Congress

If Democrats don’t pass health care “reform” by March 26, then the two-week Easter recess could end up looking a lot like last August, when the American electorate made it abundantly clear that they did not favor a government takeover of health care. At least that is the intent of some Republicans, according to this story in the Washington Examiner.

“If health care doesn’t get done by Easter,” says Republican Rep. John Shadegg, “then we need to make Easter look like last August.”

The Democrats continue to push the narrative of inevitability, but even that is wearing thin, given that they have been pushing that narrative since last April. One thing for certain: never have the American people been offered such a stark difference in philosophy over the role of government than what the Democrats are trying to ram through Congress in comparison to what the Republicans would offer as solutions.

The question is whether the moderate Democrats will listen to the American people or Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi has hit new heights in craziness. Her definition of legislative debate is to pass a bill, then learn what it does. She actually believes that the Democrat health care bill needs to pass, so then the American people can find out what is in it.

Call it the “trust me, you don’t need to know what’s in this bill until after it passes” factor.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

So legislation shouldn’t be debated, because that can be, you know, really confusing… foggy, so to speak.

So Nancy is there to clear up the fog. Isn’t that nice of her?

The Democrat Dictionary version of transparency: read the bill after it passes.

UPDATE: Thanks to a friend of mine who posted it on Facebook, we have a clip of Pelosi’s quote.

Arizona Republic reporter Dan Nowicki writes that Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl oppose the sales tax increase that the legislature referred to the May 18 election ballot.

I’m not surprised. Both McCain and Kyl have been pretty darn solid on not raising taxes.

What is more surprising, as I have blogged before, is that a Republican Governor is supporting a tax increase, particularly in this economic environment.

Predictably, the Yes on 100 crowd “couldn’t be more disappointed.”

Eh, what do you expect? Did you really think that two Senators with fairly consistent “A” ratings from National Taxpayer’s Union would support a tax increase?

You know it’s the dog days of a cold winter in Washington when the media is captivated by the palace intrigue of the Obama White House.

The typical narrative pits the loyal, long-time Obama staffers (eg. David Axelrod) against the interloper who came on board after Obama’s election (read: Rahm Emanual).

Of course, it’s the interloper that is seen as the bad guy. In part, that is because the liberal media is more aligned with the progressive ideologues in the White House, and less with the pragmatic practitioners like Rahm.

Remember, Rahm is a veteran of the Clinton White House and there was much wailing and knashing of teeth when Obama selected him as Chief of Staff.

Now, you have a hard-core liberal Congressman who is accusing Rahm of forcing him out of office because he voted against Obama’s health care bill… not because it was too liberal, but because it wasn’t liberal enough.

Rep. Eric Massa is under investigation for inappropriate sexual conduct with a male staffer (or maybe multiple male staffers) by the ethics committee and just resigned his seat over it.

Now Massa is saying that because he was a no vote, and Pelosi needs every possible vote she can get, he was forced out. His resignation makes the magic number for her to pass the health care bill 216 votes. If he hadn’t resigned, she would have needed 217 votes. So pushing him out gives her a two-fer… it takes away a no vote and reduces the number of yes votes needed.

This follows Obama’s quote saying he would do “whatever it takes” to pass government-run health care.

And they say that right-wingers like me are conspiracy theorists…

Obama will lay out his vision on how to pass comprehensive health care reform today, defying, yet again the will of a majority of Americans who have repeatedly rejected government run health care.

Democrats know they have a short fuse on getting this passed. If they can’t pass a bill by the end of March, it is highly unlikely that they will pass anything this year. The reason is that there is a two-week recess starting on March 26. Democrat leaders know that if their members go back to their districts without a bill passed, there is no way that after two weeks of hearing from their constituents (and right before tax day) that they will pass the bill.

In politics, this is known as raw cynicism.

It is a testament to the ideology of Democrat leadership that they know that their proposal is counter to the will of most Americans, and yet they are determined to pass it any way – and change the rules to get it done.

They will pay dearly for their decision in November, but as Pelosi has said, “this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.”

The next three weeks will be the most important and consequential to the role of government in the lives of the American people as we have seen in my political experience.

And it scares me to death.

Sometimes even I can be shocked by the hubris of Washington, D.C. politicians. It takes a lot, given that I have worked in the town in one way or another for the last 16 years. This quote from Nancy Pelosi about the health care reform issue even leaves me shaking my head.

“They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”

No, Madame Speaker, a bill cannot be bipartisan if it receives the votes of only one party.

Even if you bought her line that it’s bipartisan because “Republicans have left their imprint,” you would be hard pressed to see what imprint that might be. The truth is that there was no imprint on the House bill passed last November. The only imprint that was something that Pelosi did not want was the language banning federal funding of abortion. That was an amendment drafted by Democrat Bart Stupak. That was Democrat Bart Stupak.

This is how Democrat’s define issues. Call it the “Democrat Dictionary.”  Speaker Pelosi can maintain her delusional belief that the health care bill is bipartisan, but in doing so she greatly enhances the chances that “Speaker” will be dropped from her title after the elections in November.

President Obama’s “health care summit” last week broke very little new policy ground, but one thing is clear: Democrats are determined to pass their health care bill no matter what the American people want.

Some people have asked me why the Democrats would so willfully reject the will of the American people and push try to push this through. Obama and Democrat leadership know that with every passing day, reform becomes harder to pass because the closer we get to election day, the less likely moderate Democrats are to support it. Obama, Pelosi and Reid also know that if they don’t get it done this year, it will never happen, because they are going to lose seats in both the House and the Senate in November.

Another thing to consider is the dynamic of the 2012 election. Rahm Emanuel is the smartest Democrat operative in the nation. He knows politics, and he knows history and he recognizes that if Republicans capture the House in 2010, Obama’s reelection chances in 2012 at least double. Think about Clinton’s ability to “triangulate” with the Republican majority, thereby making him look more reasonable.

So, Rahm and Obama are willing to throw as many House members into the wood chipper as it will take to pass a bill, majority be damned, because a majority is actually bad for Obama after next year. The thing to watch is whether Democrat House members will be more influenced by White House pressure, or by pressure of constituents and voters back home.

In watching the summit, I was struck by a number of things. First, I was very impressed with the Republicans strength on the policy of health care reform. President Obama repeatedly tried to cut off any Republican who spoke about portions of the current plan with which they disagree. On several occasions, the President cut off the speaker and announced that he was interested in what they liked about his plan, not what they didn’t. In other words continuing his theme that bi-partisan reform consists of Republicans agreeing to Democrats ideas.

The Democrats also attempted to dominate the amount of speaking time. The Democrats/President spoke for 233 minutes, with Republicans getting 110 minutes of speaking time. However, the Republicans were very efficient with their time and Sens. Lamar Alexander R-TN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and House members Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) stood out in particular as hitting the main points with devastating precision. spoke about the need to eliminate (or at least reduce) waste, fraud, and abuse in health care.

At first, the Democrats were somewhat successful in appearing to agree with Republican principles and claiming their bill did many of the things Republicans were proposing. For instance, many Republicans suggested allowing the purchasing of insurance across state lines. Several Democrats insisted that their bill did just that. They were attempting to claim that their “exchanges” would do that; they do not. However, as the summit progressed, Republicans made it clear they were better prepared and had mastered the facts better than the Democrats.

At one point Senator McCain (R-AZ) made a very effective speech, noting how corrupt the process of crafting the legislation had been, including the many sweetheart deals included in the bills to buy votes. This clearly stung Obama, and the best he could come up with was a remark that the election is over – as if McCain’s points were mere political talking points used in campaigns. This was a big win for Republicans.

Finally, President Obama ended the summit by declaring that he has come a long way towards the Republicans by offering his latest proposal (which is largely the Senate-passed bill) and that now it is up to Republicans to decide which Democrat proposals they could accept. He intimated that they had the next several weeks (he mentioned 6 weeks once) to help Democrats pass their bill or he will pull it and Americans will know that Republicans put their political interests before the best interests of Americans. And then, the President noted, “that’s why we have elections.”

The media has played this as having been a “tie, going to Republicans.” If that is the MSM take, than clearly Republicans gained the most out of the summit. As has already been discussed by many commentators, Republicans brought their “A” game, while Democrats came across as mostly parroting talking points, not actually discussing solutions. Even Rush Limbaugh has said that Republicans proved him wrong by how well they did.

Here is a sampling of some of the immediate reaction in the press.

CNN’S DAVID GERGEN: “Intellectually, The Republicans Had The Best Day They’ve Had In Years.  The Best Day They Have Had In Years.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)

· CNN’s DAVID GERGEN: “The Folks In The White House Just Must Be Kicking Themselves Right Now. They thought that coming out of Baltimore when the President went in and was mesmerizing and commanding in front of the House Republicans that he could do that again here today. That would revive health care and would change the public opinion about their health care bill and they can go on to victory. Just the opposite has happened.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

NPR’S MARA LIASSON: “I Think That The Republicans Made Their Arguments Very Well.” (Fox News, 2/25/10)

CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “It Looks Like The Republicans Certainly Showed Up Ready To Play.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

· CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “And The Republicans Had Less Speaking Time, But They Took Full Advantage Of Every Minute They Had.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)

THE HILL’S A.B. STODDARD: “I Think We Need To Start Out By Acknowledging Republicans Brought Their ‘A Team.’ They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform.  I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s GLORIA BORGER: “The Republicans Have Been Very Effective Today. They Really Did Come To Play. They Were Very Smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

· BORGER: “They took on the substance of a very complex issue. … But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

· BORGER: “They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

POLITICO: “By The Afternoon, However, Both Sides Took A More Substantive Approach That Played To The Republicans’ Benefit, given Democratic attempts to portray them as unreasonable and partisan.” (“Six Hours Later, Stalemate Remains,” Politico, 2/25/10)

FOX NEWS’ CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “The Republicans Really Helped Themselves. The argument against them, it’s the party of no, they have no ideas, they are against anything, they’re nihilists. In fact, they spent seven hours, I think, presenting a very strong case. They’re knowledgeable. They have ideas. They are interested in reform, but they have differences. Lamar Alexander was dazzling, Paul Ryan was rapier sharp in rebutting all of the smoke and mirrors that the democrats had presented.” (Fox News, 2/25/10)

JAMES CARVILLE: “First, In General, You’d Have To Say, By The Most Part Most Of These People Were Pretty Knowledgeable, They Had Done Their Homework … I Thought That Senator Alexander And Senator Coburn Did Great…” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)

FOX NEWS’ BRET BAIER: “Republicans Had A Strong Day Making Their Points.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

WASHINGTON POST’S MICHAEL GERSON: “The Democrats’ Health-Care Ambush Failed”(Michael Gerson, Op-Ed, “The Democrats’ Health-Care Ambush Failed,” The Washington Post, 2/25/10)

The first question Republicans should ask Obama when they meet at the Blair House for the health care summit on Thursday is this: “If we turn to a government-run health care system like Canada, where will the Canadians go for their health care?”

As you may already know, Newfoundland’s Premier chose to come to the United States for surgery on his heart, rather than have it done in Canada.

Isn’t that everything we need to know about why we should have government-run health care?

Did that headline get your attention? It should have. It’s true, by the way. I’m not pro-illegal alien; I’m pro-freedom, and in the current party philosophy, that makes me a libertarian-Republican. While I have serious concerns with the spending addiction demonstrated by many Republicans over the last 15 years or so, I still believe that the Republican Party is better for America than the Democrat Party.

So, I want what’s good for Republicans, and that means the news that Arizona has seen a drop in illegals by more than 100,000 people is bad news.

Wait, wait… let me explain.

In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act as a part of the legislative push for civil rights. It was intended to make sure states didn’t discriminate against blacks through poll taxes, literacy tests, etc. The federal government determined which states or jurisdictions had a history of such discrimination and essentially took control of the electoral process through a process call “pre-clearance.”

What that means is that if a state makes any kind of change that affects elections, that change must be approved by the U.S. Justice Department. The absurdity of the law, now more than 40 years later, is that a local election panel (in a pre-clearance state) can’t change even a polling site without the Fed’s blessing.

Arizona is a pre-clearance state, purportedly because the state elections process at some point discriminated against Native Americans.

The biggest impact pre-clearance has in Arizona is on redistricting. Before any new boundaries go into effect, the Justice Department must approve.

Without getting into the nitty gritty of the legal jargon and process, the way that this works in Arizona is that districts (both Congressional and Legislative) currently represented by a minority are protected to maintain their “majority-minority” status. That is, the majority of voters in that district must be minorities, which in this day and age is mostly Hispanic.

For example, during the 2001 redistricting process, the first Congressional district drawn was Rep. Ed Pastor’s, because it needed to have a sufficient number of Hispanics in order to pass DOJ muster. Because Hispanics have low turnout in elections compared to others, Pastor’s district had to be “packed” with a larger number of Democrat voters to “ensure” he could be re-elected.

The 2001 redistricting produced two new Congressional districts as a result of population growth. One of the new districts was a majority-minority district in Southwestern Arizona, which Raul Grijalva won. The other was the creation the sprawling 1^st Congressional District, originally won by Rick Renzi.

So, what does this have to do with illegals fleeing the state being bad for the GOP?

According to a number of reports, the number of illegal aliens in Arizona is down more than 100,000 in the past year or so. Until last year, it was conventional wisdom that the next census would result in Arizona again gaining two Congressional seats. But with a loss of 100,000 people (yes, the census counts illegals, the census is not a count of citizens; it is a count of people – it’s plainly in the Constitution), Arizona is likely to only gain one Congressional seat.

Because of the need to protect Pastor and Grijalva in the newly-drawn districts, the majority of the Hispanic population would be gerrymandered into one of those two districts, leaving too few minorities to populate a third majority-minority district.

Which means that Republicans, who could have added two seats to their delegation, can only add one. As a Republican, that frustrates me, particularly as we go into a couple of election cycles that will be very good for Republicans. Democrats already hold three seats that should be Republican (CD1, CD5 and CD8), and there is a good chance that all three will be recaptured by Republicans this fall. With Congressmen Jeff Flake and Trent Franks running for reelection, and since CD3 will certainly stay Republican, the shift in the Arizona delegation could go from three Republicans and five Democrats to six Republicans and two Democrats.

If we had those 100,000 illegals back, 2012 could see an 8-2 GOP-Dem delegation.

That’s pro-Republican and pro-Freedom.

My argument that Ron Paul has outlived his usefulness enrages many a Paulite. What they don’t know, is that I was a Paulite long before most of the current Paulite’s had ever even heard of Ron Paul.

You have to know a little about my past to understand this. I grew up in Show Low, Arizona, a small ranching and timber town in the White Mountains of eastern Arizona. There is a lot less ranching and almost no timbering now, it’s mostly vacation homes and tourism.

I was reared by very conservative parents. My first political memory is seeing tears in my mother’s eyes in 1976 with Carter beat Ford and her saying, “We’re going to be beaten by the Soviets now.” Anti-communism was a staple in our household growing up. The two political magazines that showed up in the mailbox were The New American and National Review (I didn’t learn until years later the massive battle between the John Birch Society and William F. Buckley).

When the U.S. Olympic hockey team beat the Soviets, you would have thought I had won the lottery. I was a kid running around the living room with my fists pumping and you would have thought that we had just defeated Communism in one, fell swoop.

I made phone calls for Reagan in 1980, passed out literature for him in 1984 and then reality hit me in 1988 when I realized that Reagan would no longer be the President.

My parents were very skeptical about George H.W. Bush. His history as a Washington insider was a stark contrast with Ronald Reagan’s populism. As the campaign between Dukakis and Bush went on, I felt more and more that Bush would NOT carryon the Reagan legacy.

I turned 18 in the summer of 1988, and the first vote I cast in my life was for Ron Paul for President in November 1988.

For you younger folk, Ron Paul was the Libertarian candidate for President in 1988. I had read up on him in The New American, and read a couple interviews with him. I didn’t really know much about the Libertarian Party platform (I was registered Republican, as I always have been) but his comments about the role of government, monetary policy (yes, I was an early proponent of getting us back on the gold standard – and I still am), and tax policy were music to me. I glossed over the drug legalization stuff and proudly cast my vote for Ron Paul.

I couldn’t tell whether my mother was proud of me or not. She said Paul was more principled but that it was a “wasted vote.” Was it? Probably. But it had an impact on me, because at the first opportunity I had to participate in this great republic (it’s not a democracy) I cast a vote on principle. And I think it set the tone for every vote I have cast since – including my wasted vote for Ross Perot in 1992, and my wasted vote for the Libertarian Harry Browne in 1996. In fact, I was 30 years old before I cast a vote for a Republican for President.

When I was a Congressional staffer I had a lot of fun chiding Ron Paul’s Congressional staff for not being “true” Paulites. For the 14 years I work in Congress I am the only staffer that I know of that actually voted for Paul for President in 1988.

But his time has passed. If there was anything that struck me coming out of CPAC 2010 this last weekend, it was a feeling that Ron Paul’s fans need to focus less on a 74 year-old mediocre Congressman, and more on how to actually affect real change in the political process.

Ron Paul won the CPAC2010 presidential straw poll thus immediately diminishing the impact that CPAC could have on providing conservatives with some direction on who some of our future national leaders might be. Ron Paul certainly won’t be. I’m not saying that to be critical, it’s just a fact.

More and more average Americans are getting involved in the political process through the Tea Party Patriots and other movements. They are real people, with real lives and most have never been involved in the political process beyond voting. The more they learn about Ron Paul, the less he will appeal to him. His dovish stance on the war on terror and his support for earmarking (the gateway drug to huge spending) won’t wear well with newly inspired activists worried about federal spending and the debt. Either you are a fiscal conservative, or you’re not. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not at the most basic level.

So, conservatives, tea partiers, libertarians… Americans, let’s find those who stick to fiscal conservatism, limited government and less spending and then support them like the future depends on it, because it does.