In the wake of the House vote for President Obama’s government takeover of health care, some conservative commentators are asking what may have been had House Republicans decided to follow Rep. John Shadegg’s (R-AZ) advice to vote present on the Stupak-Pitts amendment.  The amendment prohibits the federal government from spending any funds to provide abortion under the plan’s public option and prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a health insurance plan that covers abortion.

Sixty-four Democrats voted with Republicans in passing Stupak.  The argument says that had Republicans voted “present” or “no” on the amendment, it would have failed.  The theory is that those sixty-four Democrats would have abandoned the final bill without the prohibition included, effectively killing the overall effort to socialize the nation’s health care system.

But that thinking represents the triumph of hope over experience.  It supposes that Nancy Pelosi, who has shown herself to be nothing if not a cold-blooded and ruthless political operative, would not take any other necessary steps to find the votes necessary to pass the bill.  The only reason Stupak was allowed to come to a vote in the first place was because Pelosi was willing to shiv two-thirds of her caucus to get the bill passed.  Pelosi, and Obama, would have moved any obstacle, made any promise, and broken any number of arms to get the White House a “victory” on health care, however hollow that victory may ultimately turn out to be.

Read More →

There’s a revealing quote buried inside Politico’s account of a revolt by liberal members of the House Democratic caucus over the deal between Rep. Henry Waxmam (D-CA) and four members of the Blue Dog Caucus. Liberals are upset that the deal effectively guts the public option in President Obama’s healthcare takeover. And as is usually the case, when liberals get upset, the truth about the contempt that they harbor for their core constituencies begins to show. How else can this comment by Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick be explained?

At one point, Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), a former Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman, expressed outrage that conservatives would insist on significant cuts and a weakening of the public option, arguing that many of the Blue Dogs were letting down their black constituents, who make up 25 percent to 40 percent of their voters, in some instances.”

Yeah, that’s right. Opposing the public options on cost grounds betrays blacks. Because, you know, all blacks are destined to be on the public dole, right Congresswoman?

The Hill is reporting tonight that it is looking more and more like Sarah Steelman may decide to forego a challenge to MO Rep. Roy Blunt in the primary for Kit Bond’s Senate seat.  Instead she may try to run for Blunt’s current 7th District House seat in Missouri.

Former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman appears increasingly less likely to run against Blunt, and she acknowledged Monday that she is looking at a possible campaign for Blunt’s open House seat as an alternative.

Steelman said shortly after Sen. Kit Bond’s (R-Mo.) retirement announcement in January that she was leaning toward entering the Senate race, and for a while, it was a foregone conclusion.

But after unleashing a string of Blunt criticisms and opening an exploratory committee in April, she has grown quieter and begun evaluating other options.

She was still largely quiet last week when potential Blunt challenger Tom Schweich and the man who had been promoting him, former Sen. John Danforth (R-Mo.), both changed course and announced their support for Blunt.

Though rarely afraid of ruffling feathers in the GOP establishment — including in a pitched gubernatorial primary with former Rep. Kenny Hulshof (R-Mo.) in 2008 — Steelman told The Hill on Monday that she is worried about hurting the GOP.

Read More →

As the scandal over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s and other top Congressional Democrats’ bald-faced lies to the American people about what and when they knew of enhanced interrogation techniques enters its second week, questions are beginning to be raised about the Obama Administration’s role in the release of information contradicting Pelosi’s account of briefings she received.  Specifically, inquiring minds are wondering whether the White House signed off on CIA Director Leon Panetta’s internal agency memo responding to Pelosi’s accusation that the CIA had misled Congress in its briefings on the techniques.

That question has been answered.  The White House knew about the memo, and alerted Pelosi that it was going public.

“The Central Intelligence Agency gave House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., advanced warning before CIA Chief Leon Panetta sent a memo to employees at the spy agency that countered Pelosi’s claim that the agency lied to Congress about waterboarding.

A CIA official, but not Panetta, made the call to Pelosi. [...]

The aide said Pelosi protested Panetta’s memo on the call to no avail.”

Now, new questions are raised.  Pelosi must surely be wondering why a president of her own party is allowing the release of information that will make her look bad in the press; why he is remaining silent on the issue; and why he is taking no action to try and stem the feeding frenzy surrounding her.

Read More →

It is a very open secret in Democratic circles that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) do not have the best of relationships. The pair were rivals for the speaker’s gavel after the Democrats took control of the House in 2006. Later, Pelosi backed the notoriously corrupt Jack Murtha (D-PA) for Majority Leader against Hoyer. Tensions have simmered beneath the surface ever since.

But now that Speaker Pelosi finds herself embroiled in a growing scandal over what she knew and when she knew it regarding the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorist detainees, those tensions are about to boil over. Hoyer is backing an inquiry into the interrogations, sought by Pelosi, but said today that the Speaker herself should be a target of the investigation. [sub. req.]

Read More →

And by the ‘House’ I mean the ‘Democrats.’ The House Chief Administrative Officer is Dan Beard: he’s the one who made the formal request, we didn’t have a say in his selection, and we’ve been objecting to his rather naked partisanship for years.

Anyway, this time it’s for ‘incumbent protection’ - and by incumbent protection I mean ‘keeping the Democrats at their troughs‘:

The House wants to increase Members’ office budgets next fiscal year by almost 15 percent, partly because 2010 is an election year and lawmakers anticipate a surge in franked mail.

[snip]

“It’s an incredibly naked admission that Members of Congress abuse the franking privilege for electoral purposes, even though the rules say they don’t,” said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union. “This sends the worst possible message not only to the taxpayers, but to the electoral system as a whole.”

Read More →

Key Political Developments

Senate Update

Ohio: A new Quinnipiac University poll shows a wide open US Senate race in the Buckeye State. Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) leads former Bush Budget Director Rob Portman 41-33% in the large sample poll (1,299 respondents), conducted from March 10-15. Portman trails Jennifer Brunner (D), the very partisan Ohio Secretary of State, 39-34%. Meanwhile, the same survey shows Gov. Ted Strickland (D) leading former Rep. John Kasich (R-OH-12) by a sizable 20-point margin, 51-31%. The poll is particularly good news for Portman because his statewide name ID is only 32%. Of the people who can identify him, his favorability ratio is a strong 25:7.

New Hampshire: Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH-1) announced she will not run for the Senate next year, thus giving fellow ultra-liberal Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH-2) a clear shot at the Democratic nomination. No decision as yet regarding whether former Sen. John Sununu (R) will get into the race. Sen. Judd Gregg (R) is retiring. Should Sununu not run, former Gov. Steve Merrill (R), whose popularity ratings topped 65% when he left office, has not ruled out a Senatorial attempt.

New York: Democrats are about to tear themselves apart over appointed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. Ten of her former New York congressional colleagues signed a letter to the state Democratic chairman demanding that the party stop promoting Gillibrand without mentioning the other potential candidates. Reps. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY-4), Steve Israel (D-NY-2), and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer (D) are all considering the race. Not surprisingly, McCarthy and Israel were among the ten members who signed the letter.

Read More →

Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Democrat-CA) said the following:

I pledge to you–let us all pledge to the American people that: we will look forward, not backward; we will join hands, not point fingers; we will rise to the challenge, recognizing that our love of country is stronger than any issue which may divide us.

Let us listen to each other. Let us respect every voice and view. And then together, let us act.

As we in Congress pledge to reach across the aisle, we recognize that history will measure this decisive moment not just by what we do here in Washington – but by how we reflect and respect how all Americans work together for the common good to strengthen America’s future and faith in itself.

As you’d probably expect, that attitude lasted all the way until the first actual debate on legislation (which sadly wasn’t SCHIP, but the so-called “stimulus”), when she 180°ed on the post/bi/nonpartisan act and said the following:

Read More →