As the Democratic Congressional Leadership considers a number of options to pass the President’s health care reform, campaign challengers and third-party organizations prepare a number of attacks that weaken party members everyday (like this one).

It seems as Democrats are currently painted in a corner as they ponder failure or passage of the legislation through a parliamentary loophole (aka, without a real vote). From my perspective, the Dems are in a lose-lose-lose position.

First, Dems lose everyday health care reform is still alive. Dozens of Republican opponents (and even some conservative Democratic primary opponents) are campaigning that they would be the “no” vote. In virtually every competitive district in the nation, a majority of voters oppose the health care reform for a number of reasons. Even if the reform is passed, the benefits won’t start fast enough to put down the nay-sayers.

Second, Dems lose if they pass reform without a vote. Now that Republican Scott Brown holds the magical 60th vote in the Senate, Democrats are considering the use of a parliamentary loophole that would enact the legislation without a real vote. This serves to only rally the voters who strongly oppose the reform and excites a group of people hell-bent on ousting every Dem who allows passage in this way.

Finally, Democrats lose if they fail. Despite being the best option, failing to pass health care reform emboldens Republicans and renders the White House powerless and vulnerable for the 2012 elections.

There is no doubt that health care reform, no matter its fate, will be seen as a major reason for the coming Republican renewal.

While we won’t know the effect on the public’s perception, the President’s Health Care Summit seems to have had an effect internally of further muddying the water for supporters of the would be health reform.

From the Politico:

Democrats wake up after Thursday’s health care summit staring down another deadline to get their bill done, exactly four weeks to Easter break.

They’ve blown through most every deadline before, so there’s no guarantee they won’t this time either. President Barack Obama didn’t help by leaving the door open to compromise with Republicans – even if it takes weeks.

So that means a party looking to emerge from the summit with a clear sense of the path forward instead find itself in the same old place – fighting the clock to finish health care, with an uncertain timeline, a complex legislative path and no idea if its leaders can muster the votes.

“We hope based upon this discussion that we can move forward, but move forward we will,â€� said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).

But the truth is, the Democrats are no more certain of getting health care done after the summit than they were before. The seven-hour session did little to change the underlying dynamics of the debate.

The bottomline here is that the longer it takes, the less likely passage becomes.

This week in a National Journal interview, political prognosticator Charlie Cook views Republicans, “…on a trajectory,” to winning back the House of Representatives.

Cook: I’ve spent the last couple of days talking to some of the brightest Democrats in the party that are not in the White House. And it’s very hard to come up with a scenario where Democrats don’t lose the House. It’s very hard. Are the seats there right this second? No. But we’re on a trajectory on the House turning over….

In Nevada Senate news, the PRIsm Political Report give this analysis on recent survey results for embattled Majority Leader Harry Reid:

Liberal Poll: Reid’s Worst Numbers

 

Research 2000, the Maryland-based national polling firm who surveys the electorate for liberal organizations and newspapers, just completed a Nevada poll that reveals disastrous results for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.  The survey, for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), was taken over February 9-10 and interviewed 600 likely Nevada voters.

 

While Reid has routinely trailed the two top Republican candidates, former state GOP chair Sue Lowden and ex-Secretary of State candidate Danny Tarkanian — son of the legendary University of Nevada at Las Vegas basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian — this new data, commissioned by a source group friendly to Reid, is revealing leads for both Lowden and Tarkanian are well into double-digits.

 

Against Lowden, Reid trails 39-53% and has a huge 36-60% deficit among male voters.  The former Republican chair, 1973 Miss America contestant, and casino owner enjoys a 46-42% advantage among females.  Lowden is attracting 88% support among Republicans when paired with the Majority Leader, 20% from Democrats, and leads the all-important Independent category 58-32%.  Tarkanian’s numbers are similar.  He tops Reid 54-40% in the overall vote count; has the same 60-36% whopping advantage among men; and leads with women 48-44%.  He gets 89% support from Republicans; 21% among Democrats; and Independents split 59-34% in his favor.

 

Not surprisingly, Reid’s best support group is African American voters, where he clears 73% against both Republicans.  He also does well with Obama voters, which certainly stands to reason.  Of the respondents claiming they voted for Mr. Obama in 2008, Reid keeps 56%, but even within this sub-group, a full third (32% for Tarkanian; 34% pledging to Lowden) are saying they will vote Republican for Senate. 

 

By a margin of 53-29%, the respondents believe President Obama and the Democrats in Washington have not delivered on their campaign promise to “change” America.  The healthcare numbers, in fact the purpose for which the PCCC sanctioned the poll, are quite disparate.  Overall, by a margin of 34-58%, the respondents oppose the healthcare bill that was before the Senate.  Conversely, the split is 56-38% in favor of the federal government offering the choice to buy into a government-administered health insurance plan that would compete with the private sector.  They also would look more favorably upon Reid if he could pass such a plan (34-15% more likely to support).

 

Though the Majority Leader’s numbers are poor, and reminiscent of former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine’s political position in early 2009 - a situation he never succeeded in reversing - there are some parts of the set-up equation that do play to his favor and don’t rule out a come back. 

Nevada has officially recognized the Tea Party as a statewide political entity.  This means the Tea Party has the right to field candidates for office and will likely nominate a U.S. Senate standard bearer.  If the race tightens, which is likely, the Nevada Tea Party’s candidate will presumably take votes away from the eventual Republican nominee, especially if it is Lowden, who many in the Tea Party movement term a “Republican in Name Only (RINO)”.  Secondly, Reid’s overwhelming ability to command campaign resources will certainly dwarf the Republican campaign dollar effort, but in a high profile race such as this, individual candidate and outside group spending becomes a bit less important.  Third, Nevada has been trending Democratic in the past few elections, meaning the state’s political and demographic trends are more beneficial to Reid and his party than the Republicans.

 

Another negative, however, concerns Reid’s own son.  Rory Reid is a Clark County (Las Vegas) Commissioner who is openly talking about running for Governor.  Though Republican incumbent Jim Gibbons is in deep political trouble, it is more likely that not he will be defeated in the GOP primary, assuming he even runs for re-election.  Any other Republican will be stronger against the Democrats, meaning the fact that both Harry and Rory Reid will be on the ballot could then become troublesome for both men.  Candidate filing closes on March 12^th, so the younger Reid has only several weeks to officially enter the race.  The Nevada primary is June 8^th. 

 

When Sarah Palin resigned from being Alaska’s Governor, we opined that she was not yet dead politically.

However, in the seven months since announcing her resignation she has not been able to improve her image nationally:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Feb. 4-8, 2010. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.5:

“Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Sarah Palin?”
2/4-8/10            37%Fav      55%Unfav     8%Unsure
11/12-15/09      43%Fav      52%Unfav     5%Unsure
7/15-18/09        40%Fav      53%Unfav     7%Unsure
9/27-29/08        51%Fav      40%Unfav     9%Unsure

In fact, her image is so damaged that a majority of her own party find her not qualified to serve as President:

“Regardless of whether or not you’d vote for her, do you think Palin is or is not qualified to serve as president?”

26% - Qualified
71% - Not
4% - Unsure

Democrats 6% Qualified   91% Not    3% Unsure
Independents   29%     67%      4%
Republicans      46%     52%      2%

Now, conservative columnist George Will begins to publicly nail the coffin lid shut with this piece:

Sarah Palin and the mutual loathing society

By George F. Will
Thursday, February 18, 2010; A17

The Republican presidential nominee, an Arizona senator, was a maverick, which was part of his charm. He spoke and acted impulsively, which was part of his problem. Voters thought his entertaining dimensions might be incompatible with presidential responsibilities. For example, he selected a running mate most Americans had never heard of and who had negligible experience pertinent to the presidency. This was 1964.

Barry Goldwater, whose seat John McCain occupies, chose to run with Bill Miller, a congressman from Lockport, N.Y., near Buffalo. Miller, Goldwater cheerfully explained, annoyed Lyndon Johnson. After the Goldwater-Miller ticket lost 44 states, Miller retired to Lockport, where he practiced law and lived in dignified anonymity until his death in 1983. Although he had served as an assistant prosecutor of Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and spent seven terms in Congress, no one suggested he should be considered for the 1968 Republican presidential nomination.

Yet Sarah Palin, who with 17 months remaining in her single term as Alaska’s governor quit the only serious office she has ever held, is obsessively discussed as a possible candidate in 2012. Why? She is not going to be president and will not be the Republican nominee unless the party wants to lose at least 44 states.

Conservatives, who rightly respect markets as generally reliable gauges of consumer preferences, should notice that the political market is speaking clearly: The more attention Palin receives, the fewer Americans consider her presidential timber. The latest Post-ABC News poll shows that 71 percent of Americans — including 52 percent of Republicans — think she is not qualified to be president.

This is not her fault. She is what she is, and what she is merits no disdain. She is feisty and public-spirited, and millions of people vibrate like tuning forks to her rhetoric. When she was suddenly forced to take a walk on the highest wire in America’s political circus, she showed grit.

She also showed that grit is no substitute for seasoning. She has been subjected to such irrational vituperation — loathing largely born of snobbery — that she can be forgiven for seeking the balm of adulation from friendly audiences.

America, its luck exhausted, at last has a president from the academic culture, that grating blend of knowingness and unrealism. But the reaction against this must somewhat please him. That reaction is populism, a celebration of intellectual ordinariness. This is not a stance that will strengthen the Republican Party, which recently has become ruinously weak among highly educated whites. Besides, full-throated populism has not won a national election in 178 years, since Andrew Jackson was reelected in 1832.

After William Jennings Bryan’s defeat in 1908, his third as the Democrats’ presidential nominee, this prototypical populist said he felt like the man who, thrown out of a bar for a third time, dusted himself off and said, “I’m beginning to think those fellows don’t want me in there.” In 1992, Ross Perot, an only-in-America phenomenon — a billionaire populist — won 19 percent of the popular vote. But because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, he won none of those. In 1976, Jimmy Carter — peanut farmer; carried his own suitcase, imagine that — somewhat tapped America’s durable but shallow reservoir of populism. By 1980, ordinariness in high office had lost its allure.

In 1968, George Wallace, promising to toss the briefcases of pointy-headed intellectuals into the Potomac, won 46 electoral votes with 13.5 percent of the popular vote. He had the populist’s trifecta — a vivid personality, a regional base and a burning issue. Actually, he had three such issues — backlash against the civil rights revolution, social disintegration (urban riots, rising crime) and resentment of the progressive projects of Great Society social engineers (e.g., forced busing of other people’s children).

Populism has had as many incarnations as it has had provocations, but its constant ingredient has been resentment, and hence whininess. Populism does not wax in tranquil times; it is a cathartic response to serious problems. But it always wanes because it never seems serious as a solution.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today’s saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. In that role, Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing. This is not her fault. But neither is it her validation.

While Palin may not be politically “dead,” her hopes of being viewed as a viable candidate for President are quickly fading away as she engages on extremely divisive issues and continues to makes outlandish statements.  She will certainly continue to be seen as a leader to some in the Republican party, but those desiring to see the Republicans put up a competitive opponent to Obama in 2012 can sleep a little better knowing that Palin’s chances are slipping away.

David Catanese of Politico had this as the title of his article yesterday.  Some key excerpts:

-[Sen. Evan Bayh's]departure now places 10 Democratic-held Senate seats at risk. If all are swept under by a November GOP wave, Republicans are back in control of the Senate.

-The situation in Arkansas continues to deteriorate

-Romanoff roughs up Bennet in Colorado

-A Gillibrand challenge jells in New York

-Third time’s a charm for Rossi in Washington ?

-Specter’s campaign trail vigor in Pennsylvania

Each of the races highlighted were seats the Democrats had no expectation of even being in-play this cycle.  With a new poll out showing 52% of Americans saying President Obama doesn’t deserve re-election, the situation continues to get worse for Democrats. 

As Catanese sums it up: “The lesson of the tumultuous past 45 days is that the contours of the political landscape can change in an instant — and a death, a retirement or a top candidate’s decision not to run can wreak havoc on the best laid political plans.”

New data out indicates that voters are beginning to sour on Obama as the generic Republican candidate is in a statistical tie with the President on a generic ballot.

The problem is not an issue with the Democratic base (although many of the wave voters will not turn out again), but Independents are sorry that the change they voted for was not necessarily the change they wanted:

Most Democratic voters and Republican voters plan to support their own party’s candidate for president in the 2012 election. Independents currently show a greater preference for the Republican candidate than for Obama, by 45% to 31%, though about one in four do not have an opinion.

Losing Independents by this margin during mid-terms is an indication of impeding losses by Democrats - especially the Republican-leaning seat they’ve picked up over the past two election cycles.

Will Republicans win enough seats to win back the house?  I’m not sure yet, but we will certainly win enough to make a stand on the rest of Obama’s legislation.  Regardless, Obama’s political strength is eroding.  Not just in this survey, but he was unable to motivate “wave” voters to turn out in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia.

This is going to be a tough cycle for Democrats.

President Obama has announced a bi-partisan health care summit. 

 

“I want to come back [after the Presidents Day congressional recess] and have a large meeting — Republicans and Democrats — to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward,� Obama said in an interview.

 

Although he has expressed frustration at Republicans for not wanting to “compromise,” the main battle brewing seems to be within the ranks of Obama’s Democrat party. 

 

Many have asked the question: Should the Republicans participate in the summit?  Public opinion polls show that American’s do not support the Democrat’s health care legislation, and this is reflected in President Obama’s approval rating on the matter.  Unless the President throws out the current House and Senate versions and starts over from scratch, the “summit” charade is meaningless based on the public’s dissatisfaction with the legislation.

 

While the American people do not support the current Democrat health care plans, they also don’t feel the Republicans have laid out a plan at all.  Sources tell me this is about to change. 

 

Congressional Republicans must decide whether the summit that the President is hosting is the proper venue for releasing the details of their health care reform plan.  Being that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats have stated that certain aspects of the bill (portions that are the most unpopular with the American public) must remain, it’s highly unlikely that the President will allow the Republicans to upstage his own party at his own “summit.”  

 

Republicans must ask the President for 2 things if he wants their participation in the summit:

 

1) Totally scrap the current legislation and start over from scratch

2) Allow the Republicans to unveil their health care reform bill

 

If the answer to either is “NO,” the GOP would be better off taking a pass on the summit and releasing their plan on a different forum.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) opened the Senate floor yesterday in a tirade accusing Senate Republicans of “playing games” regarding some of President Obama’s nominations.

Unfortunately for Mr. Reid, his current rhetoric contradicts statements he made during President Bush’s tenure.

July 23, 2008 – Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, told his fellow Senators last week that he “can’t ever remember going home� and hearing voters complain to him about Bush’s blocked judicial nominations or judicial activism.

Here’s what Sen. Reid said: “I’m telling you, Madam President, I can’t ever remember going home and somebody saying, ‘Could you guys (confirm) some more judges? We need to take care of this judges problem.’ ” … “Frankly, judge(s) is not a big issue (compared) to all of the other problems we’re facing in America.â€�

 

 

May 9th, 2005 (Fox News) - “We know the difference between opposing nominees and blocking nominees. We will oppose bad nominees, but we will only block unacceptable nominees,” Reid said.

March 15, 2005 (Bloomberg) - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid threatened to bring the Senate to a halt if Republicans try to change the chamber’s rules to prevent the minority party from blocking President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

September 16, 2007 (Reuters) - But Reid appeared to slam the door on him, vowing to do all he could as majority leader to prevent (Theodore) Olson’s confirmation

November 16, 2007 (RollCall) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided to keep the chamber in session over the Thanksgiving break to block President Bush from making any unsavory recess appointments while Senators are out of town.

April 5, 2005 - In the November 2004 election, Republicans increased their Senate majority to 55 seats, and President Bush has re-nominated seven of the 10 blocked nominees (the others did not desire re-nomination). But the new Democratic leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nv.) said that the Democrats will again block them by filibuster.

Who playing politics now Harry

Nothing can possibly compare to the devastation caused by the massive 7.0 temblor, or the ensuing catastrophe, which has struck Haiti.  While much of the world, including U.S. Marines (despite the objections of Hugo Chavez), struggle to save the missing and protect the survivors, a quaking of another sort is going on to Haiti’s north.

Here in the U.S., following the landmark GOP win of Scott Brown in the special election to fill the open U.S. Senate seat of the late-Ted Kennedy, the rumbling which began in Massachusetts can now be felt from coast to coast.  What follows is a brief synopsis:

…A report released yesterday, according to the AP, found that home sales in December had plummeted by 17% last month, the largest single drop in four decades.  Analysts were quick to place blame on a recent act passed by Congress extending the deadline for home buyers to take advantage of a tax credit, but less cheery is the equally-strong notion that sales for homes were down in December for the same reason retail sales were down for the holidays: America is still deeply mired in a recession.  With the unemployment rate holding around 10% and the outlook for new job creation grim, fewer families are making long-term purchases – while conversely, record numbers of homes continue to be foreclosed.

…According to a report out of Wisconsin, divorce is rapidly on the rise.  The culprit?  Once again, blame rests on the economy.  As Jeff Starck reports, “[I]n a recession, financial stress affects almost every marriage.�

…Every quarter, analysts and subscribers to Bloomberg are surveyed as to their opinions on economic and political issues.  Among the noteworthy findings of the latest survey, 77% of respondents said they considered President Obama to be “too anti-business�.  Conversely, embattled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke earned a 68% approval rating in the survey.

…Not surprisingly, President Obama’s approval ratings continue to suffer as a result of the ongoing economic turmoil.  According to Rasmussen’s latest tracking poll released yesterday, 25% of respondents strongly approved of the president’s job performance while 41% strongly disapproved, a “-16 score� on Rasmussen’s presidential index.

…Last but not least, President Obama isn’t the only politician on the hot seat.  Here in sunny Arizona, from where I report weekly, U.S. Senator John McCain appears to be drawing a noteworthy Republican primary challenger: conservative talk radio host and former congressman J.D. Hayworth.  In a state where Border Security ranks just behind the economy among issues important to the electorate, McCain has outraged many GOP voters with his steadfast support for legislation offering amnesty to illegal immigrants – as well as for his leadership on campaign finance reform and opposition to the Bush tax cuts.  Hayworth’s challenge will be to raise the resources to compete against McCain’s deep campaign coffers, but it may prove to be a surprisingly competitive race.

The Democrat’s nominee for US Senate started out this campaign with a 31 point lead.  What seemed destined to be a Massachusetts runaway turned into a disaster for national Democrats. 

Make no mistake: Martha Coakley was no slouch of a candidate.  She was elected with a whopping 73% of the vote to be the Commonwealth’s Attorney General and was a consensus favorite to hold “Ted Kennedy’s seat.”  But on the anniversary of President Barack Obama’s swearing in, she was burned by a years worth of policy from the Administration that is clearly out of touch with the American people.  A recent Quinnipiac study outlines the President’s ’approve/disapprove’ rating on key domestic policy initiatives:

While there is no Massachusetts exit poll data available, many public polls had now Senator-elect Scott Brown leading among independent voters by 52-40 margin.  This is a continuation of a trend that started in Virginia and New Jersey of Republican candidates winning among independents, suburban voters and seniors. 

Last night’s election results clearly show Republican candidates can win in the deepest of blue states running on the ECONOMY > JOBS > SPENDING platform.  Scott Brown’s campaign highlighted the importance of framing the debate on these key economic issues and proved for the second time in 10 weeks the success of Republican campaigns identifying with voters on what is quickly becoming the blueprint for winning over independent voters.