Rep. Michael Burgess couldn't believe his ears. He'd just been read President Obama's words in Strongville, Ohio, yesterday. At a campaign-style rally, the president had said that "We’ve ended up with a proposal that incorporates the best ideas from Democrats and Republicans."

Burgess's reaction? "If I was Joe Wilson, I could do it in two words," he told me.

Burgess, a soft-spoken doctor, has worked on health care issues extensively in the seven years since he replaced former Republican majority leader Dick Armey in Texas's twenty-sixth congressional district. He chairs the Congressional Health Caucus and sits on the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee. He rejects the notion that Republicans have no health care ideas, ticking off bipartisan support for S-CHIP, Kennedy-Kassebaum, the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, tort reform, and Health Savings Accounts. His "Prescriptions for Health Care" include insurance and tax changes, interstate competition, medical liability reform, and price transparency. He's a serious guy with serious proposals. Obviously, he's been totally shut out from the health care debate.

Soon after Obama's election in November 2008, Burgess reached out to the White House transition team. He'd heard Obama's promise of a new, "post-partisan" Washington and was interested in contributing to the health care discussion. The Obama camp wasn't so interested. Burgess says he heard  "zilch, zip, nada" in response. When the 111th Congress went into session in January 2009, Burgess made similar overtures to Rep. Henry Waxman, who chairs Energy and Commerce. He got a similar result.

President Obama has never called Burgess to talk about health care reform. The closest the two have come to a discussion is when Burgess submitted a question over the Internet during one of Obama's YouTube townhall meetings. The inquiry had to do with tort reform. Obama dismissed it with a non sequitor.

So much for bipartisanship. What about transparency? Last September, Burgess wrote a letter to the White House asking for information on the spring 2009 meetings between administration officials and special interests like the pharmaceutical lobby. He wanted to know who was there, what had been said, and what deals had been made. Of course there was no response.

So last December Burgess went ahead and introduced a resolution of inquiry demanding the White House release the information. On January 26, the day before Energy and Commerce was going to mark up the resolution, Burgess finally received an answer from the White House. It wasn't what you would call "detailed." Later, in a statement, Rep. Joe Barton characterized the message as "warmed over press releases and Web site material."

Burgess says he was flummoxed: "You're telling me, no one wrote anything down?" So on February 18, with Chairman Waxman's support, the full committee sent another letter to the White House asking for details. No doubt the White House will be even less helpful this time around. Such is life when you're a well-meaning Republican in Obama's Washington.

Let's say you're a Democratic congressman from a swing district. Your constituency actually went for McCain in 2008 while sending you back to Washington on a split ticket. You had some rowdy town hall meetings during the 2009 August recess and decided to vote No on the House health care bill last November. Now the White House is saying that if you don't vote for the Senate bill in the coming weeks, the president won't appear in your district this fall or raise money for you on the road. And the DNC chairman is saying a Yes vote will be rewarded with support from Obama, Organizing for America, and the national party.

Here's the thing: What good would any of this do? To preserve your seat in an anti-incumbent, anti-Washington, anti-big government year, you have to distance yourself from Obama and the national Democrats anyway -- which is why you want to vote No in the first place!

Carrots and sticks don't matter. What matters is how your district will react to a Yes vote. And fear of reprisal -- not from Obama, not from Tim Kaine, but from the people -- is why Pelosi is still coming up short.

Barack Obama went to Ohio yesterday "because of Natoma," he said. That would be Natoma Canfield, who was diagnosed with leukemia on Saturday and faces terribly high health care costs. The president told the Strongsville crowd: "She is racked with worry not only about her illness but about the costs of the tests and the treatment that she's surely going to need to beat it."

Strongsville is in the congressional district of Dennis Kucinich, who previously voted "no" on health care because the bill wasn't liberal enough. The president, seemingly aiming for Kucinich's vote on health care this time around, told this very personal, very touching, story about Natoma. The problem is, it wasn't the whole truth. Fox News reports:

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama's push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com. 

Though Canfield's sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she'll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is "racked with worry" about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help. 

Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said "all indications" at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance. 

"She may be eligible for state Medicaid ... and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. ... In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something," he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

"Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home," he said. 

This manufactured outrage, of course, undermines the last part of the president's speech, when he argued that the bill should not be considered on political grounds: "I don't know about the politics, but I know what's the right thing to do," Obama told the crowd.  

And if the president's trip were really about Natoma, the speech in Kucinich's district surely would not have been scheduled prior to her diagnosis of leukemia. 

From Republican Leader John Boehner's blog:

the Slaughter Solution seems to be the play of the day for Democrats leaders who will do anything to get a government takeover of health care. And of all people, this all should come as a disappointment to President Obama, who made greater transparency and accountability a cornerstone of his new presidency.  Despite that pledge, he once again took to the podium yesterday to call on Democrats to vote yes.  His message was simple:

“We need courage… That’s what we need.  That’s why I came here today.  We need courage.  We need courage.” (President Obama, Strongsville, OH, 3/15/10) 

But rather than demonstrating any “courage” whatsoever, senior Democrats are preparing their “controversial procedure” to pass the infamous Senate health care bill (political payoffs and all) without the usual up or down vote that Americans would expect – and frankly demand – with such a sweeping proposal.

The boss noted earlier: "Obama asks for courage from others when his success is on the line."

The Tea Party has come to Washington to protest the Democratic health care bill.

Meanwhile, pundits are busily trying to figure out the Slaughter Rule, a procedural measure by which the House could "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without actually voting on it. If this sounds confusing, that's because it is.

Even liberal blogger Ezra Klein writes that "this is all about plausible deniability for House members who don't want to vote for the Senate bill, although I doubt many voters will find the denials plausible." Why doubt? A negative public reaction to the health care vote is a near certainty. The question is whether the reaction fades before November.

In other health care news, the previously undecided Dan Maffei, Democrat of New York, says he'll vote Yes when the Senate bill comes up for a vote. Maffei voted for the House bill last November. Jon Adler, Democrat of New Jersey, says he'll vote No. Adler voted No in November, as well. Note that not a single congressman in The Hill's "Firm Yes / Lean Yes / Likely Yes" column voted No last year. Which Democrat(s) will push Obamacare -- and their careers -- over the precipice? We're likely to find out by the end of the week.

Now this is what you call bipartisanship. Hopefully all of those Democrats criticizing the Obama administration's hostility toward Israel don't instinctually flip once they see Palin echoing their words:

The Obama Administration reaches out to some of the world’s worst regimes in the name of their engagement policy. America and our allies watch as sanctions are eased on Cuba. Letters are written to Iran’s mullahs only to see that regime start killing protestors in the streets of Tehran. Envoys are sent to North Korea as they continue to defy the world’s demand to give up their nuclear weapons. The Burmese military junta’s representative is allowed to travel to our nation's capital. The President’s envoy for Sudan talks about giving that genocidal regime “gold stars,” while the President shakes hands with Venezuela’s tyrannical leader. In the midst of all this embracing of enemies, where does the Obama Administration choose to escalate a minor incident into a major diplomatic confrontation? With Iran, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea or Burma? No. With our treasured ally, Israel.

From James Clyburn himself, whose job it is to count the votes Pelosi says she has:

The House's healthcare vote could be delayed until as late as Easter, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Tuesday.

Clyburn, in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers, said it is possible that the House vote on healthcare reform could take place long past the vote Democratic leaders had hoped for this week.

"The chances are good, but I wouldn't bet on it," the third-ranking House Democrat said of whether a healthcare vote could be held by the April 4th holiday.

Whip counts are notoriously built on sand, and Pelosi has been trying to create hers on self-fulfilling prophecy by saying for a week that she has all the votes she needs. But Clyburn's job is to count votes. Shouldn't he sound a bit more optimistic about this if Dems are really to twist all the arms they need to pass health care?

Part of the challenge of getting health-care reform passed once the December '09 deadline passed was to keep creating a sense of urgency and inevitability over and over again. The bipartisan summit did a pretty good job of reforming the process in the wake of Scott Brown's election, and the White House's insistence on a vote this week(ish) has once again created a deadline of sorts.

But how many times can Democrats realistically blow past a deadline and then recreate this sense of legislative urgency? I would have thought they'd hit their limit already. Another trip to their home districts, where opposition to the bill will be much louder than support for it, has the potential to be a death knell. Deafening, active opposition to the bill at home would be the perfect rationale for wavering Dems to refuse, once and for all, to vote "yes," and the final assurance that if they do, they'll be in serious electoral danger. Clyburn's comments seem to open the door to that trip home, where Pelosi's most recent clumsy messaging will have perhaps made voters even more wary of the bill. I refer to Pelosi's, "we have to pass the bill, so you can see what's in it," and health care will "kick open door" to taking the country in a "new direction." (Does anyone else get the sense she's secretly working against the bill?)

Although, at this point, I'm not one to count out the Zombie Bill. Even when it looks its deadest, it still has life.

The Hill reports that a number of Democrats think Hillary Clinton's tongue-lashing of Netanyahu is irresponsible:

"The appropriate response was a shake of the head – not a temper tantrum," Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), a member of the House Jewish Caucus, said in a statement today, "Israel is a sovereign nation and an ally, not a punching bag. Enough already.”

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) criticized the White House for making their response so public.

"The Administration, to the extent that it has disagreements with Israel on policy matters, should find way to do so in private and do what they can to defuse this situation," he said in a statement.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) criticized the administration for an "irresponsibly overreaction."

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) said the response had been "disproportionate" and added that "we all have to take a step back."

And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) said that while the timing of Israel's announcment was "regrettable, it must not cloud the most critical foreign policy issue facing both counties — Iran's nuclear threat."

As a lifelong Duke fan, I sympathize with Paul's position, but I also understand the importance of a basketball rivalry, especially during March.

Trey Grayson, Paul's Republican Senate primary competition, is happy to take a whack at Paul over his basketball allegiance this month. Paul is a Duke Medical School grad. The Duke/Kentucky basketball rivalry has been seething since 1992, when Duke's Christian Laettner hit a buzzer beater to take Duke to the Final Four in a 104-103 victory over Kentucky that is said to be the greatest college basketball game ever played.

Take it away, Trey. "There are big differences between Rand Paul and me."

Though he did not win a single state, Ross Perot garnered almost 20 percent of the national presidential vote in 1992, dooming President George H.W. Bush's reelection campaign. Two years later, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Frank Luntz, and other architects of the Republican Revolution found a way to persuade the Perotistas to swing Republican. (Bill Clinton helped in his own way, too.) The result was GOP dominance in both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

The Perot issues -- government spending, deficits, and debt -- disappeared after the billionaire's last presidential campaign in 1996, when he took only 8 percent of the vote. The 1997 budget deal between Clinton and Gingrich gave us balanced budgets and an eventual surplus. But the Perot voters did not disappear. They remained dormant for years, until the Bush immigration proposals in 2006 and 2007 created a populist backlash. Then came 2009, and Obama's big government liberalism brought the Perot supporters and other disillusioned Americans back into politics. Another Perot moment had begun.

This one may last for a while. Here's William Galston:

For decades, the conventional wisdom has been that concern over public-sector budget deficits and debt was confined to a handful of elected officials and policy wonks. Although Ross Perot challenged that belief in the early 1990s, the consequences of his insurgency soon faded. But now, the massive spending and debt accumulation the government has used to save the financial system and stabilize the economy are in the process of effecting a sea-change in public attitudes. While President Obama’s fiscal commission may well deadlock, the problem that called it into being isn’t going away, and neither are the public’s concerns. The party that masters the emerging new politics of deficits and debt will seize the mantle of national leadership.

Who's it going to be?

"We need courage," President Obama said in Ohio yesterday, imploring Congressional Democrats to pass his health care bill.

Gratifying though it is that the president is taking his talking points from
THE WEEKLY STANDARD editorials, one might make this obvious point: It's
easy for him to say "we" need courage. He's not on the ballot this November.

What's more, this is a man who voted present nearly 130 times as a state
legislator, and who never as a U. S. senator took on any powerful interest
group in his own party. Obama has some admirable qualities, but no one has
every seriously claimed political courage is one of them. But now he's
discovered that virtue--for House Democrats.

Obama on courage reminds me of Machiavelli on liberality. Machiavelli
understands liberality as the art of being generous with other people's
money. Obama asks for courage from others when his success is on the line.

The resolution being considered for introduction today reads, in part:

Resolved, That the Committee on Rules may not report a rule or order that provides for disposition of the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590, an Act entitled The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, unless such rule or order provides for—

(1) at least one hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader, or their designees; and

(2) a requirement that the Speaker put the question on disposition of the Senate amendments and that the yeas and nays be considered as ordered thereon.

And, we all know how fond the Democratic caucus is of an up-or-down vote.

Rep. Dan Maffei of Syracuse voted for the House health-care bill, but was none too fond of the Senate bill as recently as March 8:

"I will trust the president, but I will not trust the Senate," Maffei said. "The Senate bill, in my view, burns the village in order to save it. I will say, however, the president's direct involvement gives me hope they will come up with a compromise."

Today:

“I’m proud to support this legislation, because it is going to expand coverage, lower costs and finally stop so many of the unfair practices insurance companies have been using for too long," Maffei said. "While reform process isn’t pretty, we’ve debated this bill long enough. In fact, we’ve talked about reforming health care for decades. Doing nothing is no longer an option.”

To be fair, who among us has not been "proud" to "burn a village" every now and then?

In a new Rasmussen poll, California senator Barbara Boxer narrowly leads GOP challengers Carly Fiorina and Chuck Devore 46% to 40%. Boxer leads Republican Tom Campbell, who has better name recognition but has come under fire for his association with Sami al-Arian, just 43% to 41%. The fact that Boxer's under 50% against all challengers shows that she's in real trouble. And what will she do when the Demon Sheep come for her?

K.E. Grubbs has the latest rundown on the race in this week's issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The car’s braking system, which cuts power to the engine when the brake pedal is moderately depressed, “was working as designed and would have easily stopped the vehicle,” Mr. Michels said.

Are you ready for the "House has a long history of cowardice" argument?

Health care losing the newspaper editorial boards? WaPo joins the chorus, calling Pelosi's plan to pass Senate bill without voting on it, "unseemly."

Dems plan response to emergency anti-health reform rally on the Hill today.

And, the oppo researchers rejoiced.

"The retirement nest egg of an entire generation is stashed away in this small town along the Ohio River: $2.5 trillion in IOUs from the federal government, payable to the Social Security Administration. It’s time to start cashing them in. … Too bad the federal government already spent that money over the years on other programs, preferring to borrow from Social Security rather than foreign creditors."

Other thoughts on Natoma Canfield: "She may be eligible for state Medicaid ... and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. ... In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something," he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home. "Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home," he said.

It's clearly incumbent upon The Weekly Standard to make this happen.

Ouch: Obama called a fear-monger in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle.

Last night, the first debate was held in the special election to fill Hawaii Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie's vacant seat. Republican Charles Djou, a Honolulu councilman, has a real shot to win. Bush garnered 47% of the votes in this district, and there are two Democrats who may split the liberal vote in the three-way race. Djou seems to have done a good job at drawing contrasts between himself and his Democratic opponents during the debate:

Djou said he would vote against the health reform proposal that could face a key vote in the U.S. House later this week. "The reason I will not vote in favor of it is because it's going to cost too much and it's not going to fix our problem in health care," he said.

Case responded by saying: "I ask Charles directly how are you going to cover the 30 million Americans (who don’t have health care) because I do not believe that a market-based reform system which is what you advocate is going to do that job."Democrats Hanabusa and Case support the multi-billion dollar stimulus program. "That kept many people working. So to say the stimulus did not work is not true in Hawaii," Hanabusa said. But Djou, a Republican, says the stimulus did not work, and he faulted both Republicans and Democrats for raising the budget deficit in recent years. "What the Bush administration did being wrong with half a trillion dollar budget deficit doesn't make it right now that the Obama administration and the majority congress is wanting a one-point-six trillion dollar budget deficit," he said, referring to the amount of money added to the federal deficit.

It only takes a plurality to win the May 22 election (though the election really begins on April 30 when ballots are mailed out across the district).

Via Politico

The Foreign Policy Initiative has released "Foreign Policy 2010," a compilation of analysis and commentary on critical foreign policy and national security issues for use by members of Congress and congressional candidates. Readers of THE WEEKLY STANDARD will recognize many of the authors highlighted in "Foreign Policy 2010."  The briefing book is available here and will be updated throughout 2010.

Paul Ryan: This entire process has been a disgrace.

Clyburn suggests the House might not vote until just before Easter.

Poor Babies: Nancy Pelosi lines up the kiddie human shields.

Video: Jim Inhofe discusses great American magazines on the Senate floor.

Read Steven F. Hayward's latest cover story here.

President Obama said at his speech today in Ohio:

"There is no cutting of your guaranteed Medicare benefits, period. No ifs, ands or buts. This proposal makes Medicare stronger, it makes the coverage better, and it makes the finances more secure. And anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed or they're trying to misinform you. Don't let them hoodwink you."

Others would disagree. According to the head of the Congressional Budget Office:

"CBO expects that Medicare spending under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades--well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades--about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."

As Bill Kristol wrote in December:

CBO is explaining that the legislation's claim to fiscal responsibility requires cutting in half the rate of growth of per capita Medicare spending. And, according to CBO, absent magical greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care, accomplishing those fiscal goals might well require reducing access to health care and/or diminishing the quality of health care. So less access and lower quality is a very real possible consequence of this legislation. This is a point critics of the bill cannot allow to be lost in all the hubbub.

Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) recently explained that Obamacare, unlike his free-market plan, would "deeply and systematically ration health care."

Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter last week that the Independent Medicare Advisory Council would "undermine the quality of care we provide to our own citizens and slow progress in biomedical sciences globally."

Did I mention this death panel is unrepealable?

John McCain and Joe Lieberman took to the Senate floor to respond to the Obama administration's recent outrage toward Israel. (Jen Rubin provides analysis here.) Here's the video exchange: 

Here's a partial (rough) transcript of Lieberman's remarks: 

The American relationship with Israel is one of the strongest, most important, most steadfast bilateral alliances we have in the world because it’s not based on temporal, that is matters that come and go, or politics and diplomacy. It’s based on shared values, shared strategic interests in the world and unfortunately, now the fact that we in the United States and the Israelis are also targets of the Islamist extremists, the terrorists who threaten the security of so much of the world. We have a strong bilateral relationship. The second thing to say is, in answering my friend’s question, is that the Israelis depend, to a very large degree, on America’s friendship as they approach the world…We’re friends. It’s as if we’re part of the same family. Without that confidence, Israel will never have the confidence in the U.S.—without that confidence in the U.S.-Israel relationship, the Israelis will not have the confidence to take the risks necessary for peace. And so the uproar over the last several days is very troubling, in that regard. 

Politico reports:

The second-ranking House Republican blasted the Obama administration as “irresponsible” in its dealings with Israel, accusing the White House of trying to curry favor with the Arab world by deriding America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia also declined to condemn Israel for announcing the construction of more settlements while Vice President Joe Biden was on a visit to the country. Many diplomacy experts saw that move as a snub to the Obama administration, hurting relations between the longtime allies.

“While it condemns Israel, the administration continues to ignore a host of Palestinian provocations that undermine prospects for peace in the region,” Cantor said in a statement. “Where is the outrage when top Fatah officials call for riots on the Temple Mount? Why does the Palestinian Authority get a pass when it holds a ceremony glorifying the woman responsible for one of the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history? Surely, the Administration’s double standard has set back the peace process.”

Former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina is losing to former congressman Tom Campbell in the race to challenge Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. What she isn't losing is the ad war. Fiorina enlisted consultant Fred Davis, creator of John McCain's famous 2008 "Celebrity" ad, to zing her opponents while showing her in a favorable light. Davis hasn't disappointed. His latest, "Hot Air," is a seven-minute assault on Boxer that portrays her as an out of touch liberal with a huge ego. Watch:

Davis also created the "Demon Sheep" ad from a while back:

The spots are off-beat and funny. But they also go heavy on generalities. Watch the "Hot Air" ad, and you get the impression that Fiorina is running on her biography and little more. No question her personal story is compelling. But it might not be enough to defeat Campbell and dethrone Boxer.

Actor Peter Graves, aka Jim Phelps of Mission Impossible, died yesterday of natural causes at the age of 83.

Besides starring in the MI series for six years on television (Variety notes he turned down the role opposite Tom Cruise in the 1996 movie—I suspect because the movie version of Phelps makes him a turncoat), Graves had other stints on TV from the early 1960s up until today (Cold Case, American Dad). He also had a role in Billy Wilder's Stalag 17. But many will remember Graves for a part he almost turned down—that of Captain Oveur in Airplane! Graves read the most absurd lines with the straightest face, nonchalantly asking a boy, "Have you ever been in a Turkish prison?" A recent YouTube clip helpfully combines all of his scenes in the movie:

From ABC:

To retain votes in the Senate, the White House is now backing away from its ban on special deals for individual states, which was a promise the president made after the "Cornhusker Kickback" was revealed -- giving Nebraska extra Medicaid money to win Sen. Ben Nelson's vote.

From the AP:

The White House asked lawmakers to delete $100 million to build a public hospital in Connecticut inserted by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn. But the money will remain in the final bill, according to people familiar with Democratic negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity to disclose the unannounced decision. Less certain is the fate of other money the White House wants eliminated for Montana.

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., put a provision in the Senate health bill allowing many of the 2,900 residents of Libby to qualify for Medicare benefits. Some of them have asbestos-related diseases from a now shuttered mine.

"It simply doesn't make sense to ignore this obligation, or victims of these disasters," Baucus said.

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., won a Senate provision making it easier for longtime coal miners or miners' widows to get compensation for black lung disease.

The Senate bill also has extra money for hospitals and doctors in North and South Dakota, Montana and Wyoming.

Do House Democrats really want to be blamed for the Senate's corruption?

Robert Gibbs and Karl Rove ran into each other in the Fox News greenroom yesterday (yes, that's Bill Kristol in the background):

Gibbs and Rove