Thoughts on the GOP field...and others

This piece started as a commentary on the end of Gov Tim Pawlenty's campaign.
But as I have discussed issues and opinions over the days subsequent to
Pawlenty's decision, this "piece" has morphed into something bigger. . .and
hopefully better.

First, a hope: that deficit spending quickly goes the way of the do-do. We
need to start paying for the government we have--period.

Second, an assertion: America really is at a crossroads. We are at the
proverbial fork in the road, and here are the two options as I see them:
continued government expenditures at levels that this administration favors; or
a severe cut to those expenditures to no more than the level of government
revenue. (DISCLAIMER: this is also a bit of "hope"; truth of the matter is
that I think this country NEEDS to be at a crossroads so that we can finally
begin down the path of our future. . .so my assertion may well be biased by the
tint of lenses through which I observe the world)

And finally, a goal: what I hope to get from the election in '12 is clarity on
which path this country chooses to go. I hope and pray that '12 really does
turn into a rubber match on the "mandates" of the last two national elections.

In '08, ANYBODY WHO CARED TO RESEARCH HIM had a good inkling that an Obama
administration was going to be expensive. The problem is that not everybody
cared to do the research-we were too swept away with catchy phrases and an
oft-told biography. In truth, an honest assessment of the "mandate" from the
election in '08 is that the country was tired of George W. Bush. Obama the
candidate was able to get away with platitudes because he was everything that W
was not. That Obama has governed the way he has should not be a surprise-but
claiming that he received a "mandate" to govern in such a manner is a bit of a
stretch, IMHO. However, it doesn't really matter in the big picture of
things-let's just say, for the sake of argument, that he was given a "mandate"
in '08.

Far more clear to me is the mandate from the '10 election: government, stop
spending our money!

The result of those two elections? Split government. . .and split government
doesn't solve problems; it simply glosses over the issue and then kicks the can
down the road.
So what we have are two diametrically opposed "mandates"-which just so happen to
coincide with my fork in the road. On one hand, we have a record of government
largesse; in the other corner, we have today's GOP largely looking for a way to
get government expenditures under control.

We need to make sure that the government we have is the same as the government
we want. And what I hope for from the '12 election is a "mandate" on which
fork America chooses to take.

An Obama re-election means higher taxes on those who pay taxes (and even some
who currently don't pay taxes) because we must pay (or start paying) for the
vast programs that he favors. As much as I don't like a higher-tax program, if
that is the direction the electorate chooses. . .so be it. Goodbye part of my
paycheck-it would have been nice getting to know you.

If the GOP challenger wins, then an immediate consequence SHOULD be a cutting of
federal expenditures-which undoubtedly means cuts to entitlement programs.
Again, not something that I "want" to do-but it is a necessity if we are to get
the country's fiscal house in order without an overwhelming increase in taxes.

NOW PLEASE UNDERSTAND that I will vote for any of the GOP candidates I discuss
below. I like all of the GOP players more than our current President (if I were
listing Obama's weaknesses I may type my fingers off!). That being said, I do
have a problem with the GOP field right now: there is no declared candidate who
I think can make this election about the choice that I would like to have as the
main event.

I do not want a challenger of the "compassionate conservative" mold. As much as
I personally admire President Bush (43), I thought his domestic policies were
pretty awful and expensive. An election of someone in that mold, of which I
would include Romney, doesn't provide the clarity necessary to save America.
While he may talk a good game, I am afraid Romney is too much of the "the
government is here to help you" mindframe to enthusiastically tackle our
entitlement programs-and during the campaign he won't be able to credibly talk
about the need to fix our entitlement programs unless he does a strong
about-face on Romneycare.

I am also leery of a GOP challenger that will have problems with the above
message getting overshadowed by personal flubs. This election needs to be about
a way ahead-but the media will try their level best to make this election about
Obama's likeability, and the way to do that is to make the GOP nominee look
unacceptable on a personal level. We can't have anybody who makes the media's
job in this arena too easy, which is a mark against Ron Paul. And I'm pretty
darn close to saying this issue also affects Bachmann, Gingrich, and Governor
Perry, too-at their current pace, Bachmann and Perry will be firmly in this
category by the end of September.

Alas, now we get around to former candidate Pawlenty. He had the potential to
be the candidate for which I yearn. The guy was a successful governor being
himself; he has already articulated an economic position far more clearly than
any of the other candidates (including the sitting President); and the major
personal criticism of him was that he wasn't "dynamic"-which barely scores a
"what was that?" on the personal pain scale. Unfortunately, his campaign was. .
.off-key. I honestly think that authenticity matters to some degree-especially
for a candidacy based on Midwestern values like Pawlenty's--but he was not
authentic in the two most-watched GOP events so far (both debates), and it cost
him the start that he needed. So now I lament the loss of Pawlenty. . .which,
although a good decision because of developments, is a huge loss to the field
from where I sit.

So who's left? Well right now, there's Santorum, Cain, and Huntsman who have
declared candidacies. I honestly don't know enough about any of the three of
them, although I have a hard time believing that Huntsman will be able to
deliver on my hopes for a clarifying election, and I have fears that Cain's
quippiness would lead to some unscripted moments that are cringeworthy. But
these are initial impressions that I will happily modify as further observations
warrant. In short, none of these guys is on my "watch out" list in either a
good or a bad way-yet.

What is interesting to me is the possible candidates still wearing their hats
(you know, because they haven't thrown them in the ring yet). Specifically,
both Governor Chris Christy and Rep Paul Ryan could provide an election with the
clarity I crave. . .but I fear both of them, too, would fall victim of the
personal flub issue. While Ryan is a hard worker on the House Budget Committee,
I was not impressed with his public performances in the later stages of the debt
ceiling debacle. I think it is possible to "stump" him, and I know the debate
moderators will be trying like gangbusters to do just that. Governor Christy
has courage, enthusiasm. . .and is a caricature of a political bully brought to
life. While not unpolished, his greatest moments are his less-polished moments.
. .and given his bravado, there is the possibility that something he says runs
askew of the sensibilities of the day. Don't get me wrong: it is that bravado
that I love about him. But this is a co
untry that 4 years ago voted for someone based (in part) on a three-word phrase
and as few other words of consequence as possible; have we really gone so far as
to elect a candidate that will consistently put out volumes of words of
"consequence", especially if they are as pointed as his past statements?

debt limit kabuki--UPDATED

[UPDATED to add an thought I had originally but did not include in my first post]

Welcome back, eh?

I figure with the 2012 election about to hit stride, it was high time for me to return to my ever-so-slim space for political sanity. Of course, it doesn't hurt that "the deal of the century" is being debated right now in DC. In fact, it is this deal that brings me out of my hibernation.

Word leaking from the Hill today is that some compromise has been reached. This is a compromise that--supposedly--has agreement from all the major players. From what I understand, there is some big reveal scheduled for 4 PM EDT (about five hours from my writing of this).

Now on past "deals" I was really focused on the actual words and scoring of the bill. I have learned that listening to the party leaders talk about the virtue of their proposals is worthless--reading the thing (and the CRS or CBO report) is where the good information can be found.

I am not so careful to read the actual bill this time. Why is that? Gee, let me count the ways:

a) All these cuts are just funny money. $23B from this year's $3-plus TRILLION budget? $900B and change over 10 years (and about $40T in projected outlays)? Whatever. . .

b) Default is a crackpot argument. One person can lead us to default, and even though he has the bully pulpit I don't think even he and his media minions will be able to spin a default into a story that reflects well on them. Of all the possible outcomes of this huge debate, default on the country's obligations to creditors is probably a least-likely scenario;

c) Since default isn't a real fear, all these negotiations to solve the wrong problem have been a crudfest from the word go. Add to that the fact that the bills under consideration are bad bills that don't actually govern much of our future, and you have the current state of the drama in DC. Much ado about nothing.

d) The REAL problem with our debt limit is the credit rating. And in my opinion, none of the bills under consideration in this process--not even CCB--SHOULD stave us off from a downgraded credit rating--and that is a true calamity that our system certainly cannot deal with right now.

Now I know I need to explain this credit rating/real problem thing a little better, so here goes: S&P--one of the three main sovereign credit agencies--describes a nation's credit rating as a measure of its future ability and willingness to service their commercial financial obligations in full and on time. A sovereign rating is a forward-looking estimate of default probability. Further, default is generally defined as the failure to meet a principal or interest payment on the due date.

Now I said earlier that default was a least-likely scenario out of all this hullaballoo on the Hill right now. In other words, in my own estimate our country's default is not at risk--so why is our credit rating at risk? BY MY OWN WORDS, we're not going to default--AAA all the way, right?

Well, no. Not right.

For starters, while a AAA is a pretty good guarantee of zero default, so are lesser credit ratings. In fact, in the last five years, no sovereign with an "A" rating or higher has defaulted. So while AAA is practically a guarantee, there are other, lesser ratings that have a great track record against default.

But more importantly: a credit rating is an estimation of the sovereign's FUTURE ability to pay its bills. The rating takes political considerations into account, as well as economic structure, general debt burden, and several other factors (nine major factors in total, with several subcategories in each).

I want to focus on this "political" side of the equation. Listen, I don't think that we are right around the corner from a revolution--which is a ACT that would definitely lead to a downgrade (of course, at that time, we'd have other things on our collective minds). But is it pure fantasy to think that the political atmosphere is such that revolution is an impossibility? Think Wisconsin, where the will of the voters is trying to be overturned by unions that were called into action by members of the ruling establishment; think South Carolina, where the will of private industry is trying to be overturned by an unelected branch of the ruling establishment; think about all the work being done in this administration to instill cap and trade in effect to overcome the failed attempt to get it in legislation. . .is it really too hard to see a time when private citizens become enraged to the point of fighting back physically against the ruling establishment? It may take only one more incident. . .or it may take several hundred more. . .all I know is that we're TWO such incidents closer than we were just at this time last year. And given the ridiculous rhetoric from the Hill during this debt debate, I'd say the leaders of the ruling establishment are doubling-down on anger. In fact, I'd say their entire political calculus for the last 2 years has been to rule from fear and to inflame their partisans.

Such actions in the face of an awake, determined opposition do not have a history of ending in a statesman's favored way. And if you think this isn't obvious to the ratings agencies, then you are taking a leap of faith.

But again, that's only one aspect of the rating. We have an increasing debt (even if the rosy predictions of economic recovery manage to come true); due to high-and-not-improving-yet unemployment combined with anemic GDP numbers so far in FY11 we can look to another revenue hit (with an accompanying unplanned increase in debt) THIS year. And, worst of all, there is NO appetite to deal with our ever-increasing entitlement problem on Capitol Hill, and there won't be such an appetite until AT LEAST 2013--if ever.

SO why wouldn't we be downgraded on our sovereign credit rating? I honestly can't tell you why, but I do know that even Obama understands that such a downgrade cannot be good. That's why all the credit ratings agencies were in his office last week, don't you know.

Now I wrote earlier that none of the bills SHOULD save us from a ratings downgrade. So what should we have done? Here's some background of my plan: that last spending bill submitted by the administration that wasn't wholly rejected on Capitol Hill was centered on Obama's FY11 Budget Request (submitted to a Congress controlled 100% by his own party). That document established the following spending requests: for FY11, federal outlays of $3.84T with a proposed deficit of $1.27T; for FY12, federal outlays of $3.76T with a proposed deficit of $828B.

My plan is to raise the debt limit an amount equal to half of the proposed budget deficit for FY11 (would have equaled about $630B; logic is that this number should equal about 6 months of relief from the debt ceiling--thereby moving us into FY12) AND to legislate a limit on the Budget Resolution for FY12, establishing a max limit of $2.95T (or what the administration projected for revenues in FY12; this is about $600B less than what the House passed this year for the FY12 budget (the Ryan plan)--so yes, it is playing hardball with the Congresscritters' penchant to spend). This plan would take the near-term debt ceiling debate past October 1st of this year by which time we would be operating under a new budget with the $2.95T cap; while the '12 budget would still likely effect an annual deficit, the above-passed ceiling increase would likely take the deficit limit past initial budget activities for FY13. Both parties would be able to then negotiate the next increase in good faith, with a clear understanding of how well the other side "partnered" to meet the fiscal challenges this country faces.

Of course, my plan would never pass the Senate--because there is so much to hate about a "clean" increase of the current debt limit and a budget resolution that is matched to a rosy projection of revenue for the year.

Or maybe there isn't much to hate about that. Maybe we should let the Senate decide. . .

The second part of my plan is still applicable, since it appears these debt limit talks are a feature of the future: Congress should pass a bill that tells the President the order of bills to be paid. For example: "when the federal government cannot meet all fincancial obligations, the Treasury shall ensure that the following bills are paid in order: (insert order here, but it would probably be along the lines of "interest payments to creditors; military personnel; social security payments; etc etc etc)." Again, there's little chance such a bill would be signed into law NOW. . .but there's a good chance it could get through the Senate and at that point it's kind of a crapshoot as Obama deals with his reelection concerns.

an intro to country music

The other night I posted on my facebook page about Brad Paisley's new song "This is Country Music." That I would post about country music must be a little surprising to anyone who knew me as a wee tot; in my youth (and despite the fact that the mullet I proudly sported looked like something out of a Billy Ray Cyrus video) I was always decidedly a "rocker." I even went so far as to develop an alter ego in college when I DJ'd under the monicker Rockin' Juan. Trust me when I say that Hank Williams, Jr. never once made one of my broadcasts.

Yes, well times they have a-changed. Although I don't listen to country non-stop, I am a fan. The quality of music and lyrics (ESPECIALLY lyrics) are second to none in the current music industry. In fact, my only problem with country music is that you can't just listen to country radio for mindless entertainment because sometimes a song will hit you with a real emotional wallop. So while the radio may not be tuned country, there's always a CD at the ready.

The purpose for this post is the following: I was thinking about my transformation from dedicated glam-rocker/80s afficionado to someone who would feel truly comfortable at a Grand ol' Opry performance. The truth of the matter is that I got from there to here mostly because of the failures of current pop music. I grew tired of listening to the "current music" stations in the DC market--either the songs were awful or they were 10 years old! When I decided to try out something new, country was there. My first day of listening to country I choked up listening to "Jesus Take the Wheel" and Brooks and Dunn's "Believe". . .and I was done. Music had not affected me in that way since I first heard "The Best of Times" on a rainy day when I was 9, and I liked being engaged by the radio. To this day, I'll still get thrown for a loop by a country song--like Brad Paisley's "This is Country Music" did to me the night that I posted the facebook update.

Anyhow: my journey was fueled by the music that I heard. But don't get me wrong, not everything on country radio is the bestest music ever. Anyone else who's willing to give country a try may not be as lucky as I was on that first day. . .nor may they be as patient as new-country listeners needed to be in early '09 when the radio was too much Taylor Swift and not enough. . .real performance talent. So I wanted to give some markers to others who might be looking for something more from their music.

Below please find the songs that I think give a great intro to the current state of country music. I hope that listening to them may make your day and help make a few more country fans.

* It's tough to choose a starting point, but I gotta go with Brad Paisley's "This is Country Music" for a couple reasons: a) he's the biggest name in Nashville right now; b) he's the best guitarist in the business right now--and I don't mean just in Nashville. He works wonders on the 6-string; and c) the lyrics of this song foretell of the lyrics of the rest of the songs you're about to hear. Basically the song is about all other music's failure to talk about "real" things--a failure that country music as a whole does not suffer from. As I said, a good primer for what else you're about to hear. And don't limit yourself to just one Brad Paisley song once you get the itch for country--he writes the best lyrics in the business (see "Alcohol", "Ticks", and many many others)

* Pick-me-ups: the knock on country--one I used to perpetuate before I saw the light--was that it's all so depressing. Not true. If you're coming to country on a day when you'd like a little spring added to your step, give the following a try:
-- A Heart Don't Forget by Tim McGraw. A catchy song about the intoxicating nature of first love. . .and miniskirts.
-- Runaway by Love and Theft. My song of the year for 2010--not so much for the lyrics as much as for the driving beat. This song makes my long drive to work go quickly because I'll listen to it over and over again.
-- Nothin' Better to Do by Leann Rimes. My song of the year for 2009, and Leann shows some serious pipes on this song. Really catchy beat, too.
-- What Was I Thinking by Dierks Bentley. Would be more of a southern rock song than a country song were it not featuring a "Daddy from the slammer". Another adrenaline ride.
-- Front Porch Looking In by Lonestar. What's the best thing to see at the end of the day? This song answers that question--and I agree wholeheartedly! Lonestar is a country music institution, and I can't wait to get my hands on their greatest hits (I'm hoping that it has this song on it).
-- It Happens by Sugarland. It's hard to really limit my recommendations for Sugarland to one song, but I have to win you over before I tell you to go buy everything they have. Everyone can relate to this song, and it doesn't hurt that the lyrics are witty (featuring an appearance by Wally World!). Once you've opened yourself up to country, run (don't walk!) to get Twice the Speed of Life, Sugarland's first release. That album has it all: haunting powerhouses (Small Town Jericho, Hello), upbeat fun (Something More, Speed of Life, Time Time Time, Down in Mississippi), and an ode to the family (Baby Girl). I've worn this CD out from overplaying. . . and I still want more!
-- It's America by Rodney Atkins. It's also hard to choose just one song from Mr Atkins, who was the best new face in country about 3 years ago. This song is a piece of Americana--sounds like it could have been written by Bruce Springsteen circa 1976. Atkins also has some other great songs well-known for upbeat music and enjoyable lyrics: Watching You; These are My People; 15 Minutes; and Cleaning this Gun.

* Mid-streamers. These songs may not be boot-stomping fun, but they are high quality nonetheless.
-- Chicken Fried by Zac Brown Band. My song of the year for 2009. The glory of a simple life, plus I'm a sucker for patriotic-leaning songs!
-- This One's For the Girls by Martina McBride. I'm sorry, I can't help but love this song although I am clearly not the target audience. As a father of a young girl, I do approve of the messages sent to women of all ages in this song. It's pretty upbeat and catchy, too. And Martina can sing, although this song doesn't bring that out as much as others do.
-- Tequila Makes Her Clothes Fall Off by Joe Nichols. Item #1entered as evidence that country is more than just songs about dead dogs and cheating lovers.
-- Bless the Broken Road by Rascal Flatts. What happens when first love doesn't work? Or second, or third? There may still be someone out there for you. This songs tells the story of two people who found their love on something other than their first trip on the ride. The ultimate song of hope for hurt lovers.

* Finale: God Bless the USA. I don't care that it's as old and overplayed as any song ever, this one still gets me in the ol' ticker.

my predictions for tonight

Everybody is doing it, so I will, too.

Net 51 seat GOP pickup in the House...

...and net 6 seats in the Senate.

I won't get too specific in the House, but in general I have a hard time believing long-term reps will find their demise today, so folks like Sanchez (CA), Oberstar (MI), and Taylor (MS) are safe to me.

In the Senate, easy GOP wins are on tap in IN, ND, WI, AR, and PA. I think fraud will play a key role in IL, CO, WA, NV, and CA--enough of a role to carry all those Dem candidates to victory.

Except in NV. Tee-hee.

I'd love to be off on the low side by several degrees with these predictions.

But control of the House won't be a bad thing. Consider it a good start.

the effects of weakness

Last night, Powerline co-co-author John Hinderaker wrote about the aid flotilla steaming towards Gaza. "Hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists have gathered in the Mediterranean and, after meeting up at sea, are proceeding toward Gaza in a "flotilla" of six ships. According to news accounts, the passengers aboard the ships include a co-Nobel Peace Prize winner from Northern Ireland--no surprise there--an "Israeli legislator," which I assume means an Arab member of the Knesset, a Holocaust survivor--who, I think, should know better--and "peace" activists from various countries. The ships are carrying food, cement, medical supplies and toys in an entirely symbolic effort to lift the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

The voyage is symbolic because Israel routinely allows food, medical supplies, etc., into Gaza. Israel has invited the activists to dock at an Israeli port, where the cargo will be unloaded, searched, and then shipped into Gaza. But that, the flotilla's organizers say, is a "ridiculous and offensive" suggestion. This is what passes for argument in the world of the Palestinians."

Sounds benign, right?

Wrong.

Today FoxNews reports that "Israeli commandos on Monday stormed six ships carrying hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists on an aid mission to the blockaded Gaza Strip, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens after encountering unexpected resistance as the forces boarded the vessels."

I have two observations about this incident:

First off, how could the resistance the Israeli forces encoutered be unexpected? Honestly, this was as easy to predict as the sun rising in the east every morning. This flotilla was an act of provocation, plain and simple; to think that some of those involved wouldn't be willing to martyr themselves in the name of advancing the Palestinian cause, as it were, is ignorant to a deadly degree. Has Israel not been paying attention all these years?

Secondly: what are the chances this event unfolds in this manner two years ago? Heck, what are the chances this event even gets off the ground two years ago?

But a lot has changed in two years, hasn't it? Israel is increasingly isolated, and the Obama administration doesn't seem to mind that development at all. If you were looking to bring about Israel's downfall, you couldn't help but feel emboldened right now.

I fear we are seeing Israel in its terminal state. We aren't quite to death throes yet, but they are not far away.

It's not all Obama's fault, to be sure. In fact, I only blame him for believing in his own press. "The smartest person in the room" doesn't have to listen to others--in fact, to do so would be entirely wasteful.

No, Obama only suffers from narcissism, which I wager is not uncommon in the world of politics. He is a monster that was created by the media and sold to a country--and maybe even a world--that was entirely too wanting for a knight in shining armor to burst on the scene.

If there is an American "entity" to blame, my money is on American Jews. This is a group that has an enormous amount of political influence, but I am convinced that they largely don't give a rip about Israel.

Which is fine, by the way: they're Americans. Nobody can "tell" this population how they "should" feel about the troubles for a foreign country or its people. And of course I don't know that a majority of them even have bloodlines to the founding of the Jewish state in Israel. Still, I am disappointed that there isn't a more vocal support for Israel from this group of Americans.

It's nice--if not ironic--to finally find a group of "dash-Americans" that are willing to put their ties to America before whatever other cultural background or grievance they claim.

Which is, of course, too bad for Israel.

Always a handy warning. . .

. . .but especially appropriate for one Rep Stupak--an homage to Disney's Princess and the Frog (which, by the way, is well worth watching, especially for fans of old-school Disney animation).

(drawing by RW)

So much new stuff to talk about!

* So "Deem and Pass" is off the table. This means one of two things: either Pelosi has the votes to pass the Senate bill (which would be an enormous victory for her--enormous!); or someone with a legal mind got her attention and told her about the pitfalls of that strategy, up to and including her removal from office.

* Wavering Dems are leaning yes because of promises from the administration: DeFazio, who as recently as Friday said he wasn't to keen on the current bill, has now pledged support based on Obama's promise to commission a study; others of the Stupak bloc may be enticed to vote "yes" based on an Executive Order (the details of which are still not announced). All of which leads me to say the following: if you're willing to let your vote be bought by a promise of future action from this administration, you really are too naive to be in Congress.

* CBO released updated costing of the bill last night, and as expected, it is worse than what was published on Friday. Will that filter through the news channels? Probably not--but it should for one simple reason: projections of increased deficits in the future. Can this Senate use a majority-vote procedure for a deficit-increasing measure?

* IF the vote this afternoon comes down to members of the Stupak bloc being swayed by the promise of an EO to keep witholding federal funding of abortion, could the irony get any thicker? Here's a President so pro-choice that this country is actually funding abortions in other countries now placed in a position where he has to order no funding for abortions in this country. Nothing like sacrificing your principles in order to get something done.

rapid fire thoughts

About--what else?--the pending health care vote in the House:

A) A lot of outlets (even HotAir, my most beloved hour-to-hour update machine) are making a big deal about a vote in the House on Thursday that purportedly "endorsed" the use of the Slaughter strategy for the Health Care bill.

(The Slaughter strategy, or "deem and pass", is the mechanism wherein the majority party, if it can muster the votes to pass a reconciliation bill for another piece of legislation, can "deem" the other piece of legislation passed, despite there never having been a vote on the other piece of legislation--more down below)

I'm sorry, but that's not what happened. The vote, which finished at 222-203, was the sixth-such vote since January 20th of this year known as "ordering the previous question". This is a vote to give the minority party control of the House's agenda for a period of time, presumably in order to schedule one vote. The vote yesterday, as has happened each time this year, was "passed"--in other words, the majority did not give up control of the agenda on the floor of the chamber.

So how do we get from the benign description I offered above to the hyperbole that was all over my favorite sites on Thursday? Well, the House GOP had broadcast in very clear terms that their attempt to seize the agenda on Thursday was in order to bring to the floor a resolution that would implore Pelosi to keep the Slaughter rule on the sidelines for the upcoming HC votes. How binding the vote would have been on Madame Speaker will never be known, as the GOPs attempt to seize control for this stated purpose was voted down; ergo, the talking point that the House "endorsed" Slaughter-tac.

But here's the thing: what would have forced the GOP to keep "their" vote to the Slaughter rule? If I was given control of the floor yesterday, today, or even tomorrow, the vote that I would get scheduled is a straight-up vote on the Senate's Health Care Bill that is at the heart of all the shenanigans underway right now. The House Dems don't WANT to vote on the Senate bill--which is why they are working their lawyers overtime to come up with ways to pass something WITHOUT going to the yeas and nays on the Senate bill. So scheduling such a vote would really hamstring the Dem caucus--and would more than likely end up with a down vote on the bill. At that point, the Dems would have to stop with their efforts to "deem and pass"--even they couldn't deem they passed a bill that had, in fact, failed on a straight vote.

So the Dems did what any good majority would do: they didn't fail "ordering the previous question," thereby keeping control of the House's agenda. That is all, nothing else.

B) A lot of hay is being made that the House leadership finally scheduled the vote to take place on Sunday, the "logic" being that they wouldn't schedule a vote if they didn't have victory assured.

I'm not so sure.

Don't get me wrong: Pelosi may have 216 lined up in spades.

But the announcement of the vote was a foregone conclusion after this morning, when House Majority Whip Clyburn demanded to know the vote leanings of his caucus by 2pm today. There was NO WAY that a vote would not be scheduled following the publication of that demand, regardless of what vote counts were given to Clyburn. To do otherwise would be to admit not only that the votes weren't there yet, but that there was a looooong way to go to get to 216. So scheduling a vote for Sunday was going to happen, period.

Of course, it's turned out to be a pretty good strategy by Dem leadership, as several "uncommitteds" have suddenly become "yes", perhaps because they, too, think that the scheduling of the vote means that its passage is inevitable.

Which, need I remind you, is why we need to elect representatives that are capable of making up their minds based on the value of the legislation, not because they want to be part of the "cool crowd".

And C) the right's biggest hope now is that "deem and pass", as it will be used in this instance, is deemed unconstitutional by the courts. Conservative judicial luminaries are starting to weigh in, stating that "splitting" the bill in two in order to declare one part "passed" (and forwarded to the President for signature) while the second part goes to the other chamber for a vote violates Article 1, Section 7--in other words, "deem and pass" only works constitutionally if the bill that is "passed" in one chamber is also "passed" in the other chamber. The second the Senate changes a comma of the reconciliation bill--and they likely will--then the whole thing falls apart because both chambers have not voted to pass the same bill.

So what does history have to say about this? First, the source: Field v Clark, 1892--the "precedent" that was referred to by the DC Circuit Court and upheld on appeal in 2006 when the Dems made the case that the House and the Senate did not pass the same bill (what later became known as the Deficit Reduction Act). In Field, the court was asked to determine 3 things, one of which seems particularly pertinent today: if the journal entry of the bill, as recorded in both chambers, does not match up between the chambers, then did the chambers vote on the same bill? The court, as has been noted in several places, deferred to the authority of the chambers' executive officers, noting that there "...is not a statutory declaration that the journals are the highest evidence of the facts stated in them, or complete evidence of all that occurs in the progress of business in the respective houses, much less that the authentication of an enrolled bill by the official signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses and of the President, as an act which has passed Congress and been approved by the President, may be overcome by what the journal of either house shows or fails to show." In other words, the journal entries do not overcome the "word" of the presiding officers of the two houses.

And I'm fine with that. So what gives, you might ask?

Only the following: "The argument, in behalf of the appellants, is that a bill, signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President of the Senate, presented to and approved by the President of the United States, and delivered by the latter to the Secretary of State, as an act passed by Congress, does not become a law of the United States if it had not in fact been passed by Congress. In view of the express requirements of the Constitution, the correctness of this general principle cannot be doubted. There is no authority in the presiding officers of the House of Representatives and the Senate to attest by their signatures, not in the President to approve, nor in the Secretary of State to receive and cause to be published, as a legislative act, any bill not passed by Congress."

So Field did not establish the chamber journal as the final word on the text contained in a bill. It also, however, allowed that the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader could not just declare a bill as passed in their respective chamber.

The question becomes: at what point in the eye of the courts does the presiding officer overstep their bounds?

Field held that one section--approx. 150 words in length--did not violate the Speaker's perogative. In 2006, it was decided that one number did not amount to "different bills"--although that one number had about 2 BILLION dollars of impact on the bill.

But with the Health Care bill, we're talking about a 2000-plus page monstrosity that the Speaker just wants to "deem" as passed as its own bill in order to forward it to the President.

Methinks there might be some room here to get a court to entertain hearing arguments.

Here's to hoping, anyway.