Excellent

Wojr sends this along, and I feel duty-bound to post it. 



I recall that Monty Burns also endorsed Sideshow Bob for Mayor following his release from prison. And to be truthful, I'd probably vote for Bob before Obama, since I'm aching for that upper-class tax cut.

Simpsons Quote of the Day

I will refrain from spending too much time wondering how this will compare to our future under Obamacare....

 

After a household accident leads to Homer's thumb being cut off, Marge and Homer race to the doctor's office to see family physicain Dr. Juilius Hibbert. The doc has some bad news...

Dr. Hibbert: "I'm sorry, Homer. Your HMO doesn't cover this type of injury."

Homer: "But I have finger insurance!"

Hibbert: "A thumb is not a finger!"

Marge: (protesting) "Isn't there anything you can do?"

Hibbert: (thinking) "Well, I could cut off the other thumb for a sense of symmetry."

Simpsons Quote of the Day

Apropos for today -- one of the greatest quotes ever from a Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror" Halloween special...

 

Homer goes shopping for Bart's birthday gift and ends up in a spooky store in Chinatown that sells strange objects... and frozen yogurt, which the owner calls Frogurt. The owner, a sinister old man, suggests a gift...

Owner: (holding out a Krusty the Klown doll) "Take this object... but beware it carries a terrible curse!"

Homer: (scared) "Ooooh, that's bad."

Owner: (smiles) "But it comes with a free Frogurt!"

Homer: (smiles) "That's good."

Owner: (scowling) "The Frogurt is also cursed."

Homer: (scared again) "That's bad."

Owner: (smiling again) "But you get your choice of topping!"

Homer: (relieved, smiling again) "That's good."

Owner: (scowling again) "The topping contains Potassium Benzoate." (Homer stares blankly at the owner, who grows impatient) "That's bad."

Homer: "Can I go now?"

Simpsons Quote of the Day

It's election season, so here's some world-class pandering for votes to inspire candidates everywhere.  Springfield Elementary's school band loses to Ogdenville in the state band competition, but Lisa is peeved because the Ogdenville band used red-white-and-blue glow sticks to sway the judges, which violated the rule against visual aids. when no one listens to her complaints, Lisa writes to then-President Clinton... who shows up on the family's doorstep...

 

Marge: "President Clinton?"

 

Clinton: "Yeah. Hi. I'm here to see Lisa Simpson."

 

Lisa: (in shock) "You read my letter?"

 

Clinton: "Much of it, yeah. And those glow sticks were wrong, very wrong, so I personally overturned the results of that band contest. Congratulations." (Clinton hands Lisa a plaque)

 

Lisa: (in delighted surprise) "Thank you, Mr. President."

 

Clinton: "No, thank you, Lisa, for teaching kids everywhere a valuable lesson: If things don't go your way, just keep complaining until your dreams come true."

 

Marge: "That's a pretty lousy lesson."

 

Clinton: "Hey, I'm a pretty lousy president."

Those Darned Elections

Earlier this week, we had former Obama OMB Director Peter Orszag extolling the virtues of less democracy.  Now we have an elected Democrat throwing out the same idea, and suggesting a good way to implement it...

Speaking to a Cary Rotary Club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that," Perdue said. "You want people who don't worry about the next election."

The comment -- which came during a discussion of the economy -- perked more than a few ears. It's unclear whether Perdue, a Democrat, is serious -- but her tone was level and she asked others to support her on the idea.

The audio backs up the idea that she wasn't joking, which officially makes Perdue's suggestion dumber than Orszag's.  Let us coun...

1.  Orszag's a policy wonk; while those people sometimes run for office (see Warren, Elizabeth), they usually stay on the technocratic theorietical side of the world and avoid trying to get elected.  When they do, they often flounder because they say things that are as dumb as this (see Warren, Elizabeth).  But Perdue is a professional politician and elected official who's suggesting that we suspend elections.   This makes her statement, even if off the cuff, several hundred times dumber than Orszag's article.

2.  Perdue's suggestion doesn't even have merit as something that might work.  Since when does making politicians less accountable to the electorate lead to better policy?  Do dictatorships and the old Soviet model of Communism have a brilliant track record of giving the populace what they want?  Does Perdue really believe that our elected officials, if insulated from the potential to be voted out of office, suddenly bail on their principles?  If so, we're electing the wrong people to office.  If a policy is opposed by your constiuents but you think it's a good idea, your job is to vote for it and then explain (convincingly, you hope) why you voted for it.  If you can't explain why it's a good thing, then maybe it isn't (see Obamacare).

3.  Why do Democrats hate democracy so much?  Shouldn't the party change its name?

4.  Perdue's statement is telling of the problem Democrats have with regard to media bias.  If a Republican had suggested in the Bush years that we do something like this, they would have been filleted and forced to apologize, even if it was a joke.  But Democrats are used to the media covering for them, so they let loose with the inner thoughts they have about how the world would be a better place if they could just manage the country and the stupid citizens would just listen quietly and agree with whatever brilliant strategem the elite had developed.

5.  As a bottom line matter, this really comes down to Democrats suddenly running headlong into reality -- people are now opposed to bigger government, even if they like a lot of the goodies they're getting from it.  They don't want to pay for it.  The GOP base has adopted a simple position grounded in reality, which is that we need to cut back because we can't pay for it.  The Democrats keep pretending that they can raise taxes on the rich enough to cover the freight, when reality says they need to raise them across the board.  Perhaps if they didn't hold elections, they could raise more revenue through taxes to keep the big government they want to support.

6.  Hey, any excuse to post a classic Simpsons moment.  Apparently Homer agrees with orszag and Perdue...




7.  Here's hoping Perdue learns why democracy works next fall, when she's voted out of office.

It's The Worst System There Is, Except For All The Others

Former Obama OMB chief Peter Orszag is annoyed that all the hoi polloi of democracy keep screwing up the brilliant vision of liberal technocrats, with an article with a sub-headline of "Why we need less democracy."  Peter Suderman at Reason does a nice job of taking apart Orszag's argument, which I can summarize with the help of Kent Brockman...



He might be right. After all, democracy led to the Presidency of Barack Obama.

I Would Have Preferred The Monorail

Rex Murphy turns a phrase pretty well -- I'm not sure I agree with the conclusion, but this is some damn fine prose at the end...

To the degree the press neglected its function as watchdog and turned cupbearer to a styrofoam demigod, it is a partner in the flaws and failures of what is turning out to be one of the most miserable performances in the modern history of the American presidency.

As much as I hate the left-wing media bias that gave Obama a complete pass in 2008, it was predictable from day one, and they're not entirely at fault.  The blame for Obama's margin of victory lies with the press, but the blame for his win needs to be shared with President Bush, Senator McCain, and the GOP in general.  They all screwed up enough that the public was ready to accept just about anyone the Democrats nominated, even if he was a seemingly likeable but ultimately unprepared and overrated guy with an allegedly golden tongue.  And hell, the public chose to buy the monorail from the guy they'd never met...



Yes, I know that's a tenuous link, but you can never link to the monorail song enough.  Actually, the monorail was arguably a greater success than Obama thus far -- Springfield only spent its surplus on the monorail and didn't go into debt for it.

The real irony?  The media so bought into the Obama myth that they set him up for failure by building expectations so high that even a President of real substance would have been hard-pressed to be anything other than a mild disappointment.  Obama's incompetence has made him a spectacular failure thus far, at least insofar as one measures him compared to what was expected.  His campaign gets some blame for that... but the media's decision never to test him meant he came into the job even more woefully unprepared.

Do They Sell Panic Buttons at Staples?

James Carville thinks it's time for the White House to press the panic button...

People often ask me what advice I would give the White House about various things. Today I was mulling over election results from New York and Nevada while thinking about that very question. What should the White House do now? One word came to mind: Panic.


We are far past sending out talking points. Do not attempt to dumb it down. We cannot stand any more explanations. Have you talked to any Democratic senators lately? I have. It's pretty damn clear they are not happy campers.


This is what I would say to President Barack Obama: The time has come to demand a plan of action that requires a complete change from the direction you are headed.

Carville proceeds to suggest that Obama fire a lot of folks, including his political team (maybe they'd hire Carville then... hmmm), indict a lot of people (which seems awfully close to politicizing the Justice Department, as Ed Morrissey notes), and lead the fight against Republican talking points and not leave the explanations to bureacrats.

I will humbly suggest that the White House should probably accept Carville's diagnosis that their chances look bad, but not neccessarily accept the cures he's suggesting.  By all means, firing people is not a bad idea, and it's not like the West Wing is lacking in candidates who should be fired.  But the real issue is who replaces them, and whether they bring any new ideas to the table, rather than rehashing the same crap.  The American Jobs Act is a warmed-over mini-version of the Porkulus of 2009, and no one outside the DNC's orbit thinks that worked. 

As to the indictments, I agree with Morrissey that indictments of Wall Street figures would be shameful and totally politicize the Justice Department... not that Eric Holder hasn't already done that anyway.  Suddenly deciding to indict people in an election year smacks of political positioning, and it will look worse if people who get indicted are folks who aren't maxing out contributions to Team Obama.  One would think this adminsitration is smarter than that, but they're not giving me a lot of reason to believe in their brains.

Finally, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have Obama continue to try to sell his policies.  Repeated speeches by the President have not made the sale so far, and it looks like it's starting to eat into the President's likability, which may be the one thing he has left.  If anything, President Obama has been an incredibly poor sales person for his policies.  Maybe Carville can get Bill Clinton to handle the sales pitch instead.

The most aggravating thing about Carville's column?  The best Simpsons quote to fit Carville's advice is not available on video via Hulu. The quote, with Kent Brockman reporting on a crime wave...

Kent: When cat burglaries start, can mass murders be far behind? This reporter isn't saying that the burglar is an inhuman monster like the Wolfman, but he very well could be. So, professor: would you say it's time for everyone to panic?
Professor: Yes I would, Kent.

Damn Hulu.  In lieu of that, I offer this video, for no reason other than its inherent greatness...

I'll Never Report On More Important News

Wojr passes along news of great importance...

Vulture has learned that Fox has renewed The Simpsons for a 23rd season of animated adventures, taking it through its landmark 500th episode (specifically, it takes the show up to episode 515)... Longtime Simpsons show-runner Al Jean, while psyched about the renewal, said he can't claim to be the most excited one about the good news: "The happiest of all was the unicorn who pokes in all our DVDs," Jean told us. "He's getting extra hay out of this."


Fox's last Simpsons renewal, which was for two seasons, came back in February 2009. The show needs the extra lead time owing to its long production timetable, and with the new pickup, it will have enough episodes to air though at least spring 2012; Jean expects the 500th episode to be broadcast in February 2012... (For TV geeks keeping track, Lassie and Gunsmoke are the only prime-time shows that have produced more episodes, with 588 and 635, respectively.)


...For now, the next big event on The Simpsons calendar is the Thanksgiving-night broadcast premiere of The Simpsons Movie. Jean said he'll be watching to see just how Fox's standards and practices department deals with three major gags he says "we wouldn't be able to get away with on the show." The naughty trio: Homer giving a mob the middle finger, Bart exposing his penis, and Marge using the word "goddamn." He's especially curious considering how Fox has gotten more prudish about cartoon obscenity over the years: For example, they can no longer show Homer's bare rear end. "There was a period where we could show Homer's ass," Jean says.

There's several ways to go with this, but we'll refer to one of the classic episodes of the show for the following two quotes... first we have the Simpsons taking square aim at Lassie back in the early 1990's (they knew what the future held) when Smithers uttered this line at Burns' birthday party...

Smithers: "I have some sad news to report: a small puppy, not unlike Lassie, was just run over in the parking lot. [pause as audience gasps] And now it's time for the comedy stylings of Homer Simpson!"

Next, after getting beaten down for opting to moon the audience at said party, Homer promises Lisa he'll "never show his bare butt in public again." She's reluctant to believe him, and moments later, the truth comes out...

Bart: "Dad, I know you're discouraged, but please don't deny the world your fat can."
Homer: "Don't worry, boy, he'll be ready for your Aunt Selma's birthday."
Lisa: "I knew it."

Happy 500, guys.

To Quote Mr. Burns, I Suspect You Need More Practice Working Your Telephone Machine

Apparently, our news media is unable to figure out how to hang up their Iphones.  Let me raise a glass to Steve Jobs, for devising one more method by which idiot reporters reveal their bias.  Meanwhile, I'm guessing the news director at the station is going to be stuck answering some unpleasant questions.  Maybe NPR execs can give them some pointers on conducting firings.

If The Simpsons Are Catholic, I'm Upset That Villanova Didn't Have A Class About It

With all due respect to the Vatican, I have trouble seeing Homer as a Catholic.  Particularly since Reverend Lovejoy is married -- last I checked, the Church doesn't go for that.  Besides, Homer clearly prefers beer to wine.

The Simpsons Did It

God bless my favorite television show of all time for coming through with  an appropriate illustration to support another of my favorite TV shows of all time (hat tip: Andrew Sullivan).

I Would Have Held Out For a New Ipad

The real question is why anyone would want these particular souls...

A computer game retailer revealed that it legally owns the souls of thousands of online shoppers, thanks to a clause in the terms and conditions agreed to by online shoppers.


The retailer, British firm GameStation, added the "immortal soul clause" to the contract signed before making any online purchases earlier this month. It states that customers grant the company the right to claim their soul.


"By placing an order via this Web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant Us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul. Should We wish to exercise this option, you agree to surrender your immortal soul, and any claim you may have on it, within 5 (five) working days of receiving written notification from gamesation.co.uk or one of its duly authorised minions."


GameStation's form also points out that "we reserve the right to serve such notice in 6 (six) foot high letters of fire, however we can accept no liability for any loss or damage caused by such an act. If you a) do not believe you have an immortal soul, b) have already given it to another party, or c) do not wish to grant Us such a license, please click the link below to nullify this sub-clause and proceed with your transaction."

It is a terrific April Fools gag, but the gamers should have held out for something more. You know, like a donut.

We're A Work In Progress

Um, excuse me?  We're working on it?  Silly me, I thought we'd established one a couple hundred years ago...

President Obama said Sunday that the United States is still "working on" democracy and a top aide said he has taken "historic steps" to improve democracy in the United States during his time in office.


The remarks came as Obama met with Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev -- one of the U.S. president's many meetings with world leaders ahead of this week's nuclear summit.


Kazakhstan, which has been touting its record on combating nuclear proliferation, is a key player in the NATO supply network to Afghanistan and currently heads the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).


Some observers see a conflict between Kazakhstan's chairmanship of the 56-nation OSCE, which plays an important role in monitoring elections in emerging democracies, and its own widely criticized human rights record.


But if the Obama administration saw any disconnect, it kept its criticism to itself.


"In connection with the OSCE, the presidents had a very lengthy discussion of issues of democracy and human rights," NSC senior director Mike McFaul said on a conference call with reporters Sunday. "Both presidents agreed that you don't ever reach democracy; you always have to work at it. And in particular, President Obama reminded his Kazakh counterpart that we, too, are working to improve our democracy."


The Wall Street Journal's Jonathan Weisman asked McFaul to clarify.


"You seemed to be suggesting there was some equivalence between their issues of democracy and the United States' issues, when you said that President Obama assured him that we, too, are working on our democracy," Weisman said. "Is there equivalence between the problems that President Nazarbayev is confronting and the state of democracy in the United States?"


"Absolutely not ... There was no equivalence meant whatsoever," McFaul said. "[Obama's] taken, I think, rather historic steps to improve our own democracy since coming to office here in the United States."

Let's get past the debate on whether one can ever "achieve" democracy or not -- I think one can always improve the state of a country's governance and governing institutions, but I find it silly to claim that you don't ever "reach" democracy.  Or maybe the President really does believe Kent Brockman's credo: "I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work."

I'm more impressed by the continuing narcissism of our current President. He's taken "historic steps" to improve democracy?  Man, what an ego.

Latest Dumb Statement By A New York Times Communist... Oops, I Meant Columnist

New York Times editorial columnist Frank Rich makes a bid for dumbest column of the year by comparing the Tea Party activists to Nazis...

How curious that a mob fond of likening President Obama to Hitler knows so little about history that it doesn’t recognize its own small-scale mimicry of Kristallnacht. The weapon of choice for vigilante violence at Congressional offices has been a brick hurled through a window. So far.

I'd call Rich a douchebag, but that would insult feminine hygeine products. And that's before we get to Rich's decision to compare anti-government Tea Party activists to the fascist big government of Hitler. Professor Bainbridge wipes the mat with Rich's stupidity and that of Dem. Rep. Alan Grayson...

What we're seeing here are continuing efforts on the part of some left-liberals to use the ravings of a small fringe to delegitimize any dissent...


Indeed, at this point, an observer with a predilection for conspiracy theories would be wondering whether these efforts are being coordinated by dark forces. My money's on the Free Masons and the Trilateral Commission as being at the center of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

I'd also blame the reverse vampires.

Hello, Everybody!

Craig Calcaterra says the Phillies use this picture on the scoreboard when describing the location of their spring training stadium's first aid facility.  I love this team.

In The Navy

I concluded long ago that Bill Maher was either a complete idiot or the television equivalent of a shock jock (except he's not as talented as someone like Howard Stern).  But here's some proof that it's actually the latter...

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And no, you don't need to watch the whole thing, because I certainly didn't enjoy suffering through it -- the bit about the Navy is in the first couple minutes.  Maybe he's right, and the Navy is filled with repressed homosexuals (not that there's anything wrong with that).  It's not like the Simpsons hasn't covered this...

John: Homer, what have you got against gays?


Homer: You know! It's not... usual. If there was a law, it'd be against it!


Marge: Oh Homer, please! You're embarrassing yourself.


Homer: No, I'm not, Marge! They're embarrasing me. They're embarrassing America. They turned the Navy into a floating joke. They ruined all our best names like Bruce, and Lance, and Julian. Those were the toughest names we had! Now they're just, uh...


John: Queer?


Homer: Yeah, and that's another thing! I resent you people using that word. That's our word for making fun of you! We need it!!

I'll leave it to folks in the Navy to decide if they should be offended or not.  I mean, perhaps the Navy is like the steel industry...



Yes, I'm having way too much fun when I get to reference the Simpsons twice in one post. 

Truthfully, I think Maher's little schtick about not "trying to knock the Navy or any military branch" would go over better if he opted not to generalize from the actions of one former Naval officer to allege that the Navy's filled with repressed homosexuals (again, not that there's anything wrong with that).  I could conclude from the trials and tribulations of Hollywood marriages and the rampant drug use by stars who regularly check themselves into rehab that everyone who appears on-screen in a movie is a philadering, pill-popping, asshole... but that would be unfair, even if it was accurate in many cases.  Of course, perhaps Maher agrees, although saying that might get him banned from hanging out with the celebrities of the world, and leave him stuck on MSNBC.

What Annoying Song Is Stuck In My Head Today?

If I need to suffer with a song stuck in my head, why shouldn't you have to do the same? Sometimes they're good, most times they're bad... but no matter what, they make you suffer. So I like to share the suffering whenever it happens.

Once again, I've got a defining song for this category. This is actually a pretty good song, and the fact that it's by George Harrison is another point in its favor. But it definitely gets stuck in your head. However, we'll forgive it because (a) Harrison was a member of the Beatles (b) the video's an underrated 1980's classic, and (c) he gave us a brilliant Simpsons cameo in one of the best Simpsons episodes ever. Besides, as far as we know, he has never collaborated on anything with the Scorpions.



You're welcome.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Andy McCarthy worries that the Democrats will ignore public opinion and enact Obamacare...

I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that "reconciliation," if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That's the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership's statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I'm glad Republicans have held firm, but let's not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you've calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.

Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We're wired to think that everyone plays by the usual rules of politics — i.e., if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftists who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that's what everybody in their position does. But they won't. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don't think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway — that's why so many of them are abandoning ship now. If that's the case, their incentive will be to vote with the leadership.

Ed Morrissey thinks this worry is overblown...

They didn’t gain the majority by elected over 300 cardboard cutouts of Nancy Pelosi as Representatives and Senators. While Andy is spot-on about Pelosi and her clique being descendants of the New Left radicals of the 1960s (as is Barack Obama), that’s not true for a large portion of their caucus, especially those representing red districts and red states. Not only is political suicide much more likely for them than it is for Pelosi, Anthony Weiner, Jarrold Nadler, et al, they’re temperamentally different from the leadership clique as well.

That doesn’t mean that they can’t get bulldozed into compliance, but it does make it a more difficult proposition for Pelosi to hold her caucus together. We’re already seeing signs of it splintering, and as this effort gets closer to the midterm elections, that will increase proportionately. Blue Dogs are already unhappy with the direction of ObamaCare — and so are progressives, but for diametrically opposed reasons. The summit may have helped to pull recalcitrant moderates in line, but Democrats got punked at the televised spectacle and have no fig leaf to wear to support a radical mechanism in pushing through a radical bill.

I don't want to rely on the Democrats acting logically at this point, although I think Morrissey's point is actually pretty strong. At this point, I tend to think moderate Democrats don't want to to have to take a vote on health care reform. They just wish the damn thing would go away and die, so that their political careers don't. Many on the left are making the counter-argument that it would be worse not to pass a bill at this point, which if true is absolutely hilarious to me. I'm not sure how that works -- passing what the majority of the public perceive as a crappy bill and what the left perceives as insufficient will somehow keep Democrats from losing as badly? I found this little quote from Juan Williams of NPR, appearing on Fox News Sunday, illuminating...

But not coming from the -- the difference here is that Rahm Emanuel is a hardball political player. And his attitude towards the health care reform deal, towards cap-and-trade and these other things that have not come to pass, is, Don't worry about public opinion. We've got a Democratic majority on the Hill. We'll focus on the Democratic majority. We'll focus on the process and we will get it done.

And the big failure on health care, as we've just discussed in the previous panel, is the American people aren't eating the dog food. So if that's the case, you've got to go out there and sell, and you've got to do it effectively.

Williams is clearly discussing the issue from the perspective of whether Rahm Emanuel gets to fall on his sword if health care fails. But it's more telling that Williams, who is a committed liberal, analogizes the Democrats health care reform package to dog food. And how you can't get the public to eat dog food. It reminds us of the Simpsons episode where Bart gives up his dog, Santa's Little Helper, in exchange for a brilliant superdog named Laddie. Bart soon realizes he wants his old dog back and gives Laddie away as well, but bursts into tears telling his family that he wants to get back Santa's Little Helper. Homer comforts Bart and tries to encourage his son to take action instead of crying...

Homer: "Well, crying isn't gonna bring him back, unless your tears smell like dog food. So you can either sit there crying and eating can after can of dog food until your tears smell enough like dog food to make your dog come back -- or you can go out there and find your dog."

Bart: (drying tears) "You're right! I'll do it." (sprints out of the kitchen)

Homer: (upset) "Rats. I almost had him eating dog food!"

Back to the issue at hand. I think the Beltway opinion on this reflects the point that plenty of Democrats don't want to deal with this issue any more. I think President knew that, and tried the summit in an attempt to change the narrative, if not shift the momentum entirely (and yes, I'm aware of the fact that if use the word "gamechange", it would tie the record for most overused political cliches in one paragraph). That didn't succeed; even though the health care plan got more support than it has since November in the Rasmussen poll, it's still sucking wind with very passionate opponents at 43% versus passionate supporters at 22%. Yet the Democratic leadership is putting on a public face of insistence that they will move this bill through to signature. And the Dems even picked up a vote today, with the resignation of a GOP Congressman making it necessary for Pelosi to only net 216 votes instead of 217.

The real question is whether that public face is a bluff, or reflects the real determination that they can and will get something done. I believe the arm-twisting has started in private and public, and will continue all month until the Dems can get a deal. What's working against a deal is the fact that everyone is also setting the table to be able to blame someone else if it falls through -- the Senate will blame the House, the House will blame the Senate, the President will blame both houses, and all three will blame the GOP. At the same time, more people in the middle are supporting the idea of starting over. Here's Warren Buffett...



There's the opening for the President, if he wants to take it. Perhaps that's why we're seeing some movement toward a smaller bill now...

President Obama will soon propose a health care bill that will be "much smaller" than the House bill but "big enough" to put the country on a "path" toward health care reform, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Monday.

"In a matter of days, we will have a proposal," Pelosi said, pointing to Obama's forthcoming bill.

"It will be a much smaller proposal than we had in the House bill because that's where we can gain consensus. But it will be big enough to put us on a path of affordable, quality health care for all Americans that holds insurance companies accountable."

A senior administration official told Fox Obama's proposal will be introduced Wednesday.

Melody Barnes, a top Obama domestic policy adviser, did not dispute Pelosi's characterization of the new plan as smaller in scope -- and quite possibly in cost -- than either the House or Senate health care bills.

The real question is whather such a smaller bill is actually a real effort at moderation or a political prop designed to get moderate Dems on board. My guess is the latter, because I doubt Pelosi would stay in line if it wasn't sufficient to the left. This thing isn't dead yet -- I get the feeling that we need to sweat out everyone of the 247 days between now and November 3rd before we can feel like Obamacare has gone by the wayside.

The Health Care Follies Continue

Where to start when discussing the health care summit? I'd start with Arnold Kling's pre-game conclusion...

There are two ways to approach reducing the use of high-cost, low-benefit procedures. You can have the government tell people what they can and cannot have. Or you can have individuals pay for a larger fraction of the medical procedures that they consume. It really comes down to those choices.

Advocating either one of those is political suicide, and talking about anything else is a waste of time. The Democrats will not advocate government rationing, and the Republicans will not advocate scrapping most of our current system of third-party payment in medicine. Instead, the summit, like the entire "health reform debate" this year, will be a waste of time.

As to the postgame, Slate has a decent analysis...

If the White House health care summit was political theater, here's a 30-second review: President Obama won. So did congressional Republicans. Democrats in Congress need another act. This is not because Obama is such a better speaker and advocate for the legislation than his allies, though he is. It's because Democrats didn't get much political benefit from the event.

Obama ran for office promising to reach out to the other party. He said he would try to find areas of common agreement, and when his opponents had a legitimate philosophical disagreement, he would not question their motives. He did all of that in the session. Obama was not the crazy liberal caricature of GOP attacks during the seven-hour iron-bottom discussion. (Which may itself have been bad for the health of the people in the room.)

Republicans came out ahead for the same reason: They did not look like hell-bent obstructionists. This isn't to say that they tried to meet the president halfway. They didn't even try to meet him a quarter of the way. Repeatedly they called on him to start over. The president tried to get the room to focus on areas of agreement, and though several Republicans—notably Sen. Tom Coburn and Rep. Dave Camp—worked in that spirit, several others (hello, Reps. John Boehner and Eric Cantor) did not.

If you want a good answer for why the GOP looked better than the Democrats, take a look at the opening speakers for each side. The GOP presented Lamar Alexander -- reasonable, calm, looking like everyone's favorite uncle, and laying out the principles and ideas that GOP backed for reform. The Dems, if you take out Obama since he's the President and moderator in this format, went with Nancy Pelosi. And then followed her with Harry Reid. The only way they could have made it worse was by sending in Joe Biden. Pelosi spent her time talking about the moral case for reform, invoking Ted Kennedy's dream, as if that will sway independant voters. Reid came armed with the first of many sob stories, while making the laughable claim that the Democrats haven't discussed reconciliation. Even liberals think he's full of it on that point. Yuval Levin's halftime analysis contained some important nuggets of truth...

First, the Democrats appear to have no particular purpose in mind for this event. They’re not driving anywhere, or making a clear individual case, while Republicans clearly want to get across the point that we should scrap the current bills and start over in pursuit of a few incremental steps. The Democrats may have thought that simply putting the spotlight on Republicans when the subject is health care would make the GOP look bad. But Republicans so far seem prepared enough and focused enough to avoid that, and to make the Democrats look rather aimless by comparison.

...Third, an important part of the Democrats’ problem is that Obama himself is their only star, and this format is not working for him. He certainly seems engaged and well informed (even given a few misstatements of fact, at least one of which John Kyl made very clear.) But he doesn’t seem like the President of the United States—more like a slightly cranky committee chairman or a patronizing professor who thinks that saying something is “a legitimate argument” is a way to avoid having an argument. He is diminished by the circumstances, he’s cranky and prickly when challenged, and he’s got no one to help him. The other Democrats around the table have been worse than unimpressive.

...It’s easy to dismiss all this by saying no one is watching anyway, but that’s not quite true. The purpose of this spectacle is not so much to move the public as to move Democratic members of Congress—to create some momentum that might last long enough to help wavering Democrats cast a very painful vote. That audience very likely is watching, and they are seeing their leadership fail to make a straightforward case for the Democratic approach to health care, or to respond to the most basic Republican objections about high costs, excessive spending, overregulation, and the effect of this plan on American families. They are managing to lose an argument about health care to Republican members of Congress—no mean feat.

Tunku Varadjian offers similar thoughts...

...The marathon TV teach-in—in which Obama was more schoolmarm than president—should be regarded by Democrats as a great disappointment. They made no clear gain, and won no clear argument. It became apparent from the very beginning—when a testy Obama said “Let me finish, Lamar!” to the courtly Lamar Alexander—that this was not to be an open-minded exploration of the issues in question. It was, instead, a simulacrum of a debate, a pretend-conversation, one in which Obama established, yet again, his command over fact and detail, but in which he also revealed reflexive superciliousness, intolerance of different opinions, and a shortness of patience unbecoming of a president. (He also showed that he’s a tedious clock-Nazi, cutting people off all the time, while showing no inclination to edit himself.)

What was so striking about the summit was the preparedness of the Republicans. All of them had done their homework: Lamar Alexander, Tom Coburn, Jon Kyl, John McCain, Dave Camp, John Barrasso, and Paul Ryan.

The Democrats, by contrast, suffered from an acute case of “anecdotitis” (is it a preexisting condition?): Almost all of them delivered speeches that boasted a story or two meant to tug at the heart. Obama set the tone with his account of Sasha’s asthma, Malia’s meningitis, and his mom’s ovarian cancer. Nancy and Harry—as Obama called them—told us, respectively, of having “seen grown men cry,” and of a “young man called Jesus” who was stiffed by his insurers. Steny Hoyer gave us a sob story, Louise Slaughter told us about a woman who had to wear her dead sister’s teeth, Tom Harkin told us of a letter he got “yesterday, from a farmer in Iowa…” This constant argument-by-anecdote was relentlessly populist; but it was also fatally weak, as it was the infantilizing of a national audience, an invitation to Americans to wince and say, “Gee, things are bad out there. We need this bill!”

On the anecdotes, I keep finding myself thinking of Helen Lovejoy on the Simpsons saying, "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" Or as Robert Stacey McCain noted, the Dems seem to be saying, “A killer whale with a pre-existing condition ate that poor girl’s deductible!”

There's a point here about the Democrats' performance perhaps making Obama look better (or more importantly, making the case for why the mainstream press fell in love with Obama, because they're mostly Democrats and were stunned to find a high-profile Dem who could walk and talk competently). The real problem is that he was reduced by this. As for the GOP, they have a new star in Paul Ryan. This was pretty much awesome for him.



The real question is, where do we go from here? Mickey Kaus makes the case for Dems passing the current health care bill on the grounds that if the sky doesn't fall after they do it, they will have called the GOP bluff. I'm not sure Democrats want to gamble on that chance. More importantly, they would need to use reconciliation in the Senate to pass the bill without stuff like the Cornhusker Kickback, and that might make the political process totally toxic for the rest of the year (if not the rest of Obama's first term). Bill Frist explains why...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that while Democrats have a number of options to complete health-care legislation, he may use the budget reconciliation process to do so. This would be an unprecedented, dangerous and historic mistake.

Budget reconciliation is an arcane Senate procedure whereby legislation can be passed using a lowered threshold of requisite votes (a simple majority) under fast-track rules that limit debate. This process was intended for incremental changes to the budget—not sweeping social legislation.

The Democrats may want to dismiss this as a simple dispute about procedural rules and rightly claim that the GOP has used reconciliation numerous times in the past. Unfortunately for them, the GOP never used it for something this big, and the last thing the public wants (after months of seemingly corrupt backroom deals on health care) is a questionable process that passes this bill without any GOP votes. It looks dirty -- and the dirt will stick to them come November and beyond.

So will they do it? Mike Allen at Politico explains that this is the gameplan, or at least was the gameplan leading into the summit. The real question, then, is whether this summit answered the worries of nervous moderate House Dems who would have to vote for the package. I can't see that it would, but I'm not a Democrat. And if I were, I'd probably be pretty frustrated right now.