Another House Dem A “No” On Senate Bill; A Previous “Yes” Now Undecided

Okay, a bit more bad news for the prospects of passing the Senate bill out of the House.

Rep Frank Kratovil of Maryland, a previous No vote who was now said to be undecided, will vote No on the Senate health reform proposal, his spokesman confirms.

“He would vote against it,” the spokesman, Kevin Lawlor, says. Crucially, Kratovil would vote against the Senate bill even if there’s some kind of verbal guarantee that it would be fixed via reconciliation later, Lawlor says.

The only way Kratovil — one of the targets of a barrage of NRCC robocalls hammering the reform proposals as “dangerous” — could support the Senate bill is if it’s fixed first via reconciliation, before the House votes on it. But no one expects this to happen.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/another-house-dem-a-no-on-senate-bill-another-previous-yes-now-undecided/

Delahunt will not seek reelection

By Susan Milligan, Globe StaffWASHINGTON -- Representative William Delahunt will not seek re-election to Congress, the seven-term Democrat will announce tomorrow, ending a nearly 40-year career in elected office and giving Republicans hope of capturing the seat, which stretches from Cape Cod to the South Shore.

"It's got nothing to do with politics," the Quincy Democrat said today. "Life is about change. I think it's healthy. It's time."

The 68-year-old lawmaker said he has been considering leaving the House for several years, but was talked out of it two years ago by the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who convinced his friend he should stay and help President Obama with his first-term agenda.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/03/delahunt_will_n.html

Ethics committee investigating Eric Massa allegations

By GLENN THRUSH | 3/4/10 6:38 PM EST

The House ethics committee said Thursday that it is investigating allegations of misconduct by Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.), who announced Wednesday that he is not seeking re-election.

Massa said he was resigning because of health concerns. But POLITICO reported Wednesday that several House aides said Massa had been accused of making unwanted advances to a junior male staffer.

The chairwoman of the ethics committee, Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and the committee’s ranking Republican, Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), released a statement late Thursday saying: “The committee, pursuant to Rule 18(a), is investigating and gathering additional information concerning matter related to allegations against Representative Eric Massa.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/33940.html
 

Obama 9th Circuit Nominee: Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World

By Shannon Bream

 - FOXNews.com

Even his critics describe him as "brilliant," but newly-nominated law professor Goodwin Liu will not have an easy time getting to the 9th Circuit bench.

At age 39, Liu has compiled an impressive resume: Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Court clerk, top grades at both Stanford University and Yale Law School and now law professor University of California, Berkeley. 

Liu has also aligned himself with progressive legal groups, including the American Constitution Society, where he is chairman of the board of directors. That's prompting opponents to argue that Liu is "too far outside the mainstream" to take a seat on a court just one step below the Supreme Court of the United States.

"He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day," said the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. 

Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, echoed those concerns.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/obama-th-circuit-nominee-constitution-adapt-changes-world/

Mitt Romney Says He Will Make 2012 Presidential Decision At Year's End

NewsCore

Former Massachusetts Governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mitt Romney has already decided on a timeline for announcing a possible 2012 run for the White House.

In an interview with MyFox Boston Thursday, Romney insisted he had not yet made up his mind about a second run for the White House. However, the man who finished runner-up to John McCain in 2008 has already envisioned the timeframe for a possible rollout.

Asked by MyFox Boston’s anchor Kim Carrigan if he would run for president, Romney replied: “I haven’t made that decision yet. That’s something we’ll decide when we have to, which is going to be probably at the end of the year, or even a little after that.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/04/mitt-romney-says-make-presidential-decision-years-end/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529

Via Allahpundit:

Obama To Progressives: This Is Just The Foundation

President Obama began his meeting with leading House progressives by bringing in a letter from an Ohio woman who wrote him to say that her skyrocketing premiums will soon cause her to lose her health insurance.

"It was a very serious, low-key discussion. If this was a piano, you're hearing very deep chords here," said one member who asked for anonymity.

Obama argued to the group of progressive members that his health care reform bill should be looked at as the foundation of reform, that can be built on in the future. He asked them to help gather votes for the final health care battle and promised that as soon as the bill was signed into law, he'd continue to push to make it stronger. But in a matter of weeks, he stressed, he could sign into law legislation that would lead to 31 million new people being insured, including the woman who wrote him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/04/obama-to-progressives-thi_n_486426.html

The same theory has been posed all day by different bloggers. What would happen is that the House will pass the current Senate bill because they are promised that the bill would be fixed through reconciliation, but instead of going through reconciliation, once the House passes the Senate bill, Obama signs that bill into law.

Here it is explained in more detail by those who are posing this theory:

Jeffrey Anderson at the Health Care blog on National Review Online explains the theory:

Don’t Leave the House Unattended   [Jeffrey H. Anderson]

All of the talk about "reconciliation" seems to have distracted people — like a red herring — from a simple but crucial fact: If the House goes first, as now appears to be the plan, and passes the Senate health-care overhaul, the president would then have a bill in hand that had passed both houses of Congress, and — whether reconciliation subsequently succeeded or failed in the Senate — we would have Obamacare. 

 

Reconciliation would then be like the exhibition ice skating in the Olympics after the medals have been awarded: interesting to some, but wholly irrelevant to anything that really matters.

The attention is on the Senate, but the battle is in the House. It's time for Americans from coast to coast to communicate their clear desires to their congressmen. If Americans don't want Obamacare — and every indication is that they emphatically don’t — now is the time for swing-district Democrats to hear that full chorus of opposition: loudly, clearly, and forcibly.

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzNkYWRlMjUyOTY5MDNkYTk1MTY2ZjUyOWJlODc4YTg=

Rich Lowry on The Corner points out that Only the House Matters:

Only the House Vote Matters   [Rich Lowry]

This is an important point. I don't think people understand that reconciliation isn't really that important except as a promise to members of the House. Even Charles Krauthammer, if I understood him correctly, said last night that he thinks the bill will pass the House but fail during the reconciliation process. But if the bill passes the House, the same bill has passed the Senate and the House and Obama can just sign the thing. It won't matter if the reconciliation process bogs down, except to those Democrats who thought the bill would be "fixed." But once they've voted, they've voted. Obama can say, "See you in the Rose Garden and we'll try to fix it next year." Jeffrey Anderson makes this point here.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDc4ZWU1MDE5YWVlYjA2OWU4OWEyMmU4Njk4NzY0ZDY=

William Jacobsen at Legal Insurrection says the same thing:

Prediction: Obama Will Sign Senate Bill If Reconciliation Fails

Probably the single biggest obstacle to Obamacare is House Democrats who do not like the Senate health care bill, but whose votes are needed to move the budget reconciliation process along.

The strategy appears to be for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, based on the promise of the budget reconciliation process being successful in the Senate to implement changes.

But what if the Senate does not or cannot pass the changes through the reconciliation process?

Obama then has to power to sign the bill as passed by the House and Senate, meaning the Senate bill.

Has Obama promised not to do so?

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/03/yes-he-can-sign-that-bill.html

Even Senator Gregg points out that Obama might just sign the bill after it passes the House:

The White House may renege on passing fixes to the Senate's healthcare bill once the House has passed it, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) claimed Thursday.

Gregg, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, suggested that President Barack Obama may back off making changes to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process, which the White House and the Senate have said they would use to make changes to the Senate bill in order to placate House members.

"They're using reconciliation to pass the great big bill," Gregg said during an appearance on CNBC. "Once they pass the great big bill, I wouldn't be surprised if the White House didn't care if reconciliation passed. I mean, why would they?"

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/84955-gregg-suggests-obama-may-renege-on-fixing-senate-health-bill

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

The Wilders Momentum

Yesterday’s local elections in the Netherlands resulted in a victory for the Freedom Party (PVV) of opposition leader Geert Wilders. On June 9^th the Dutch will again be called to the voting booths for the general elections. Yesterday’s outcome reinforces the PVV’s momentum, which may result in a political landslide next June with repercussions all over Europe.

In yesterday’s local elections – the first ever in which Wilders’ party, established as recently as 2007, participated – the PVV became the biggest party in Almere and the second party in The Hague, two of the country’s major cities. The PVV won 21.6% of the votes in Almere and 16.9% in The Hague. The parties of the left had mobilized Muslim immigrants to come out and vote against Wilders. Many of them did so.

The Hague and Almere were the only two municipalities where the PVV fielded candidates for yesterday’s local elections. The PVV would also have done well in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and other cities, but decided not to run there. Wilders is leading a young party which still lacks a solid local structure. Rather than concentrating on quantity and fielding candidates wherever he could, even if he was not sure about the candidates’ background and talents, Wilders concentrated on quality. He could not afford to take the risk that in the three months remaining until June 9^th, local PVV newcomers might discredit the PVV’s good reputation.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4342

The House passed the Senate's $15 billion jobs bill in a 217-201 vote on Thursday.

Lawmakers voted to approve the package, which provides a series of tax credits for job creation and other stimulus measures, after Democrats struggled to pass a rule for the legislation.

The final vote counts within each party in the House were not immediately clear, as the chairman held open the vote to allow two stragglers to vote on the legislation before it was gaveled closed. At least 210 Democrats voted to support the measure, and 33 voted against it. Six Republicans voted to support the bill, while at least 166 voted against it.

The jobs bill had passed through the Senate after Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) pulled a larger, more comprehensive bill that had been negotiated by Democrats and Republicans, only to offer the more modest, $15 billion package.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/85049-house-approves-15b-jobs-bill-217-201

Maybe no health care bill vote by Easter

Erica Werner

House Democratic leaders are pushing to finish far-reaching health legislation and hold a climactic vote in the next three weeks, aiming to overcome reluctance from rank-and-file lawmakers. But they conceded Thursday they may not meet President Barack Obama's challenge for swift action.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the Democrats would like to get a final vote by Congress' Easter break, which begins March 29. But he also said "the world doesn't fall apart" if that timeline isn't met — a nod to the many missed deadlines that have characterized the health overhaul effort so far.

Democratic leaders are contending with a host of undecided lawmakers who want to see the fine print before making a decision. Hoyer said final language and a cost estimate should come back from the Congressional Budget Office by the end of next week.

"At this point in time we don't have a bill," Hoyer said. "It's a little difficult to count votes if you don't have a bill."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2010/Mar/04/maybe_no_health_care_bill_vote_by_easter.html

 

Via Allahpundit:

Schrader, targeted by GOP robocalls, makes no commitment on health-care vote

By Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian

March 03, 2010, 2:42PM

Republicans are trying to turn up the heat on House Democrats who may be wavering on health-care legislation, including freshman Rep. Kurt Schrader, D-Ore.

Schrader's office said Wednesday that the congressman has not yet made any commitments on whether he would vote for the Senate-passed version of health-care reform.  "Kurt's commited to moving forward on health care," said spokesman James Atkin, but he wants to study the bill first before making a commitment.

Schrader, who represents Oregon's 5th district, expressed doubts about the version of health care that passed the House, but he ended up voting for the bill.  Given that, I suspect the odds are he will back the new strategy of getting around a Senate filibuster by approving the Senate bill and then following up with a stand-alone measure that can fix some of the remaining problems.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2010/03/schradertargeted_by_gop_roboca.html

Johnsen passes hurdle

Obama's Justice pick faces Senate

The Senate Judiciary Committee has again given its approval to one of President Obama’s longest-stalled nominations, the choice of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to serve as head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

The panel voted, 12-7, along party lines to send Johnsen’s nomination on to the full Senate. That’s a tad better than the 11-7 vote she managed last time, when Sen. Arlen Specter declined to vote. After becoming a Democrat, Specter gave Johnsen the nod this time around.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0310/johnsen_passes_hurdle_57d45dda-94f7-4cc3-ac54-429e17ee7882.html

Andrew C. McCarthy has written about her and her radical views. Here is something he wrote today about her:

As we're reminded of by Ed Whelan's characteristically thorough analysis of Goodwin Liu, whom Obama wants to place on the 9th Circuit (start with this Bench Memo and scroll down), it is hard to grasp and keep up with how radical many of this administration's appointees are. But Ms. Johnsen stands out, and not just because of her abortion extremism (it was she who argued, in a Supreme Court brief, that abortion restrictions were tantamount to violations of the Constitution's prohibition against slavery), or even because of her unabashed commitment to using the law to further what she calls “the progressive agenda” of “universal health care, public funding for childcare, paid family leave, and . . . the full range of economic justice issues, from the minimum wage to taxation policy to financial support for struggling families.”

She also stands out because of the position for which she has been nominated. DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel is the last place in government where we would want a hard-edged ideologue — and while that would be true at any time, it is especially true with the current Justice Department, which is political to a fare thee well. And with DOJ already rife with lawyers who volunteered their services to America's enemies, do we really want OLC to be run by a lawyer who wrote that one of the Obama administration's first orders of business should be to "order an immediate review to determine which detainees should be released and which transferred to secure facilities in the United States” for civilian trials?

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjgyMGRjZWUzZjQ3OGY5MDJlM2RjMzdmMmI4OTFiZGE=

Now, here is an article that Mr. McCarthy penned taking Johnsen to task for saying that abortion restrictions are like Constitutional restrictions on slavery:

http://article.nationalreview.com/387022/doj-nominee-shocked-by-her-own-words/andrew-c-mccarthy

U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal will delay his resignation from Congress by three weeks, citing intense pressure from House Republican leaders to remain and vote against President Barack Obama’s plan to overhaul the nation’s health care system.

From the press release issued by the north Georgia congressman:

http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2010/03/04/citing-health-care-vote-deal-delays-departure-from-congress/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway