Politics on HuffingtonPost.com

Democrats Clear Impasse Blocking Health Care Vote

2009-11-07T05:30:19Z

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is traveling to Capitol Hill on Saturday to try to close the sale on his signature health care overhaul, facing a make-or-break vote in the House certain to be seen as a test of his presidency.

Obama scheduled a late-morning visit with House Democrats convening a rare Saturday session on legislation to remake the U.S. health care system, extending coverage to tens of millions now uninsured and banning insurance company practices such as denial of coverage based on pre-existing medical problems.

Late Friday, House Democrats cleared an abortion-related impasse blocking a vote and officials expressed optimism they had finally lined up the support needed to pass Obama's signature issue.

Under the arrangement, Democratic Reps. Bart Stupak of Michigan, Brad Ellsworth of Indiana and other abortion opponents were promised an opportunity to insert tougher restrictions into the legislation during debate on the House floor.

The leadership's hope is that no matter how that vote turns out, Democrats on both sides of the abortion divide will then unite to give the health care bill a majority over unanimous Republican opposition.

"We wish to maintain current law, which says no public funding for abortion," Stupak said. "We are not writing a new federal abortion policy."

Ellsworth added, "From day one, my goal has been to ensure federal tax dollars are not used to pay for abortions and to provide Americans with pro-life options on the exchange. And I am proud to be part of an effort to help make this goal a reality."

With Democrats' command of the necessary votes looking tenuous in the final hours, Obama threw the weight of his administration behind the effort to round up support. He and top administration officials worked the phones to pressure wavering lawmakers.

Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., said he heard Friday from Obama, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Their message: "This is a historic moment. You don't want to end up with nothing," said Altmire, who remained undecided.

Democratic leaders hoped to hold the vote Saturday evening, but Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said it could slip.

Democrats hold 258 seats in the House and can afford 40 defections and still wind up with 218, a majority if all lawmakers vote. But all 177 Republicans were expected to vote "no," and Democratic leaders faced a series of complications trying to seal the needed votes for their complex and controversial legislation that would affect one-sixth of the economy and touch the lives of countless Americans.

The final hurdle was a controversy over federal funding for abortion, which simmered into Friday night with tensions running high as Democratic leaders shuttled between meetings of anti-abortion and abortion rights lawmakers.

Federal law currently prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest of situations in which the life of the mother is in danger. That left unresolved whether individuals would be permitted to use their own funds to buy insurance coverage for the procedure in the federally backed insurance exchange envisioned under the legislation.

Democrats have little room for error, with the prospect of the 2010 midterms looming large and a some of their own moderates already declaring their opposition.

The 10-year, $1.2 trillion House bill would create a new federally supervised insurance marketplace where the uninsured could purchase coverage.

Consumers would have the option of picking a government-run plan, the most hotly contested item in the legislation.

___

Associated Press writers David Espo and Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

Compromise Reached On Health Care Bill: Anti-Abortion Amendment To Be Given Floor Vote

2009-11-07T05:13:59Z

As the House of Representatives inches toward a final vote on comprehensive health care reform this weekend -- the most dramatic domestic policy debate in several generations, a reorganization of a sixth of the economy - the only thing the parties can talk about is abortion and immigration.

"It tells you something about our country," remarked one distressed member of Congress, who didn't want to be named speaking ill of this fine land.

What it tells isn't pretty: The ranks of the uninsured are steadily being filled, with the number approaching 50 million. Health care costs are rising at a rate several times that of inflation, eating into the take-home income of the majority of the American people and threatening to break the federal budget in less than a decade.

Yet the talk is of abortion and immigration.

All day on Friday, House leaders struggled to reconcile the pro-life and pro-choice wings of the Democratic Party. Over the last several weeks, the pro-choice bloc, consisting of nearly 200 Democrats, had gradually come to terms with an amendment authored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.).

The intent of the amendment was to keep the debate about health care rather than abortion and it would make clear that - as is current law - no federal funds would be used for abortion. "Our hope was that we could continue the current ban on federal funding for abortion so the issue wouldn't bog down the overall health reform legislation," wrote Capps at the time.

That wasn't enough for pro-life Democrats. On November 3, Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-Ind.) offered a more conservative compromise, one that restricted abortion in a bunch of extra ways and would require one private plan in the exchange not to cover abortion.

The divorce from reality had been filed by this point, considering that most insurance plans -- even using pro-life numbers -- do not cover abortion.

Still, pro-choice Democrats swallowed the compromise, but said they'd go no further. Health care reform, said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), a staunch pro-choicer and co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, should not be a vehicle to drive a pro-life social agenda.

That's when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) re-entered the debate. Stupak is a longtime pro-life advocate and had been pressing his concerns upon House leadership. On Friday, Ellsworth withdrew his compromise language from negotiations, according to several House sources, sending the debate back to the starting line, where Stupak was waiting.

Stupak, in meetings with Pelosi and other members of leadership, pressed to include, instead, his own amendment that would ban the public health insurance option from funding abortion and also ban any private plan operating within the exchange from funding abortions. Under Stupak's plan, a woman buying private insurance from within the exchange with her own money would not have a choice of a plan that covered abortion.

During the early afternoon, Pelosi was leaning toward including some more moderately blended version of Stupak and Ellsworth's amendment's as part of the health care bill that would be sent to the floor, several aides told HuffPost. Just before 5:00 PM, Stupak and Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who battled over abortion while the bill moved through Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee, huddled on the House floor. Leaving the floor, the generally talkative Waxman gruffly brushed off reporters, asserting his alleged right "not to be swarmed."

Tempers flared. A Democratic congressman told House Republicans, who then told the Huffington Post, that Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) was asked to leave a leadership meeting where the pro-life agreement was being considered. DeGette is firmly pro-choice, and it was thought, the source said, that she would not agree to the deal. "False," said a leadership aide, saying that "she had to leave to attend another meeting. Other pro-choice members [were] in there with leadership, as well as Waxman."

Either way, the question came down to who had the votes. Stupak's driving argument was that he had more than the forty members he needed to "take down the rule" - legislative lingo for defeating a bill on the House floor before it comes for a final vote. No one was sure whether Stupak actually had the 40 votes, but pro-choice Democrats were skeptical.

As the night and the meetings wore on, Pelosi shifted, multiple aides said, and was leaning toward allowing a floor vote on the Stupak-Ellsworth amendment rather than inserting it into the bill. The logical conclusion is that Pelosi determined she would lose too many pro-choice and progressive votes in the process of harnessing pro-life Democrats.

Shortly after midnight, Stupak addressed the Rules Committee and requested a floor vote on the amendment, ending a day of drama, but leaving open questions that will be answered tomorrow: Does his amendment have enough votes to pass? If it does, will pro-choice Democrats flee and sink the bill?

The thinking among leadership is that allowing a vote -- regardless of the outcome -- helps win votes for final passage. If it passes, then pro-lifers line up behind health care reform. If it fails, at least they had their vote. For pro-choicers, if the amendment passes they can still fight to remove it during negotiations with the Senate -- which rejected tough abortion restrictions.

Meanwhile, aides from both parties say, the GOP is planning out how it will game the language in its motion to recommit - an alternative measure aimed at stamping out the bill that the minority is entitled to introduce. The GOP could include language supporting Democrat-backed proposals, such as single-payer health care or a robust public option -- and then vote present, allowing a majority of Democrats to carry the vote to victory and complicate things for leadership. (Dems probably wouldn't have the votes, however, for single-payer, believe it or not.)

Or the GOP could toss out anti-immigration language. That effort could garner the support of a big enough bloc of Democrats to give Pelosi genuine concern that it could prevail. Here we wander further from reality: undocumented workers currently get free medical care at great expense to the American people at emergency rooms across the country. The GOP's alternative approach, as it's been described in the past, denies that reality while simultaneously turning businesses into immigration-enforcement arms. People here illegally, however, would still be able to go to the emergency room for free.

Lost in the back and forth are the tens of millions without insurance and the nation's broken health care system. More surprising than the behavior of Congress, perhaps, is the fact that it has gotten as far as it has.

Computers, Records Seized At ACORN Offices In La.

2009-11-07T01:42:16Z

NEW ORLEANS — State investigators raided ACORN offices on Friday, taking away computer hard drives and documents as part of a probe into alleged embezzlement and tax fraud when the organization's national headquarters was based in New Orleans.

"This is an investigation of everything – ACORN, the national organization, the local organization and all of its affiliated entities, specifically as it relates to any potential violations of Louisiana law," Assistant Attorney General David Caldwell said.

ACORN staff on the scene declined to comment, but an attorney for the group said in a statement the raid was prompted by allegations that former ACORN employees had removed or altered electronic documents and may do so in the future.

Attorney Pamela Marple said ACORN was cooperating and called the raid exhaustive, saying investigators wanted "virtually every document in the possession of ACORN and any related entity."

The raid was the latest development for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Videotapes released recently showed ACORN employees offering tax advice to two people in Baltimore posing as a prostitute and her pimp. The videos led Congress and state governments to cut funding for ACORN.

State prosecutors said their probe into the New Orleans offices stemmed from allegations made last year by board members involving embezzlement at ACORN nearly a decade ago.

ACORN last year settled an internal dispute and a lawsuit involving accusations that Dale Rathke, the brother of the group's founder, Wade Rathke, made around $948,000 in improper credit card charges in 1999 and 2000. The Rathke family and a donor repaid the money and no charges were ever brought.

Last month, Attorney General Buddy Caldwell, the father of David Caldwell, said he would step up an investigation into allegations that the embezzlement may have been as high as $5 million.

ACORN said the $5 million figure was "a worst-case scenario" for what the embezzlement potentially could cost the group.

For 33 years, ACORN's national headquarters was based in New Orleans after Wade Rathke moved here in the 1970s from Little Rock, Ark., where he started the organization. The embezzlement scandal led the organization to move its headquarters to Washington, D.C., earlier this year, a move that allowed the national organization to distance itself from the Rathkes.

David Caldwell said he did not know which former ACORN employees removed the computers.

"We're going to grab the stuff, make copies," he said, "and get it all back to them so whatever entities are doing business with them are able to do so."

___

Associated Press writer Janet McConnaughey contributed to this report.

Cindy Padilla, New Mexico Cabinet Official, Resigns After DWI Arrest

2009-11-07T01:34:19Z

SANTA FE, N.M. — A top official in Gov. Bill Richardson's cabinet has resigned over a drunken driving arrest just days after she was appointed to a spot in President Barack Obama's administration.

Secretary of Aging and Long-Term Services Cindy Padilla submitted her resignation on Oct. 26. The governor's chief of staff requested the resignation because the administration has a zero tolerance policy for drunken driving, according to a Richardson spokeswoman.

In late October, Padilla was named principal deputy assistant secretary in the Administration on Aging, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. She was to start Nov. 16, but that has been postponed at her request, department spokeswoman Vicki Rivas-Vazquez said Friday. No new start date has been set.

Padilla resigned her state cabinet post two days after Santa Fe police arrested her on drunken driving charges.

According to a police arrest report, Padilla's chemical breath tests showed a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent and .07 percent. New Mexico's standard for presumed intoxication is .08 percent.

Padilla earned $105,000 a year as head of the Aging and Long-Term Services Department, according to state records.

Michael Spanier is serving as acting department secretary.

Obama Visits Wounded US Soldiers At Walter Reed

2009-11-07T01:23:53Z

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama spent nearly two hours visiting wounded U.S. soldiers Friday afternoon.

The president met with 19 soldiers being treated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, as well as the families of three soldiers in intensive care, and hospital staff. He also awarded two Purple Hearts.

The president's visit came a day after an Army psychiatrist who once trained at Walter Reed hospital allegedly killed 13 people at Fort Hood. The White House says the hospital visit was planned before the shootings.

Friday's visit was Obama's first to Walter Reed since taking office, though he visited as a presidential candidate.

(This version CORRECTS to Walter Reed Army Medical Center.)

Chris Weigant: Friday Talking Points [100] -- Whigging Out

2009-11-07T00:34:29Z

I will explain that silly subtitle in a moment, but first we've got to delve even deeper into rampant silliness. If such silliness and unseriousness does not appeal to you, then I strongly suggest you skip down and begin reading with this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. Consider yourselves warned.

This column today celebrates a milestone -- triple digits on the odometer! That's right, as hard as it may seem to believe, this is the one hundredth volume of your weekly Friday Talking Points column. For a little over two years now, we've brought you our thoughts on "the week that was in politics," and for a little less time than that, we've announced our weekly winners of both the aforementioned MIDOTW as well as the ignominious Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. And we wrap it all up with some practical, good old-fashioned, home-brewed Democratic spin, our Talking Points for the week ahead.

Initially, this concept met with some scorn. To some, "spin" and "talking points" are ugly words, which proper ladies and gentlemen don't use. My feeling, however, is that Democrats are so woefully bad at getting their own message out -- especially in the short, easy-to-digest soundbites to which the mainstream media is addicted -- that I certainly couldn't do any harm by making such suggestions, and indeed might do some good. It's been enough to keep me going for 100 columns, and I see no sign of Democrats mastering the art of "framing" their subjects, so another 100 columns being necessary isn't entirely outside the realm of possibility.

But enough back-patting and self-congratulating. Oh, wait, one more -- if you'd like to hear what I sound like trying to talk politics at 8:30 in the morning, there's a program note at the end of this with a link to a podcast interview I did today. If that sort of thing interests you, then check it out.

But I promised you some silliness, so silliness I will now provide. Whenever "100 episodes" comes to my mind, I can't help but think of South Park. The war in Iraq began about three weeks before the 100th episode of South Park aired, and at the time there was virtually nothing but jingoistic pro-war opinions being voiced on television. South Park, known mostly for lowbrow (and, some say, conservative) political views, put their finger on the pulse of both the anti-war and pro-war positions at the time, and came up with a summation that seemed downright brilliant at the time, and still does.

I won't go into too much detail of the plotline of this episode (you can read a transcript of it, if you'd like). Suffice it to say it had half the town protesting against the war, and half the town protesting in favor of the war. The kids were assigned a report on how the Founding Fathers themselves would view the Iraq war, which Eric Cartman tried to weasel out of by attempting to send himself into a "flashback" to the past. He finally succeeds, and is on hand for the Founding Fathers debating the Declaration of Independence in the Continental Congress, and the question of whether to go to war with England or not. Here's the South Park take on how this debate went:

HANCOCK:  Mr. Franklin, where do you stand on the war issue?

FRANKLIN:  I believe that if we are to form a new country, we cannot be a country that appears war-hungry and violent to the rest of the world. However, we also cannot be a country that appears weak and unwilling to fight to the rest of the world. So, what if we form a country that appears to want both?

JEFFERSON:  Yes. Yes of course. We go to war, and protest going to war at the same time.

DICKINSON:  Right. If the people of our new country are allowed to do whatever they wish, then some will support the war and some will protest it.

FRANKLIN:  And that means that as a nation, we could go to war with whomever we wished, but at the same time, act like we didn't want to. If we allow the people to protest what the government does, then the country will be forever blameless.

ADAMS:  [Holding a slice of chocolate cake] It's like having your cake, and eating it, too.

CONGRESSMAN 2:  Think of it: an entire nation founded on saying one thing and doing another.

HANCOCK:  And we will call that country the United States of America.

Cartman returns from his flashback to find the town killing each other in a riot which happened because the mayor told the anti-war protesters and the pro-war protesters that they'd have to share the town park on the same day. Cartman, uncharacteristically, is the voice of reason which ends the town's fighting, as he gives his report from the stage:

I learned something today. This country was founded by some of the smartest thinkers the world has ever seen. And they knew one thing: that a truly great country can go to war, and at the same time, act like it doesn't want to. You people who are for the war, you need the protesters. Because they make the country look like it's made of sane, caring individuals. And you people who are anti-war, you need these flag-wavers, because, if our whole country was made up of nothing but soft [expletive deleted] protesters, we'd get taken down in a second. That's why the Founding Fathers decided we should have both. It's called "having your cake and eating it too."

But the true silliness is at the very end, when the two groups embrace each other and start singing Donny And Marie's "Little Bit of Country/Little Bit of Rock and Roll," and then get completely surreal. Which is a good way for us to open our column today.

EVERYBODY:  We're a little bit country, and we're a little bit rock-n-roll!

STUART:  We can be a nation that believe in war...

MR. MACKEY:  And still tells the world that we don't.

EVERYBODY:  Let the flag for hypocrisy fly high from every pole! We're a little bit country, and we're a little bit rock-n-roll!

RANDY:  Well, goodnight everybody. It sure has been great bringing you a hundred episodes.

SKEETER:  We want to thank our guests, the pro-war people. [Applause] And the anti-war people. [Applause]

STAN:  [Mystified] What the Hell are they doing now?

KYLE:  [Covers his nose and shuts his eyes tight] Ah, I don't know.

EVERYBODY:  For the war, against, the war, WHO CARES?? One hundred episodes!

KYLE:  I hate this town. Ah, I really, really do.

Now that we've got the silly and surreal out of our system, let's just move on, shall we?

While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi certainly made a bid for winning the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week by scheduling a debate on the healthcare reform bill in the House, she has not yet delivered. She did try an interesting tactic to try to speed things up, though. After getting her bill "scored" by the Congressional Budget Office, she posted it online for 72 hours, making good on an earlier promise to do so (which, it should be noted, the Republicans never bothered to do when they were in charge). But that meant the debate and vote was pushed out to Saturday. Congress in session on a weekend! You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that.

But Pelosi accomplished this by being crafty. Next week, the House was planning to take half the week off for Veterans' Day -- so Pelosi told everyone that they could have the full week off if they voted on the healthcare reform bill first. This is why our legislators will be in the chambers this weekend -- to get extra vacation time next week! Which is fine, since (for once) they'll actually deserve a few days off. But this maneuver flew under most people's radar, which is also why it was a brilliant political tactic for Pelosi to employ. Now, rumors are flying today (including one which says the vote's not going to happen until next week), so we'll see what happens next week.

For this week, however, we've got to at least give Speaker Pelosi an Honorable Mention for moving things forward on healthcare reform.

But this week's uncontested Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week is newly-minted Representative Bill Owens, of the twenty-third House district in the great state of New York. Owens captured NY-23 this Tuesday, winning a very strange race which was really an intra-Republican donnybrook. A moderate Republican was on the ticket, but so was an ultra-conservative backed by Sarah Palin and the rest of the usual suspects from the "Small Tent" faction of the Republican Party. The Republican dropped out of the race, and actually endorsed the Democrat, strangely enough. Who actually won -- even stranger.

Now, the mainstream media mostly ignored this race, because it didn't easily fit in their storyline of "Republican Revival!" But this district going Democratic is simply stunning. It also presages some interesting struggles for the direction of the Republican Party in next year's primaries, which I wrote about yesterday.

But the truly jaw-dropping part of the story is that over a third of the district (with reapportionment, the district has changed boundaries over the years) has been represented by a Republican in the House of Representatives since before the Civil War. Part of the district has had a Republican representative since 1856 -- when the Republican Party began. And in Franklin Country, the last non-Republican representing them in the House was named George Simmons... who was a member of the Whig Party.

The Swing State Project website has more details, if you're interested. There are no districts which have remained Democratic (even partially) since the Civil War -- there used to be a few in Texas, but Tom DeLay took care of that. There is still one district in Pennsylvania with as long a pedigree for the Republicans, but the news of NY-23 switching parties is truly groundshaking, one would think.

Unless one got their news from the mainstream media, of course. Sigh.

Anyway, we simply can't think of a more impressive Democrat this week, or indeed a more impressive Democratic feat in quite a while. So this week's MIDOTW voting wasn't even close. Our hands-down Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Bill Owens. Well done!

[Unfortunately, Representative-Elect Bill Owens does not have an official House webpage yet, so you'll have to wait a week or so to congratulate him.]

But enough of Republicans "Whigging out," as it were (see, I told you I'd work that in...). Sadly, we must turn to our own disappointments this week. While the Democratic candidates for governor in New Jersey and Virginia were disappointing, this week we unfortunately have to return to an old standard for our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid really has got to go. I have said it before and I doubtlessly will say it again, but it is time for Senate Democrats to wake up and realize that the only thing Harry is "leading" them to is a possible disaster at the polls next year.

While activity and hopefulness was emanating from the House, with Pelosi moving healthcare reform one more step forward, Harry Reid may have killed the entire effort for the year over in the Senate. No, that's not an exaggeration. Harry seems to think he's got all the time in the world to get this done. In the summer, he attempted to talk tough about deadlines for Max Baucus, and deadlines for introducing the bill under budget reconciliation rules which only need 50 votes (instead of 60) -- but such talk has apparently been long forgotten by Reid.

Reid's office leaked this week that the Senate may not even bring a bill to the floor until December... or maybe not even this year. Perhaps next year, if they can find the time, who knows?

Reid clumsily attempted to walk this back later, by saying he shares Obama's goal of getting it done this year, but it was pretty weak medicine indeed after his earlier statements.

Somebody please tie Harry to a chair so I can throw this bucket of cold water in his face: "Harry -- if it doesn't get done this year, it is not going to get done in an election year. And Harry, you don't get the whole calendar to play around with. You have to schedule in some time for a conference committee between the houses after the Senate votes, or there will not be time to finish the bill."

December, I would like to strongly remind Democrats, is the traditional month when the caucus votes on their leadership. This is the month when they replace people in positions like... oh, I don't know... Senate Majority Leader, for instance. And any Senate Democrats frustrated by the pace of their leadership (which includes, by the way, committee chairs -- I'm just saying...) need to start a whispering campaign in the cloakrooms of the Capitol that if healthcare reform fails by this December, then they will be voting some new leaders in for next year. Because, at this point, we simply don't have time for the Nevada voters to chuck Reid out next year.

Maybe that'll wake Harry up. It's certainly worth a try.

For the record-shattering thirteenth time, we sadly must award Harry Reid the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week.

[Contact Harry Reid on his Senate contact page to let him know what you think of his actions.]

Volume 100 (11/6/09)

One hundred epsiodes! Woo hoo!

Sorry, I apologize, I dealt with that silliness earlier and it won't happen again, I promise. Ahem.

We now turn to our Friday Talking Points for this week. I had notions of digging through the last 99 columns and presenting some sort of "best of" section here today, but sadly, it has been too busy a week politically, so we must forego such pleasures and offer up some commonsensical ways for Democrats to speak of what's been going on of late. As always, the full archive of all 100 of these columns is available at fridaytalkingpoints.com (which I registered for those people who find it easier to spell than chrisweigant.com).

For those of you who are newcomers to this column and were drawn in by the number 100 beckoning you from the headline, welcome! The core of this column is presented weekly (some would say "weakly," but we cheerfully ignore them, as always) in the hopes of providing some snappy one-liners to Democrats for the upcoming week.

Originally, this was solely for the purposes of Democratic officeholders who are scheduled to appear on Sunday chat shows, but I have found over the months that they work just as well talking to your strange cousin or uncle, or to the conservative you have to share an office with.

In other words, anyone can use them! Feel free! Try it today!

Dachau? Really?

This one is just odious, I have to admit. Because this sort of thing shows up at political demonstrations more and more, but this wasn't a rally or a demonstration, officially it was a "press conference" hosted by Representative Michele Bachmann, complete with lots and lots of Republicans standing on the stage and speaking from the podium. A photo of what I'm talking about is available at ThinkProgress, I should add. This should be used by any Democrat debating healthcare reform this weekend with any Republican, since even if they weren't there, it is just as useful.

"Before we begin, I would like to denounce -- and invite my colleague to equally denounce -- whoever it was at the Republican 'press conference' earlier this week who saw fit to wave giant signs equating our efforts to provide affordable healthcare coverage to all Americans with a photograph of a pile of naked, dead bodies taken at the Dachau concentration camp. I think this sort of thing is despicable, I think it is a slap in the face to all Jewish people in America, and I think it deserves the strongest sort of condemnation, no matter what party you are from. I noticed that while this enormous sign was fully visible from the stage, not one of the speakers addressed it in any way whatsoever. I think that is shameful, and I invite my colleague to join me in denouncing such tactics." (Turn to Republican you're being interviewed with, at this point, and watch them squirm....)

Good thing there was government healthcare available....

This one is a tightrope to walk, so as not to fall into a pit of glee over someone's misfortune -- but that should not stop anyone from pointing out the thick, thick irony of it all.

"You know, Dana Milbank of the Washington Post had a very interesting article the other day, where he pointed out the fact that during the Republican anti-government-healthcare rally someone suffered a heart attack and, quote, Medical personnel from the Capitol physician's office -- an entity that could, quite accurately, be labeled government-run health care -- rushed over, attaching electrodes to his chest and giving him oxygen and an IV drip, unquote. Now, if this crowd was so morally against the concept of government healthcare, then by all rights they should have waited for a private-sector ambulance to arrive, and let the victim die in the meantime. But I noticed -- just as I notice many in these crowds who seem to be Medicare-eligible -- that they're just fine with government healthcare for themselves, it is merely others they do not wish to extend the privilege to. I find this ironic, personally."

We need some stronger candidates

This week's election results are going to be a major subject this weekend. So Democrats have got to be ready to talk about the lessons learned.

"I think that what New Jersey and Virginia tell us is that Democrats simply have to do a better job at recruiting good candidates. Deeds, in Virginia, by all accounts didn't run a very good campaign, and Corzine was the wrong man at the wrong time, since Wall Street experience isn't exactly what people are looking for these days in their politicians. But I'm confident that next year, Democrats will do a much better job of lining up good candidates that know their districts and have a good chance at winning."

Poll the stay-at-homes

If I was in charge of the Democratic National Committee, I would hastily be putting a poll out in the field in New Jersey and Virginia with some seriously open-ended questions. Due to micro-targeting, I would aim this poll at two groups: registered Democrats who previously voted (including new voters from 2008), but didn't in this election; and independents who fit the same criteria. The single-most important question I would ask: "Why did you stay home this time around?" Followed up by the equally-important: "What could we do in the next year to get you back to the polls?"

"Democrats need to take one big lesson away from this week's results in New Jersey and Virginia -- the Republicans were more motivated. They had the momentum. And if we don't regain that momentum on our side, then 2010 is going to be pretty grim for Democrats. So I would tell my party's leaders to ask the citizens of Virginia and New Jersey who didn't vote this time around 'why did you stay home?' I would examine their answers very closely, and I would put out a memo to each and every Democratic member of Congress stating exactly where we are falling short in our voters' eyes. Because if we don't turn this around, next year is going to be devastating for us come election day."

Put up, or shut up

No matter what the answers are to the poll just mentioned, the follow-through is just as important. Democrats need to produce. Now. If they have any hope of holding on to their congressional majorities next year, they need to get busy and convince the voters they know what they're doing.

"I suspect if you did poll the stay-at-home voters, that they would tell you in various ways that they are disappointed with the Democratic Party. They expected some big changes, and all they've seen so far is smaller changes and a lot of arguing. On issue after issue, Democratic voters are becoming dispirited and disillusioned with the progress made so far. Now is not the time for the normal timidity of a midterm election year, now is the time to get some things done. Now is the time to produce. Now is the time to put up, or shut up. Because if we can't manage to do so in the next year, last week's election is going to look like a picnic to Democrats by comparison."

The Republicans splinter

However, those last few were pretty sobering, so let's end here with a gratuitous slap to the face of the Republicans, and then finally with the one thing Democrats can brag about from last week. This first one should send some chills down a few Republican spines, I would warrant.

"For all the talk of how the Democrats did last week, the media seems to be largely ignoring the absolute cage match happening over in Republicanland. Two party factions -- one who wants to get back to a 'big tent' concept, and one who wants only the purest of the pure -- are heading for some epic collisions next year. And the thing the Republicans should really worry about -- the thing that would keep me awake nights if I were a Republican -- is the specter of a third-party challenge from the right in next year's general elections. I see a real possibility of the Republican Party splintering off into two mutually-antagonistic sides over the question of 'party purity' next year. Which, I have to admit, fills me with delight as a Democrat."

Flip my Whig

OK, this one is just rubbing their faces in it, but since it was the only happy result from Tuesday, it should be kept handy if needed.

"For all this talk of a Republican Renaissance, did anybody notice that Democrats took a House seat last week in upstate New York? In some parts of this district, they have been represented by a Republican since before Abraham Lincoln was elected president. In particular, the last non-Republican to represent Franklin County was from the Whig Party. That seems like it's worth a mention, if we're talking about drawing sweeping conclusions from last week. Republicans lost a district they've held for over 150 years -- that doesn't happen every day in American politics, does it?"

[Program Note: Back in FTP [75] I was interviewed by "TJ and The Tux" for their podcast program on EastVillageRadio.com, to talk about Obama's first 100 days. Since then, they've renamed their program "Shock and Awesome," and they graciously had me back on again today to talk about Obama's "first year" and the recent elections. So if you'd like to hear me sipping caffeine and attempting to talk about politics (and my cat) at 8:30 in the morning, check it out. Click on the "Listen" button for Nov. 06, 2009 -- it's at about an hour-and-a-half in to the show.]

Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com

Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground

Mona Gable: A Lesson from Barack (and Malia) Obama

2009-11-06T23:43:59Z

I know this isn't nice, but I was secretly pleased when the President outted Malia for getting a C on her science test. As a parent I found the news immensely reassuring. Why, the elder First Daughter has as much trouble juggling homework, sports and her social life as my kids do! I marveled.

Granted, Malia lives in a much grander house and vacations in places like Russia as opposed to spending the day at the local grubby beach. If she needs one mom and dad also won't have to pony up $50 an hour for an Algebra tutor.

But she also has the Secret Service accompanying her to sleepovers and nosying around her Facebook page (Like she probably even has one. Remember Dad's fight to keep his BlackBerry?). And she's under enormous pressure to succeed in school, all while living under a
microscope every second.

It can't always be fun having a dad who's President, a best-selling author and a Nobel Laureate. Not to mention one who occasionally spills your secrets to the entire world. (Thanks, Dad!) Then there's mom, a crack organic gardener, international style icon, Harvard Law grad, who's as popular as Taylor Swift. How's an 11-year-old to top that?

Appropriately enough the occasion for this betrayal was an education speech at a charter middle school in Madison, Wisconsin. The President was spelling out what schools need to do to win grants from the Department of Education's $4.35-billion "Race to the Top" fund. He wasn't in a particularly forgiving mood. Referring to public schools, he said there should be "no excuse for mediocrity."

Given Dad's high expectations, maybe the C wasn't entirely surprising. It certainly wasn't terrible. (Although I would have hated to be Malia when she told her parents. You know how the President gets that stern look.) As it turns out Malia quickly bounced back, earning 95 on her very next test.

Here's how Dad explained her turnaround in the Los Angeles Times: "What was happening was she had started wanting it more than us."

And that's the real lesson I think parents should absorb from this. That no matter what your ambitions are as a parent, you can't control how motivated your children are or what they achieve. It has to come from them.

I learned this the hard way. Despite making sure my kids did their homework in elementary school, going online to check their assignments in middle school, emailing their teachers when there was a problem in high school, all the while trying not to be the noxious helicopter parent, they occasionally did not meet my standards of excellence.

In middle school I remember lining up in the cafeteria to talk with my son's teachers about his "progress report." Talk about the line of shame. It was a dreadful ritual. Invariably I'd be right behind the parent whose 13-year-old had perfect citizenship and straight A's. All of which I'd have to hear about while my son looked around anxiously and fidgeted. Knowing that he did not have such grades. Knowing that I'd be angry with his Bs and Cs and missing assignments.

I did not see then that my son, with his ADHD, his charming personality, his prowess at skateboarding and music, had other gifts. Gifts that his overcrowded public school and overtaxed teachers did not necessarily appreciate, much less have the resources to cultivate. I had to accept that he was probably not bound for Oxford.

My daughter has hit similar bumps in her academic career. Last year it was the dreaded English poet Milton that did her in. "I hate poetry," she would fume every night, as she sat poring over phrases in Middle English. "I don't understand it. I don't get why we have to learn this." Her teacher, who could not get enough of Milton, alas, was not particularly sympathetic. Thank goodness she's taking women's studies this semester!

This month she's sending out her college applications. Like a good parent, I'm trying not to ask, "So, how's that essay coming?" every five minutes. A few months ago she broke the news that she would not be applying to Berkeley, her mother's beloved alma mater. "I'm sorry to disappoint you, mom, but I don't want to go to a school where I'm too stressed out." (Not incidentally, we've had similar conversations about the fact she will not be entering journalism, like her parents. Which only goes to show how smart she is.)

My daughter is not me. What a shock. And I suppose this goes without saying, but neither is my son. If I can get out of their way and let them make mistakes, learn from them, grow up, they'll both forge their own distinctive paths.

Just as Malia Obama will, Dad.

Fred Karger: Will NOM's Maggie Gallagher Fire Carrie Prejean?

2009-11-06T23:25:06Z

Californians Against Hate

November 5, 2009

Ms Maggie Gallagher
President
National Organization for Marriage
1100 H Street, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005

Dear Maggie:

Are you going to fire Carrie Prejean? Donald Trump did.

I was shocked and dismayed to hear yesterday that your lead spokeswoman, the "future of our movement, and the future of America*" according to you, has starred in a sex video, as reported by TMZ.

Carrie dropped her $1 million law suit yesterday against the Miss California USA Pageant, as soon as news of her sex video was exposed. She filed her law suit back in August claiming, of all things, "religious discrimination." Sound familiar?

Are you going to keep her as a paid consultant, Maggie? Are you going to keep her photo and that praise that you heap upon her all over your National Organization for Marriage (NOM) web site?

Does she still represent the true "family values" that you and your NOM Executive Director, Brian Brown espouse.

What does your high powered Board of Directors think? What does your largest backer, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) think of this scandal?

Carrie has been a big fund-raiser for NOM, a speaker, you've flown her all over the USA, you have even shared the stage with her, and now this news comes out.

I read that San Diego's own Charles LiMandri, who was your General Counsel on the Yes on Prop 8 campaign, is also Carrie's lawyer. Bet he was surprised to hear about that sex video, too. He usually has a lot to say, but yesterday only said that, "it's a confidential settlement, and he can't discuss it."

I feel sorry for Carrie. She is just a young woman trying to make something of her life.

It will be interesting to see how you handle this one, Maggie. Will you be a voice of reason and compassion, or will you toss her to the sharks?

I would hope that you will reflect on this moment in history.

Will you embrace someone whose life is so different from your beliefs? Or will you demonize, bully, rip apart and treat Carrie like someone who has less rights than you have.

Time will tell.

Sincerely,

Fred Karger
Founder
Californians Against Hate

* From Maggie Gallagher's September 18, 2009 introduction of Carrie Prejean, at Tony Perkins and the Family Research Council sponsored Voters Value Summit in Washington, DC.

Barbara Coombs Lee: The Newest Star of Human Liberty

2009-11-06T23:22:30Z

Human liberty isn't just a single light on our horizon, but more like stars in a constellation. Each freedom achieved, each choice secured, each dignity acknowledged, helps shape the whole, and the light of each emerges in its own time.

Who decides if a dying patient can ask their doctor to help them to a humane and peaceful death? Today Compassion & Choices as well as our opponents on the other side of this question recognize the stars are aligned to make it an emerging focal point in the struggle for liberty.

Why this question? Why now? Because new technology, cultural and economic shifts and rising expectations create needs and opportunities in the development of any social movement. Sometimes dramatic events precipitate a change. Fifty years ago death came with speed and certainty. Today it more often drags its victims down in a long, agonized process of decreased function and increased suffering.

Fighting for their country in World War II, many black Americans experienced acceptance and responsibility in the military they lacked at home. At the same time the spread of agricultural mechanization offered fewer jobs for those without a high school education. Businesses found racial intolerance made their companies less attractive as investments. Conditions were ripe to consider the question: Who decides if race defines opportunities? When Rosa Parks refused to relinquish her seat on a Montgomery bus she helped ignite the movement that brought desegregation.

Who decides if married couples may use birth control? For years, state legislatures decided, the Catholic Church supported them and few questioned those authorities. But conditions changed. Women who held jobs during World War II were expected to return to domestic pursuits after its close, but in the 1950's a rising number wanted to hold successful careers and achieve equality.

Economic, cultural and technological changes empowered women to push for reproductive choice, and in 1965 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut, finding that a state's ban on contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. To some, a woman in control of her own fertility threatened family and society. Reproductive choice made a lot of people very uncomfortable. Pushing past that discomfort, the majority of Americans came to recognize the right of couples themselves to decide on intimate, personal matters free from government intrusion.

Today, a new medical reality defines the border of acceptable autonomy. Remarkable advances in medical technology have prolonged the dying process and spurred questions about how and where we die. Gradually, a cultural shift is making discussions of death more acceptable in America. The demographic leviathan of the Baby Boomer Generation, whose attention was once on reproduction, increasingly confronts issues around their mortality. And in 2005, when Michael Schiavo asked who decides if his wife Terri should be allowed to die with dignity, Americans recoiled in horror as politicians tried to establish their right to override state courts and make end-of-life decisions.

The newest star in the constellation of autonomy and personal freedom emerges at the edge of life. Its light will shine fully when we establish the right of all terminally ill, mentally competent adults to control their last days. Securing the liberty to access medication one may choose to ingest to achieve a peaceful death establishes the over-riding principle that end-of-life decisions reside with patients themselves, not doctors, not politicians and not the government or religious leaders.

Local and national politicians may be uncomfortable publicly supporting this principle, but that's expected. Social movements gain strength from the recognition that established powers are incapable of adapting to changing social needs and expectations.

Discomfort alone should not control laws. A 1986 Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick, upheld Georgia law against certain sex acts between consenting and loving adults. Justice Harry Blackmun dissented, citing "the rights of those whose choices upset the majority." He wrote, "No matter how uncomfortable a certain group may make the majority of this Court, we have held that '[m]ere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty.'" In 2003, Justice Blackmun's logic prevailed, and Bowers v. Hardwick became obsolete.

Compassion & Choices serves people facing death and protects their choices: to accept offered treatment or not; to focus treatment primarily on the quantity of life or its quality; to die at home, in hospice or at the hospital. In Oregon, Washington and Montana they also have the legal choice - and only a small minority access it - to ask their doctor for medication to bring about a peaceful death. The next great human liberty battle is to establish the right of every American to exercise such choices, the intimate, personal end-of-life choices that seem to make so many people uncomfortable.

Who decides if a dying patient can ask their doctor to help them to a humane and peaceful death? As never before, that is a question that galvanizes American opinion. That is the question emerging as the brightest star on society's horizon. Compassion and Choices works not only for those facing the end of life, but for all those who chart the path of social progress by the constellation of human liberty.

Liz Krueger: Marriage Equality in New York: The Time Is Now

2009-11-06T23:13:50Z

I have recently written to Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson urging him to bring marriage equality legislation to the floor for a vote the next time the legislature is in session. I strongly support marriage equality as a basic civil rights issue. I know that there are a significant number of Senators who do not support the bill, but believe it is our duty as a legislative body to have a meaningful debate on marriage equality and give every Senator an opportunity to publicly vote his or her conscience on this critical issue.

Under current New York law, lesbian and gay couples are denied the basic protections provided to heterosexual couples. In such areas as property ownership, inheritance, health care, hospital visitation, taxation, insurance coverage, child custody, pension benefits and testimonial privileges, married couples have a host of important rights and protections. Denying gays and lesbians access to those benefits - as well as the many responsibilities which come with civil marriage - is a violation of the basic principle of equal protection.

Those who argue against marriage equality usually base their arguments either on 1) religious grounds or 2) on their belief that marriage should be reserved for relationships centered around procreation and child rearing. The first argument fails to recognize both the separation of church and state and the fact that many denominations do in fact already recognize same sex marriages. The second argument is just plain silly.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would not and could not force any religious officials to do anything - religious institutions already choose who can or cannot get married within their denominations for both same and opposite sex marriages and they would continue to do so. It would not require any change of religious teachings or actions. The only institution which would be required to recognize same-sex marriages would be the State.

Similarly, family- and procreation-based arguments fail to recognize how many same-sex couples are in fact raising children, as well as how many opposite-sex married couples are not. Marriage equality would benefit same-sex couples, but it would also provide huge benefits to their children, who would gain many protections by having their parents' relationship legally recognized.

Denying couples marriage recognition by the State serves to discriminate not only against the individuals wishing to enter into those marriages, but also harms all of us who remain living in a society where we know that we are allowing family, friends and neighbors to be discriminated against by their government.

New York has a reputation for being at the forefront in the fight to eliminate the vestiges of discrimination, but we have not kept up with many of our neighboring states when it comes to ensuring basic equality for lesbian and gay New Yorkers. In the last year, Connecticut, Iowa, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine (which unfortunately recently voted to reverse recognition of same sex marriages) have joined Massachusetts by acting to legalize same-sex marriage. Joining these states will serve to demonstrate the ability of our institution to act on critical issues at a time when many doubt that we have that capacity.

I do not know that this legislation will pass, although I am optimistic. But whether we have the votes to pass marriage equality legislation or not, it will be a credit to the Senate and a vindication of the rules changes we made this summer, if leadership brings the bill up for a vote. It will demonstrate that we are becoming more democratic as an institution, and that we are willing and able to discuss and vote on issues critical to our State without requiring that the outcome be predetermined. A vote on marriage equality would thus also be a significant step toward fulfillment of efforts to reform the institution of the Senate.

The Governor has called us back for a special session on November 9th and 10th, and I believe this is the perfect opportunity for us to act on marriage equality legislation. Doing so will be a basic step toward creating equality for all before the law and in demonstrating our ability as a legislative body to take action on critical issues impacting so many New Yorkers.

Tom Tancredo Walks Off MSNBC Set Because Of Markos Moulitas (VIDEO)

2009-11-06T23:12:45Z

On MSNBC Friday night, David Shuster (filling in for Ed Shultz) addressed hateful signs at Thursday's Capitol Hill "House call" against health care reform. But the discussion escalated into a fight that led a Republican guest to walk off the set.

Former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo refused to criticize Republican leaders for participating in the event, saying there were equally offensive signs at anti-Bush rallies in the past. He said they should talk about the policy, not the signs.

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitas defended health care reform, pointing out that the military uses government-run health care. Tancredo said veterans complained about their health care and would much rather have a private choice.

"Tom, I'm a veteran. Okay?" Moulitas responded. "I did not get a deferment because I was too depressed to fight a war I supported in Vietnam. I'm a veteran. They want a more effective V.A. ..."

"You're not going to do that. You're not going to try to insult me that way and then pretend like we're just going on and talk about that. You either apologize ..." When Moulitas did not apologize, Tancredo simply took out his earpiece and walked away.

As a Republican student activist, Tancredo spoke out in favor of the Vietnam War but did not serve.

After graduating from college in June 1969, he became eligible to serve in Vietnam. Tancredo said he went for his physical, telling doctors he'd been treated for depression, and eventually got a deferment.

"I think he left a little early," Shuster joked. "The congressman is always welcome on this show. We always appreciate hearing his point of view. It's a feisty one. That's what we like around here."

Watch:

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

G.A. Bradshaw: Of Pachyderms and Paratroopers

2009-11-06T22:37:39Z

"Last Sunday, a television program showed helicopters shooting down African elephants. When I saw those huge peaceful animals falling, I broke down. It's been forty years since I was a gunner in Vietnam. I did and saw the same thing with people".

We are not so different from elephants. Science shows that we share comparable brains sufficient to make the gentle giants vulnerable to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Elephant and humans minds both falter in the face of life-threatening violence. But the real lesson goes deeper. What veterans have learned and elephants know makes them formidable allies in helping solve what has become a problem of epidemic proportions.

War trauma afflicts 20% of our soldiers in Iraq and a staggering 40% of National Guard and reservists. Moreover, the trauma of war extends to soldier's families and healthcare professionals who are exposed vicariously to battlefield violence: a topic of concern in discussions surrounding the recent Fort Hood shootings.

In response to this debilitating condition, the U.S. Army has cast aside its historical unease with psychological injury and boldly launched a Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program. Increasing emotional resilience will do much to help soldiers on and off duty with the barrage of everyday stressors. However, warding off war trauma is more complex than achieving mental fitness or implementing a regime of anti-depressants. Veterans reveal that the mind cannot always be readied for the challenges war brings.

Veteran John Fisher confessed, "I never wanted to hurt anyone. Not even in the war. My nature is to give service for health and healing. . . [but] I was given a rifle and the training in how to use it. Then I used it--a lot." Body and mind may have been fit for duty, but Fisher's decades-long battle with PTSD began when his nature collided with military nurture.

Further, survivors and psychiatrists maintain that causes and treatment of PTSD cannot rest on the shoulders of soldiers alone. Former Green Beret Lee Burkins' PTSD derived as much from "society's acceptance of war" as from his own acts, and Fisher's restoration only started when he returned to Vietnam, where, in the "land of my nightmares," he used his skills as a chiropractor to heal broken bodies of former Viet Cong and re-build a sense of community.

How then is war's PTSD to be addressed? If, as often is the case, we look to nature for understanding, we find more questions before answers. For example, if healing requires community, how is it that elephants, our psychological kin renown for family values and cohesive herds, succumb to PTSD? And isn't some psychological fallout the inevitable cost of natural aggression and the Army's fitness program making the best out of a bad situation?

Not according to science. Modern warfare is not natural; our bellicose human habits violate long-evolved prosocial norms shared by animals everywhere, including the mighty, brainy elephant. Elephant society only fell victim to "soldier's heart" when culls, poaching, and habitat destruction shattered social structures that provided young elephants inoculation against trauma. Human culture, not elephant nature, is responsible for the onset of wildlife mental breakdown. Our aggressive excesses are no longer justified by saying, "nature made me do it." Human trauma is organic to human society.

Consequently, when the gunner wept as elephants fell, he might have recognized something more than commonality in deed. Perhaps, genetic memory stirred recollection of a time before economics and exigencies of industrial hostilities made war culture; when elephants and humanity put right before might and chose to live in peaceful co-existence. In this light, soldiers' PTSD emerges as a natural response to an unnatural violation of values we hold in common with the rest of the animal kingdom.

To stem widespread PTSD, we are advised by listening to the veterans who served, survived, and suffer from the ravages of PTSD, and the elephants who never raised arms. An Iraq veteran maintains that: "the only way to help us is to end war." Lee Burkins speaks of veterans' search for a reality that does not require trauma to justify its existence, "As damaged in soul as we were, each one of us wanted never to do violence again. . . many of the men passed on because of their frustration they experienced at not knowing how to bring an end to the ongoing violence in the world."

Their vision and lessons, and those of the elephant, must be used to shape concrete social programs that actively partner the military, public, and nature. The path is clear. It just takes thinking like an elephant.

G.A. Bradshaw is a psychologist and author of Elephants on the Edge: What Animals Teach Us About Humanity, Yale University Press. Ed Tick is a practicing psychotherapist specializing in veterans with PTSD and author of War and the Soul: Healing Our Nation's Veterans from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Morton Goldfein: For Chris Christie: a Modest Proposal

2009-11-06T22:17:33Z

Having been elected as the "Anyone but Corzine" dodging almost every question on what he will do, Chris Christie is free to be whatever kind of governor he chooses. While the right has hailed his victory as the beginning of a conservative tide that will sweep America in '10, let's give the guy a chance to spend some time thinking this gift election thru-and hope he might consider an alternative path-in the interest of New Jersey and, arguably, toward an even greater personal future.

Easy road would be to stay right, appeasing the loud voices from that wing of his party by taking a draconian axe to the state budget thereby angering campaign-savvy public employees, reducing environmental safeguards as a pro-business ploy, or providing a bit of red meat to the howling reactionaries by vetoing social legislation ( such as a gay marriage bill that might get to his desk or a state initiative to increase health coverage to citizens without insurance).

That path might be pleasing to the small-minded braintrust that framed his rise and attract some support from out-of-state conservatives--but hardly enough to overcome the inevitable backlash of left-leaning New Jerseyans, including educated independents who decide every state election and will want the governor's office back in progressive hands. If his opponent is the appealing Newark Mayor Cory Booker or one of the well-financed strong-base members of the congressional delegation ( read Pascrell, Adler, Rothman, yadda yadda), his ride in the right lane will not lead to re-election.

Which is why he should eschew the label and strike a path that can be seen as progressive in 2013.

What an opportunity! His is the party of internecine warfare ( Jeff Bell, Bret Schundler, NY-23 anyone?) where the challenger in statewide R primaries always comes from the right and the NY-based free media ( all-day tirades from Limbaugh, Hannity, Grant) can be counted on to oppose anything that hints of progress.

But progress is what the state needs most--such as real reform that takes the pressure off local property taxes, elimination of duplicative government (does any state of this size really need half a thousand local governing bodies or 21 counties, for example?), and a longterm commitment to the state's future thru continued infrastructure investment, school spending, etc.

Conventional political thought would say that such a program would offend too many of Christie's natural suburban constituents--but there are not enough of them to win next time when the impact of national economic conditions will still be a drag on New Jersey, the state's debt will only have increased, and national Republicans will have split further as their culture war continues.

Inevitably, someone will lead a rational return of the GOP to the mainstream of American life in the 21st Century. You don't have to call yourself a progressive, Mr. Christie; just be one !

Cantor Pushes Back Against Limbaugh, Hitler-Obama Analogies

2009-11-06T21:59:39Z

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) criticized conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh, on Friday, for drawing comparisons between President Obama and Adolph Hitler. And, in a sequence that seems rare in modern Republican politics, the Virginia Republican seems eager to publicize his rebuke.

Cantor's office sent over a write-up of the congressman's interview with Bloomberg News, in which he praised Limbaugh as a voice of the conservative movement but condemned his use of Nazi imagery and analogies to chastise the president.

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" Cantor said. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

Speaking out against the Hitler comparisons -- even when they are made by conservative voices -- would seem like an utterly non-controversial posture for a Republican leader (and a Jewish one at that) to make. But Cantor and his colleagues in the House have, to this point, walked a fine line in rebuking Rush -- fretting about the pushback they might receive from his listeners. The Congressman is the lone Jewish Republican in the House. And aides stress that he has consistently lamented any use of Hitler or Nazism to make a political point.

The issue, nevertheless, emerged once again on Thursday after a tea party protest that Cantor attended featured several signs equating health care reform with the Holocaust. Democrats jumped on the imagery -- alongside Cantor's presence -- by insisting that the extremist elements of the party had taken over the event.

On a more emotional and honest level, decorated writer and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel tweeted (yes, he's on Twitter) that the signs at the Capital Hill protests were an "indecent and disgusting" form of "political hatred."

Cantor, of course, can't be held responsible for the actions of a widely attended health care protest. But clearly, both he and his advisers saw the need to demonstrate some distance.

"The Republican Party in its roots is a party of inclusion and we ought to be promoting that and making sure that voices are heard," Cantor said in his interview with Bloomberg Television.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

DNC Urges D.C. Residents To Ask For The Vote Of Their Non-Voting Congresswoman

2009-11-06T21:49:49Z

Far be it for me to criticize the campaign arm of the White House/DNC, Organizing For America, seeing as they have successfully gotten one more president elected to office than I have. But I have to think that if you want to maintain this reputation of being awesomely granular sorters of voter data and skilled messaging micro-targeters who can quickly and effectively align voter support for key priorities, then the emails you send out to constituents ought to demonstrate that you have a functioning understanding of how... say, the U.S. House Of Representatives works. That way, you avoid sending voters perplexingly useless missives, like the one that Mitch Stewart, Director of OFA, blasted out to residents of the District of Columbia:

[NAME REMOVED] --

This is it -- the House of Representatives will vote on health insurance reform tomorrow. All signs point to it being incredibly close, possibly even coming down to a single vote.

With the clock ticking, insurance company lobbyists are going all out to stop reform. Please call Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton at 202-225-8050 now.

Today, President Obama is visiting the House to call for reform, and I hope you'll add your voice to his. If you haven't called before, now is the time. And if you have recently called, thank you -- now please ask friends, family members, and co-workers in your district to join you.

http://my.barackobama.com/HouseVote

Everything we're fighting for comes down to moments like this -- and every second counts.

Thanks for stepping up,

Mitch

Well, I have to say, if the House health reform bill does come down to a single vote, reform proponents better hope like hell that single vote doesn't have to come from Eleanor Holmes Norton! This is not because Norton isn't an awesome lady -- she is, as evidenced by her many appearances on the Colbert Report. But while Norton is an ally of the White House and supports the larger effort to expand health care coverage, as the duly sworn representative of the District, she does not enjoy voting privileges. So, as far as her vote goes, she would vote if she could vote but she can't vote so she won't vote.

Anyway, thanks, Mitch Stewart, for reminding the residents of the District of Columbia that they enjoy second-class status and their hopes are largely tied to other people's representatives.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to tv@huffingtonpost.com -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]