GOP's 2010 election strategy: repeal healthcare reform

As if liberals need more motivation to push health- care reform, Rush Limbaugh, in a profoundly patriotic move, said last week he'll be "leaving the country" if health care passes. VOTE YES ON REFORM. SEND RUSH PACKING! It's a bumper sticker with the virtue of no reference to "cost curves" or pre-existing conditions.

Progressives are so dispirited—and, like the rest of the country, so sick of talking about sick people—that they can't wrap their heads around the reality that this is the Big One, the Super Bowl, for all the marbles. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner can scowl, but Republicans are now nearly irrelevant to the process. The only real question is if Democrats are in the mood to slit their own throats. The bill is complex, but the politics are simple: if health care doesn't pass this spring, Obama's domestic presidency is finished. The Democratic Party will be, to borrow a phrase from Nixon, a "helpless, pitiful giant." By contrast, if the bill gets signed, Republicans are setting themselves up for a "repeal the bill" campaign that will likely backfire in November's midterm elections. That's eight months away, but if the bill passes I'd bet on the GOP winning only a few new seats.

This is Politics 101, a class that many Democrats apparently flunked. The House Democrats who voted for the bill at the end of 2009 have no choice but to vote for it again if they have any clue as to what's in their political self-interest; the he-was-for-it-before-he-was-against-it ads write themselves. And the more conservative Blue Dog Democrats who voted against it need to understand that no matter how toxic health care is in their districts right now, things will be a lot worse if they have to run under the banner of a failed president. Voters won't reward them for being fake Republicans—they'll vote for the real ones instead. ...

These members all know that, according to a Harvard study, 40,000 people a year die for lack of health insurance. Do they want that on their consciences? It's hard to imagine they do. This is their moment of truth as Democrats. Let's face it: if they vote to cripple a Democratic president now, they ain't real Democrats. It's like a Republican voting against Bush's tax cuts. In 2001 no House Republican did.

Ironically, this is not as hard a vote for Democrats as it looks. Sen. John Cornyn, the Texan who heads the National Republican Senatorial Committee, says the midterms should be a "referendum" on repealing the health-care bill (if the bill fails, the Republicans will run against it anyway). Because the insurance-industry reforms kick in immediately, this means Republicans would be running against protections that even those queasy about health-care reform are not going to want stripped away. Whose side will candidates want to be on? The insurers—or average people happy that they have the security of not worrying about their health if they lose their job?

If the Republicans truly believe passage of this bill will ensure electoral victory for their party in 2010, why are they still fighting tooth-and-nail against it? Here's why: A Democrat is in the White House, so repealing healthcare reform next year would require the GOP to control both chambers of Congress with super-majorities -- the 2/3 needed to override Obama's certain veto.

Does anyone think the GOP can capture both houses of Congress in November? Charlie Cook thinks they can take the House with 40 flips, but that's still over 40 seats away from a super-majority. Switching 19 Senate seats and 86 seats in the House (Dems currently hold a 257-175 advantage --3 independents/vacancies at the moment -- and that represents 59.03%-40.23%, nearly precisely the same Senate percentages) is the only thing that gets the Republicans past a presidential veto.

In other words, running on a 'repeal healthcare' platform is tantamount to a lie. But of course, their voters really don't care about the truth anyway.

Funnies Extra

The Texas Textbook Massacre

Mustering outrage on this is easy.

Friday morning the Texas Board of Education voted to approve changing the state's social studies curriculum to make it more closely reflect the views of God's Own Party. Among the changes are:

• Replacing the heathen, Thomas Jefferson, with theologian John Calvin;
• Tearing down the wall between church and state;
• Rejecting "capitalism" in favor of the "free-enterprise system"; and
• Prohibiting discussion of "transvestites, transsexuals and who knows what else."

Given Texas' influence on the national textbook market, you're probably better off home-schooling your kids. Or not.

Kuffner compiled linkage to those who covered the hearings as they happened, including the exemplary Texas Freedom Network and Think Progress. April Castro at the AP, Blue Texan at firedoglake, and Gary Scharrer at the Houston Chronicle's Austin bureau add more. I just have one question: if the conservatives would rather home-school or use public education vouchers to privatize their children's education, why do they also insist on indoctrinating the remaining public education students? Is it a mission from God? A small portion of their quest for world domination? Because they can't help themselves?

Where is that good ol' libertarian "leave us alone" mantra when it comes to public school textbooks?

Sunday Funnies

Theodore Olbermann 1929 - 2010

My father died, in the city of his birth, New York, at 3:50 EST this afternoon.

Though the financial constraints of his youth made college infeasible, he accomplished the near-impossible, becoming an architect licensed in 40 states. Much of his work was commercial, for a series of shoe store chains and department stores. There was a time in the 1970's when nearly all of the Baskin-Robbins outlets in the country had been built to his design, and under his direction. Through much of my youth and my early adult life, it was almost impossible to be anywhere in this country and not be a short drive to one of "his" stores.

My Dad was predeceased last year by my mother, Marie, his wife of nearly 60 years. He died peacefully after a long fight against the complications that ensued after successful colon surgery last September at the New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center. My sister Jenna and I were at his side, and I was reading him his favorite James Thurber short stories, as he left us.

More. RIP Ted Olbermann and deepest condolences to Keith.

Rove: "proud" USA used waterboarding

And I would be 'proud' to see him -- standing alongside Dick Cheney, of course -- executed as a war criminal. So I guess that makes us even.

In a BBC interview, Karl Rove, who was known as "Bush's brain", said he "was proud we used techniques that broke the will of these terrorists".

He said waterboarding, which simulates drowning, should not be considered torture.

In 2009, President Barack Obama banned waterboarding as a form of torture.

But the practice was sanctioned in written memos by Bush administration lawyers in August 2002, providing legal cover for its use.

"Should not be considered torture". Too late, it already is.

Last night, in an interview with Rachel Maddow, Nancy Pelosi said that the evidence against Bush administration officials had to be much more solid than it was and that, as a result, was the reason she took impeachment off the table ... but that she thinks there should always be accountability. I wonder if all the confessions coming out leave any impression on her.

Beyond that, the refusal by Obama's Justice Department to prosecute them -- or turn them over to be prosecuted by a world court -- despite their open boasts is one of the reasons why people like me have lost enthusiasm for this President.

Digressing for a moment to the issue of healthcare reform as analogy: like Ed Schultz, I have come around on the healthcare reform proposal, but I also believe that the criticism of Dennis Kucinich's principled stand against it is uncalled for, and a positively shitty thing to make a political play of (the deadline to file in Ohio has passed so Kucinich won't have a primary opponent.  More of this kind of crap from Markos is going to really piss me off).

But there is no room for compromise on torture. You can't say it's illegal and then turn away from your responsibility for enforcing the law because of perceived political fallout (see 'Clinton, impeachment').

Obama has already lost most of the vim the progressive left had for him so this shouldn't surprise or alarm anyone. The malaise threatens to wash over the November elections all the way down the ballot. The only question left is how broad it goes and how deep it reaches. And whether the Republicans can do something to screw up their advantage between now and then.