2010 is election year; unemployment will be 10.5%; many will still be mad about health law, et al.; & Obama to tackle illegal immigration? No way.

Believe it. A divisive debate during an election year is just around the corner when we are through passing a trillion dollar health reform bill during what, for Main Street, remains a recession.

A 6-24-07 post entitled "Senator Kennedy and President Reagan on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986" reads as follows:

Senator Ted Kennedy said: "This amnesty will give citizenship to only 1.1 to 1.3 million illegal aliens. We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this."

[Actually, almost 3 million illegal immigrants were granted amnesty under this legislation, and the amnesty was followed by an explosion in illegal immigration.]

President Ronald Reagan said: "Future generations of Americans will be thankful for our efforts to humanely regain control of our borders and thereby preserve the value of one of the most sacred possessions of our people, American citizenship."

A 5-26-07 post entitled "The complicated mess we have with illegal immigration and how to solve the problem -- More on the 1986 legislation," reads:

A 5-25-07 post noted:

If you grant legal status to those here illegally without first securing the border, millions more will flood into our country illegally. That's exactly what happened with the flawed immigration law that was passed in 1986, and our country has been paying the price ever since.

Time said this about the 1986 legislation:

[T]he failed amnesty of 1986 [is] widely viewed as the genesis of the current crisis. The moment newly legalized farmworkers realized they had better options, they left for the cities instead of staying in low-paying agriculture jobs. Their exodus from the fields opened the door to an even larger wave of illegal immigration.

And another article in Time gives us these details about the legislation:

The immigration overhaul in 1986 was supposed to have fixed the root problem of an uncontrolled influx by making it illegal for U.S. employers to hire undocumented workers and offering an amnesty to illegal immigrants who had been here for five years at that point. Instead, the best estimates suggest that since then, the number of illegal immigrants has more than tripled.

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act made it illegal for employers to knowingly hire undocumented workers and imposed penalties of up to $11,000 for each violation. But lawbreakers are rarely punished. In 2005 the government issued just three notices of intent to fine companies for employing illegal workers, down from 178 in 2000.

It's easy to understand why the idea of an amnesty [sparks] such a negative reaction. The country tried one with the 1986 law. Nearly 3 million people took advantage of it, and the amnesty was followed by an explosion in illegal immigration.

Today an article in The New York Times notes:

The Obama administration will insist on measures to give legal status to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants as it pushes early next year for legislation to overhaul the immigration system, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Friday.

In her first major speech on the overhaul, Ms. Napolitano dispelled any suggestion that the administration — with health care, energy and other major issues crowding its agenda — would postpone the most contentious piece of immigration legislation until after midterm elections next November.

With unemployment surging over 10 percent and Congress still wrangling over health care, advocates on all sides of the immigration debate had begun to doubt that President Obama would keep his pledge to tackle the divisive illegal immigration issue in the first months of 2010.

Ms. Napolitano unveiled a double-barrel argument for a legalization program, saying it would enhance national security and, as the economy climbs out of recession, protect American workers from unfair competition from lower-paid, easily exploited illegal immigrants.

Under the administration’s plan, illegal immigrants who hope to gain legal status would have to register, pay fines and all taxes they owe, pass a criminal background check and learn English.

Drawing a contrast with 2007, when a bill with legalization provisions offered by President George W. Bush failed in Congress, Ms. Napolitano said the Obama administration had achieved a “fundamental change” in border security and enforcement against employers hiring illegal immigrants. She said a sharp reduction in the flow of illegal immigrants into the country created an opportunity to move ahead with a legalization program.

As noted above, the failed amnesty of 1986 is widely viewed as the genesis of the current crisis. The moment newly legalized farmworkers -- who were referred to as migrant workers during my earlier years -- realized they had better options, they left for the cities instead of staying in low-paying agriculture jobs. Their exodus from the fields opened the door to an even larger wave of illegal immigration.

And with the continuous wave of illegal immigrants that has followed (and only recently slowed because of the weak economy and stronger enforcement), the administration now -- even as unemployment is surging toward 10 1/2 percent -- feels that this is the time to move forward to protect American workers from unfair competition from lower-paid, easily exploited illegal immigrants. Frankly, I cannot connect the dots here, and need to study the administration's logic.

Like many Americans, I am conflicted on the topic of how to fix the illegal immigration problem other than border security being the first priority without regard to cost.

But this much I know. The American people at the present want the president and Congress to worry more about the deficit than about health care reform with its $1.1 trillion price tag.

They have not forgotten about the bailout of Wall Street being done on the back of Main Street, and they did not see their non-UAW businesses and employers getting bailed out (and an American icon handed over to an Italian car company) nor money being doled out to them to buy goods and services from their business or employer similar to the cash for clunker program.

There is seething resentment, even anger, just below the surface, that it will take time and an economic recovery to dissipate.

If (and I should probably say when) the administration brings immigration to the forefront (and there is more bipartisan support for this than the GOP wants to admit), the unfortunate August 2009 town hall meetings are going to appear to be civil walks in the park. There will be tea parties galore, but this time, I predict and I will not in attendance myself, there will be more than just your right wingers in attendance.

In 2007, the immigration reform failed as many members of Congress said they couldn't support a program of mass legalization in the face of opposition from constituents and activist groups critical of easing the road to legal immigration for those who had already violated the law.

That sentiment continues, but will be buttressed by the argument of how can Congress allow 12 million illegal immigrants to take jobs that should go to who are here legally.

Based on the results in Virginia and New Jersey, our work was already cut out for us. And now this . . . .
_______________

See also a short article in The Wall Street Journal.

That'll work: Ex-Rep. Jefferson (D-La.) gets 13 years in freezer cash case

The Washington Post reports that former congressman William J. Jefferson was sentenced to 13 years in prison Friday for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, the longest prison term ever handed down to a member of Congress convicted of corruption charges.

Mr. Speaker, keep your head up high Sir.

In countless posts in different times I have described House Speaker Glenn Richardson as a tyrant and referred to him with such monikers as the "Czar" and the "Head Hawk."

Late today I literally shed tears for him upon reading about a recent event, and I pray and will continue to pray that he will be fine, both mentally and physically.

What I read is so, so sad, and to those who are near and dear to him, please know that your loved one is first and foremost a Georgian, and we all try to look after and take care of our own.

We expect so much of and give so little credit to our public servants, and seldom appreciate and fail to recognize the fish bowl in which they have to live.

(Aaron Sheinin has a report in the Gold Dome Live.)

The ingrats: Rebuilding Its Economy, Iraq Shuns U.S. Businesses

From The New York Times:

Iraq’s Baghdad Trade Fair ended Tuesday, six years and a trillion dollars after the American invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, and one country was conspicuously absent.

That would be the country that spent a trillion dollars — on the invasion and occupation, but also on training and equipping Iraqi security forces, and on ambitious reconstruction projects in every province aimed at rebuilding the country and restarting the economy.

Yet when the post-Saddam Iraqi government swept out its old commercial fairgrounds and invited companies from around the world, the United States was not much in evidence among the 32 nations represented. Of the 396 companies that exhibited their wares, “there are two or three American participants, but I can’t remember their names,” said Hashem Mohammed Haten, director general of Iraq’s state fair company.

The trade fair is a telling indication of an uncomfortable truth: America’s war in Iraq has been good for business in Iraq — but not necessarily for American business.

Being seen as the occupier is just not good for business. Although the United States, legally speaking, has not been an occupying power since June 2004, when the Security Council formally ended occupation, many see it that way. Even Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has described Americans as occupiers to curry electoral support.

Being seen as the occupier is just not good for business. Although the United States, legally speaking, has not been an occupying power since June 2004, when the Security Council formally ended occupation, many see it that way. Even Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, has described Americans as occupiers to curry electoral support.

One European ambassador, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of his government’s policy, said his own country’s trade opportunities greatly increased in Iraq after it withdrew the last of its troops more than a year ago. “Being considered an occupier handicapped us extremely,” he said. “The farther we are away from that the more our companies can be accepted on their own merits.”

U.S. envoy resists increase in troops -- Concerns voiced about Karzai

From The Washington Post:

The U.S. ambassador in Kabul sent two classified cables to Washington in the past week expressing deep concerns about sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan until President Hamid Karzai's government demonstrates that it is willing to tackle the corruption and mismanagement that has fueled the Taliban's rise, senior U.S. officials said.

Eikenberry's last-minute interventions have highlighted the nagging undercurrent of the policy discussion: the U.S. dependence on a partnership with a Karzai government whose incompetence and corruption is a universal concern within the administration. After months of political upheaval, in the wake of widespread fraud during the August presidential election, Karzai was installed last week for a second five-year term.

In addition to placing the Karzai problem prominently on the table, the cables from Eikenberry, a retired four-star general who in 2006-2007 commanded U.S. troops in Afghanistan, have rankled his former colleagues in the Pentagon -- as well as Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, defense officials said.

Despite this breakdown, I feel relieved Army did not know before. I could not comprehend. -- Pentagon Only Learned of Hasan's Emails After Killings

From The Wall Street Journal:

The Pentagon said it was never notified by U.S. intelligence agencies that they had intercepted emails between the alleged Fort Hood shooter and an extremist imam until after last week's bloody assaults, raising new questions about whether the government could have helped prevent the attack.

A top defense official said federal investigators didn't tell the Pentagon they were looking into months of contacts between Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki. The imam knew three of the Sept. 11 hijackers and hailed Maj. Hasan as a "hero" after the shooting last week at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead.

"Based on what we know now, neither the United States Army nor any other organization within the Department of Defense knew of Maj. Hasan's contacts with any Muslim extremists," the official said.

The Pentagon comments fueled a growing dispute among various branches of the government about whether Maj. Hasan should have been more deeply investigated before he allegedly walked into a crowded soldier-readiness center at Fort Hood and opened fire.

A person familiar with the matter said a Pentagon worker on a terrorism task force overseen by the Federal Bureau of Investigation was told about the intercepted emails several months ago. But members of terror task forces aren't allowed to share such information with their agencies, unless they get permission from the FBI, which leads the task forces.

In this case, the Pentagon worker, an employee from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, helped make the assessment that Maj. Hasan wasn't a threat, and the FBI's "procedures for sharing the information were never used," said the person familiar with the matter.

Muhammad, the sniper who kept the D.C. region paralyzed by fear for 3 weeks, was executed. Good riddance for mankind. Another one is on the horizon.

The Washington Post reports that John Allen Muhammad, the sniper who kept the Washington region paralyzed by fear for three weeks as he and a young accomplice gunned down people at random, was executed Tuesday night by lethal injection.

Hopefully it won't be too long before Army Major Nidal M. Hasan meets a similar fate.

Maine Finds a Health Care Fix Elusive

From The New York Times:

Maine is the Charlie Brown of health care. The state’s legislators have tried for decades to fix its system, but their efforts have always fallen short: health insurance premiums are still among the least affordable in the nation, health care spending per person is among the highest and hospital emergency rooms are among the most crowded. Indeed, many overhauls to the system have done little more than squeeze a balloon — solving one problem while worsening another.

Maine’s history is a cautionary tale for national health reform. The state could never figure out how to slow the spiraling increase in medical costs, hobbling its efforts to offer more people insurance coverage. Many on Capitol Hill have criticized national reform legislation for similarly doing little to tame costs.

To [Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Maine’s senior United States senator and so far one of only two Republicans in Congress to vote for an overhaul], Maine’s past shows that change, while needed, should be incremental because mistakes are common. This is among the reasons she opposes an immediate public insurance option. “I mentioned to the president that people can’t digest everything at once,” she said in an interview.

Health economists say it is impossible to know whether the bill would meet cost-cutting goals, and many are skeptical that they even come close.

From The New York Times:

As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama’s promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending.

Mr. Obama has made cost containment a centerpiece of his health reform agenda, and in May he stood up at the White House with industry groups who pledged voluntary efforts to trim the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percent, or $2 trillion, over the next decade.

But health economists say it is impossible to know whether the bills, including one passed by the House on Saturday night, would meet that goal, and many are skeptical that they even come close.

Experts — including some who have consulted closely with the White House, like Dr. Denis A. Cortese, chief executive of the Mayo Clinic — say the measures take only baby steps toward revamping the current fee-for-service system, which drives up costs by paying health providers for each visit or procedure performed. Some senators are also dissatisfied.

“My assessment at this point,” said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and a member of the Finance Committee, “is that the legislation is heavy on health and light on reform.”

No one understands the Middle East better than T. Friedman -- Until Palestinians & Israelis are serious about peace, we should get out of the picture.

Tom Friedman writes in The New York Times:

The fact is, the only time America has been able to advance peace — post-Yom Kippur War, Camp David, post-Lebanon war, Madrid and Oslo — has been when the parties felt enough pain for different reasons that they invited our diplomacy, and we had statesmen — Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, George Shultz, James Baker and Bill Clinton — savvy enough to seize those moments.

Today, the Arabs, Israel and the Palestinians are clearly not feeling enough pain to do anything hard for peace with each other — a mood best summed up by a phrase making the rounds at the State Department: The Palestinian leadership “wants a deal with Israel without any negotiations” and Israel’s leadership “wants negotiations with the Palestinians without any deal.”

It is obvious that this Israeli government believes it can have peace with the Palestinians and keep the West Bank, this Palestinian Authority still can’t decide whether to reconcile with the Jewish state or criminalize it and this Hamas leadership would rather let Palestinians live forever in the hellish squalor that is Gaza than give up its crazy fantasy of an Islamic Republic in Palestine.

If we are still begging Israel to stop building settlements, which is so manifestly idiotic, and the Palestinians to come to negotiations, which is so manifestly in their interest, and the Saudis to just give Israel a wink, which is so manifestly pathetic, we are in the wrong place. It’s time to call a halt to this dysfunctional “peace process,” which is only damaging the Obama team’s credibility.

If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore. We need to fix America. If and when they get serious, they’ll find us. And when they do, we should put a detailed U.S. plan for a two-state solution, with borders, on the table. Let’s fight about something big.

The White House has gotten bad at listening, and now it's paying the price.

Peggy Noonan writes in The Wall Street Journal:

In 2009, the Democrats who run the White House and Congress chose to go down one path at the exact moment voters went down a different one. The voters, frustrated and then alarmed, waited to fire the first available Democrat, and this week they did. Mr. Obama carried Democratic Jersey by more than 15 points exactly one year ago. The Democratic governor lost by nearly five points this week. That is a 20-point swing. Mr. Obama won Virginia a year ago by six points. The Democratic candidate for governor lost by more than 18 points. That is a 24-point plummet. (The congressional race in upstate New York was too messy, too local, and too full of jumbly facts to yield a theme that coheres.)

A president has only so much time. Mr. Obama gives a lot of his to health care. But the majority of voters in New Jersey and Virginia told pollsters they were primarily worried about joblessness and the economy. They're on another path, and they don't like the path he's chosen. A majority in a Gallup poll out Wednesday said they now think the president governs from the left, not the middle. The majority did not expect that a year ago.

The president chose promises made before the recession fully took hold, rather than more pressing and pertinent public concerns. In the language of marketing that has become the language of politics he thereby, in his first year, damaged his brand.

Mr. Obama and the House leadership may be too deep into health care to make a shift now and get in line with the American people's concerns. But they should start paying attention to what the people are saying. What happened Tuesday isn't a death knell, but it is a fire alarm: Something's wrong, fix it, change course. Show humility. Bow to the public. "Public opinion is everything," Lincoln is said to have said. It is. It can be changed and it can be shaped, but it always has to be listened to. This White House has gotten bad at listening. It paid the price for that on Tuesday.

The swinging pendulum -- Have we come full circle? White mayor in office; whites play the race card. Black mayor in office; blacks play the race card.

In a 10-28-09 post entitled "'We have met the enemy . . . and he is us'" I wrote:

I don't have a dog in the current Atlanta mayor’s race, but like most matters involving Georgia politics and races, I try to keep my finger on the pulse of important elections.

I was shocked this evening when I read Jim Galloway's post in the ajc's Political Insider entitled "State Democrats jump into Atlanta mayor’s race against Mary Norwood."

I remain just as shocked after reading the post. I just don't understand the motive, the role, the reason for the party feeling it had to get involved . . . .

The word shock and degree of being shocked are relative. I don't have an appropriate word to describe my reaction to Jim Galloway's latest post reporting the following from Bunny Jackson-Ransom, ex-wife of the late mayor Maynard Jackson (in truth I do; it is disgust):

During the next few weeks, I intend to do whatever I can to wake up those African Americans who have become “bamboozled” into believing that a moderately educated, southern white woman will do something for them. Obviously they have forgotten what Atlanta was like for our people before we had a Black Mayor. Yes, mistakes have been made; but we are surely not where we used to be.

My personal goal is to seek out one Black Norwood supporter each day to remind and inform them.

Days before Atlanta elected Maynard Jackson (who was then serving as Vice Mayor) as its first black mayor in 1973, incumbent mayor Sam Massell placed an ad in the Atlanta Constitution depicting a vacant downtown with the headline: “Atlanta’s Too Young to Die.”

The racial implication was clear; Massell's strategy was roundly criticized; and Massell lost in a mayoral runoff in a landslide to Jackson. (See this ajc article.)

Jim Galloway's most recent post linked above suggests that there will be more of such talk on the issue of race (and you have to hand to do Jackson's ex-wife, she doesn't imply as did Massell; she spells it out loud and clear). (Galloway put it this way: "The conversation surrounding Atlanta’s mayoral runoff between Mary Norwood and Kasim Reed has already begun.")

If this is going to be the tenor of the race, and such is going to be the tenor of and from the Reed camp, then most assuredly -- and even though I do not have a vote -- I will have a candidate, and such candidate will be more in the keeping of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. who on August 28, 1963 is his "I Have a Dream" speech said:

[G]o back to Georgia . . . knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed.

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

[L]et freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! . . . When we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

Mighty Mouse runs to gunfire and ends it, engaging in some impressive active shooting protocol. Thanks Sergeant Kimberly Munley!!

From The New York Times:

The police officer who brought down a gunman after he went on a shooting rampage at the Fort Hood Army base here was on the way to have her car repaired when she responded to a police radio report of gunfire at a center where soldiers are processed before being sent overseas . . . .

Sergeant Munley . . . bolted from her car, yanked her pistol out and shot at Major Hasan. He turned on her and began to fire. She ran toward him, continuing to fire, and both she and Major Hasan went down with several bullet wounds . . . .

[She] had received specific training in a tactic called active shooter protocol, which was intended for this kind of situation.

Her partner in [the beachside town of Wrightsville, N.C., near Wilmington], Investigator Shaun Appler, recalled how Sergeant Munley saved him one night when she wrestled a large man off him after the man had pinned him down and was trying to take his gun. She earned the nickname Mighty Mouse for that . . . . [she stands 5-foot-4).

And God Bless Mama, God Bless Daddy, and God Bless Republican Dierdre K. Scozzafava

Jim Galloway of the ajc's Political Insider makes my day by quoting from a local newspaper in upstate New York on some follow-up on last Tuesday's 23rd Congressional District race in New York:

Republican Dierdre K. Scozzafava faces an uncertain future in state politics after aborting her congressional campaign three days before elections and throwing her support behind her Democratic opponent.

Assembly Minority Leader Brian M. Kolb, R-Canadaigua, said he’ll decide next week whether or not to remove the Gouverneur assemblywoman as the party’s pro tempore, or floor leader. And Ms. Scozzafava said Wednesday that she’s unsure if she’ll seek a seventh Assembly term next fall.

“If this is my end, so be it,” she said. “At least I know we have a congressional representative who is going to put the interests of the district above the interests of the Club for Growth and Rush Limbaughs of the world.”

Democrats ought to read and consider this David Brooks's column. Every word of it is accurate.

David Brooks writes in The New York Times:

Liberals and conservatives each have their own intellectual food chains. They have their own think tanks to provide arguments, politicians and pundits to amplify them, and news media outlets to deliver streams of prejudice-affirming stories.

Independents, who are the largest group in the electorate, don’t have any of this. They don’t have institutional affiliations. They don’t look to certain activist lobbies for guidance. There aren’t many commentators who come from an independent perspective.

Independents are herds of cats who find out what they think through a meandering process of discovery. Right now, independent voters are astonishingly volatile. Democrats did poorly in elections on Tuesday partly because of disappointed liberals who think that President Obama is moving too slowly, but mostly because of anxious suburban independents who think he is moving too fast. In Pennsylvania, there was an eight-point swing away from the Democrats among independents from a year ago. In New Jersey, there was a 12-point swing. In Virginia, there was a 13-point swing.

The most telling races this year were the suburban rebellions across the country. For example, in Westchester and Nassau counties in New York, Republican candidates came from nowhere to defeat entrenched Democratic county officials. In blue Pennsylvania, the G.O.P. won six out of seven statewide offices.

Middle-class suburban voters who have been trending Democratic for a decade suddenly lurched out of the Democratic camp — and are now in play.

Why? What do these voters want?

The first thing to say is that this recession has hit the new suburbs hardest, exactly where independents are likely to live. According to a survey by the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University, 76 percent of suburbanites say they or someone they know have lost a job in the past year.

The second thing to say is that in this time of need, these voters are not turning to government for support. Trust in government is at its lowest level in recent memory. Over the past year, there has been a shift to the right on issue after issue. According to Gallup, the percentage of Americans who believe that there is too much government regulation rose from 38 percent in 2008 to 45 percent in 2009. The percentage of Americans who want unions to have less influence rose from 32 percent to a record 42 percent.

Americans have moved to the right on abortion, immigration and global warming. Over the past seven months, the number of people who say government is doing too many things better left to business has jumped from 40 percent to 48 percent, according to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll.

According to that same survey, only 31 percent of Americans believe that the president and Congress “should worry more about boosting the economy even though it may mean larger budget deficits.” Sixty-two percent, twice as many, believe the president and Congress “should worry more about keeping the deficit down, even though it may mean it will take longer for the economy to recover.”

These shifts have not occurred because conservatives and liberals have changed their minds. They haven’t. The shift is among independents.

According to Gallup, the share of independents who describe their views as conservative has moved from 29 percent last year to 35 percent today. The share of independents who believe there is too much government regulation of business has jumped from 38 percent to 50 percent. Independents are in the position of a person who is feeling gravely ill at the same time he has lost faith in his doctor.

This does not mean that independents are turning into Republicans. G.O.P. ratings are still in the toilet. But it does mean the Democrats have to fight to regain some of their most crucial supporters.

If I were a politician trying to win back independents, I’d say something like this: When I was a kid, I had a jigsaw puzzle of the U.S. Each state was a piece, and on it there was a drawing showing what people made there. California might have movies; Washington State, apples; New York, fashion or publishing. That puzzle represented an economy that was diverse and deeply rooted.

We’ve lost that. First Wall Street got disproportionately big, then Washington. It’s time to return to fundamentals. No short-term fixes. Government should do what it’s supposed to do: schools, roads, basic research. It should not be picking C.E.O.’s or setting pay or fizzing up the economy with more debt. It should give people the tools to compete, not rig the competition. Lines of restraint have dissolved, and they need to be restored.

Independents support the party that seems most likely to establish a frame of stability and order, within which they can lead their lives. They can’t always articulate what they want, but they withdraw from any party that threatens turmoil and risk. As always, they’re looking for a safe pair of hands.

This kind of stuff just breaks my heart: Next Hurdle for Democrats on Health Bill -- Democrats (make that buying Democrats)

From The Wall Street Journal:

Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu says she generally backs President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul efforts. But she'd like to see a few items in the bill before voting for it, including bigger federal Medicaid payments for her home state of Louisiana, extended health coverage for her pet cause of foster children, and help for teaching hospitals in her state.

While pushing more spending in those areas, Ms. Landrieu also wants the plan to cut the overall amount the nation spends on health care.

The health bill may be an ambitious, once-in-a-generation attempt to rewrite the social contract, but like any other sprawling piece of legislation, it is also a magnet for deal making and horse-trading.

Senators' needs vary greatly, and sometimes contradict each other. Sen. Evan Bayh (D., Ind.) is a big supporter of medical-device makers in Indiana, and he signed a letter declaring himself "extremely concerned" about a proposed tax on the industry. Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.), facing a tough re-election contest next year, would like to tackle the shortage of health providers in rural areas. Sen. Bob Menendez (D., N.J.) is pushing a tax break for investments in start-up biotechnology firms, earning him plaudits from his state's burgeoning biotech industry.

About 20% of Louisiana's adults lack health insurance and 25% of its population is on Medicaid.

Lessons from a big win in Virginia

From The Washington Post:

Robert. F. McDonnell's crushing victory in Virginia's gubernatorial election Tuesday testified to his skills as a politician and to his disciplined, focused and generally positive, issues-based campaign. Mr. McDonnell, the Republican former state attorney general, rose above the toxic partisanship that suffuses electoral politics to conduct himself with civility, dignity and an even temper.

Mr. McDonnell read the electorate's independent and swing voters correctly by playing down divisive social issues, such as abortion, that had occupied much of his attention during his earlier years as a legislator, and by broadening his appeal to women, minorities and others not always effectively courted by the GOP. Sticking to a refrain of economic renewal amid hard times, he struck a chord with Virginia voters by promising to create jobs and keep taxes low while opposing some of the Obama administration's more expansionist policies and legislation.

Omaba, please return to the middle where you ran! Contests serve as warning to Democrats: It's not 2008 anymore

From The Washington Post:

Republicans have the more energized constituency heading into next year's midterm elections.

The most significant change came among independent voters, who solidly backed Democrats in 2006 and 2008 but moved decisively to the Republicans on Tuesday, according to exit polls.

For months, polls have shown that independents were increasingly disaffected with some of Obama's domestic policies. They have expressed reservations about the president's health-care efforts and have shown concerns about the growth in government spending and the federal deficit under his leadership.

Tuesday's elections provided the first tangible evidence that Republicans can win their support with the right kind of candidates and the right messages. That is an ominous development for Democrats if it continues unabated into next year. But Republicans could squander that opportunity if they demand candidates who are too conservative to appeal to the middle.

In Iowa, Second Thoughts on Obama -- His standing has fallen in the state that jump-started his campaign, especially among independents & Republicans.

From The New York Times:

One year after winning the election, Mr. Obama has seen his pledge to transcend partisanship in Washington give way to the hardened realities of office. A campaign for the history books, filled with a sky-high sense of possibility for Mr. Obama not just among legions of loyal Democrats but also among converts from outside the party, has descended to an unfamiliar plateau for a president whose political rise was as rapid as it was charmed.

Interviews with voters across Iowa offer a window into how the president’s standing has leveled off, especially among the independents and Republicans who contributed not just to his margin of victory in the caucuses here but also to the optimism among his supporters that his election would be a break from standard-issue politics.

Mr. Obama still has generally strong approval ratings and the opportunities that come with a Democratic majority in Congress. Public opinion about him remains in flux, particularly as he heads into the endgame of a push to overhaul the health insurance system and nears a decision about whether to expand the war in Afghanistan.

But an erosion of support from independents and disapproval from Republicans suggests that the coalition Mr. Obama built to win the White House is frayed.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama soared, several people said in interviews, but as a president, he often has come across as cautious, tentative and prone to blame his troubles on others.

Is this the pot calling the kettle black, the law of unexpected (or hoped for) consequences, or what? -- Progeny of accusation of being "duplicitous."

A couple of centuries ago Scottish novelist and poet Sir Walter Scott penned one of my favorite lines :

"Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!”

(Sir Walter Scott's Marmion.)

Duplicitous and such word's first cousins deceive and deception were the words of the week in Atlanta last week, with the Democratic Party of Georgia Chair accusing mayoral candidate Mary Norwood of being a "duplicitous" Republican.

Some have accused the Chair herself of being the one out to deceive while on her search and destroy and take no prisoners mission. Those pointing the accusing finger and questioning the Chair's motive, sense of fair play and logic have been hard-core Democrats.

I live in a different area code in the Other Georgia, and regardless, would not likely be the recipient of any GOP originated robo call.

Thus I cannot vouch for the accuracy of what is reported in a Sunday post on Peach Pundit that a robo call billed as a “Republican Action Alert” is informing the recipients of the call

not to vote for Mary Norwood because “she doesn’t represent our Republican Values” and [going] on to play audio of Norwood stating she voted for Obama, Kerry and Clinton and then went to a GOP convention once and hated it.

Is this the reaction the Chair's was expecting and hoping for from her charge against Mary Norwood, or, and the Good Lord forbid, something more sinister, such as the accuser of another as being "duplicitous" herself being duplicitous and even being complicitous.

Do I believe such rampant speculation about complicity? Of course not, but I do so regret and deplore the unfortunate direction this race has taken in the last few days on account of actions of others besides the candidates themselves (just as happened in the New York special election as discussed in this earlier post).