DCExaminer Morning Must Reads

Sebastian Mallaby -- In SEC vs. Goldman, who's really at fault?

The Obama administration would have a better argument to make that the SEC suit against Goldman Sachs was not a political stunt aimed providing some cover for the president’s own relationship with the firm (As Examiner colleague J.P. Freire points out, the firm put 10 times more into the Obama administration as Enron gave to George W. Bush) if the case were better.

Goldman is pretty clearly the most easily hated Wall Street firm. They made fat profits from taking huge risks and then letting the taxpayers take all the losses when the feds paid off the $22 billion in insane investment insurance Goldman had convinced the dummkopfs at AIG to issue.

But the SEC’s case against Goldman relates to a tiny portion of the money siphoned from taxpayers and it looks to be very thin at that – something whipped up on short order. That’s why Republicans are pushing for the emails between the White House and the agency.

As Goldman is now finding out, the problem of being in business with the government is that sometimes they cheat for you, but when the political climate demands it, they start cheating against you. Not to worry, though. A modest settlement following a complex legal battle followed by fat checks to the Hope and Change revival tour in 2012 should put everything right again.

Mallaby does a great job in explaining the abstruse financial product at the heart of the suit. It wasn’t a mortgage bond, but a bet on how mortgage bonds would perform. Goldman acted as the house, arranging the terms of the wager between John Paulson, the hedge funder who wanted to bet that mortgages would go bust, and Euro banks that were gobbling up anything that looked like a mortgage investment.

“Next, the SEC complains that Paulson had a hand in designing the securities, maximizing the chances that they would blow up. He did the equivalent of building a timber house with a large fireplace and a blocked chimney, then buying fire insurance on the structure. Shocking though this may sound, it is another non-scandal. An investor who wants to bet against a bundle of mortgages is entitled to suggest what should go into the bundle. The buyer is equally entitled to make counter-suggestions. As the SEC's complaint states clearly, the lead buyer in this deal, a boutique called ACA that specialized in mortgage securities, did precisely that.”

New York Times -- Financial Debate Renews Scrutiny on Banks’ Size

Writer Sewell Chan shows that bigger is hardly better when it comes to banking.

One area when conservatives and liberals can agree is that the idea of having an overclass of federally supported mega-banks is bad for the republic.

Liberals want the government to break up the big banks now. Conservatives want the big banks to lose any special regulatory status and be allowed to go bankrupt if they fail.

The Dodd-Obama bank bill does neither and in fact ensconces a handful of the biggest banks in what amounts to a VIP airport lounge for regulation and support. There are more rules, but the level of comfort is much greater than the rest of the terminal.

While President Obama promises to limit risk by controlling salaries for executives and imposing other restrictions, the best protection against risk – an inability to find investors – would actually be diluted by the special status for these elite bankers.

Andy Jackson wouldn’t recognize his party.

“What is not in doubt is that the crisis increased the size and importance of the six largest banks: Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

During the crisis, Bank of America swallowed Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase bought Bear Stearns and Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia. Goldman and Morgan converted to bank holding companies to gain access to lending from the Fed’s discount window.

In 1995, the assets of the six largest banks totaled 17 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. Now they have assets amounting to 63 percent of G.D.P. Measured another way, the share of all banking industry assets held by the top 10 banks rose to 58 percent last year, from 44 percent in 2000 and 24 percent in 1990.”

Wall Street Journal -- Immigration Legislation Gains Traction

Sen. Scott Brown revealed that when President Obama called him Tuesday to lobby for the Dodd bank bill, Obama also told him to expect immigration legislation to crop up in about a month.

Why would Obama want to take on such an unpopular, politically divisive issue so soon after pushing through his national health program in an election year?

Even if he doesn’t get the bill passed, Obama hopes to fire up Hispanic voters in places like Nevada and California and label the GOP as xenophobic. It’s base politics and an effort to shrink the enthusiasm gap.

But its also poison with independent voters, blue-collar Democrats and states that still have manufacturing.

Writer Laura Meckler explains that the Republican position, forged in 2008’s primaries, is still “Fence first. Amnesty later.”

“‘I believe that we can convince our Republican colleagues that we have to secure the border first,’ Mr. McCain said during an appearance on KFYI radio in Arizona, according to The Hill. ‘There's no point of having immigration reform unless you can have the borders secure first.’

This week, Mr. McCain and Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) proposed a 10-point plan for boosting border security.”

New York Times -- Senate Bill Sets a Plan to Regulate Premiums

It’s a tacit admission that the president’s national health program will keep pushing insurance premiums upward, but Democrats are bringing forward legislation to impose price controls on the insurance business.

Part of this is pure politics. When the premiums keep going up and up and up, even if the measure can’t pass, it allows lawmakers to point to a proposed solution and again lament Republican obstructionism.

Part of this is also the realization that Democrats are not likely to hold so many seats next year. Liberals are trotting out some of their favorite ideas, including federal price controls on insurance rates, while there is some hope that they might catch on. The measure was excluded from Obamacare because it could not be fit into the budget reconciliation approach used to circumvent a Republican filibuster.

Writer Robert Pear looks at what Tom Harkin, Diane Feinstein and others are cooking up.

“Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the No. 3 Republican in the Senate, said: ‘Health insurance companies’ profits for one year equal about two days of health care spending in the United States. So even if we were to take away all the profits of the so-called greedy insurance companies, that would still leave 363 days a year when health care costs are expanding at a rate our country cannot afford.’”

Washington Post -- Both national party committees spend big chunks on fancy meals, hotels, travel

Writer Jeffrey Smith seems surprised that political parties spend so much money sucking up to donors.

Both national parties treat big political donors the same way companies treat big investors: by spending a little of the money they pony up on pampering them.

The concept of the charity gala has morphed into a word of NFL skyboxes, Wall Street-sized tabs at nightclubs and restaurants and goodie bags.

Most political donors, though, are really either concerned about ideology or access. Democratic whales want face time with President Obama or key committee chairmen. It’s tougher for Republicans who have less to offer in the way of paid access and have tried to compensate with a more lavish VIP experience for donors.

Michael Steele’s $340,000 Hawaiian winter meeting and Lear jet travel are about showing off.

The question, though, is which part of the money goes to actually sucking up to donors – a pricier version of the PBS tote bag – and which part is wasted by staffers.

While Democrats save money by using the White House as the ultimate perk, it seems like Republicans aren’t getting much bang for the buck.

“The nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics, in an analysis done at the request of The Post, calculated, however, that administrative and fundraising expenses consumed about $60 million of Democratic revenue in this cycle through the end of February, or 59 percent of total revenue that exceeded $100 million. For Republicans, the amount exceeded $74 million, or 68 percent of $109 million in revenue.”

So Here's the Deal on Offshore Drilling

New York Times -- Obama to Open Offshore Areas to Oil Drilling for First Time
If the Senate is willing to get on board with global warning legislation, President Obama might allow some expanded oil exploration off the U.S. coast.
Writer John Broder wonders if this will alienate enviros, but since the plan is limited in scope, delayed and conditional, only the hard liners will grouse. These days, Obama is flying so high with the Left that he could move Yucca Mountain to ANWAR and sign the order in a sealskin coat and probably get away with it.
Though the move will jazz pressies who are looking for new examples of Obama’s post health-care powers, it seems unlikely that this will break up the bipartisan coalition against cap and trade.
What Obama is essentially offering to do is not fight fir the extension of an existing congressional moratorium on offshore drilling. That has limited stroke in terms of a compromise offer since an extension would have been election year poison to Democrats anyway.
And what the president would do himself won’t happen for a long time. Expect Republicans to cheer his first step and call for him to go the rest of the way.
“The first lease sale off the coast of Virginia could occur as early as next year in a triangular tract 50 miles off the coast that had already been approved for development but was held up by a court challenge and additional Interior Department review, officials said.
But as a result of the Obama decision, the Interior Department will spend several years conducting geologic and environmental studies along the rest of the southern and central Atlantic Seaboard. If a tract is deemed suitable for development, it is listed for sale in a competitive bidding system. The next lease sales — if any are authorized by the Interior Department — would not be held before 2012.”

Wall Street Journal -- White House Court Brief Backs Race-Based Admissions
The racial preferences in the University of Texas admissions process are likely to be the next battlefield in the war over affirmative action.
UT reserves three quarters of its freshman slots for students in the top 10 percent of in state high schools. The other quarter are selected on “holistic” criteria designed to boost black and Hispanic enrollment.
The program, instituted three years ago, is intended to help minority students in majority-white schools who lag their pallid peers.
While the Supreme Court upheld University of Michigan Law School’s right to discriminate subjectively to achieve a more diverse student body in 2007, this is a different case with a different court.
Because of the statistical discrimination and hard quotas, there are fewer penumbras in which to hide discrimination and Justice Alito is not of the same race-centric generation as his predecessor, Sandra Day O’Connor.
Writer Jess Bravin explains that seeing where the train is heading, the Obama administration is getting ready for a passionate defense of the quota system.
With the Fifth Circuit taking up the case, expect a real brouhaha.
“‘[The] university's effort to promote diversity is a paramount government objective,’ says the brief filed by the Education and Justice departments. The administration disputed claims that Texas was simply engaging in raw racial preferences.
‘The question is not whether an individual belongs to a racial group, but rather how an individual's membership in any group may provide deeper understanding of the person's record and experiences, as well as the contribution she can make to the school,’ the brief says.”

New York Times -- Despite Doubt, Karzai Brother Retains Power
The argument against President George W. Bush’s strategy for stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan was that if the locals didn’t think we would ever leave they would never stand up and govern themselves.
But now that we have a timetable for our colossal nation-building effort in Afghanistan, how can we get friendly Afghans to change their ways if they know that we will start trying to pull out in 14 months?
As Examiner colleague Sara Carter points out today, the Pakistanis are fuming because some of the Talibani they hand over to the Afghans end up getting cut loose as part of side deals with the government in Kabul.
The larger problem is that Hamid Karzai will need his own warlord coalition to have any kind of chance to govern if the U.S. really could execute a 2011 drawdown. That urge to survive, of course, only makes it more likely that the drawdown will not come to pass and that our commitment to Afghanistan will deepen, not wane.
Writer Dexter Filkins looks again at Karzai’s brother, Ahmed, who seems to function as a go-between from the government to the narco-warlords with whom the government is looking to forge a separate peace.
Ahmed Karzai is also the Donald Trump of Afghanistan, doing real estate deals (where he knows NATO forces will need property) and providing his own security force to protect his assets, a force which might one day form the core of a Karzai family palace guard.
“Perhaps the most vivid example of Ahmed Wali Karzai’s reach came last August, when his brother sought re-election. According to Western diplomats in Kabul, he cut deals with insurgent groups to refrain from attacking polling stations, and then helped orchestrate a large-scale campaign of forging ballots on his brother’s behalf. “

Washington Post -- In blueprint for Haiti, U.S. takes new approach to aid
The Obama administration has decided not to let the crisis of the Haitian earthquake go to waste.
Writer Mary Beth Sheridan got an advance look at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s $1 billion nation-building plan for the island kleptocracy.
The idea is to take the techniques we’ve honed in Iraq and Afghanistan and apply them to Haiti.
The reason the billions poured into Haiti before went down the rat hole of corruption was because America had to work through the existing government (or try to pick sides among the existing corrupt factions). The new way is to make a government to our liking from the ground up. That $1 billion will turn into $10 billion in no time.
“The most dramatic change is an effort to build up Haiti's fragile government, instead of working around it. In an emergency spending request sent to Congress last week, the administration says it will help reconstruct the Haitian government, paying for new ministry offices. More broadly, the goal is to develop the framework of a modern state -- spending money to help Haiti create building codes, regulatory systems and anticorruption standards. U.S. funds would be used to train and pay Haitian officials… Now, all but one of its ministries are in ruins. Nearly 17 percent of Haiti's civil servants died in the disaster…
The Obama administration insists that its plan will help the Haitian government with its own priorities -- not impose a U.S. vision. The plan, however, allots $48 million to housing and offices for up to 300 short- and long-term U.S. personnel.

Shelby Steele -- Barack The Good
Steele is a man at the peak of his powers. As writer who focuses on race and American culture, the Age of Obama is prime time for Steele.
His latest is a meditation on the perils of having a president who was history making from the moment he won office. You really must read this piece.
“Mr. Obama's success has always been ephemeral because it was based on an illusion: that if we Americans could transcend race enough to elect a black president, we could transcend all manner of human banalities and be on our way to human perfectibility. A black president would put us in a higher human territory. And yet the poor man we elected to play out this fantasy is now torturing us with his need to reflect our grandiosity back to us.
Many presidents have been historically significant in retrospect, but Mr. Obama had historic significance on his inauguration day. His inauguration told a transcendent American story. Other presidents work forward into their legacy. Mr. Obama is working backwards into his.”

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

Washington Post -- Senate's deliberate pace frustrates the House
President Obama will today sign into law the most sweeping expansion of the American welfare system since the New Deal. More than 30 million Americans are getting health insurance, whether they like it or not.
The administration doesn’t usually shy away from melodrama at big moments, so expect a collection of the very sick and the very old plus some more of that weird civil rights theme from Sunday.
I’d invite presidents Clinton and Carter, and relatives of Johnson and Truman too.
While the fruited plains are being harvested at the White House, though, the Senate will be figuring out how to finish the last leg of the Tour de Obamacare.
Senate leaders promise action this week on passing a package of changes to the bill already approved by the House. But the House bill adds substantially to the costs – covered by a mix of big taxes and big deficits – and eliminates the carve outs and sweeteners that were added to get the original measure through the Senate.
Majority leader Harry Reid is using budget reconciliation to push through the House bill and can therefore afford to lose eight members of his 59-member caucus (seats on that lifeboat will be more precious than 1,000 AFSCME fundraisers).

But there are two problems:
1. Reconciliation rules say you can’t fiddle with Social Security and the House bill diverts $23 billion in taxes from bankrupt old Social Security to Obamacare.
2. Republicans are allowed to introduce a theoretically limitless number of amendments and parliamentary challenges, a situation that has to be handled with public relations pressure not Senate rules.

After a bunch of partisan hackery and shady tactics that would make Tom DeLay blush, Democrats will have problem talking about the need for bipartisan cooperation. And surely Democrats don’t want to have the Vice President overrule the Senate parliamentarian for the first time in history to advance legislation that already has the scent of the smoke-filled room about it.

But that doesn’t matter in the House and to liberals everywhere. They’re pumped up about joining the ranks of LBJ and FDR. (Or is it MLK and the ERA? I can’t keep it straight anymore.)
Writer Perry Bacon explains that flush with victory, the House will be keeping the pressure on the Senate to act quickly on Obamacare and a passel of other liberal wishes.

“In that chamber rests the fate of not only the health-care changes that House lawmakers desperately want but also other major bills they have approved over the past year: legislation to combat climate change, a reform of the way financial firms are regulated, and provisions to combat youth unemployment that have been championed by the Congressional Black Caucus. The climate-change bill passed the House in June, the latter two measures in December.”

Wall Street Journal -- Strict Abortion Rules Mean Fewer Insurers May Offer Coverage
Writer Laura Meckler tells us of a strange paradox of Obamacare – while anti-abortion groups are outraged over the loopholes for federal funding of elective abortions allowed by Rep. Bart Stupak’s last-minute cave-in, elective abortions will actually be harder to get.
This is how Stupak and President Obama have managed to make both sides of the most divisive issue in American politics bitterly unhappy.
Anti-abortion folks are mostly absolutists – one is too many and a dime of tax money going to the procedure is an abomination (Witness Rep. Randy Neugebauer’s “baby killer” outburst). Pro-abortion folks are mostly interested in volume – they want maximal access to the procedure for the greatest number of women and any diminution or stigmatization is anathema (Witness the drive for full federal funding of the procedure for poor women).
While most Americans oppose the practice but are squeamish about eliminating access to women in dire circumstances – pro-life but not stringently anti-abortion – the argument that some tax dollars may go to the procedure but that insurance companies will stop covering it will be unsatisfying.
Plus, at a cost of about $400, it’s unlikely that new rules will actually reduce the number of elective abortions (1.2 million in 2005).
“It's not known how many Americans with private insurance have abortion coverage. One survey by Guttmacher, whose data is respected by both sides, found that 87% of typical employer-based policies covered the procedure. Another survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research group with no position on abortion, found that 46% of workers had the coverage.
A separate survey by Guttmacher found that just 13% of abortions were paid for by private insurance. That's partly because many women seeking abortion were uninsured or have Medicaid, which in most states does not cover abortion.”

Clive Crook -- A Tainted Victory
Writing in The Atlantic, Crook makes the case for Obamacare and against the means of its passage. He warns Democrats not to let the thrill of defying public opinion become a habit.
Taking a Tory’s perspective, Cook says the bill is hardly the kind of socialism that will destroy a nation overnight. Take heart – it will take decades for the American colossus to slouch under the weight of more unaffordable entitlements.
But his understanding of the way American politics works is right on point:
“I am used to explaining to foreigners that the US political system is, by design, exquisitely sensitive to public opinion, with its lower house up for election every two years. American governments cannot ignore their people, as Europe's governments can and frequently do, I used to argue. And I would cite my favorite example. Germany's government abolished its currency and forced the euro on a country that was opposed to monetary union throughout, saying, "You are wrong. We know better. We will do this regardless, and you will come to like it." Can you imagine such a thing happening in the US, I used to ask? Could anything be more un-American? The usual response would be laughter.
Who's laughing now? And one wonders, is this trampling down of public opinion going to be habit-forming? Recall Pelosi's recent comment that once the Democrats have "kicked through this door", they can move on to the rest of their (equally unpopular) agenda.”

Wall Street Journal -- Financial Overhaul Advances
The White House strategy is to move as much legislation through Congress while Democrats are back in a mood for magical thinking and the electorate is still gobsmacked.
The Senate won’t likely budge on issues like new global warming fees or, even more improbably, amnesty for illegal immigrants. But there is a chance that Democrats will unite behind a bill that makes American borrowers the wards of a new regulatory panel and that codifies the concept of being too big to fail.
And even if they can’t pass the bill, they could force Republicans to cast votes against “financial reform.” Expect the House to move similar legislation from Rep. Barney Frank soon too.
Damian Paletta explains:
“Business groups are also weighing in, though their influence with Democratic lawmakers and the White House remains strained. Many banks and business leaders have pressed lawmakers to continue negotiating, complaining that the uncertainty about what is going to happen is putting a strain on the economy.
"I think there's going to be some smart people involved that understand if you screw up the financial system, everybody else follows," U.S. Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Thomas Donohue said.”

New York Times -- Acorn to Shut All Its Offices by April 1
Is this the end of the golden age of the community organizer?
ACORN went from hustling social spending in exchange for votes in big cities to a national profile in 2008 and helped get Barack Obama, a former lawyer for the group and a former community organizer himself, elected president. With Democrats in power, ACORN looked to expand its patronage to a national level.
But it’s a long way from Brooklyn, N.Y. to Brooklyn Park, Minn. What had promised to be an era of triumph for ACORN was punctured by a filmmaker in a pimp hat.
It was overreach, miserable finances, and internal corruption that sank ACORN. O’Keefe just sped the demise before another election cycle – with paid voter drives, etc., -- could prop up the group.
Local organizations will persevere, but the idea of a franchised organization to swap votes for free stuff – sort of a McPolitical Machine – took a hit.
Writer Ian Urbina explains:
“In reaction to the videos, the Census Bureau ended its partnership with the organization for this year’s census, the Internal Revenue Service dropped the group from its Voluntary Income Tax Assistance program, and Congress voted to cut off all grants to the organization.”

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

Washington Post -- House Democrats' tactic for health-care bill is debated
The White House thought it had a winner in talking about budget reconciliation by focusing on Republican obstructionism and the limitations of a supermajority-rules Senate. It not only provided a distraction from the contents of the president’s plan (like the addition of a brand-new 3-percent tax on investment income), but it also seemed clear cut: majority rules.
But the House has followed suit with its own procedural hijinks, further eroding public confidence in the process and the product. Passing a bill without voting on it sounds like cheating and the speaker’s rationale – liberals, anti-abortion purists, and moderates all hate the Senate bill and want to avoid guilt by association – is the rankest example of political butt covering since Arlen Specter went back to the Democratic Party.
Talking about process instead of policy was one thing when Democrats were arguing for an “up or down vote” in the Senate. But it’s quite another thing to be avoiding an “up or down vote” in the House.
For now, with no bill yet from the White House despite lots of late-night cramming with drug lobbyists and other special-interest groups, every hour that goes by talking about the process hurts Democratic chances of final passage.
Writer Amy Goldstein explains that while a health plan produced in such an ungainly fashion might survive a legal challenge, political survival for the swing-district Democrats who support it is less likely.
“On the other hand, Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political analyst, said the current stage of the debate is a rare instance in which the public is focused on the process of legislating. ‘Voters are aware it's been pulling teeth,’ he said, adding that some Americans think Congress's Democratic leaders had ‘to give away the store to get even Democrats to pass it’ and, more recently, resorted to a ‘reconciliation’ procedure that requires fewer Senate votes to pass.
‘From there, we've leapt to a totally different planet with this deeming,’ Rothenberg said. ‘I feel like I've fallen through the rabbit hole: 'Oh, they are going to not pass the bill and just pretend they passed the bill.'’”

Wall Street Journal -- Overhaul Splits Party Faithful
The new poll from The Wall Street Journal and NBC News confirms that Democrats have suffered tremendous damage in their health care gambit.
They’ve allowed Republicans to climb back on top for core GOP issues – deficits, taxes, and national security – and moved from a 19-point advantage to a tie with Republicans on handling the economy.
It brings to mind the company that focuses all its resources on a new product launch only to find that no one is buying. I’m looking at you Apple Lisa.
President Obama’s job approval rating (48 percent) and support for his health care plan (36 percent) are nearly the same as they were in July at the start of the nine-month voyage through the legislative Horse Latitudes. What’s different is the rise in opposition to the plan (from 42 to 48) and disapproval of how the president is handling the issue (from 46 percent to 57 percent).
Obama wrecked his brand on health care and the shoddy means and frequent failures in the process will make his political rehabilitation more challenging whatever happens in Congress.
Democrats are now playing to a narrow base in the false hope that fired up liberals can beat back fed up independents and fired up Republicans.
“At the same time, Democratic voters strongly favor the legislation being pushed by President Barack Obama, particularly constituencies such as blacks, Latinos and self-described liberals. Those groups mobilized in 2008 to help elect Mr. Obama, but are far less enthusiastic than core Republicans about voting in this year's midterm elections.
The survey found a 21-point enthusiasm gap between the parties, with 67% of Republicans saying they are very interested in the November elections, compared with 46% of Democrats. "If the Democrats are going to close that gap, they've got to get their people excited. And I don't see how you get those people if you vote no" on the party's health-care legislation, said Democratic pollster Peter Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican Bill McInturff.”

New York Times -- Obama to Appear on Fox News
How bad is it for Democrats? So bad that the White House gave Fox News’ Brett Baier one of the hour-long interviews it usually reserves as a reward for the likes of Diane Sawyer and Brian Williams.
This is big for Baier, who has established his brand nicely since the quasi-retirement of Brit Hume. This is his chance to establish himself as the straight-news star of the dominant cable news network.
For Obama, it’s a chance to talk to someone other than his base supporters. And while he risks tougher questions that Sawyer or Williams would ask, it’s good for the president to make this tacit admission that he and his administration’s war on the network was a mistake. And remember, Obama’s best interview of 2008 was his September session with Bill O’Reilly.
Writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg is our TV guide:
“The interview with Bret Baier will be broadcast at 6 p.m., at the height of a week in which Democrats, including Mr. Obama, are pressing allies and lawmakers to push ahead to get the health care bill passed in the House despite solid Republican opposition and the lessening of public support for the legislation.”

Washington Post -- U.S. Chamber of Commerce sets sights on Democrats ahead of midterm elections
The Chamber is getting ready to drop $50 million on vulnerable congressional Democrats.
It’s not as much as the AFL-CIO is rolling out to preserve a Democratic majority, but business leaders are running with the wind this year.
After spending big bucks to get a seat at Obama’s big table and accommodating Democrats, the Chamber has decided that if you can’t join ‘em, beat ‘em.
Aside from a favorable atmosphere, the Chamber will be helped by the ability to run ads right up until Election Day thanks to the recent Supreme Court campaign finance ruling. The Chamber is good at advertising and can now hold back money until the races sort themselves out and then hammer the weakest Democrats on health care and cap and trade.
Writer Dan Eggen passes along the preposterous response from Democrats that it is good news because it shows Republicans are in the pocket of big business. No one may have told the DNC, but big government isn’t exactly trouncing big business in public opinion these days.
“‘One of our biggest points going into this election will be how difficult it is to change Washington because of the moneyed interests like the Chamber,’ [DNC spokesman Brad] Woodhouse said. ‘We'll use the Chamber of Commerce and health insurance companies as Exhibit 1.’”

New York Times -- Budget Cut for Fence on U.S.-Mexico Border
Examiner colleague Julie Mason explains today that the muted White House response dire security situation in northern Mexico, even after the murder of American diplomats, has outraged Texans.
The move by the Obama administration to further scale back efforts to seal the U.S.-Mexico border has further inflamed attitudes in border states.
Writer Randal Archibold explains that because of problems with the “virtual fence” idea from the Bush Administration, the Obama team is stepping away from any concept of any fence at all.
“The virtual fence is part of a multiyear, multibillion-dollar effort known as the Secure Border Initiative that was announced with fanfare by the Bush administration in November 2005. Besides increasing the number of guards and expanding a border wall, it promised a sophisticated system of cameras, sensors and radar that would zero in on people crossing the border with new speed and clarity and quickly guide agents to them.”

WaPo Is Reporting That VA Governor Will Endorse McCain

John McCain is a hero. He served his country honorably and paid a heavy price. He continued to serve after returning to the world.

However, it is time for Senator McCain to start enjoying his retirement and status as an elder statesman.

Before anyone starts down the "Palin, Thompson, Romney did it too" argument: They shouldn't have, but they all felt an obligation to Senator McCain. Governor McDonnell owes no debt of gratitude nor is he obligated in any way to endorse anyone.

Governor McDonnell, with all due respect Sir, if the reports of your decision to endorse John McCain are correct, it really isn't a good idea. Stay neutral. J.D. Hayworth has 76% of the grassroots support in Arizona. It was people like that who elected you.

John McCain is a progressive. He supports open borders. He sponsored the McCain-Feingold bill, parts of which were determined to be unconstitutional on 1st Amendment grounds.

Others have commented on this issue and the majority is not happy:

I wish the governor would just stay out of it. Such endorsements do not endear the governor to many, especially for a RINO on too many issues.
J. D. Hayworth is better qualified for the job, and more in tune with responsible, common-sense (conservative) lawmaking.

Morning Must Reads -- Obama says Mirandize, Cheney says waterboard

Just kill 'em all and let God sort it out. Seriously, send them to allah.

Wall Street Journal -- Cheney Attacks Obama on National Security
Former vice president and wraith of liberal nightmares Dick Cheney took a unusually sympathetic tone in his drubbing of the Obama administration’s national security policy on Sunday.

He praised President Obama for a second escalation in Afghanistan and spoke frequently of the difficulty of making security decisions.

The Cheney message: It’s not Obama’s fault that he doesn’t know how to protect the country, but his super-slow learning curve is a huge problem for the rest of us.

Vice President Biden, sent forth to rebut Cheney from his perch as head of the U.S. delegation in Vancouver, just seemed sort of goofy.

Presented with Biden’s assertion that success in Iraq is one of the main accomplishments of the Obama administration, Cheney just laughed it off and said Biden should thank George Bush.
Biden also said that a military trial for KSM is possible, an announcement that will make big headaches for the administration.

Also – Cheney thinks waterboarding rocks. Cheney said he would have fake-drowned the underwear bomber in a stent-assisted heartbeat. So would I, and I have the stent.

“Mr. Cheney said interrogators should have had the option to use the ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ his administration approved—including the use of simulated drowning, or ‘water-boarding.’ He called himself ‘a big supporter of water-boarding,’ which critics say amounts to torture.

‘Now, President Obama has taken [those techniques] off the table,’ Mr. Cheney said. ‘He announced when he came in last year that they would never use anything other than the U.S. Army Manual which doesn't include those techniques. I think that's a mistake.’”

USA Today -- Roadside bombs taking bigger toll in Afghanistan
The allied battle for the former Taliban stronghold of Marja in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan is saw brief spurts of intense fighting, but seems to have found only limited resistance in the end – not a decisive battle with a concentrated enemy force. The attack, though, did result in the deaths of 15 civilians, mostly women and children, from an errant rocket.

The great danger to U.S. troops in Afghanistan is not direct confrontations with the Taliban, but in random bombing attacks. And as the U.S. presence exceeds 100,000, the casualties will mount.

Writer Tom Vanden Brook tells us the sad news.
“Winter weather failed to deter insurgents from stepping up roadside bomb attacks in Afghanistan, as both blasts and casualties among U.S. and allied troops in January more than doubled from a year earlier, Pentagon data show.
Coalition troops found 727 bombs in January compared with 276 in the same month of 2009. Blasts killed 32 U.S. and allied troops and wounded 137 others, compared with 14 deaths and 64 injuries in January 2009, according to the data. These bombs are the top killer of U.S. troops in Afghanistan.”

New York Times -- After 9/11 Trial Plan, Holder Hones Political Ear
The biggest headache for the White House today and the foreseeable future are the now clearly naïve promises the president and his team made to try the worst of the worlds’ terrorists in U.S. civilian court.

Complicating the situation is Attorney General Eric Holder, who seems to function as the liberal conscience of the administration.

Writers Jodi Kantor and Charlie Savage talked to Holder about how he helped get the president stuck in this bog and how he means to get out. The answer is the same as Obama’s on health care – do better with the messaging but don’t change the message.

Holder leaves out the possibility that people understand the situation but just think bringing KSM to NYC is a foolish idea or that getting a public defender for a foreigner who tries to blow up a plane is a little dainty, even for this administration. The president still seems ok with the plan, but it will be interesting to see how Holder functions in an administration that now operates in a state of high anxiety.

“Last fall, White House officials emphasized that the trial venue was the attorney general’s choice alone. That is no longer clearly the case. Asked who would make the decision, Mr. Holder gave a long pause and exhaled audibly. ‘I think that I make the final call,’ he said, ‘but if the president is not happy with that final call, he has the ability to reverse it.’”

The Hill -- Kyl: Dems have already decided how to force health bill through
If the GOP doesn’t find a way to attend the health summit 10 days hence it will be bad for the party as they will look unwilling to negotiate. But, if President Obama can’t find a way to get them there, it will be another major disaster for him on the question of whether he is able to govern.

It’s more difficult for Obama because the things that the GOP is asking for — a new plan, not a modification of an old one and for Democrats to agree to abide by the Senate rules and not try to use a procedural end-around of budget reconciliation to pass the bill — are not unreasonable sounding to voters but are very hard to convince Democrats in Congress to do.

For Speaker Pelosi and others in the House, giving up on a big bold initiative in favor of a compromise plan would be a bitter pill after watching the bungling process in the Senate.

They’re open to passing something pretty close to the Senate Democrats’ plan, but a bipartisan plan, perhaps without an insurance mandate, would be a bitter defeat. But Reid knows that reconciliation isn’t just politically unpopular because it smacks of cheating the system, its also devilishly difficult. It’s like trying to get an elephant to tap dance. Sure, it’s possible. But nobody wants to sit in the orchestra pit. Reconciliation presents a huge risk because it means breaking up the bill into individual pieces and moving each one with 51-vote majorities, but on each point the Senate parliamentarian gets to say whether it is an appropriate subject for reconciliation or not. It could take weeks and would be hugely controversial.

And with so many Democratic senators looking to get some open water between themselves and the administration and this plan, the maneuver would be subject to lots of intra-party attacks.

Writer Taylor Rushing looks at the CW on the Republican side, as told by Sen. Jon Kyl:
“He quoted a recent Wall Street Journal article that asserted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has ‘set the stage’ for using reconciliation to pass the bill. That controversial legislative tactic could allow the bill to pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 60 as usually required to break a filibuster.

‘What that means is they’ve devised the process by which they can jam the bill through that the president has supported in the past, without Republican ideas in it,’ Kyl told CNN host Candy Crowley.”

Washington Post -- White House revamps communications strategy
The new White House communications strategy? Get back to the magic of 2008.
The administration is touting the new way they will be selling the presidents’ initiatives to the public – a direct, high-profile push by the boss on issues like health care, global warming (!), and the deficit.

In further evidence that the arrival of David Plouffe as a senior adviser is going to cause headaches, the administration is now bragging about a communications strategy that takes a caustic tone with critics and keeps Obama in constant campaign mode.

Sure, they did those things for all of 2009, but the problem, Obamites say, is that they didn’t do it hard enough. The strategy was good, they just didn’t push it hard enough. No one yet seems to have realized that a campaign has one goal. A presidency has many goals.

As evidence of the tin ear of the communications team, writer Michael Shear tells us that the administration thinks it’s winning the message war on the underpants bomber.
“White House advisers promise a quicker, more aggressive response to GOP attacks on the president and his policies. They noted that Obama and his top White House advisers have pushed back hard against Republican accusations that the FBI mishandled the interrogation of the man accused of trying to bomb an airliner on Christmas Day -- and as Biden did on Sunday.”

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

Wall Street Journal -- Leverage Sought In Health Summit
Republicans are asking President Obama to make a show of good faith before his proposed health care summit by publicly scrapping the existing Democratic legislation, crafted at great pains over the past year.
The president cannot explain that the only reasons for the summit are to show that he went down fighting for the great liberal cause, to demonstrate that Republicans are unworthy partners for bipartisan outreach, and, of course, to prove that he was right.
The White House is attempting a controlled demolition while Republicans are proposing a new construction project.
But as Examiner colleague Julie Mason points out, the White House is keenly aware that the president’s pivot to issues of concern for voters has resulted into a duck hook back into the health care bunker.
Writer Laura Meckler explains that speed will trump outcomes when it comes to the Battle of Blair House.
“Mr. Obama has repeatedly said Democrats' messy negotiations soured the public. The White House now hopes that a better, more public process will boost public support and give congressional Democrats enough confidence to pass the bill, using a parliamentary procedure that requires just 51 Senate votes…If that fails, the White House hopes the summit will lay the groundwork for a modest bipartisan bill that would fall far short of Democrats' original goals, but would give the president and his allies a success to show voters this fall. Another possibility: the session might do nothing to break the deadlock and merely provide grist for each side's fall campaign.”

Washington Post -- In Congress, it's decision time on long-term unemployment benefits
The jobs bill being considered in the Senate is also a no-jobs bill. It includes provisions to keep a million Americans who are slated to lose unemployment benefits on March 1 on the dole for a total of two years, rather than the six months usually allowed.
Writer Perry Bacon offers a handy primer for how the 12 million people currently getting an average of $325 a week from the government continue to cling to the financial lifeline that currently costs taxpayers $13 billion a month.
The question is not whether to extend, but how. Some Democrats want a temporary, targeted expansion, while others want a permanent expansion of the entitlement. Republicans wonder if it’s a wise thing to make not working pay.
“Through a series of laws, including the $787 billion economic stimulus, people in states with high rates of unemployment are eligible to get jobless benefits for up to 99 weeks, an all-time high.”

New York Times -- U.N. Climate Panel and Chief Face Credibility Siege
The swami of Global Warmism, Rajendra Pachauri, has become a liability to the beleaguered faith.
Al Gore’s 2007 co-laureate and the originator of the theme of the Copenhagen climate summit (“Less meat equals less heat”) has been taking a shellacking both for the junky report his UN team produced three years ago and for his own business dealings.
The 2007 climate report that was heralded as the final word on man-made global warming has recently been found to have been as well sourced as a freshman term paper written in an all-nighter. Claims on glacier melt, ocean rise and weather disruption seem to have been selected for salaciousness, not accuracy.
But Pachauri, an Indian railroad engineer with a knack for the NGO game, is also in hot water for the jet-set life he has led as a corporate advisor, much like Gore. At the heart of Pachauri’s operation is a non-profit group that corporations can fund in order to receive absolution from the warmist high priest.
Writer Elisabeth Rosenthal offers one case:
“The energy institute has financial interests in a number of companies. For example, it was awarded stock by the founders of GloriOil, a start-up based in Houston, in exchange for permission to use a method developed at the institute to extract residual oil from older wells.
‘We thought about it long and hard, and decided to get involved in this because the U.S. has the largest number of these wells and it is better than drilling offshore or in Alaska,’ Dr. Pachauri said.”

Washington Post -- U.S. proposes new climate service
It takes chutzpah or extraordinary tone-deafness to create a new global warming tracking service in the depths of the worst winter in Washington since before RFK Jr. was knee-high to an Eskimo and while the global scientific consensus on global warming is in disarray.
The Obama administration wants to change the focus of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from providing a weather service to providing a climate service that can help people and organizations make plans for the warm years to come.
The joke is lost on writer Juliet Eilperin, who makes only a glancing reference to the UN climate models now held up for ridicule by many in the scientific community.
This is starting to feel a little like the metric system. The folks in the administration and their cheerleaders in the press, like Eilperin, may be the last ones to know that they lost the fight.
“Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said in an interview that the service would be able to provide advice on such diverse topics as where ski operators might want to refocus their activities in light of changing snowfall patterns and which farm crops will need increased irrigation.
In the same way businesses such as the Weather Channel and AccuWeather.com have taken advantage of the National Weather Service's predictions, Locke said, ‘you'll see much of the private sector will want to build on this one-stop shop of climate services.’”

Wall Street Journal -- Senator Prodded Fed to Aid Ailing Lender
Kudos to the Federal Reserve for having the courage to blow off the unethical demands of a powerful senator even as the central bank was fighting for its life on Capitol Hill.
Bob Menendez went to bat for two home state politicos and asked the Fed in a private letter to approve a merger that would have bailed out two of his cronies. Not to consider the merger, but to approve it.
The Fed said no, but if the Senate Ethics Committee were more than a dumping ground for inconvenient facts, Menendez would be stripped of his seniority for trying to bully an essential agency.
Thanks to writer Damian Paletta for bringing it to light, along with Menendez’s race-card excuse.
“In a written statement, Mr. Menendez said helping the community bank, which mostly served Hispanics, was the right thing to do. ‘If any New Jersey constituent—regardless if it is a family or a local community bank—comes to me seeking assistance with a legitimate federal matter, not only is it important to help, I was elected to help,’ he said. ‘Telling them 'no' would be abdicating my responsibility.'"

AFPVA Lends A Hand With the Budget

A message from Americans for Prosperity:

Yesterday in Richmond, we rolled out our "Commonsense Model Budget" for VA. It was a packed house in the press briefing room at the General Assembly building and as you can imagine, there were lots of questions regarding where cuts should be made, how deep, and whether or not tax and certain fee increases would be appropriate to close the more than $4 billion shortfall we are currently facing. The reactions have been swift:

The Washington Post quoted Gov. Bob McDonnell's office as saying "The input from AFP will be very helpful in this process and we thank them for their innovative ideas."

The Lynchburg News & Advance quoted the report, pointing out that "even as the manufacturing, trade and services sectors of Virginia employment lost employees in the recession, government employment grew by 10,900."

WDBJ-TV in Roanoke quoted Delegate Ben Cline saying, "They (AFP) have put eyes on the budget and invested time, money and effort in reviewing our budget from top to bottom, and making specific recomendations."

The report details, by agency and department, where savings can be found by simply using controls that should have been used a long time ago. In all, we recommend more than $5 billion in cuts (including the $2 billion Gov. Kaine propsed.)

We made 5,000 copies of the 139 page report and will be distributing them to citizen activists around the commonwealth as we travel across Virginia holding dozens of town hall meetings in the next couple weeks.

I have to say, that in the more than two years as AFP's state director here in VA, nothing we've done to this point has been more important. It is time to turn the "cut spending" rhetoric into action.

Click here to contact your legislators and tell them, "No new tax increases in the
state budget,"

We have the opportunity to move Virginia forward. If we continue to make our voices heard, I know we will succeed. To view the report online, please visit our web site at www.afpva.org

In order to download the PDF, you must create a username and password by simply clicking "sign up."

Ben Marchi

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

New York Times -- Obama Orders Improvements in Security Policies
The State Department took interest in the dire warnings given by the father of the underwear bomber about his son’s Jihadist tendencies, but without other “biographic information” the National Counterterrorism Center found those warnings did not qualify him for the “no-fly” list.
And the day after that failure put the bomber on the plane, the head of the Counterterrorism Center still left town, with White House approval, for a family ski trip.
The new report from President Obama’s top terrorism advisor about the Christmas Day bombing attempt shows that State Department officials did not yank Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s visa on the spot, perhaps because of confusion with records.
But the real problem is in the fact that when the Western-style businessman father of a young, male, Muslim foreign national says his son is trying to attack America isn’t enough to get at least temporary addition to the no-fly list.
That dot should have needed no connecting, but even so, the president is ordering the intelligence community to speed up analysis and its dissemination dramatically.
The other part of plan is to make sure that TSA workers get to look at you naked before you are allowed to board a flight.
Writers Jeff Zeleny and Helene Cooper explain the president’s refusal to profile passengers.
“‘We are at war,’ Mr. Obama said, releasing an unclassified version of a report on the attempted attack.
He pledged not to ‘succumb to a siege mentality’ sacrificing the country’s civil liberties for security, but he called for expanding the criteria for adding people to terrorism watch lists.”

New York Times -- Fed Advice to A.I.G. Scrutinized
The Federal Reserve has given up most of the pretext that it operates above the political fray. Instead of operating at some arms-length distance on policy questions with the White House, the central bank is engaging in rather rank political gamesmanship. It’s become like a department of the executive branch but without the reporting requirements.
Writer Mary Williams Walsh tells us that a lawyer for the New York Fed told bailed out insurer AIG to withhold information on official reports about the size of the Fed’s payments to investors with AIG policies and the depth of the problems facing the company.
“The Fed’s lawyer, Ethan T. James, of Davis Polk & Wardwell, deleted all references to the $10 billion in swaps that could not be torn up. He wrote in the margin: “There should be no discussion or suggestion that A.I.G. and the N.Y. Fed are working to structure anything else at this point.”
After receiving his instructions, A.I.G. deleted the reference to the $10 billion derivatives problem from its filing.”

Wall Street Journal -- EPA Proposes Tighter, Costlier Smog Limits
Writers Mark Peters and Stephen Power tell us how a new EPA smog rule, which the agency says may cost the private sector up to $90 billion a year, will work.
Smoggy cities will still be smoggy, but less smoggy places will be regulated.
“According to the agency, more than twice the 322 counties that violate current federal ozone standards would fail to comply if the new standard were set at 0.06 ppm. For areas thrown into noncompliance for the first time, the standards could result in new pollution controls on large factories, or requirements for retail gasoline outlets to sell cleaner-burning fuel. Under federal law, states are required to submit plans to the EPA that detail how they will comply with the government's ozone standards. Those that don't submit such plans or fail to implement them risk losing highway funds.”

The Hill -- Pelosi vows to defend House healthcare bill
The House speaker is making noise about not signing off on the Senate health bill having heard grumbling from her members over their problems with the Senate plan. The president is even planning another trip up to the Hill to quell unrest among House members.
But, as writers Jared Allen and Jeffrey Young explain, the calculus remains the same – with several Senators itching for an excuse to spike the legislation and no margin of error within Harry Reid’s caucus, it is the House that must yield. At least they won’t have to do it on C-SPAN.
“House Democrats will caucus again on Tuesday, and on Wednesday they begin their three-day ‘Issues Conference,’ where they will hear from Obama directly.
Many members are awaiting guidance from the president, and there is a hope that he will help the two chambers clear their remaining hurdles.
Talk of meeting in the middle on certain areas was already permeating some of the policy discussions on Thursday.”

Washington Post -- Steele comments have GOP aides pleading, 'Get him to stop'
Philip Rucker and almost everyone else writing about Michael Steele suggests that the anger at Steele inside the GOP is because he suggested that the party wouldn’t win the majorities in Congress this year.
But the heart of the problem is how it happened: while Steele was out on a book tour, selling his own book. Steele was already in hot water for doing paid speeches in addition to his work as chairman, but a book designed to be provocative (and saleable) by pointing out what’s wrong with the party was too much.
The RNC is facing cash flow problems and organizational challenges, but Steele is still selling Steele.
It prompted top Hill aides to call for Steele to tone it down in a party conference call this week. Steele responded on ABC radio saying: 'I've had enough of it. If you don't want me in the job, fire me. But until then, shut up. Get with the program or get out of the way.'
Perhaps most worrisome for Steele is becoming the new Scozzofava:
“Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) came to Steele's defense Thursday, telling a group of reporters in Atlanta that he is ‘a fan of Steele's’ even though the chairman ‘makes a number of old-time Republicans very nervous.’
‘He comes out of a different background,’ Gingrich said, according to the Associated Press. ‘ . . . But I think he's pretty close to what we need. He's different, he's gutsy and he's going to make a number of Republicans mad.’”

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

Washington Post -- Obama lists financial rescue as 'most important thing' of his first year

New York Times -- Plan to Move Guantánamo Detainees Faces a New Delay
Greg Craig has been booted and the Governor of Illinois is all fired up about the economic development potential of housing al Qaeda members in his state, so the whole “close Guantanamo” thing is back on track, right.

Not so much.

Wall Street Journal -- Businesses Brace for Health Bill's Costs
Companies are trying to extract some concessions in the final mash up of President Obama’s health plan and an army of lawyers and accountants are studying the plans so far to make the right plays once the legislation passes: which benefits they can cut, which benefits they must add, whether to start firing workers.

New York Times -- Thousands May Incorrectly Be Using Stimulus Tax Breaks
The problem with targeted tax incentives is that just as the government hopes to elicit very specific responses, fraudsters are given very specific targets.Writer Lynnley Browning tells us that the first-tie homebuyers tax continues to be a font of fraud and error, with half-a-billion dollars being siphoned off by those who haven’t met the criteria.Browning explains how a big part of the problem are the blizzard of phony tax identification numbers, a hot commodity in the illegal immigrant community.

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

Washington Post -- 34,000 troops will be sent to Afghanistan

President Obama figures he will be in the middle on Afghanistan if both sides of the debate are angry at him. Liberals hate the incremental, continuing escalation of the conflict and conservatives detest the squishy goals and conditional commitment.
Working sources within U.S.-allied governments already briefed on the plan, writers Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson lay out the scope of Obama’s second Afghan surge in advance of his speech tonight.


It looks to be 34,000 troops, as expected, but the troops will be added in stages and only as rewards to the Afghan government and its neighbors meeting benchmarks. Apply anti-corruption measures, get a brigade. Fail to engage in cooperative relations with Pakistan, no brigade for you. Right here is where my BS Meter pegged. You don't achieve victory by using Warriors as rewards for co-operating. Kill the enemy, then come home. Its so simple.

A big component of Obama’s restricted surge is added help from our European allies – already struggling to meet their existing commitments, they are to provide the last oomph to get Obama in the ballpark of his commanders’ request.
“Equally uncertain is the likelihood that NATO and other allies will contribute additional troops to a war that is deeply unpopular in Europe. Britain has authorized 9,500 troops; France has 3,750 on the ground. Among other NATO allies with forces in Afghanistan, Canada and the Netherlands have set withdrawal dates. [Secretary of State Hillary] Clinton will leave Thursday for Brussels to brief NATO allies, and the alliance will hold a ‘force generation conference’ next week.”

Wall Street Journal -- Fight Looms on How to Pay for New War Plan

Remember “Draft the Bush twins” and calls for shared national sacrifice to pay for President George W. Bush’s war in Iraq?
As writers Yochi J. Dreazen and August Cole explain, the challenges facing President Obama on executing his Afghan strategy have more to do with cold cash than strong symbolism.
Coming up with another $30 billion a year to execute the president’s strategy at a time when the deficit is still swelling from the binge spending that followed the Panic of 2008 would be tough enough. But with the president seeking simultaneous spending on health care and more jobs programs, he may make regular hawks into budget hawks.
And liberals are getting back into their Iraq talking points.

“Some Democrats are coalescing around a new proposal to levy a war tax to help fund the conflict. The proposal by Wisconsin Democratic Rep. David Obey, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, would impose a 1% tax on most Americans that rises to 5% for wealthier citizens. The administration has yet to weigh in on Mr. Obey's proposal, which would likely have a difficult time getting passed.”Dana Milbank -- The perils of being commander in chiefAs President Obama prepares to use perhaps the most respected national institution – West Point – as the backdrop for his prime time pitch for his second Afghan surge, Milbank looks at Obama’s increasing reliance on military symbolism, echoing the optics favored by his flight-suited predecessor.

The vibe is creeping out Obama’s supporters who backed Obama because of his 2002 speech opposing the Iraq war:“But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly.”
Obama has since discovered that the title of commander in chief is the one that gets the greatest respect from the American people. Forget whether or not Congress passes a dodgy health bill, it’s Obama’s surprising militarism that is dispiriting the president’s base.

“In an open letter to Obama on his Web site Monday, liberal activist Michael Moore wrote that by increasing troops in Afghanistan, ‘you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you.’

‘With just one speech tomorrow night,’ Moore continued, ‘you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike.’
The bomber jacket is definitely out for Tuesday night's speech. But with this kind of hostility from Obama's own supporters, maybe the White House should consider dressing him in camouflage?”

Wall Street Journal -- Some Health Premiums to Rise
To get a sense of how far the bar has fallen on health care, consider that the finding by the Congressional Budget Office that the Senate version of the president’s plan would only drive up insurance costs for a fifth of Americans.
Writers Janet Adamy and Greg Hitt explain that the Obama-Reid plan leaves premiums mostly unchanged for four-fifths of Americans partly through subsidies, which means higher taxes.
The biggest losers under the plan would be entrepreneurs, small business owners and others who buy their own insurance, as their premiums and taxes would rise simultaneously.
But workers with nice benefit packages get zapped too.
“The report found that more insurance plans would be subject to a new 40% excise tax -- meant to help pay for the bill -- on high-value insurance plans than Democrats have previously projected. According to the analysis, 19% of workers with employment-based coverage would be affected by the tax by 2016. Employers would likely scale back the plans to shield workers from the penalty.”

The Hill -- Threat of reconciliation hovers over centrist Dems in healthcare vote
Pork may the preferred tool for getting moderate Senate Democrats to take a big risk on the president’s health plan. But you can’t pay off every lawmaker – not all are as frankly mercantile as Sen. Mary Landrieu and who could afford to give every moderate $300 million anyway?
Writer Alexander Bolton explains that in order to pass the bill Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is relying on a strong arm tactic – if a 60 vote compromise is out of reach, Reid will use a procedural trick to pass a liberal bill with 51 votes.
The threat lacks credibility because Reid knows going nuclear might mean assured destruction for his reelection bid in 2010 and for Senate decorum.
The parliamentary trick of reconciliation would also mean a bare bones bill. But it might allow for the creation of a new government health insurance entitlement.
“Talk about using budget reconciliation to pass healthcare reform in the Senate has faded from public view, but Democratic leaders continue to hang the threat over centrists in private.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) discussed reconciliation with wavering centrists before an important procedural vote to begin debate on healthcare reform.”

Not The First Time Zero Has Feigned Indignation

In Illinois, a Similar Fight Tested a Future President

From The DC Examiner via Chris Stirewalt

A story this bad needs to be read.

Writers Michael Shear and Ceci Connolly engage in a massive bait and switch as they take thousands of words to talk about how state Sen. Barack Obama dealt with the issue of health care as the proponent of the Illinois Health Care Justice Act in 2004, intended to expand coverage to the state’s uninsured.

Like a treatment for a political remake of Rocky, the story has Obama aiming high and then seeming almost defeated by impossible odds. The story reaches its crescendo as the gentleman from Cook County rises to accuse those who complain about a back door to socialized medicine are telling lies and attacking him personally.

Shear and Connolly get the vapors writing about how Obama’s bluster won back liberals who felt the senator was aiming for impossible consensus instead of just pushing through basic legislation on a party-line vote.

But the real story is that Obama got his bill passed by stripping it down to a nothing plan that created a non-binding commission to make recommendations to the state senate.

The plan for a highly-subsidized individual mandate, like the plans that have crushed Massachusetts and Maine, came forth, just as opponents predicted, and then nothing happened.

Shear and Connolly flick away the sell out and inaction by blaming Rod Blagojevich’s corruption, but the recommendation died because it was too expensive and impractical. It sat for all of 2007 and most of 2008 before Blago went down. But even before the blue ribbon commission had made its report, Obama had ridden off to Washington with health care under his belt.

Selling out and then thundering at wicked Republicans works if you have someplace else to go, but not as well if you have the top job. Even so, Obama may look to talk tough tonight and then kick the can on health care.

Don’t tell Shear and Connolly, though. They’re still thrilling to Obama’s 2004 attack on the GOP. But that s proof itself that a harangue can get the liberal juices flowing.

“Gathered in the chamber, under the bas-relief sculpture of Manifest Destiny, were the senators who would vote that evening. Watching from the gallery was Delgado, who had begun the quest with Obama 18 months earlier and pushed the bill through the House.

Obama was known as a cool -- some say detached -- politician, rarely prone to emotion. But lawmakers saw another side of him that evening. ‘He's non-nfrontational, non-antagonistic,’ Delgado said. ‘But when all of a sudden he lets it out like he did on that last day, people say, ‘‘Wow, he really cares about this.'’”

THAT'S going to leave a mark...

Now THIS is how you fisk global warming hocum.

The Washington Post is, well, ......, go look. It ain't pretty.