EDITOR OF REDSTATE
Morning Briefing for November 9, 2009
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
The Democrats’ health care legislation passed the House of Representatives on Saturday by three votes. Under the Democrats’ plan, should you fail to obtain health insurance, you will go to jail for five years.
Leading up to the vote, pro-lifers engaged in a battle against each other over the “Stupak Amendment” offered by pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak. By Sunday, pro-lifers were suffering numerous recriminations from their allies. The logic is that had Stupak not passed, there would be enough votes to ensure the health care bill did not pass.
While I tend to agree with the argument, I think we miss a central point: Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats would have just done something else to get the legislation passed. By using pro-life issues, however, the Democrats were able to divide the GOP.
As the sun rises this Monday morning, let’s consider a few points.
1. Whether Stupak passed or not, the health care legislation would have passed on Saturday. In fact, most of the Republican leaders on the Hill encouraged a yes vote for the Stupak Amendment because (A) its passage would send a strong message that there is a pro-life majority in the House of Representatives and (B) its passage would not affect the final outcome. Regardless of how you view Stupak, we know now there is a pro-life majority in even this Democratic House of Representatives and Stupak very clearly will not affect the final outcome.
2. We know that this House legislation is dead on arrival in the United States Senate. As a result of its passage, a number of Blue Dog Democrats are now extremely vulnerable to defeat, as are a number of others. The act of voting for the legislation, and the anger generated by it receiving a majority vote, will doom a significant number of Democrats.
3. Because the Stupak Amendment passed, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and a host of power left-wing interest groups that supported Obamacare, now are joined with a bunch of groups on the right in opposition to the measure.
4. Passing Obamacare in the manner it passed Saturday has created fresh, new divisions within the Democratic Party. While the media would prefer to look at Republican divisions, the Democrats are so full of gaping wounds now, they might bleed to death by November of 2010.
The murder of thirteen US soldiers and the wounding of thirty others at Fort Hood, Texas, yesterday is an unprecedented even in the history of the US military. It marks the first time in the history of the republic that a commissioned officer in the Armed Forces has turned his weapon on American troops.
Probably the closest thing the US Army has experienced prior to this in its history occurred in July 1867 when Captain Thomas Custer, acting under orders from his brother, Lieutenant Colonel George Custer, tracked down three deserters, wounding two and killing one. Where Lieutenant William Calley and Captain John Compton participated in mass murders (347 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai on March 16, 1968 and 40 Italian prisoners of war at Biscari, Sicily on July 14, 1943, respectively) the victims were not their own troops.
The murderous rampage of Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan has entered the annals of military history as a unique betrayal of the traditional relationship between an officer — and a physician — and the men entrusted to his care by virtue of his rank.
Did it have to happen?
Senator Tom Coburn is living up to his nickname.
“Senior Senate Democratic aides had heard Coburn was considering having potentially thousands of pages read aloud in effort to stall passage. “If he did this it would be even outrageous for a guy who’s become known as Dr. No around here,” one of them told POLITICO.”
Good luck on getting Coburn to back down on this: we’re talking about a guy who has a hold on a veterans’ bill because it’s not addressing his concerns about cost duplication and discrimination. We’re also talking about a guy with an approval rating somewhere around 60 with his constituents – so that argument is out, too.
In the flurry of news this week, you may have missed another body tossed under the insatiable Obama bus: Internet Czar Susan Crawford.
The Obama administration has faced a vocal and growing opposition to the radical so-called net neutrality advocated by folks like Crawford and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. Bi-partisan opposition, I hasten to add. The radicals in the administration, whose views are shared by the President, in true czar fashion avoid honest debate on the issue at all costs. Even, it would seem, internally.
This is really funny. The St. Petersburg Times is painting a picture of Marco Rubio as not a conservative, but a political opportunist.
After a week of negative attention and a website designed to paint Rubio as a liberal, Charlie Crist finally had to hire some journalists to do it.
“Rubio’s fiscal conservatism was called into question as soon as he assumed the role of speaker.”
The whole article is designed to expose hypocrisy in Rubio’s record, much of it easily explained away. But keep this in mind, here is what the exact same newspaper wrote about Marco Rubio just last year:
“Rubio, the young Republican speaker from Miami, has been a particular disappointment…Rubio would have had more success if he had learned from Crist’s populism and willingness to compromise instead of clinging to the hard-edged conservatism of his mentor, former Gov. Jeb Bush.”
But there’s more.
The more one digs into Tuesday’s election results, the worse they look for Democrats. Let’s start by reviewing once again the three high profile races: New York’s 23rd Congressional District special election, and the gubernatorial in New Jersey and Virginia.
The Democrats have to know that NY-23 was a fluke – they can’t count on gross Republican miscalculation in 2010. Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to write off the New Jersey and Virginia losses by blaming them on bad candidates simply don’t ring true.
In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was not a bad candidate. In the primary, despite being vastly outspent, he hammered the powerful Terry McAuliffe. He had the endorsement of the Washington Post, which argued that of three strong Democratic primary candidates, in the general election, “Deeds’ moderate platform would have the broadest appeal.” On liberal blog sites, Deeds was the overwhelming favorite as the best candidate, the one most likely to win the general election.
Jon Corzine was not a bad candidate, either – he could self-fund his race, an enormous advantage, and outspend any opponent 3 to 1, as he did to Chris Christie. He had been elected statewide twice before. What Corzine was, was a bad governor. And why was he a bad governor? Because he followed the same type of policies that the Democrats are now pursuing on a national level. Maybe someone will notice that.
Down ballot, in races for lower offices, including state legislatures and mayors, it gets worse.