Something for everybody: Obama lays out Afghanistan case
Proving once again that he is a very compelling speaker, President Obama had something for everybody last night in laying out his case for sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. In a speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Obama gave conservatives what they wanted by sending in more troops, eased the worries of independents and moderates by explaining what he was doing and why he took the length of time he did to make the decision, and threw liberals a bone (or at least tried to, anyway) by setting a goal of starting a withdrawl by July 2011.
President Obama is correct in putting in some kind of exit strategy, even a general one, so we have an idea of how to finish this thing. But I, like a lot of people, am wary of Hamid Karzai and his ability to hold Afghanistan’s notorious factions together solidly enough to have a stable central government. The controversy over his re-election earlier this year didn’t assuage those concerns any. Yes, Karzai is much better than the alternatives (The Taliban or total anarchy), but will only one year with all of the additional troops there be enough? Is Karzai capable of keeping Afghanistan together at all long-term?
Obama would be well-advised to be flexible with that withdrawl date. If Karzai’s government is not capable of defending itself at that point, we need to stay until they are. The last thing the United States (and Obama) need, after all of the billions of dollars spent on this war and the questions about Obama’s leadership, is a repeat of the end of the Vietnam War. The last thing we need is the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply waiting us out under the guise of a “truce,” much like the Viet Cong did (knowing we didn’t have the stomach to fight a guerilla war indefinitely), then overrunning Karzai’s government as soon as the last troop planes take off.
Finally, Obama makes decision on Afghanistan
It took him longer than I (and many others) believe it should have. But President Obama has reportedly ordered 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan to hopefully finish off Al Qaeda, neutralize the Taliban and finish the war that the 9/11 attacks wrought – the war that Candidate Obama rightly said was the justifiable war, the one that we had to win.
Obama will address his Afghanistan decision in a nationally televised speech from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point tomorrow night.
The number of troops is slightly less than what General Stanley McChrystal requested, but it is close enough. The bigger issue, in my opinion, is why it took so long for him to make this decision. I’m all for thinking through decisions carefully to make sure you get them right. I certainly don’t believe in the “shoot now and ask questions later” philosophy that the previous administration took to many of its foreign policy endeavors. But you can’t take over a month to decide whether or not to send more troops to a conflict that you criticized the previous administration for neglecting. This delay certainly won’t help the perception that Obama can’t lead.
Now we better hope the delay won’t hurt this country’s chances of victory.
The Obama Store
I just got back from spending the last two days with family in the Washington, D.C. area. After a nice Thanksgiving dinner and some cake in honor of my mother’s birthday on Thursday, I spent most of the day today in downtown Washington.
And what did I find on the bottom level of Union Station? A store dedicated to President Obama. Yes, an Obama Store. I kid you not. Earlier this year, I saw a cart near City Hall in Philadelphia selling some Obama paraphenalia. But an entire store?
I certainly recognize the historical and social significance of Obama being elected President last year (I even canvassed and made Get Out The Vote calls for him). But this is WAY too much. I don’t recall there being Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton stores in Washington, or anywhere else for that matter. And while I wasn’t alive at the time, my parents don’t recall there being John F. Kennedy stores either.
The Final Four in the way of public option
The political news website Talking Points Memo had a good piece last night analyzing the four Senate Democrats who are balking at supporting the public option, or even voting to bring a bill with a public option to a vote (ie, invoking cloture): Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Ben Nelson (D-NE), and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).
“These are the four Democrats threatening to filibuster a public option bill down the line. They’re also in discussions with leadership and Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE) regarding a compromise modeled on Snowe’s trigger. How they change the bill so significantly remains unclear (can Reid round up 60 votes to swap the provisions? Does he pull the bill off the floor and reintroduce it with a different public option?) For the time being, though, liberals are turning up the heat on these four. And to succeed, they’ll need to be well aware of what buttons to push.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is in a VERY tough spot here. the Dems can rip Lieberman, Jim DeMint, et al in the press or even on the Senate floor all they want. It won’t matter. If no Health Care Reform passes, the Dems are going to get their rears handed to them next year and likely in 2012 as well. The public isn’t going to care that the Republicans or Joe Lieberman wouldn’t vote for cloture. All that will matter to them is that the Democrats had the White House and large majorities in both chambers of Congress and once again proved incapable of governing and actually accomplishing things.
If Reid tries to go Tony Soprano (figuratively speaking, of course!) on those four, he risks at least three of them switching parties and no longer voting with the Dems even some of the time. Lincoln, Nelson and Landrieu would likely benefit politically from this (all three represent states that President Obama lost by at least 15 points last year). Who knows with Lieberman? He represents a very blue state and votes with the Democrats on social issues and even a lot of fiscal ones, but was primaried out in 2006 (he later won re-election anyway as an independent) and may still hold a grudge against the party because of that. He campaigned for John McCain last year, yet still got to keep his committee chairmanship and place in the caucus because Reid knew he’d likely need his vote to get stuff passed. Maybe Lieberman would change parties, serve out the rest of his current term and retire in 2012. Or maybe he’s just grandstanding to get attention for himself and will back down when Reid puts the gun in his face and starts to squeeze the trigger.
Reconcilliation, which doesn’t require invoking cloture (and hence only needs 50 votes plus Vice President Joe Biden), likely won’t work either. Only certain parts can be passed that way, and which ones are at the sole discretion of the Senate parliamentarian. If you think the Republicans are fighting this viciously now, just imagine how many bogus amendments they would propose to bog things down if this goes the reconcilliation route. And even if the Dems could keep 50 votes together through that entire process and get it passed, it would have to be re-approved in 2015. If the Republicans have control of the Senate by that point, Health Care Reform is dead before it’s even had a chance to take effect.
FOX News Poll: Bow-gate much ado about nothing
According to a poll conducted by FOX News (not exactly the most liberal media outlet there is), 67 percent of Americans believe it is appropriate for the President to bow to a foreign leader if that is the country’s custom. Only 26% said it is never appropriate. Even among Republicans, 53% said it was appropriate, to 40% never appropriate.
This was in response to President Obama bowing to the Emperor of Japan last week and the resulting furor. Conservatives have complained about this and Obama’s other greetings when meeting foreign leaders, complaining that he conveys American weakness.
Me? I think that whole issue – not just this case – is much ado about nothing. There are plenty of things worth criticizing President Obama about, but this is not one of them. This is nothing more than the neoconservative meme that Obama is “Anti-American” and the belief in their interpretation of American Exceptionalism (not the original one laid out by Alexis de Tocqueville) – that America and Americans can and must be able to do whatever they want and get whatever they want, and that all other countries are subservient.
I for one think American Exceptionalism is a very short-sighted belief. The United States should not expect, let alone demand, the rest of the world to acquiesce to its whims and desires. There is only one world, and it has to work for all 6 billion-plus humans out there, not just the 300 million in the United States. The same goes for every other country in the world.
And just in case anyone has forgotten, we have far bigger problems to deal with than how President Obama should be greeting foreign leaders. Unemployment is over 10%, a figure that, since late October, includes yours truly. We’re in the middle of two outrageously expensive wars, one of which we shouldn’t have been in to begin with and the other of which President Obama can’t decide how to finish. Health care needs reforming, and President Obama won’t take the lead on one of the cornerstones of his campaign.
How the President greets foreign leaders is not high on my list of things to bitch about.
Health care reform: Don’t pop the champagne corks yet
President Obama, Democrats and health care reform supporters are giddy today over the House passing its version of reform late last night. It is certainly a big step in the right direction – a bigger one than any administration and Congress has taken since Lyndon Johnson created Medicare in the 1960s.
But I would caution those supporters to not get too giddy. Because there are still several mountains left to climb before this is a done deal.
The next one is in the Senate, which has yet to pass its own version. On paper, this shouldn’t be a problem – the Dems and those caucusing with them control 60 seats and have the Vice President – more than enough to get a simple majority. In practice, however, it’s not nearly that simple.
Senate debate rules require 60 votes to “invoke cloture,” or stop debate and bring a bill to an up-or-down vote. So Majority Leader Harry Reid actually needs 60 votes to get this done. And there are a number of Democratic caucus members who represent conservative constituencies (or are just in the pockets of the insurance companies) who will be a tough sell to get on board with a public option – one of the most critical parts of any real healthcare reform, in my opinion. This group includes Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Evan Bayh (Indiana) and Joe Lieberman (Connecticut). Lincoln and Bayh are both up for re-election next year. But Lieberman could be an even bigger fly in the ointment – he represents a rather liberal state (which went for Obama by 20 points last year) and votes with the Dems on most social issues. But he voted for the Iraq War and campaigned for Republican John McCain against Obama last year, even speaking at the Republican National Convention.
Reid could get around cloture rules by trying to pass the Senate’s version through budget reconcilliation, where he would need only 50 votes plus Vice President Biden. But this move would require the spending authorization to be renewed after 5 years. If the Republicans were to regain control of the Senate by that point, you know what would happen then.
The bill has already been delayed in the Senate and now may not even get passed this year, breaking President Obama’s second deadline. And if the debate goes into next year, moderate and conservative Democrats who are up for re-election in otherwise Republican districts or states are going to be even more reluctant to get on board.
Even if the Senate passes its version, it will have to be merged with the House version in conference committee. Both chambers will then have to pass the final combined version before President Obama can sign it. Same rules and obstacles will still apply.
So be happy with this step forward. But don’t pop the champagne corks just yet.
The lesson from Election 2009
Despite what the Republicans will no doubt be crowing, tonight’s results are not a referendum on President Obama. But they do provide an important lesson that Obama and his advisers would be well advised to heed.
It’s time for Obama to shut up, lead and actually get things done.
The story of tonight was simple – conservatives were galvanized, out of disgust with Obama’s policies and sensing vulnerability. Liberals were disenchanted by Obama’s failure to back up his campaign talk and stayed home. And independents see an economy that is still broken and broke heavily for challengers over incumbents. If Obama and the Dems want to do well in next year’s Congressional midterms (when 37 other governorships will also be up for grabs), they better lay off the glitzy speeches and actually get things done.
Create jobs. Pass real healthcare reform. Just get things done that are actually going to improve things for people outside of Washington. Things that you pledged to do as a candidate. Actually do those things, and your base will be energized again, independents will appreciate you accomplishing something and the rest will take care of itself.
That’s it. Enough talking. Time to show some guts, lead and git r done. The incumbents (or their parties) weren’t perceived to have gotten it done and paid the price. Obama better get things done or he’ll be joining them in the unemployment line.
CHRISTIE ELECTED GOVERNOR OF NJ
I thought it would be much closer than this. And the polling over the last few months suggested it would be. But barely 2 hours after the polls closed, Republican Chris Christie has been projected to become the next Governor of New Jersey, defeating incumbent Jon Corzine.
With 74% of the precincts reporting as of 10:20 p.m. ET, Christie leads 50% to 44%, with independent Chris Daggett getting only 6% after polling in double-digits for months. Christie is the first Republican to win a statewide election in New Jersey since Christine Todd Whitman won her second term as governor in 1997.
Corzine used his Goldman Sachs millions to run negative ads and attack Christie’s character and political positions (which admittedly are quite conservative for NJ). But Christie stayed on his message of attacking the high unemployment and taxes in the state and promoting his record as a corruption-fighting U.S. Attorney who will clean up the mess in Trenton. I hope he does just that, because heaven knows Trenton needs cleaning.
“The people of New Jersey said, ‘No more negative personal campaigns,'” Christie said in his victory speech. “In the face of a $30 million onslaught that consisted almost exclusively of negative personal campaigns against me, my family and my friends, the people of New Jersey decided enough is enough.
“Tomorrow we’re gonna take back New Jersey for our families. Tomorrow we’re gonna take back New Jersey for our neighbors. Tomorrow we’re gonna take back New Jersey for the least fortunate among us who do not want the government to fix every problem.”
This one is far worse for the Democrats than Virginia. Obama made several trips to campaign for Corzine, and New Jersey is a very blue state where Democrats have won statewide elections by sizeable margins for most of the last 20 years.
Good luck to Christie. Between the mess in Trenton and the hostile legislature he is sure to face, he’ll need it.
McDonnell elected VA Governor
As expected, Republican Bob McDonnell has easily been elected Governor of Virginia, defeating Democrat Creigh Deeds. The win, part of a Republican sweep of VA’s three highest offices (Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General), continues Virginia’s trend of voting for a governor from the opposite party of the sitting President that goes back to 1977.
The networks called the race for McDonnell shortly before 8 p.m. ET – an hour after the polls closed.
In my opinion, Deeds ran a lame, horrible campaign that didn’t galvanize the state’s more pro-Democratic areas – namely the Washington DC suburbs in Northern Virginia and the urban areas in the Norfolk area – the way Obama did last year and Jim Webb did against George Allen in the 2006 U.S. Senate race. It wasn’t clear for much of the campaign what Deeds stood for, but he certainly didn’t energize the people who voted for Obama last year. And using McDonnell’s thesis from 20 years ago to scare voters on social issues only goes so far given the struggling economy.
Happy Election Day!
Happy Election Day! May the elections going on across the country today not be marred by voting machine malfunctions, hanging chads, vote fraud or any other shenanigans. May whoever wins today win fair and square.
The five “big” elections in this off year are for the governorships of New Jersey and Virginia, the special House election in NY District 23, the Mayor of New York City and Prop 1, to overturn the Maine government’s approval of gay marriage. With Michael Bloomberg expected to be re-elected easily in NYC and Bob McDonnell leading all the polls by double digits for the last week-plus, the eyes of the nation will be on The Garden State and Northwest New York state.
Anything could happen in those two races. Both will come down to who gets their base to the polls in larger numbers. Since turnout in off-year elections is usually low, the usual theory about needing to play for the independents and undecideds doesn’t necessarily apply. As a Republican (and a fairly conservative one at that) in deep blue New Jersey, turnout will be extremely important for Chris Christie if he hopes to oust incumbent Jon Corzine.
Whatever happens tonight, pundits are going to spin it as a referendum on President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. And they’ll be wrong. These are all local elections on local issues. If Christie somehow wins tonight, it will be because enough NJ voters were disenchanted with the state of affairs under Corzine and considered Christie to be better, not because they want to send a message to Obama. The result in the NY-23 special election could be a statement of whether or not moderates are welcome in the Republican Party, but it also won’t be a referendum on Obama.
Polls close at 7 p.m. ET in Virginia, 8 p.m. in NJ and ME and 9 p.m. in New York. And there are municipal elections across the country as well. So make sure you vote.
Schism in the Republican Party?
With Republican Bob McDonnell on his way to a landslide victory in Virginia’s gubernatorial election and Democratic incumbent Jon Corzine having battled back into a statistical tie with Republican challenger Chris Christie in New Jersey’s gubernatorial race, many pundits are looking at the special election for New York District 23’s Congressional seat on Tuesday as a sort of tie-breaker in Tuesday’s off-year elections. This seat was vacated this summer when Republican John McHugh resigned to become President Obama’s Secretary of the Army. This race took on added intrigue when Doug Hoffman entered the race on the Conservative Party’s ticket…and won the endorsement of many nationally prominent Republicans over the local party’s choice, moderate Republican Dede Scozzafava.
Today came news that Scozzafava, trailing both Hoffman and Democratic nominee Bill Owens in polls, is suspending her campaign. She’ll still be on the ballot on Tuesday, and likely has already gotten some votes through absentee voting, but this makes the race between a hardcore conservative and a Democrat.
People who follow politics have certainly noticed that there are increasingly fewer moderates in the Republican party, especially in Congress. They have either been ousted by Democrats, retired or, in the famous case of Senator Arlen Specter (PA) this past spring, switched parties.
While pundits will use Tuesday’s elections as a referendum on President Obama, this special election may be more of a referendum on whether or not there is still a place for moderates (such as Senator Olympia Snowe) in the Republican party. If Hoffman wins, national Republicans will crow that Americans want hardcore conservatives in Republicans. If Owens wins, it could create a split within the party. While Obama did win NY-23 by 5 points last November, the district has long been solidly Republican; parts of it have been represented by a Republican since before the Civil War. If Owens wins, moderate Republicans will blame the party’s conservative wing for costing them a seemingly safe seat in the House just so they could maintain ideological purity, while conservatives will blame the district’s GOP establishment for not nominating a conservative.
Could the Republican party split into two?
Reid does something Right after all
I didn’t think Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had it in him to pull off something like this. But despite the obstacles in the Senate (named Nelson, Lincoln, Bayh, Landrieu and Lieberman), and even with President Obama himself reportedly pushing back against it, Reid has gotten a public option into the health care reform bill that will go before the whole Senate. And presumably he wouldn’t have let it go to the floor unless he had the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture and put it to a vote.
This public option, unlike the House version, does have an opt-out clause for states. But that’s a fair and acceptable compromise, IMO. And it’s far better than the “trigger” option championed by Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and reportedly favored by the White House, which would have been too easy for the insurance companies to game.
Maybe the “pushback” from the White House was nothing more than Obama not being sure that Reid could get the votes and wanting to make sure he could at least get something to the floor. Maybe it was just another case of unnamed sources trying to push their own agenda and the media going along with it. I certainly hope Obama wasn’t naive enough to think that getting one lone Republican on board (and the most moderate one in the Senate at that) was worth badly weakening a bill that will ultimately be a big part of his legacy.
If the Senate can invoke cloture and pass this version (and, again, you’d think Reid wouldn’t announce this to the public unless he was sure those things would happen), the House and Senate bills will go into a conference committee to form the final bill that both chambers would have to approve before President Obama can sign it. The fact that both the House and Senate versions will apparently have a public option raises the likelihood that the final bill will have one too.
There is still work to be done. But if Harry Reid pulls this off, I’ll have to admit that he does have some cojones after all.
It’s time for Obama to lead and take a stand
I’m sure even Barack Obama’s strongest critics, the ones who never would have even considered voting for him last year, would admit that he is an excellent campaigner. But in case anyone hasn’t noticed, the election has been over for almost a year now. And Obama is no longer Senator Obama, candidate for President. He is President Obama.
Which means he has to lead. And that means it is time for him to take firm positions, no matter what they are or how risky they are.
So far, President Obama has been VERY lacking in this regard. Sure, he can still give an excellent speech and speak colorful words. But when it comes to actually stating where he stands and what he wants, he continues to give wishy-washy responses and hedge his bets. That’s expected, if not ideal, if you’re a candidate and are trying to win over as many as possible. It’s totally unacceptable if you’re a leader and 300 million people, not to mention the government you head, need your direction.
The most recent bit of wishy-washyness that compelled me to write this entry was Obama’s constant refusal to take a clear position on the healthcare reform plans on which he has staked much of his political capital. He campaigned for a public option last year. Now, he won’t say if he wants one or not. Hell, he won’t say what specifically what he wants at all.
I am well aware of the mistake Bill Clinton made in 1993, when he tried to put together the whole thing himself and then force it through Congress. I’m not saying President Obama should go to that extent. And I also know that, given the political divide in this country, no Republican would likely vote for whatever bill eventually goes before both chambers, regardless of whether it has a public option or not. But that’s besides the point, given the Democrats’ majorities in both chambers of Congress.
But President Obama can strike a balance between Clinton’s micromanaging and leaving all of the details up to Congress. I have very little faith in either party in Congress, since both seem to only care about scoring shallow, short-term victories that will help them get re-elected. And that lack of faith has been validated by the way they have dragged this healthcare reform debate on and on for months.
Obama didn’t have to let that happen. He could have said from the beginning that he wanted a public option with elements X, Y & Z, given that mandate to Congress and let them sort out the details for making it work. Or, if he really didn’t want a public option, he should have said that from the beginning too.
Bottom line is that he needed to take a stand either way. He needed to make clear, at least in a general way, what he wanted. He would have made some enemies no matter what he did, to be sure. But leaders have to take stands and accept the consequences if it turns out they took the wrong one. But by not taking a stand, he angered his base, allowed the Republicans to take control of the narrative of the public debate and, most damagingly, left too much decision-making power in the hands of the body of our government that is LEAST suited for making clear decisions.
President Obama has staked much of his credibility on healthcare reform. If he wants to get it done, and he wants the final product to be something that really works and that he can be proud of, he needs stop campaigning for healthcare reform and actually take a position on it.
That’s what leaders do.
Nobel Peace Prize? Or Anti-Bush Prize?
As I was driving to work this morning, I heard this bit of news and was as shocked as most of you probably were: President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize.
“Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future,” the Nobel committee said.
President Obama, who said he was “humbled” by the honor, accepted the award this morning as “a call to action.” And, with the exception of gracious congratulations from Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and, surprisingly, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, the response from conservatives was predictably critical, from liberals predictably laudatory.
My response was probably much like everyone else – shock that a President who has been in power for less than nine months, and who was nominated less than a month after taking office (the nomination deadline is February 1), could win an award that is associated with great accomplishments. Other than possibly the Stimulus (whose merits and successes are very much up for debate), what has he accomplished since becoming President? Certainly nothing on the world stage, which is what the Nobel Peace Prize is for.
I’m convinced that the Committee picked Obama more as a sign of appreciation that American voters last November ended eight years of their government, let’s face it, giving the middle finger to the rest of the world. There are many times that I worry that Obama is going too far in the opposite direction, but the George W. Bush way definitely was not the right way either. Certainly it wasn’t in the minds of much of the rest of the world.
Here we go again….
One of the dominant narratives in American politics is that Democrats are wimps, that they’re indecisive, that they don’t stick to their beliefs and that they don’t support national security and defense. This may not really be true, but all to often Democrats do things that give creedence to this notion.
President Obama may be doing so again.
According to the AP:
President Obama is prepared to accept some Taliban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and appears inclined to send only as many more U.S. troops as needed to keep al-Qaida at bay, a senior administration official said Thursday.
The sharpened focus by Obama’s team on fighting al-Qaida above all other goals, while downgrading the emphasis on the Taliban, comes in the midst of an intensely debated administration review of the increasingly unpopular eight-year-old war.
Though aides stress that the president’s final decision on any changes is still at least two weeks away, the emerging thinking suggests that he would be very unlikely to favor a large military increase of the kind being advocated by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
McChrystal’s troop request is said to include a range of options, from adding as few as 10,000 combat troops to – the general’s strong preference – as many as 40,000.
Obama’s developing strategy on the Taliban will “not tolerate their return to power,” the senior official said in an interview with The Associated Press. But the U.S. would fight only to keep the Taliban from retaking control of Afghanistan’s central government – something it is now far from being capable of – and from giving renewed sanctuary in Afghanistan to al-Qaida, the official said.
One of my biggest criticisms of George W. Bush was that he abandoned the war in Afghanistan, the one that was justified, the one that the rest of the world supported, to launch his quest to settle his Dad’s old score the invasion of Iraq. During his campaign last year, Obama rightly said that Afghanistan was the war we should win. So I find it outrageous that he is now willing to settle for something less than that.
And while I disagree with Senator John McCain (R-AZ) on a lot, he was right when he said this week that we need to go after both the Taliban and Al Qaeda, that if we leave the Taliban with any kind of a chance to take power, terrorists will follow. They may not have the name “Al Qaeda,” but they’ll still have a haven to flourish in.
Should President Obama have had to deal with Afghanistan on top of Iraq and the economy? No. But the bottom line is he does have to deal with them. And he better deal with them a whole lot more forcefully than this.
An agreeable public option?
Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Tom Carper (D-DE) have been floating a version of health care reform with a public option that allows states to opt out. I like this idea. And it sounds like more conservative Democrats like Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Max Baucus (D-MT) are warming up to it too.
I think there needs to be a public option, if only a limited one, because health insurance companies can’t be trusted to keep premiums (for the uninsured or people having to buy on their own), co-payments and/or deductibles affordable. In many parts of the country, because of state laws or what not, there may be only one health insurance company to choose from, and costs reflect as much. Even people who have health insurance through their employer can be ruined financially from paying deductibles and co-payments required for treatment of cancer and other major diseases or injuries.
This plan would give reps and senators from more conservative constituencies (who distrust anything coming from Obama) political cover, because they can say they’re simply giving the power to their state rather than actually voting for it. If their constituents don’t want it, their state legislature can simply reject it. If their constituents want it and the legislature opts out, then the legislators will feel the heat.
Most importantly, this is better than the other compromises being floated, such as the “trigger” favored by Olympia Snowe (R-ME) or co-ops that would result in a weaker bill that is doomed to failure.
Certainly other things need to be done to reform healthcare. One tactic that I agree with, favored by former Congressman and 2010 Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey, is to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. As long as you then allow, say, NJ residents who buy PA or DE insurance to then go to doctors in NJ, this too will increase competition and lower costs.
Obama invites cabinet, congressmen for some basketball
President Obama is apparently inviting his cabinet and congressmen over to play on his basketball court at the White House tomorrow night.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/obama-to-join-lawmakers-on-basketball-court.php
Per the linked story, the list of invitees includes Secretary of Housing & Urban Development Shaun Donovan, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Representative Mike Arcuri (D-NY), Representative John Boccieri (D-OH), Representative Brad Ellsworth (D-IN), Representative Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Representative Baron Hill (D-IN),
Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA), Representative Frank Kratovil (D-MD), Representative Rick Larsen (D-WA), Representative Patrick Murphy (D-PA), Representative John Shimkus (R-IL) and Representative Heath Shuler (D-NC).
Do Eric Cantor, John Boehner and Joe “You Lie!” Wilson have any game?
JDB
Philly Phoughts 
