DCExaminer Morning Email

Michael Barone - The Left loses its way by abandoning 'third way'
Now, less than a generation later, both New Democrats and New Labor seem defunct.

Chris Stirewalt - Crist can't count on the white vote to carry him
A racially divided electorate produces racially skewed electoral outcomes.

Byron York - Top 10 dumbest things said about the Arizona immigration law
The last few days have seen an extraordinary outburst of criticism of Arizona’s new immigration law. In the nation’s elite media outlets, its most respected commentators are portraying the law as an act of police-state repression. Many, if not all, of the specific criticisms can be refuted simply by reading the law itself, but others are more generalized criticisms of immigration enforcement. In any event, it’s hard to choose the most over-the-top and wrongheaded commentary on the law, but here are ten choices, in no particular order.

Susan Ferrechio - For Dems, new finance law may be a matter of survival
Democrats are pushing speedy passage of legislation that would impose disclosure requirements on groups that spend money to influence elections. But opponents are calling it a partisan bill written to help shield dozens of vulnerable Democratic incumbents who stand to lose their seats in November.

Obama all but accuses critics of stoking anti-government violence
"What troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," Obama said after receiving an honorary doctor of laws degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

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.”

DCExaminer Morrning Email

Byron York - Fear and loathing in the RNC
Among members and insiders at the Republican National Committee, the feelings about chairman Michael Steele boil down to this: Many would be delighted if Steele were to leave the committee and take his controversies with him, but no one, at least so far, is willing to call on Steele to step down.

Susan Ferrechio - Boxer's luck runs out for this year's Senate run
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., is used to sailing with the prevailing political breeze, but this year she is heading into a storm.

Michael Barone - America losing the stomach for humanitarian interventions
Over the last two decades the United States has intervened militarily in several countries to protect human rights. Now, writes historian Mark Mazower in World Affairs, "The concept of humanitarian intervention is dying if not dead." And a good thing too, he concludes.

Julie Mason - Obama looks to legacy with nuclear disarmament moves
Taken together, the president's nuclear policy moves are steeped in the kind of history-making, heavily symbolic atmospherics that deeply appeal to Obama and his ambitions for leadership .

John McCormack - In Pennsylvania, Obama underwater, Toomey leads
Barack Obama beat John McCain in Pennsylvania by 11 points (55% to 44%) in 2008. A new poll by the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling shows Obama’s approval rating in the Keystone state at 46%, with 50% of voters disapproving.

DCExaminer Morrning Email Blast

Chris Stirewalt - Democrats get hip to the paranoid style of politics
To read the news, you might assume that there is a militiaman under every rock and that every tea party is a front for the Aryan Nation.
Will Sarah Palin's "targeting" of House Democrats incite assassins? Is "kill the bill" really a call to violence? Are there links between the Republican Party and nine nuts shooting guns outside a southern Michigan doublewide?
It is usually those out of power who are drawn to paranoid conspiracies, but Democrats sound like a pack of John Birchers talking about a shadowy conspiracy that is plotting against them.

Byron York - Poll: Majority says Dem health care tactics an 'abuse of power'
A new Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans believes Democrats abused their power by using procedural shortcuts and controversial parliamentary tactics to pass the new national health care makeover. And in a striking finding, slightly more people blame the Democrats' tactics than Republican criticism for the threats of violence and vandalism that were reported after the bill's passage.

J.P. Freire - Democrats expect voters to be good housewives
Though ballyhooed, this document labelled “The good wife’s guide” from a May 1955 edition of Housekeeping Monthly, has particular poignancy when viewed through the lens of a Democratic politician accusing dissenters of Obamacare of not giving the bill a chance. Just replace “wife” with “voter” and “men” with “politicians” and you arrive at the sort of government-knows-best logic that not only led to a legal requirement to buy health insurance, but also the idea that any harsh rhetoric protesting the law is unbecoming for a good electorate

Julie Mason - Drilling offer may revive climate plan
Clearing the way for new offshore oil drilling leases, President Obama showed a new flexibility on energy policy -- but whether it buys him support for stalled emissions legislation remains uncertain.

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

NBC News -- Obama: I’ll continue to reach out to GOP
One would be tempted to say NBC was the most ridiculous and fawning of all the news organizations when it comes to interviewing President Obama – Brian Williams going out for burgers with the president, etc. – but that would be giving short shrift to CBS. Sixty Minutes man Steve Kroft has been nuzzling Obama since back in the Democratic primaries and on Friday, Harry Smith will interview the president during a game of hoops at the White House basketball court – with a cheesy cross promotion to the network’s March madness coverage. That’s bush league, even for a morning show.

But NBC probably still wins the battle of the lightweights on points.

This morning, the president’s interview with Matt Lauer aired on Today. Credulous throughout, asked the president was if he really he could reach out to the Right, despite all the things they’ve said and done. Obama said that though conservatives are undeserving, he would still help them overcome their petty fears and prejudices.

The Lauer interview, Smith’s hoop dreams, and the visit to snub Hamid Karzai in person in Afghanistan, are all part of the rollout of the new, new Obama – the tough guy who gets results.

Today Obama will also sign the health care reconciliation bill, which the White House is re-branding as a college loan bill. The feds took over the student loan program to Hoover up billions of dollars currently going to private bank interest and repurpose it to Obamacare. The bill also adds hundreds of billions in new taxes, including a 4 percent tax on investment income.

But the message from Obama: those who oppose his policies (say, 54 percent of the electorate) have been led astray by radical and racist xenophobes who hate him personally and have no legitimate reason to dissent. Obama blames the news media for spreading these bitter, clinging instincts to other succeptable minds. (To complain about bad press in the middle of such sycophancy must have been some kind of veiled joke.)

If you think that spending $2 trillion when we’re already $12 trillion in the hole and that putting a government that has failed to steward the existing welfare programs in charge of the rest of health care sound crazy, you’ve probably been misled by a birther and may soon unwittingly join a militia.

Lauer did not ask the obvious questions – Are you concerned that making these invidious distinctions for your own political gain will further divide the country? Are you concerned that it will backfire?

Brett Baier, and to a lesser extent, George Stephanopoulos are so far the only interviewers who I’ve seen question Obama’s assumptions.

But maybe I’m just mad because Obama jinxed my WVU Mountaineers by picking them to beat Duke and win the national championship. You know Obama’s a Duke guy. Why pick on West Virginia?

“Moving back to domestic topics, Obama took a measured view of the Tea Party movement that has focused its anger on him and his administration. He took care to distinguish between the people who question his citizenship and who are convinced he’s a socialist and those who are simply concerned about the future of a country going through economic turmoil.

‘There's a part of the Tea Party that actually did exist before I was elected … where there's some folks who just weren't sure whether I was born in the United States, whether I was a socialist. Then I think that there's a broader circle around that core group of people who are legitimately concerned about the deficit, who are legitimately concerned that the federal government may be taking on too much. And I think those are folks who have legitimate concerns. And my hope is that as we move forward and we're tackling things like the deficit, imposing a freeze on domestic spending, taking steps that show we are sincere about dealing with our long-term problems that some of that group will dissipate.’”

New York Times -- Companies Push to Repeal Provision of Health Law
The shady accounting of the Republicans’ Medicare drug benefit depended on companies continuing to cover retirees’ prescriptions, which was going the way of the defined-benefit pension plan. As an enticement to stay in the game, big employers were given a direct subsidy of 28 percent of the value of the drug benefits but also allowed to deduct the amount of that subsidy from their corporate taxes.

In crafting Obamacare, Democrats took away the subsidy write off and plugged the revenue from continued, consistent consumption into their fantasy accounting projections for the president’s plan.

Of course now that there’s less subsidy, there will be less lavish retirement benefits. And those retirees’ drugs will be 100 percent subsidized on Medicare instead of 28 percent subsidized on a corporate plan.

I hate to be the one to break the news, but this whole universal health insurance thing could turn out to be pretty expensive.

Companies are charging off the loss of revenue as SEC rules require and preparing to change benefits packages. The politically obsessed White House, of course, believes that it’s all political. If the companies would embrace, instead of resisting change – they would see that less money is really more money.

But what will they do about labor?
“Gerry Shea, the A.F.L.-C.I.O.’s chief strategist on health care, stopped short of calling for a repeal of the provision. ‘We’re very concerned about the disruption that could be caused because of this, with people being pushed out of employer plans,’ he said. ‘With all the changes we’re looking at because of the new health legislation, we feel you don’t need this.’

Mr. Klein argued that the provision would undercut Mr. Obama’s job creation plans. ‘If companies are going to take a hit like this on their financial statements that will certainly hurt their ability to borrow in the marketplace and make the type of investments that will retain and create jobs,’ he said.”

New York Times -- Afghan Leader Is Seen to Flout Influence of U.S.
If you can’t do anything about a problem, why pick at it?

As Ambassador Eikenberry’s cables show, we’ve known that Hamid Karzai is not exactly Mustafa Kemal for a long time.

We had the chance to force him out or let the wolves carry him away and start over with the new replacement, but opted to stick with our man if Afghanistan. So there’s no chance that we will now decide to plunge the country into chaos just at the moment we are trying to pacify and stabilize Afghanistan.

What’s the point of President Obama calling out Karzai for being the figurehead of a marginal government of a narco state ruled by warlords? Presumably it must have something to do with mollifying American liberals because it sure doesn’t play in the Hindu Kush, where everyone is waiting for the attempted U.S. drawdown to begin.

Writers Dexter Filkins and Mark Landler give us the back story.
“This month, with President Hamid Karzai looking ahead to a visit to the White House, he received a terse note from aides to President Obama: Your invitation has been revoked.
The reason, according to American officials, was Mr. Karzai’s announcement that he was emasculating an independent panel that had discovered widespread fraud in Mr. Karzai’s re-election last year.

Incensed, Mr. Karzai extended an invitation of his own — to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, who flew to Kabul and delivered a fiery anti-American speech inside Afghanistan’s presidential palace.

“Karzai was enraged,” said an Afghan with knowledge of the events, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the issue. “He invited Ahmadinejad to spite the Americans.”

The dispute was smoothed over only this week, when Mr. Obama flew to Kabul for a surprise dinner with Mr. Karzai.”

Washington Post -- Under shadow of 1957, Arkansas stays out of health-care fight
Writer Peter Slevin tells us that states resisting the imposition of Obamacare in court are walking the same path that the states who fought the application of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.

What dreck.

Democratic Gov. Mike Bebee of Arkansas said he would not join the dozens of chief executives considering a legal battle to prevent their citizens from being forced into Obamacare. Bebee told reporters that when Arkansas tried to resist Brown v. Board in 1957 it lost, just as the other state would loose this fight too.

Grasping for any link between Obamacare resistance and racism – the very motif Democrats served up on the day they passed the bill – Slevin was off like a shot to Little Rock to soak up this new evidence of moral equivalency between racism and health opposition.

The states fighting Obamacare are seeking a Supreme Court ruling, not resisting one. The states that seek to block the insurance mandate want to preserve individual rights, not impede them.

Also, health care is not a racial issue.

Slevin does not note these differences. Neither does he treat detractors with a shred of fairness.
It’s one thing to do as Matt Lauer does and not question the president’s assumptions, but doing the work of Democrats looking to demonize their political foes is something even worse.

“When President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) federalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division to protect the Little Rock Nine, he told the nation that the Supreme Court's ruling was ‘the law of the land.’ When Obama signed the health-care bill into law at the White House, he said health insurance ‘is the law of the land.’

[Democratic Attorney General Dustin] McDaniel used the same phrase as he explained why Arkansas will not join the lawsuits.

‘The law of the land does, in fact, come from our elected officials in Washington,’ McDaniel said. ‘A state deciding that it wants to singularly defy federal law simply because the citizens may not like it -- that's not the way the democratic process works. That's not the way the Constitution is set up.’”

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.”

Morning Reads from the DCExaminer

Obama's 'Star Trek': From Mr. Spock to Capt. Kirk
The president's supporters had grown tired of their model of cool logic. They wanted the anti-Spock. They wanted Capt. Kirk -- the impetuous leader who ignores the probabilities because he trusts his gut and has enormous self-confidence.
Obligingly, Obama has been doing his best James T. Kirk imitation since the beginning of the year.

Byron York - Democrats aren't suicidal. They're self-executing
Using the self-executing rule strategy, Democrats could conceivably pass the rule, the Senate bill, and the House reconciliation "fixes" to the Senate bill all in one vote, without a single House member voting for any specific health care measure.

Michael Barone - Tea party brings energy, change and tumult to GOP
The Republicans for the last two decades have been a party whose litmus tests have been cultural issues, especially abortion. The tea partiers have helped to change their focus to issues of government overreach and spending. That may be a helpful pivot, given the emergence of a millennial generation uncomfortable with crusading cultural conservatism.

Byron York - Axelrod threat to GOP: 'Make my day'
Top White House adviser David Axelrod says that if Congress passes the Democrats' national health care bill, it will be politically impossible for Republicans to undo the changes brought by the massive legislation. "I say, Let's have that fight. Make my day," Axelrod said on "Meet the Press." "I'm ready to have that, and every member of Congress ought to be willing to have that debate was well."

Julie Mason - Think Washington is partisan now? Wait until after Obamacare
For Obama, the political calculation boils down to the risk of losing versus the risk of winning and having to deal with the political fallout later. Doubling down and failing on health care would make him look weak heading into midterm elections, and could hurt his party at the polls.

Susan Ferrechio - Democrats lack health care votes, but not bravado
House Democrats this week will embark on one of the biggest political quests in recent history as they attempt to pass a massive health care bill that still lacks the 216 votes needed for passage and faces universal Republican opposition.

DCExaminer Morrning Email Blast-Murtha-End of an Error

Chris Stirewalt - The end of the era of Congressional dinosaurs
Even the staunchest earmark foe had to feel a twinge with the passing of John Murtha. Not just because the congressman's family is pained by the sudden loss of an imposing figure, but because it was another paragraph in the final chapter of an era in American politics. The era of the dinosaurs is ending and the new epoch will be one of great upheaval.

Julie Mason - Biden's new role: Cheerleading, not policy
The Obama administration's avuncular No. 2 has evolved -- after a sometimes bumpy first year -- into a classic guy-behind-the-guy. He stays busy but rarely makes news, and he's a trusted presidential confidant -- but not exactly in the inner circle.

Michael Barone - Democrats in worst shape in the last 50 years
The metrics are pretty clear: Barack Obama got the highest percentage of the vote for a Democratic candidate for president since 1964 and now he has plunged his party into its weakest position in the polls since that time.

Byron York - Poll: Republicans gain on Obama, public welcomes GOP power to block
All in all, the poll shows the public growing increasingly confident in the GOP's ability to handle critical issues. The public would not have approved of a Republican check on Obama's power several months ago, when trust in the GOP was at an astonishingly low level. Now, with trust increasing, they want to see the GOP exercise more influence. In that sense, when Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown pledged to be the 41st Republican senator -- that is, to be the lawmaker who could help block some Obama initiatives -- he was speaking for the country as well as his state.

Susan Ferrechio - Once thought extinct, New England Republicans re-emerge
When a poll made the startling claim that Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., "may be facing his most difficult re-election campaign in 16 years," the news came as a shock to residents in the Ocean State, where Kennedy has been easily re-elected since taking office in 1995. The poll, conducted by WPRI-12, found that 31 percent of those interviewed would "consider another candidate" and 28 percent would "vote to replace" Kennedy. Only 35 percent said they would vote to give Kennedy a ninth term.

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

Baghdaddy Bob Gibbs "eggs, milk, bread....." Apparently Baghdad Bob has some ADD issues with a grocery list.

Two Parties Join Together, Then Resume Divided Ways
When will President Obama give up on the Robert Gibbs experiment?
Immediately after Obama made a surprise appearance in a snow-emptied press briefing room to emphasize that he was sincere about his new call for bipartisanship, Gibb took the podium for a bit of prop comedy at the expense of the GOP.

In taking follow-up questions from reporters, Gibbs went into a rehearsed, tedious bit Sarah Palin writing talking points on her hand. He wrote his grocery list and “ hope and change” on his own hand. That he lacked the good sense to keep his palm on the podium after Obama’s remarks should be enough to get him sacked.

Gibbs, who often uses sarcasm and put downs, immediately undercut Obama’s message about seeking an open dialogue with a petty attack totally out of place for anyone working at the White House, let alone the public face of the administration. If Obama ever needed proof of what a liability Gibbs has become, Tuesday’s performance should prove that his press secretary is far out of his depth.

Writers Helene Cooper and Carl Hulse look at the uneven efforts of the Obama White House to prove that the president has rediscovered post-partisanship.
“Tuesday’s meeting was the first in what administration officials say will be monthly bipartisan sessions, which Mr. Obama called for in the State of the Union address. Mr. Obama declared that ‘a sense of purpose that transcends petty politics’ must be forged by Democrats and Republicans to address national problems.”

Wall Street Journal -- Union-Backed Nominee Blocked in Senate
The president has a bipartisanship image problem, but when it comes to passing legislation, his challenges are all Democratic in nature.
Republicans were ready to use their newly enlarged minority for a first party-line filibuster to stop the appointment of a hard-line union lawyer to the National Labor Relations Board. But before they could try their first Brown-out, key Democrats abandoned ship. Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln both jumped off the train and joined the Republican filibuster against the personification of Card Check.

While party leaders got some moderates facing voters this fall, like Indiana’s Evan Bayh and Colorado’s Michael Bennet, to back the controversial nominee, the defection of four Democratic Senators (Landrieu of Louisiana and Pryor of Arkansas both sat out the vote once it was clear the president and his labor allies had been shut down) reveals again why Democrats, despite supermajority control of Washington for most of a year, accomplished so little.

Writers Melanie Trottman and Kris Maher look at what’s next for Democrats and big labor (aside from pinning the blame on the GOP):
“Richard Trumka, president of labor federation AFL-CIO, called the outcome Washington politics-as-usual and said it was ‘reprehensible that a minority in the U.S. Senate has blocked an up-or-down vote’ on Mr. Becker. Mr. Trumka said he would support President Barack Obama in making recess appointments of critical government posts ‘if that's what it takes to get around minority delay and obstruction.’”

Los Angeles Times -- Senate jobs bill a show of bipartisanship
The bipartisanship being lately embraced by the majority party was supposed to be capped off by some Republican support for a Senate jobs/stimulus/unemployment bill. But the evil winter weather pushed back the timeline and left the Democrat’s claims resting on bipartisan opposition to one of the president’s key nominees and the schlock comedy of the White House press secretary.

Writers By Janet Hook and Christi Parsons look at what will likely be in the bill that Harry Reid hopes will get some love from across the aisle. To make that happen, Reid may need to sweeten his offer.
“[The] cornerstone would be a proposal to give businesses that hire unemployed workers this year an exemption from the 6.2% Social Security payroll tax. If they keep those workers more than a year, employers would get an additional $1,000 tax credit per employee.
Other provisions of the bill are, for the most part, expansions or extensions of existing policies. The tax break for new equipment purchases by small businesses would be increased. The bill expands the Build America Bonds program, which subsidizes interest costs for state and local bonds issued to finance infrastructure projects. It extends until May 31 unemployment payments and healthcare subsidies for the jobless, which otherwise would expire for many people at the end of the month.”

New York Times -- House Closes for 2 Weeks; Senate In and Out
I have to shovel some new pathways into the back yard because the dog is running out of operational space after six days of snow siege.

Writer David Herszenhorn tells us that the House is giving up – they’re gone until Feb. 22. Harry Reid, who is such a bad poker player that he even tries to bluff a blizzard, is talking about jamming through his jobs bill on Thursday.
Republicans need a couple more days to get on board through negotiations, and the conditions here are so dreadful – howling winds, drifting snow and no public transportation – that getting staffers to the Senate is too tough.
“If comity prevails, the Senate could finish up votes on the jobs bill on Thursday, and senators could head out for their own Presidents’ Day recess. If not, Mr. Reid indicated that he may need to schedule a vote next weekend.”

New York Times -- U.S. Eyes Tougher Sanctions Over Iran Nuclear Program
While the administration is very busy defending itself against charges that the president has been soft on terrorism, pressure is mounting on the diplomatic front as well.
Iran is tweaking Obama over uranium enrichment, making more demands about how and where the delivery of nuclear fuel should be made and promising to make their own if the West does not comply.

That again leaves Obama doing an unconvincing Bush impersonation in talking about tough new sanctions and isolation for Iran as a year of engagement and dialogue produce nothing but an emboldened regime in Tehran.

Writers Helene Cooper and Mark Landler look at the administration’s frustrations.
“As the Obama administration lays the groundwork for a resolution, it is racing against a couple of timetables. The first is set by Iran’s nuclear program and the administration’s sense of urgency to act. The second is set by the dynamics of the Security Council, where France currently presides.

The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has been aggressive in pushing for new sanctions, especially in the energy sector, according to American and European officials. The next member to hold the chair is Gabon, an African nation less likely to push hard for a resolution.”

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.'"