(Via Instapundit) Michael Barone unpacks the bind that House Democrats are in over the health care rationing bill, right now (to summarize, reports suggest that they really don't want to pass the Senate version, promises of reconciliation later or no):
If you vote for the Senate bill, you’re voting for something that has 35% support nationwide and probably a little less than that in your district. You will have voted for the Cornhusker Hustle and the Louisiana Purchase. Your Republican opponent will ask why you voted for something that gave taxpayers in Nebraska and Louisiana better treatment than the people you represent (there are no Democratic House members running for reelection in those two states: Nebraska has only Republican House members and the single Louisiana House Democrat is running for the Senate). The only protection you have against this is the assurance that the Senate parliamentarian and scared incumbent senators will come through for you, and that Harry Reid will pursue a steady course.
Read the whole thing, and may I offer an observation? None of this would have happened if the Democrats had simply kept to their word and acted decently towards Republican legislators last year. If they had involved their colleagues in the process, they would have gotten a much better bill, absolutely crucial bipartisan support, and at least some of what they ostensibly wanted. But because they thought that they could get away with being arrogant and bullying and petty, the Democrats are now facing what could be the worst political backlash of the last thirty years. And they've earned every drop of it.
Isn't it funny how often the virtuous option turns out to be the smart one, too?
Crossposted to Moe Lane.