Merry Christmas Eve Day!

I expect light posting, now that the Democrats in the Senate have put coal in all our stockings (this, hopefully, being the only piece of news this morning). Although I do appreciate the left-handed gift of having health care rationing pass without the Usual Suspects being able to sneer about it. It takes real skill to have Jane Hamsher and Grover Norquist come out together and call for the same practical result, but that’s the Democratic party for you. I foresee a very enjoyable 2010, for given values of ‘enjoyable.’

In the meantime, here’s some Mormons kicking as… err, having a good time with Joy to the World.

Hesitating in the face of volley fire.

Back in the day – which is to say, the days before reliable automatic weapons were present on the battlefield – armies relied pretty heavily on volley fire and rigid discipline to win battles.  There were two reasons for this: first, of course, the more missiles you have in the air at once, the harder it is to get out of their way.  The second reason was psychological: charging in the face of steady fire – even essentially unaimed fire – is extremely difficult.  Armies and their generals simply had to accept that there would be casualties, and that the proper response was to keep moving forward and return fire.  So it usually came down to determination versus determination.  Sometimes the one side broke and ran… and sometimes one side simply hesitated in the face of a sustained series of volleys.  It sounds counter-intuitive, but that can happen when your troops are braver than your generals.  Or when your generals simply don’t know what to do next, and don’t have the capacity to improvise.

Why am I bringing this up?

The White House privately anticipates health care talks to slip into February — past President Barack Obama’s first State of the Union address — and then plans to make a “very hard pivot” to a new jobs bill, according to senior administration officials.

[snip]

Internally, White House aides are plunging into a 2010 plan calling for an early focus on creating jobs, especially in the energy sector, along with starting a conversation about deficit reduction measures, the administration officials said.

Ed Morrissey has more.  Bottom line: this will probably work out well enough for the President, but only because he has over two years before he has to start worrying about getting re-elected.  Democratic Members of Congress have eleven months, and they’ll need every second of it to handle the problem of their unpopular support of an unpopular health care rationing bill.  Put another way: either health care is an immediate crisis, or it is not.  If it is the crisis that we were told, then the President needs to get his fellow-Democrats in Congress to press on through and pass something with the urgency that they’ve been claiming all along was necessary.  If it is not the crisis that we were told, then the President needs to pull his fellow-Democrats out of this particular fight before retreat becomes impossible (but rout does not).  Letting Democrats in Congress take fire on health care rationing in the same way that they’ve been taking fire on cap-and-trade will simply get more of them fired in November for no good reason*.

But that assumes that the President is loyal enough to his party to take the personal hit to what’s left to his reputation for competence.

Moe Lane

*Which is fine with me, of course.

Crossposted to RedState.

Then maybe you shouldn’t have voted for it, *Bernie*.

Like no Republican voted for it, Bernie.

“The insurance companies are going to make out like bandits. The drug companies are going to make out like bandits,” Sanders said during an appearance on MSNBC. “No question about that. This is not a strong bill.”

And you can stop whining about how the big, bad Republicans made you – and your fellow Democrats* – vote for what you just called a payoff for big money interests.

Bernie.

Moe Lane

*Yeah, sure, you’re not one. Keep telling yourself that, Bernie.

Crossposted to RedState.

Let me just push back on the Left’s attempt to co-opt…

…the anti-health care rationing movement, as per Mickey Kaus (who is not the one trying to do it).  Three things to remember:

  1. The Online Left is angry about this bill because the final version is likely to have no public option, Stupak-like language banning federal funding of abortion, and no clear path to single-payer health care.  Give them some path to two out of three and they’ll jump back on the bandwagon.  Give them one and they’ll do the same, only complaining.  Give them none and they’ll still support the Democrats in 2010.  And the Democrats know this, which is why they’re ignoring the Online Left.
  2. The Tea Party movement – and the GOP, thank you very much – is angry about this bill because it’s an intolerable imposition on the American people’s fundamental right to live their own lives without undue government interference.  Which is why only one Republican federal legislator has come out in support of the Democrats’ health care rationing scheme.
  3. The Online Left wants to see the Tea Party movement – and the GOP, thank you very much – collectively die in a fire.  They’ve been screeching about those evil, evil corporations for the last year, and fuming impotently because they can’t get any traction on it while a bunch of center-right activists put together an opposition movement that dwarfed theirs.  In other words: they very, very, very badly want to try to co-opt what we (generic) built to serve their own ends.

To put it more simply: these people are not our friends, they are not trustworthy – or particularly useful – allies, and they don’t really want what we want.  There’s no point to working with them.

Moe Lane

PS: “But we need to stop this bill!”  Yes, we do.  We stop it by taking back Congress.

Crossposted to RedState.

Democrats pass first hurdle in health care rationing bill.

Last night, while most of you were sleeping, the Democratic Party took a long step forward towards passing their health care rationing bill. The details are arcane Senatorial procedure, but two things must be taken away from it:

  1. No Republican Senator – no Republican Senator; not even the ones typically called ‘RiNOs*’ – voted to ration your health care and make you a criminal for not wanting insurance.
  2. Every Democratic Senator – every Democratic Senator; even the ones thought ‘reasonable’ or ‘bipartisan’ – voted to ration your health care and make you a criminal for not wanting insurance.

This is the way that it is. If you disapprove, well, the following Senators cast the 60th vote for health care rationing and criminalizing lack of insurance:

Evan Bayh
Michael Bennet
Barbara Boxer
Christopher Dodd
Byron Dorgan
Russ Feingold
Kirsten Gillibrand
Daniel Inouye
Patrick Leahy
Blanche Lincoln
Barbara Mikulski
Patty Murray
Harry Reid
Chuck Schumer
Arlen Specter
Ron Wyden

…so feel free to make your disapproval known unto them, from now until November.

Moe Lane

*A term that has pretty much devolved into ‘Republicans who I don’t like’ at this point.

Crossposted to RedState.

Joe Biden cops to being a progressive.

Admittedly, it’s in the context of explaining why progressives need to take a bite of this surprisingly tasty, solid B+ health care rationing sandwich*, but actual semantic content is actual semantic content:

“I share the frustration of other progressives that the Senate bill does not include a public option.”

Especially when it’s sitting out there, all alone like that.  But you saw it here first: Joe Biden’s a progressive.  I wonder whether this means that moving forward the Vice President’s going to more forcefully oppose FISA, rendition, keeping Gitmo open, DADT, opposition to same-sex marriage, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on**.  I mean, the thought that he would be – merciful Heaven forbid! – lying to progressives would be awful***…

Moe Lane Continue reading Joe Biden cops to being a progressive.

Ben Nelson (D) bringing everyone together!

This takes skill – but apparently Reid’s amendment is up to the task.

The National Organization of Women:

We call on all senators who consider themselves friends of women’s rights to reject the Manager’s Amendment, and if it remains, to defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation.

Planned Parenthood apparently agrees.

National Right to Life:

NRLC will score the upcoming roll call votes on cloture on the Reid manager’s amendment, and on the underlying bill, as votes in favor of legislation to allow the federal government to subsidize private insurance plans that cover abortion on demand, to oversee multi-state plans that cover elective abortions, and to empower federal officials to mandate that private health plans cover abortions even if they do not accept subsidized enrollees, among other problems.

In addition, if the final bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee does not contain the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, NRLC will score the House and Senate votes on the conference report as votes to allow federal mandates and subsidies for coverage of elective abortion.

And Rep. Bart Stupak (D) has or has not sent out his people to talk to or not talk to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R) people. Hard to say.

If your head hurts, don’t worry about it. That’s just the Great Old Ones eating your brain.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Democrats not enjoying their Congressional majorities: health care edition.

Howard Kurtz:

That splashing sound you hear is liberals jumping off the health care ship.

Moe Lane:

That murmuring sound you hear is conservatives not giving a tinker’s dam.

And why should we?  This entire situation came about because Democratic legislators decided that their opposite numbers were worth neither respect, elementary politeness, nor influence in the Grand New Order of the Democrats’ projected two-generation dominance of the American political sphere. They instead concluded that the combination of their Congressional majorities and a secular Messiah in the White House would entitle them to do whatever they darn well pleased.  So the Democrats played cheap rhetorical games to placate their more addled cheerleaders and buckled down to the serious job of gouging money out of the budget for their own districts’ gain (H/T: Instapundit).

Elections may have consequences – but, then so does choosing one particular policy strategy over another.  It’d be nice if the Democrats stopped whining about the results, thanks.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.

Democrats contemplating just passing the Senate HCR bill?

(H/T Instapundit) While I see Mickey Kaus’ point in the abstract:

People in the know in Washington appear to have already considered and dismissed the “ping pong” option–the possibility that if the Senate finally passes a compromise health care bill, Pelosi’s House might simply vote “yes” on the exact same bill, avoiding the need for a “conference” to reconcile the House and Senate versions and instead sending the bill directly to the President for his signature. But from outside Washington, out here in the real America, this “ratification” route still looks awfully appealing–especially this week.

…there are pragmatic problems to consider: the House health care rationing bill passed with only two votes to spare, and only because of the Stupak amendment.  The Senate version currently lacks similar language, and it will probably not even get to a vote unless ‘public option’ is removed.  Put another way: for this gambit to work it’ll require no public option and hefty rules against federal funding of abortion.  Put yet another way: this gambit doesn’t just metaphorically gut-shoot progressives.  It requires that progressives metaphorically gut-shoot themselves as part of the process.

I’m not saying that they won’t do it.  Progressive Democratic legislators are quite good at emulating jellyfish.  But this would be above and beyond the usual spinelessness.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to RedState.