Obama's final health care rally is being held at George Mason University.
What would its namesake say at a moment like this?
Perhaps, "attend with diligence and strict integrity to the interest of your correspondents and enter into no engagements which you have not the almost certain means of performing."
(So that's a "no" to we'll-pay-for-it-with-a-tax-hike-in-2018, huh?)
"There never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people."
"In all our associations; in all our agreements let us never lose sight of this fundamental maxim - that all power was originally lodged in, and consequently is derived from, the people." (Sounds like a Tea Partier.)
Also, it looks like he met a young Robert Byrd: "I wish I knew where to get a good one myself; for I find cold Sheets extremely disagreeable."
Chances Are, Your Congressman Didn't Really Read the Bill
The Virginia Republican Party has been torturing various staffers and volunteers, making them read the Senate version of the health care bill aloud. Why?
J. Garren Shipley, the state GOP communications director, explains: "If it has taken our team more than 48 hours of non-stop reading to get through this bill, do you think the average Democratic member of Congress has read this bill they're rushing to pass on Sunday? We've found some outrageous stuff in this legislation that has nothing to do with health care, like a federal mandate to put nutrition information on fast food menus. I don't think you'll see that in any of the Democratic talking points."
"And there are tons of other examples of things in here that have nothing to do with health insurance," Shipley continues. "But you'd never know it was in there unless you read the bill. Got an FSA or HSA through your employer? There are severe limits on how much money can be put into these accounts and how it can be used, like a prohibition on the purchase of non-prescription drugs. And we haven't even touched on the fact that this bill — and the reconciliation package — levy billions upon billions of dollars in new taxes on citizens of all income levels. This bill is a Democrat Christmas tree of government expansion, packed full of pet projects and fixes to pet peeves — a vision of the federal government as the cure for any and every ill in society. And you wouldn't know any of this, unless you read the bill. That's why we've been reading it. Hopefully, Gerry Connolly, Glenn Nye, Tom Perriello and Rick Boucher have been listening. Because if they really knew what was in here, there's no way they'd still be undecided."
And you thought the time for talk was over. Obviously, reading aloud takes more time than simply reading a bill, but just how quickly can a lawmaker read a 2,407 page bill and a 153 page reconciliation package?
You can listen to the hoarse-throated, exhausted staffers here.
222 House Democrats signed on for the Demonpass. Multiply that by three. No wonder this legislative penta-debacle is heading to committee for the Markup of the Beast. It’s not like we weren’t warned; they’ve been telling us the devil is in the details since day one. Now there’s higher premiums and hell to pay . . .
Indo-Amnesia
An ironic quote over in Foreign Policy: “In many ways, America has been somewhat absent from the region over the last several years and we are committed to restoring that leadership,” said National Security Council communications director Ben Rhodeson Monday, calling the trip an “important opportunity to advance American interests in this vitally important part of the world.” Boy, nothing dispels a sense of being absent from the region like putting long-promised, long-expected trips on the Wimpy hamburger reimbursement schedule.
By the way, think the Aussies are cool with getting stood up to the Pan-Pacific prom? Headline in the Sydney Morning Herald: “Obama ditches Indonesia, Australia trip over health care.” I suppose we should be glad the words “DROP DEAD” weren’t used . . .
Is This Israel Policy Real?
I know, it’s Day Three of Jim Callously Dismissing Palestinian Suffering, and you’re probably tiring of this topic. (Of course, compared to health care, it feels new and fresh. I don’t mean the recent diplomatic brouhaha, I mean the health care debate feels like it’s been going on longer than the Arab-Israeli conflict.) But each day there’s some new “what the hell is this schvitz” moment that illustrates how wildly off-course we’ve gone. Fox News: “President Obama has delayed his trip to Indonesia and Australia to deal with health care, but has not committed to any meetings with Israeli leaders who are scheduled to be in Washington next week and are perhaps hoping to repair what many observers are calling a mis-step between the U.S. and Israel over settlements and a trip to the region by the Vice President.”
My first thought when Obama refuses to meet with a foreign leader is that the Chinese must object. But no, this is apparently a continuation of our temper tantrum from earlier last week. Recall, the offer to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions has never been off the table, but the head of state who’s an ally is not welcome. With his absolute inability to get a face-to-face meeting with the president, you would think Bibi was Stanley McChrystal or something.
Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.): Still a No, Still Thinks Slaughter Rule Is Bad, but Voted Yes Today
From a reader who called Massachusetts Democrat Stephen Lynch:
Because Altmire and Lynch have both come out against the Slaughter Rule (and Lynch released a statement announcing his switch to NO today), I contacted their offices to ask how they could have voted to permit the Slaughter Rule in the just-concluded House vote. Altmire's office said they haven't gotten a statement just yet, but Lynch's office maintains that today's vote was purely a procedural vote, and one which had nothing to do with health care. They maintain that Lynch is still against the Senate Bill and the Slaughter Rule.
I informed Boehner's office and they couldn't explain this except to say that it was technically true (even though everyone knew what the purpose of this procedural vote was), and that there have been cases, such as TARP, where someone will vote to allow legislation to come to the floor and then vote against the legislation.
Perhaps Altmire and Lynch think leadership should have the right to use the Slaughter Rule, even though they personally are against it? Altmire said pretty much exactly this on Hannity last night.
A lot of people are now saying if Pelosi had 222 votes to defeat the Republicans' attempts to block the Slaughter Rule, that she must then have at least as many to vote for the actual Rule on Sunday (or whenever it's brought for a vote). But perhaps there other reasons why some Democrats votes with their party this afternoon . . .
I'm not sure how you explain calling a rule "disingenuous" one day and literally vote to okay it the next, but if Lynch votes "no" on health care, I suspect few will remember that aspect of this debate . . .
House Democrats Can Rest Easy, as Long as Their Constituents Are Stupid
Perhaps the "House Democrat logic" that eludes me below rests on the supposition that constituents are stupid and will believe anything you tell them. Stacy, a constituent of John Barrow, Georgia Democrat, shares this less-than-edifying discussion with a staffer:
Just got off the phone with a Barrow lackey. He tried to convince me that Barrow wants an up or down vote on the health care bill and blamed the Republicans for forcing Barrow to vote against requiring an up or down vote on the health care bill. I have been told for days and days that he is reading the bill. They will not tell us how he will vote on the health care bill or even how he will vote on the rule regarding the self execution of the bill. Is he reading that too?
He also told me that no matter what is in the Senate bill, the Hyde Bill will prevent federal funds from being used for abortions. So I asked what all the fuss was about then. He told me the fuss is once again because of the Republicans. I asked him if Stupak was a Republican. Then he rambled off a bunch more nonsense about Republicans and threw in a few lies about the Bush tax cuts — HUH?!?
I was asked if I had a message for my Congressman. I told them to tell Barrow that we aren’t as stupid as the people answering the phones want to believe we are.
Barrow's position, apparently, is that he wants an up-or-down vote on the health-care bill, so he voted for a resolution that ensures there will be no up-or-down vote on the health-care bill.
UPDATE: From another reader in Georgia, living in the other district represented by a vulnerable Democrat:
I called Jim Marshall (D-GA), my former congressman before I moved a few miles outside the district. I was assured by the guy answering the phone that he is a definite no. But then I asked, OK then why did he vote for the Slaughter rule? The guy mumbled something about procedure to pass. I think he was just a guy reading off a script and so I didn't want to get into it with him, what's the point. But he did say 3 or 4 times that Jim Marshall is a no. FWIW.
John Barrow sounds like a definite cave.
To be fair, just about every count I've seen has considered Marshall a likely "no."
Two readers offer completely contradictory views on what it means that so many vulnerable and wavering House Democrats chose to vote "yes" on a resolution approving use of the deem-and-pass/demonpass maneuver.
The optimist, a smart, well-plugged in reader:
If a Democrat is planning to vote NO on the bill, it doesn’t hurt to vote YES on Slaughter as some proactive restitution to Pelosi. The majority party has to win a procedural vote. It also keeps Pelosi’s henchmen at bay for a few hours. I note that both Nye and Dahlkemper voted NO, which is truly encouraging.
The pessimist: "How many 'yes' on demonpass and will vote 'no' on the healthcare bill . . . I'd bet less than 5."
Today's result surprised me, because I figured a vote on health-care bill is easier to defend than this maneuver. On health-care, you can argue, 'Yes, I didn't like X, Y, and Z, but I liked that the bill wouldn't allow health-insurance companies to turn down applicants for preexisting conditions,' etc.
On deem-and-pass, the defense is "Well, it's legal." Voters can't get their heads around passing a bill without voting on it, and they aren't interested in hearing about how the other guys did it too (considering how nothing that it was used on had as far-reaching impact this bill does). It looks like an attempt to hide one's vote, and it adds to the notion that this is a bill you don't want to brag about supporting.
The logic of the House Democrat mind eludes me sometimes.
At first glance, here are some of the vulnerable House Democrats who just voted that the health care bill does not require a separate vote, and that demonpass/deem-and-pass is just dandy:
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania.
John Barrow, Georgia.
John Boccieri, Ohio.
Allen Boyd, Florida.
Leonard Boswell, Iowa.
Steve Driehaus, Ohio.
Joe Donnelly, Indiana.
Brad Ellsworth, Indiana.
Baron Hill, Indiana.
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio.
Dan Maffei, New York.
Jim Marshall, Georgia.
Jim Matheson, Utah.
Michael McMahon, New York.
Betsy Markey, Colorado.
Patrick Murphy, Pennsylvania.
Earl Pomeroy, North Dakota.
Nick Rahall, West Virginia.
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania.
Carol Shea Porter, New Hampshire.
Ike Skelton, Missouri.
Zach Space, Ohio.
John Spratt, South Carolina.
Charlie Wilson, Ohio.
This does not count retirees.
UPDATE: A reader nominates Mike Ross of Arkansas, a worthy addition. As I wrote, this was a "first glance" list.
Another argues that Kaptur is not that vulnerable (it is a D+10 district), but she seems to be sweating the abortion angle of the legislation, so I suspect she senses significant political fallout from this vote.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Another reader makes the case for Gerry Connolly of Virginia.
In short, neither side has the 216; the noes look a little bit ahead, but that means nothing if most of the remaining undecided - all Democrats - support the bill and just don't want to say so yet.
UPDATE: A couple folks quibble with the phrase, "game over." Put another way, once there are 216 certain "no" votes, Pelosi will not call the vote. They'll keep trying to pry someone loose, and note that three empty seats will be filled in the coming months. (Democrats have a really good shot in Wexler's district, a decent shot in Murtha's district, and a still-workable shot in Abercombie's district.)
Obama has been pressing Cao? If they need him, they're screwed.
2 new Yes votes go to No.
President puts off trip until June, which must mean it isn't going to happen by Sunday.
This is bad news, I don't care how much they spin the CBO score.
I concur on Cao; he's been talking about his doubts on the Senate version since January.
Arcuri was more or less suspected to be a "no." Lynch surprises me.
The Sunday departure was in trouble when the CBO didn't offer its score yesterday afternoon.
By my count, Pelosi still needs a lot of folks to flip from "no" to "yes." You know the likely crew: Bart Gordon, John Tanner, Brian Baird, John Boccieri, Suzanne Kosmas, Betsy Markey, Scott Murphy, Jim Matheson, Harry Teague, Travis Childers, John Barrow, Jason Altmire, Glenn Nye.
Not Even a Statue Guarantees You an Obama Visit, Huh?
Obama's trip to Indonesia, Guam, and Australia is postponed.
Somewhere, in a Jakarta park, a poor lonely statue of young Barack Obama stands and waits for its subject to arrive and inspect it. And waits, and waits, and waits . . .
I Suspect Michael Arcuri Hears Richard Hanna's Footsteps
Michael Arcuri, Democrat of New York, is telling colleagues he's a "no" on the health-care bill. He was a "yes" last fall.
I can't help but suspect that entrepreneur and philanthropist Richard Hanna had something to do with it. Arcuri beat Hanna by 4 percentage points — about 10,000 votes. (Obama won this district by about 6,500 votes; four years earlier, Bush won it by about 17,000 votes.) Hanna is running again this year.
And to Think, I Called Him 'President Telemarketer'
Organizing for America — now under the auspices of the DNC — just called my cell phone, and asked if I could attend Obama's rally at George Mason University.
January 2011 Should See a Lot of New Governors Taking the Oath
Larry Sabato currently predicts that voters will replace a Democratic governor with a Republican one in the states of Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
He predicts that voters will replace a Republican governor with a Democratic one in the states of California and Hawaii.
A lot of races are still rated toss-ups: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vermont.
A lotof folks are scratching their heads over a comment President Obama made to Bret Baier about the infamous "Louisiana Purchase":
That provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that. . . . It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake.
But there's a catch. Yes, that was a pretty powerful earthquake, but judging from press accounts, thankfully injuries were pretty minor. USA Today: "No deaths or serious injuries were reported." The FEMA report from two days afterward makes no mention of injuries or problems at medical facilities. When Bush declared the event a federal disaster, Fox News reported, "No deaths or serious injuries were reported, and the damage appeared to be scattered, allowing most tourists and residents to resume life as normal."
Katrina's impact on Louisiana's health-care system and the health problems of its residents is pretty clear and straightforward; by no stretch of the imagination did the quake overwhelm Hawaiian health-care facilities. Comparing this earthquake to Katrina seems rather absurd; life returned to normal in most of Hawaii within a few days, compared to the years of rebuilding necessary in certain parts of Louisiana.
Obama: Forget the Details, Let's Just Pass This Thing Quick
President Obama, during his interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier: "What I'm saying is whatever they end up voting on — and I hope it's going to be sometime this week — that it is going to be a vote for or against my health-care proposal. That's what matters." Moments later:
BAIER: OK, the Florida deal, in or out?
OBAMA: The Florida deal —
BAIER: Paying for Medicare Advantage, exempting 800,000 Floridians from —
OBAMA: My understanding is that whatever is going to be done on Medicare is going to apply across the board to all states.
So the president hopes for a vote within the next three days, even though he's really not sure whether the special deals are in or out.
I Digged This Candidate, but There Are Other Strong Ones
Here's a surprise, and a disappointment: Diggs Brown is dropping his bid for the House of Representatives in Colorado.
Colorado's 4th congressional district was a spot where the GOP had more good candidates than slots on the ballot. Diggs Brown appealed to me as a veteran of the war on terror; as his campaign noted, "While serving in Afghanistan, the Taliban had a $10,000 bounty on Diggs Brown’s life." How many other House candidates can say that?
There are still two good candidates in this race; state legislator Cory Gardner of Yuma, one of the rising stars of the GOP in state government, and Tom Lucero, a member of the Colorado Board of Regents, who led the charge on that looney-tunes professor Ward Churchill.
The winner of the GOP primary takes on Democrat Betsy Markey of Fort Collins, in a district McCain narrowly carried and that Bush won, 58 percent to 41 percent.
Rep. Stephen Lynch, says a proposed parliamentary move to pass health-care reform would be “disingenuous” and harm the credibility of Congress.
In a sign of how tough it’s been for Pelosi to round up votes for the massive bill, Lynch — a South Boston Democrat who supported a House reform package last year — said he’ll probably vote against a key Senate version of the legislation, unless unexpected major changes are made soon.
A Massachusetts Democrat is backing away from the health-care bill. Thank you, Sen. Scott Brown.
As usual, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe . . . There's much more, including health care, but I figure you're tired of that. From this morning's Jolt:
Obama’s Israeli Policy Follows the Success of Our Iran, India, Russia, Czech, Poland, Japan and Great Britain Policies
The Economist: “Friends have spats, but this seems to be more than that. America has not simply accepted Mr Netanyahu’s prompt apology. Opinion in the administration is said to be divided. Mr Biden himself and many State Department officials, together with George Mitchell, who was to have supervised the now-stalled proximity talks, advised cooling things down. But, whether out of rage or calculation, Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton preferred to escalate.”
Boy, there’s a reassuring calculation about what drives our policy choices, huh? 50/50 shot this is deliberate or we’re just lashing out at blind rage at the one ally in the region we would trust in a back-alley knife fight. And how utterly screwed are we when Joe Biden has become the voice of reason on Middle East policy?
The headline in Haaretz is “Netanyahu's brother-in-law: Obama is an anti-Semite” but the story actually quotes him as saying Obama is “anti-Israel.” I don’t think the terms are quite the same, although the middle portion of that venn diagram is pretty big.Is Obama an anti-Semite? Well, the chief of staff being former IDF and the indispensability of Axelrod would appear to dispel that notion. But whether Obama is anti-Israel is a fairer question, and I think it’s increasingly safe to say that Obama is no particular friend of Israel and is no longer all that worried about being seen as neutral or worse on Israel.
Jen Rubin: “The answer is that Obama seeks to ingratiate himself with the thug-ocracies and put the screws on Israel. The answer is that Obama views Israeli actions not in the best possible light, as one would expect a valued friend to do, but in the worst possible light. And the answer is that neither Obama nor his administration can think through the implications of their actions (Will acquiescence work with Syria? Will bullying win over the Israelis?) or appreciate the moral distinction between a democratic friend and a rogue state. They are both morally obtuse and politically (domestically and internationally) tone-deaf.”
Bingo. Obama sees himself as this grand peacemaker, who stands above the petty conflicts of others and bridges the warring sides. Of course, if you stand above disputes, you don’t take sides, and thus you see the functioning democracy and western values of Israel as morally indistinguishable from the vast underage suicide bomber academy that is Palestinian society. I hit the roof when my little guy throws a Thomas the Tank engine; halfway around the world, some Palestianan Papa is offering his son tips on how to throw the rock most powerfully when he runs in front of an Israeli tank.
The subtext of the Kagan column from yesterday was pretty clear: all around the world, we’re spitting on our allies and groveling before our enemies and the most hostile states. For two years, we argued that the world didn’t work the way Obama said it did; now we’re getting to see the results.
Are Some House Democrats Trying to 'Just Say Nothing'?
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal offers this intriguing tidbit, via the WSJ Political Diary e-mail:
A Congressional Budget Office estimate on the cost of certain proposed House changes to the Senate bill is late. Sources tell me that the original scoring of the bill tripped the psychological barrier of $1 trillion in costs for the program's first years, forcing a last-minute scramble for even more tax increases to pay for it. One option — accelerating imposition of a tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health care plans — will anger labor unions whose members often enjoy such plans.
Rounding up the votes for health care has also proven difficult. House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn told McClatchy Newspapers that final consideration of the bill may not occur until Easter (April 4) or later. He is dealing with dozens of members who refuse to commit to a firm position in hopes their silence will force the leadership to pull the bill and move on to other issues. "Just say nothing," is how one Democratic staffer explained the strategy being taken by many members. "Maybe it will just go away, and we can avoid a tough vote this close to the election."
On the one hand, if this mentality is widespread, it might explain why we have so many undecided (or at least claiming to be undecided) folks — 77 by one count! — with the final vote coming up in two days and change. And it's not that hard to imagine a nervous House Democrat thinking they can escape a tough spot by refusing to take a position.
But is it really conceivable that Pelosi would scrap the president's signature legislative agenda item without a vote? If these folks wanted the bill to go away, wouldn't they be better off privately indicating to Pelosi that if it comes to a vote, they'll have to be a "no"?
And what happens when "just say nothing" is no longer viable? "Just vote present"?
Virginia AG: 'Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge.'
Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli fires a warning shot across Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bow. A letter just sent:
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Office of the Speaker H-232, U.S. Capitol Washington, D.C.
Dear Speaker Pelosi:
I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under a so-called “deem and pass” rule because such a course of action would raise grave constitutional questions.
Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill. This is an improper purpose under the bicameralism requirements of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, one of the purposes of which is to make our representatives fully accountable for their votes.
Furthermore, to be validly enacted, the Senate bill would have to be accepted by the House in a form that is word-for-word identical (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)).
Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge.
A bill of this magnitude should not be passed using this maneuver. As the President noted last week, the American people are entitled to an up or down vote.
Sincerely, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II Attorney General of Virginia
Voters Who Haven't Yet Picked a Candidate Generally Loathe This Bill
According to a poll commissioned by the RNC, 58 percent of those who are undecided on the generic ballot [do you want to elect a Republican or a Democrat to Congress] oppose “the president’s health care reform measure”; 27 percent support it.
When asked if they support “the health care legislation,” 60 percent of those who are undecided on the generic ballot oppose it, 30 percent support it.
When asked whether the current bill should be passed as soon as possible or scrapped, 66 percent of those undecided on the generic ballot say "scrap it"; 20 percent say pass it as soon as possible.
Only 25 percent say they’re more likely to vote for a candidate who voted for the health-care bill; 51 percent say they’re less likely.
Needless to say, the cuts to Medicare Advantage are supremely unpopular; 10 percent say they’re more likely to vote for a candidate who voted to cut the program, and 69 percent say they’re less likely.
Then these voters were asked, “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?I would consider voting for a Republican for Congress to send a message to President Obama and the Democrats and make them listen to the concerns of voters like me.” Among those who said they were undecided on the generic ballot, 53 percent said agree, 31 percent said disagree.
Yet the Democrats tell themselves that passing this legislative smorgasbord of grief will help them in November.
When Illinois Democrats Won't Get on Board, This Bill's in Trouble
An Illinois Democrat switches from yes to no, is lobbied by the White House, and remains a "no."
And oh, by the way, this Democrat, Jerry Costello, represents a district that Obama won, 56 percent to 43 percent; Costello hasn't had less than 60 percent of the vote since 1998.
I'm starting to think Pelosi isn't going to get her 216. For starters, Obamacare backers seemed awfully excited about Kucinich's support, which I suspect a lot of us thought would eventually fall into place. Second, he's actually the least useful new supporter in terms of persuading the other waverers; "Approved by Dennis Kucinich" isn't a slogan that flies in the district of Baron Hill in Indiana or John Barrow in Georgia or Glenn Nye in Virginia.
We're still counting about two dozen holdouts and waverers and undecideds; this is after several weeks of all-out pressure from Obama, Pelosi, Hoyer and the others.
I'm not willing to say that Pelosi can't get the votes. But it sure is taking a long while to get retirees like Brian Baird, Bart Gordon, and John Tanner officially on board, isn't it? I thought they were supposed to be a slam dunk, comparably . . .
[Margorie Margolies Mezvinsky] also writes "I voted my conscience and it cost me." I'm not sure Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar will be able to say that first part, after announcing he will vote for the bill. Anyone out there ready to challenge him and make at least half that sentence relevant to him?
If she means electoral challenge, a trio of Republicans seek to send the 75-year-old, 18-term incumbent into involuntary retirement. Chip Cravaak is a retired naval officer; Justin Eichorn is a small business owner and national bowling champion (!); and Darrel Trulson is a businessman and former local official in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Oberstar is obviously a local legend, but it's not a terribly Democratic district, rated D+3 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. Duluth and the Iron Range are the traditional Democratic strongholds, while the southern counties are trending more Republican, according to Michael Barone's Almanac of American Politics.
A poll commissioned by the pro-life women's group the Susan B. Anthony List revealed the powerful political impact of Oberstar's "yes" vote:
73% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (61% strongly oppose) 74% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (60% strongly oppose) 68% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (54% strongly agree) 56% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Oberstar if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (36% would be much less likely)
