella.

The point is that an economic team made up exclusively of callous millionaire-assholes has absolutely zero interest in reforming the gamed system that made them rich in the first place. "You can't expect these people to do anything other than protect Wall Street," says Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Republican from Florida.

I think I see a circular firing squad forming, made up exclusively of liberals. (Heh, gotta luv that line about EVEN people who spent their lives in public office getting filthy rich--how naive are these lefty populists, anyway?)

Balancing the Budget: Should Obama try to create more jobs or lower the deficit?

TNR doesn't speak demagouguese like Rolling Stone, but they're plenty worried:

The basic problem is that any additional stimulus adds to the deficit, while deficit reduction steps on a weak economy. And so Democrats now find themselves having to pull off a balancing act that would seem to defy the laws of economics: taking on both tasks simultaneously.

Not to mention that they've spent their time in control bailing out the UAW and Wall Street cronies, trying to crush business with Cap and Trade and--speaking of the deficit--plunging an already debt bloated economy further into a fiscal swamp with the slow motion train wreck that's Obamacare.

And as Megan McArdle pointed out, and now Bob Tyrell, the public is starting to realize:

Government Giveth and Taketh Away

Face the facts: the Democrats' healthcare savings are actually healthcare denials to those who have been counting on those services for years.

Government does not keep its promises. Yet government is the Democrats' solution to practically all our current problems. Many Americans who have followed the healthcare debate are increasingly aware of this. The longer the healthcare debate continues, the more aware Americans will be that they are about to be cheated out of the healthcare that they now have.

[fdcol63]

The first 15 seconds of this video sums up the Dems right now. Despite the polls and the public anger over health reform, they've deluded themselves into believing their own "daily affirmations".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvgMIerTXl4

[matt]

Went to the doctor last night, and I asked him how he felt about the health care bill. His response was profane and utterly against it.

I asked why, and he pointed out that among many other reasons first, the insurance companies will use it as an excuse, partially correct,to jack rates much higher in order to cover preexisting conditions.

Second, he said that what will be offered to the uninsured is Medicaid, which most doctors in California will not accept. So the uninsured will be issued the crappiest possible policy at the highest possible cost.

[Neo]

I suggest a "steel cage death match" with George Soros against Charles and David Koch "tag-team."

[sbw]

E&P died of the disease it couldn't see or bring itself to cover.

[matt]

there is also going to be a stealth increase the most of us don't realize yet. When the insurance companies raise rates to cover preexisting conditions and whatever other malarkey the Senate tries to throw in, it will bump most policies into the "Cadillac" plan category, so we can all be taxed. LUN

[Theo]

Here is the Left's calculus:

The healthcare reform bill is wildly unpopular. Does that mean that the Democrats should walk away from it? No, not according to the Left. They say that what is imperative to the survival of Democratic Congress critters is that PEOPLE STOP TALKING ABOUT THE BILL AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

There are two ways to do this. One is pass the damn thing. The other is walk away from it. Either way, the Democrats hope, the public will have forgotten its anger by next November. (If it passes, nothing much happens right away. If it fails, there is even less to keep talking about.)

From the Left's perspective, passing it makes more sense politically.If it is passed, while the public will not be happy, the base will be pleased and will contribute and campaign and vote.

If it is abandoned, no one will be happy except Republicans who were not going to vote for the Democrats anyway. If it is dropped, the public will not forgive the Democrats who have already cast votes in favor of it and are already "pregnant" and the Left will be furious and withhold their love and their money.

So, the reasoning goes, pass it and pass it now.

For the same reasons, the Republican strategy is delay, delay and delay. The longer this goes on the better for Republicans.

Harry has to try to put a passable deal together on the fly. This deal must pass or not pass this month.

We will see which it is......

[Jane]

The Breitbart thing is really big I think. I've been trying to watch both CNN and MSNBC for a couple of minutes a day (all I can stand) and what I am left with every time, particularly on CNN, is how vapid they are. It's all Tiger and the woman in italy, and not climate gate or N Korea. I can't imagine anyone who actually wanted news and not talking points wouldn't tune into FOX.

At any rate when Breitbart starts exposing the cabal of lefty journalists the public's confidence in the press will plummet even further. My bet is the next big cable news channel will actually be to the right of Fox.

[daddy]

About Editor & Publisher shutting down and Breitbart's Big Journalism taking off.

Fascinating isn't it. A perfect example of the Freemarket system at work. Here we have essentially 2 different media mouthpieces with essentially the same mission---honestly reporting upon the American Media. One of them, E&P is going down the toilet, obviously because the public refuses to pay for how miserably it performs it's mission, while the other, BIG Journalism is going to go gangbusters, because the public is dying to pay for it to honestly accomplish it's mission.

Yet if we turn this over to a Government bailout of the Media, we can rest assured that E&P would somehow hang on just fine on the Public dole, while Big Journo would fail to get a license to operate because of Minority Ownership legalisms or lack of approved Journo degree's from some Govt approved J-School etc. Certainly appears to me to be a stark example of the advantage of the Free Market system.

And that reminds me to explain what I was frightened about 2 days back about my comment about the CBS Radio guy talking about the leaked Airport Screening Guides. When he said that the stolen Security stuff was still downloadable on a few websites that weren't controlled by the Government, he said it as if he took it for granted that the Government ought to have control over all web-sites in this country. That's the part that scared the Dicken's out of me.

Yea Breitbart. Way to go Andrew.

[narciso]

Even down here, despite the total flacking that the Sun Sentinel and the Herald, have done exalting the One, which would make 1980s
Pravda and Xinhua blanch, even Charmin' Charlie is having to pull a "Gibson" Barack Obama never heard of him. Now as for the Democratic side of the primary, the cries of acclamation are coming few and far between.

[Ignatz]

If Obamacare crashes and burns as Hillarycare did will it be seen as the new gun control issue for the Dems, ie; a third rail they continually want to touch even though the voters kill them for it when they try?

[Theo]

Interesting observation Jane. I think that the data shows that MSNBC has actually gained viewers by doing non stop liberal flack pieces. CNN is dying fast. I think the reason is that intelligent viewers generally have a point of view and want real news. I think the next cable news network will be blatantly opinionated but not necessarily conservative. Maybe some kind of aggressively moderate stance between Fox and MSNBC....

[Buford Gooch]

Can someone please see that TM gets this message. I'm sure this tool would be of value to him.

There is a new tool available on the web for free from a company that almost all US spy agencies use, many other government analysts use, and which is now in use by many financial analysts. It allows the educated layman to analyze government expenditures in terms of who is getting them, and the backgrounds of the people and organizations involved.

Please take a look at: https://analyzethe.us/ I think you will find this a very useful tool, and I hope that, after using it yourself, you will recommend it to other bloggers. The only connection I have to the company is that my son works there.

This is a pretty new site. The word really hasn't spread much.

[MarkButter in SoCal]

A couple of points to remember: A few weeks back when Clinton went to the Senate and said the '94 shellacking was because they didn't pass a healthcare bill. I believe his point was if the Dems pass one, they won't get clobbered in 2010. And if you do get clobbered, big deal, you made history. Plus, if you think you're going to get clobbered, might as well make history.

Leiberman is an outlier, but I get the feeling, whether it's lib or mod Dems, that they are waiting for one or two Senators to say I'm not voting for it no matter what and there will be a stampede of others that will follow.

The bulk of them are just waiting for someone to step out first (and get run over by the Moveon.org/MSNBC/etc.) so all the focus is on that person(s). In doing so, though they didin't want to be the first, they can go home and tell the folks that they "felt it wasn't the best time nor bill to do it" and thereby help their re-election cause.

[Porchlight]

Leiberman is an outlier, but I get the feeling, whether it's lib or mod Dems, that they are waiting for one or two Senators to say I'm not voting for it no matter what and there will be a stampede of others that will follow.

This is what I think (hope), too. Will it happen in time?

[Neo]

When I last tuned in Joy Behar on MSDNC, she looked to be doing a liberal version of "Red Eye" but she is just too .. well she's not the brightest bulb in the box and 7 cans short of a 6-pack.

[Porchlight]

Here's the gist of the new CNN poll Theo mentioned above:

and

[Neo]

I think CNN could benefit from a steady stream of "real news" or at least the stately type of News that goes with Presidential trips etc.
Unfortunately, Obama keeps the gates closed so tight, that even the brown nosers at CNN can't get enough good stuff to keep viewers watching.

Even Gibbs, who looks more like Peter Griffin of "Family Guy" than any one I know, just doesn't keep up the stuffy feel of royalty to make the "Calelot" of today be believable.

[Neo]

Porchlight: That's a pretty thin poll

[Buford Gooch]

Gibbs looks and talks like Tweety Bird.

[anduril]

From the Left's perspective, passing it makes more sense politically.If it is passed, while the public will not be happy, the base will be pleased and will contribute and campaign and vote.

I agree re the Left--Blue State Dems. I disagree re Red State Dems, and there are a fair number of those. Demographics for those states are quite different, and support for Obamacare, I'll wager, quite scant. The Left can't pass this themselves, which is what all the delay is about.

[Porchlight]

Sorry, those images looked great in preview! Here's a PDF of the poll - questions #12 and #13 are the ones I was trying to show.

[narciso]

Neo, that's HLN, and that's competing with a test pattern.

[Neo]

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday, 40 percent of people questioned say the U.S. would be better off if Democrats ran Congress while 39 percent feel things would be better if Republicans took charge on Capitol Hill. The 1-point margin is a statistical tie.

Support for Democrats is down from a 10-point advantage in August and a 25-point margin in January.

Allahpundit adds .. Remember, the generic ballot among registered voters on election day 1994 was dead even at 46.

[Mustang0302]

"...aggressively moderate..."

Theo, how about:

Violently passive.

Furiously useless.

Enthusiastically ignorant.

Viciously gentle.

An oldie but a goodie:

Q: Why did the community organizer cross the road?

A: To subvert the other side.

[Neo]

Rasmussen has Specter beating Sestak 48%/35%.

I hate Sestak. As a matter of fact, the only thing worse that Obama as POTUS would be Sestak as POTUS.

Toomey leads Specter 46%/42%

[Neo]

Gasp !! ObamaCare lost 10-12 points in 3 weeks

At this rate, by the time the "death" update comes in Feb, ObamaCare will be a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

I blame this on Harry Reid ... no I don't.
This is Obama failing to lead.
Chance Obama .. life imitating art.

[Theo]

I agree generally with MarkButter....I think no one Democrat wants to be the one who "killed" healthcare reform. There are several who are eyeing each other and the Medicare buy-in and deciding if they can get company in opposition. Reid of course is trying to stampede everyone by telling horror stories if the bill does not pass. He is bound to drop the trigger deal if need be. Can he afford to drop the buy in? Will he need to?

[Neo]

China add a "poison pill" to Climate talks ...

COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .

"Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture," said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.

[matt]

Specter just had an op/ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer that should seal he verdict on his senility.

In it, he explains his position against the surge in Afghanistan. To him it's all about Al Quaeda and he makes no connection between them and the Taliban or Islamic fundamentalism in any form.

Or to the massive narcotics trade that is funding both the Taliban and Al Quaeda. The man is a senile old fool.

[narciso]

Oh, Sestak he's like the Navy version of Wesley Clark. enough said on that.

[bunky]

Sestak was so bad he was relieved from one of his big Navy jobs.

[Ranger]

Well, if ObamaCare passes, everyone with Medicare Advantage is going to lose that coverage. My guess they will remember that fact for the next 11 months. I can't think of anything more politically stupid that killing the most popular and successful part of the current health care system for the elderly.

[Theo]

Ranger -- I take your point. The Left however hopes that you are wrong. It's the only argument that they really have to whip the Democrats into passing an unpopular bill. The thing that the leadership fears most is delay. The Democrats just have to get the focus onto something else. They have told their members that dropping it now will not save them. They have to either hope that people forget or they might as well get hung for a sheep as a goat.

[Neo]

Sestak was so bad ..

I caught a Navy site back a couple of years ago and they called him a "bully" who drove those under him real hard.
I've heard that he has problems keeping staff on the Hill because he drives them so hard.

[Neo]

Harry Reid canceled his fundraiser.

[peter]

I don't trust Lieberman. My $0.02.

[Old Lurker]

Anduril: "Sorry if the excerpt was a bit brief."

Gotta admit, that was very funny.

Jane: I will go out on the opposite limb on your tree. The Senate will pass it. Conference will combine the worst aspects of both and it will pass. I don't trust 40 senators to stop it. But I hope you are right and my limb is sawn off.

[tailgunner]

Democrats are liars and deceivers.

Nothing they say can be taken as the truth.

Reporting their lies as legitimate news wastes our time.

[anduril]

Old Lurker, c'mon--why so grudging? You had to admit it? Even Nazi's have some good qualities! I've even heard it said that the Fuehrer was a fabulous dancer. :-)

[Extraneus]

Geeze, now I'm picturing him up against Tom Delay on Dancing With The Stars. (Go Tom!)

[Old Lurker]

And he loved German Shepards too, so I see your point, Anduril. And golly, your post at 5:41 was only three lines, so perhaps there is hope for you!

[Charlie (Colorado)]

I've even heard it said that the Fuehrer was a fabulous dancer.

that would have been before the bomb.

[Elliott]

Don't forget the housepainting. One day, two coats!

[PaulL]

Matt,

Should we go to war against England since their addicts are responsible for the demand that creates the market for poppies grown by Afghanis that fund the Taliban that is joined with al-Qaeda?

[Old Lurker]

...and the watercolors, Elliott.

[Janet]

I liked this point...via Instapundit about 44% preferring W -

From the comments: “I think the point of the comparison is this: Bush endured 8 years of wall-to-wall, 24/7 liberal bashing from multiple networks. Meanwhile, Obama was coronated and has enjoyed wall-to-wall adoration from the same multiple networks. If Obama’s numbers, 11 months in, already approach Bush’s after EIGHT years, then, baby, you’ve got serious problems.”

[Rick Ballard]

OL,

Seen this one? The retail BKs in January are going to be phenomenal. I keep thinking about the mom and pop shops folding - no unemployment and they don't even show up in the statistics.

[daddy]

Well if the Senate would consider paying for this new anti-cancer treatment reported in The New Scotsmen Newspaper, I think myself and a few others here might just be at risk of having our opinions swayed: ">http://news.scotsman.com/health/Beer-could-be-the-new.5894530.jp"> Beer could be the new weapon against cancer.

[anduril]

One day, two coats!

Good point. Had they invented rollers for wall painting back then? I do like to think I'm pretty handy with a paint brush--freehand woodwork painting without tape or that other sissy paraphernalia.

[Captain Hate]

Just more evidence that beer is evidence that God loves us and wants us to live healthy and happy.

[Ignatz]

--Just more evidence that beer is evidence...--

At first I thought I was going to have to down a few to comprehend that sentence CH.

[anduril]

Wow, daddy--works for men and women both! The catch? There is none! The wonder working substance is contained in the hops so I have to drink my favorite high hop IPA! I wonder what the optimal dose is?

[anduril]

Coffee too:

Harvard researchers are finding an intriguing link between coffee and the prevention of an aggressive type of prostate cancer. Prostate cancer kills 27,000 men annually. So this research comparing the history of thousands and thousands of men raises the possibility of a simple and effective prevention in this deadly disease.

The researchers discovered that men who drank six or more cups of coffee a day had a 60 percent lower risk developing the advanced form of the disease when compared to men who drank no coffee at all.

Even men who drank just one to three cups are showed a lower risk, about 20 percent, of developing the aggressive cancer…

[Extraneus]

And he loved German Shepards too

Gave one a few pats just to offset that. (She's a good dancer, too.)

[Danube of Thought]

I am beginning to entertain the hope that they won't get anything passed, although I don't have a clue as to how the endgame will play out. There is such a uniformity in the various polls showing pretty substantial majority opposition to this thing; perhaps they're hoping that the CBO will hand them their cyanide pill in a few days.

If the thing gets defeated on the basis of cost, that's good enough for me--I'll take anything we can get. But I sure would like to hear at least one Republican give a stemwinder saying that the real problem with this whole thing is that it will permanently and fundamentally change the relationship between every American citizen and the government.

[Rob Crawford]

But I sure would like to hear at least one Republican give a stemwinder saying that the real problem with this whole thing is that it will permanently and fundamentally change the relationship between every American citizen and the government.

Which is why Democrats are willing to die on this hill. They may pay with their jobs -- for an election or two -- but once it's passed, they know they or their heirs will be back.

[Old Lurker]

Thanks for that link, Rick. Yes, the retail stress is very real and January is the crunch time for sure. That is my world as a landlord of neighborhood shopping centers. I know my tenants well and feel their pain as they struggle to pay their bills (and their rent). I find myself sorting them into categories of deserving help from me, and not, and that is hard. Most people have no idea how hard these mom and pops work to make those small businesses work, and how close to the edge they are in times like.

Our national tenants are a bigger problem. They tend to game the system more, communicate less, and run to Ch 11 as soon as they can. Then they stay open, pay no rent, and tick me off. Spent today dealing with one doing exactly that. Those are the ones who use Christmas to get as much cash in as they can, and then declare BK in Jnauary...which is why your comment is so valid this year.

[Frau Skeptisch]

"One day, two coats!"

No rollers and the trim was done with high gloss oil enamel. A drip and you were shot, er, fired!

[Old Lurker]

Mine just turned 12, Ext. Deaf as a post. We usually have two, four or five years apart...but Mrs. L has been claiming "no more Germans! I need a smaller dog!" so we are down to one and negotiating. I email her pictures of German puppies to wear her down. We do love them.

[anduril]

Kim Strassel has a very interesting take on the EPA Rule:

President Obama, having failed to get climate legislation, didn't want to show up to the Copenhagen climate talks with a big, fat nothing. So the EPA pulled the pin. In doing so, it exploded its own threat.

Far from alarm, the feeling sweeping through many quarters of the Democratic Congress is relief. Voters know cap-and-trade is Washington code for painful new energy taxes. With a recession on, the subject has become poisonous in congressional districts. Blue Dogs and swing-state senators watched in alarm as local Democrats in the recent Virginia and New Jersey elections were pounded on the issue, and lost their seats.

But now? Hurrah! It's the administration's problem! No one can say Washington isn't doing something; the EPA has it under control. The agency's move gives Congress a further excuse not to act.

"The Obama administration now owns this political hot potato," says one industry source. "If I'm [Nebraska Senator] Ben Nelson or [North Dakota Senator] Kent Conrad, why would I ever want to take it back?"

All the more so, in Congress's view, because the EPA "command and control" threat may yet prove hollow. Now that the endangerment finding has become reality, the litigation is also about to become real. Green groups pioneered the art of environmental lawsuits. It turns out the business community took careful notes.

Industry groups are gearing up for a legal onslaught; and don't underestimate their prospects. The leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit in England alone are a gold mine for those who want to challenge the science underlying the theory of manmade global warming.

But the EPA's legal vulnerabilities go beyond that. The agency derives its authority to regulate pollutants from the Clean Air Act. To use that law to regulate greenhouse gases, the EPA has to prove those gases are harmful to human health (thus, the endangerment finding). Put another way, it must provide "science" showing that a slightly warmer earth will cause Americans injury or death. Given that most climate scientists admit that a warmer earth could provide "net benefits" to the West, this is a tall order.