"I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true."

President Obama addressed the House Democratic Caucus today with an inspirational call to do what is right for the American people and vote for health care reform. He began by quoting Abraham Lincoln:

"I am not bound to win, but I'm bound to be true. I'm not bound to succeed, but I'm bound to live up to what light I have."

Obama spoke of Representative Betsy Markey who, in spite of the opposition of the largest newspaper in her district, announced that she would support reform. And the next day the paper ran an editorial saying that they had looked at the proposed legislation, and now they were actually glad that Rep. Markey was supporting it.

Obama: "I am convinced that when you go out there and you are standing tall and you are saying I believe that this is the right thing to do for my constituents and the right thing to do for America, that ultimately the truth will out."

His message was:

I know this is a tough vote. I've talked to many of you individually. And I have to say that if you honestly believe in your heart of hearts, in your conscience, that this is not an improvement over the status quo; . . . if you think that somehow it's okay that we have millions of hardworking Americans who can't get health care and that it's all right, it's acceptable, in the wealthiest nation on Earth that there are children with chronic illnesses that can't get the care that they need -- if you think that the system is working for ordinary Americans rather than the insurance companies, then you should vote no on this bill. . . .

But if you agree that the system is not working for ordinary families, if you've heard the same stories that I've heard everywhere, all across the country, then help us fix this system. Don't do it for me. Don't do it for Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid. Do it for all those people out there who are struggling. . . .

It was a powerful speech, some say it's his most emotional yet. It could be persuasive for those few remaining holdouts.

We'll know in less than 24 hours now.

Ralph

Reform process critique

There is an op-ed in today's New York Times by William Pewen that is worth reading. He is a health policy adviser to Senator Olympia Snowe and was an insider in the negotiations to get to a bipartisan bill in the Senate.

He probably tilts toward the Republican view, but he gives some good insights into the process that went on and the missed opportunities from both sides to actually get some bipartisan agreements.

For example, he faults the Democrats for holding out for the public option and then dropping it completely when it had too much opposition, as opposed to adopting the "fallback" public option plan that Sen. Snowe supported. Another Democratic mistake, he says, was their killing a measure that had bipartisan support to establish an FDA regulated system for importing prescription drugs that would have saved $100 billion. That measure was killed, Pewen says, by the secret deal that the Democrats had made with the drug industry.

Pewen has plenty to say about Republicans' part in the failure of bipartisanship, noting the policy decided even before Inauguration Day to block reform.

Here's the final paragraph in his article:

Three in four Americans say the health care system needs to be overhauled, and many provisions in the pending legislation have strong support. What's more, the core of the Senate's legislation closely resembles the very bill the Republicans offered in 1993 as an alternative to the Clinton plan. This makes clear that bipartisan reform is achievable, and indicts Congress for its failure to realize that goal with broad public support.

From his vantage point inside the negotiating teams, Pewen implicitly answers the question of what went wrong:

I saw first hand how a failure to recognize the magnitude of the task, and a toxic political environment undermined the effort to achieve reform.

Ah, what might have been . . .

Ralph

Tea Party = Velvet Revolution???

Representative Steve King (R-IA) has championed the Tea Party protests as similar to the Velvet Revolution in Prague, 1989, when protests from the people forced changes in the Communist government of Czechoslovokia. Thus, King is likening the Obama government with a communist totalitarian government, and he urges the people to rise up against the government. Glenn Beck has said much the same thing.

Jon Stewart -- as always, the one who gets at the truth -- has a marvelously funny episode with "correspondent" John Oliver -- in which it is revealed the benefits the Velvet Revolution brought in. Watch it at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/18/stewart-takes-on-tea-bagg_n_503858.html

And guess what one of those benefits was:

****Mandatory Universal Health Care ****

Sounds ok by me. But isn't "government take-over of health care" what the Tea Party crowd is protesting? Maybe Rep. King has got his revolutions mixed up.

Ralph

Does money really matter?

The Washington Post reports on a survey done by OpenSecrets.org that compiles campaign contributions (through 2009) from the health industry to each individual member of the House, along with their party affiliations, how they voted on the original health care reform bill, and how they lean on the upcoming vote.

Interest results -- not quite what I expected. Although my ranting about money was mostly when the Senate bill was dragging on, and this survey is of the House, it does challenge my assumptions.

I looked at those who have received more than $1 million -- and it might be somewhat different if you considered all House members who got smaller amounts; but I didn't want to put that much time into it.

Of those who received more than $1M:

20 were Republicans, and 20 voted no last year and lean no on the upcoming vote.

20 were Democrats, and 19 voted yes, 1 no last year; 16 lean yes, 4 undecided.

Three House members received more than $3 million. All are Democrats and all voted yes.

What does it mean? I'm not sure. Health care lobbyists like to spread their money around in hopes of getting slight favors from those in power? Maybe money doesn't control the votes as much as I had assumed.

What I'd like to see is comparable data on those conservative Senate Democrats like Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Kent Conrad, and Max Baucus before I relent on my anti-lobbying-money rant.

Ralph

It's come to this . . . ?

Members of Congress calling for the overthrow of our government?

From Huffington Post's Sam Stein:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) urged a smaller-than-expected crowd of Tea Party protesters on Tuesday to launch a Velvet Revolution-style uprising against the federal government, saying the parallels are striking between America's current government and Eastern European communist rule.

Speaking to the Huffington Post shortly after his speech, King declared that a peaceful uprising, a la the successful overthrowing of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia on the streets of Prague in 1989 "would be fine with me."

"Fill this city up, fill this city, jam this place full so that they can't get in, they can't get out and they will have to capitulate to the will of the American people," he said.

"So this is just like Prague under communist rule?" the Huffington Post asked.

"Oh yeah, it is very, very close," King replied. "It is the nationalization of our liberty and the federal government taking our liberty over. So there are a lot of similarities there.". . .

Stein reassuringly observed that the Tea Party crowd he was addressing was a shadow of the one last fall at the height of the health care debate, and the sound system so bad that few beyond the small group immediately around him could even hear his remarks.

Well, that's a relief. Still, it's disturbing that such fiery rhetoric and paranoid thinking emanates from the halls of Congress.

Ralph

Clarence and Ginni

It has been no secret that Clarence Thomas is a consistent vote for the more conservative position on almost every Supreme Court decision. He espouses an "originalist" position that the literal meaning of the Constitution in its time should be honored in today's time and culture. Unless, of course, it has to do with installing George Bush as president and other radical rightist decisions.

Now an article from the Los Angeles Times describes the non-profit lobbying group launched by Thomas' wife Virginia as "a tea-party-linked group that could test the traditional notions of political impartiality for the court."

In January, Virginia Thomas created Liberty Central Inc., a nonprofit lobbying group whose website will organize activism around a set of conservative "core principles," she said.

The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources -- including corporations -- as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court.

"I adore all the new citizen patriots who are rising up across this country," Thomas, who goes by Ginni, said on the panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference. "I have felt called to the front lines with you, with my fellow citizens, to preserve what made America great."

The move by Virginia Thomas, 52, into the front lines of politics stands in marked contrast to the rarefied culture of the nation's highest court, which normally prizes the appearance of nonpartisanship and a distance from the fisticuffs of the politics of the day.

While not illegal and not violating stated ethical regulations, her political activity could clearly create conflict of interest situations that would call into question her husband's impartiality.

Virginia Thomas has long been a passionate voice for conservative views. She has worked for former Republican Rep. Dick Armey of Texas and for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank with strong ties to the GOP.

In 2000, while at the Heritage Foundation, she was recruiting staff for a possible George W. Bush administration as her husband was hearing the case that would decide the election. When journalists reported her work, Thomas said she saw no conflict of interest and that she rarely discussed court matters with her husband.

"We have our separate professional lives," she said at the time. . . .

Although Liberty Central is a nonpartisan group, its website shows an affinity for conservative principles. Her biography notes that Thomas is a fan of Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America."

"She is intrigued by Glenn Beck and listening carefully," the bio says.

NYU law professor and legal ethics expert Stephen Gillers said:

There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim," he said.

The Supreme Court has no rules for when a Justice must recuse himself from participating in a case. It would be left up to Justice Thomas to make that decision. Given his close association with Justice Scalia, this is not encouraging, given Scalia's record of refusing to recuse himself from cases that others clearly thought he should.

And what about after the fact. Let's see how many corporations express their gratitude to Justice Thomas for overturning any limits on corporate campaign contributions by helping Ginni Thomas fund her "non-profit" political foundation.

Beware the perfidy of the pious !

Ralph