Fred Barnes: The Health-Care Wars Are Only Beginning. 

Michael Barone: "The House voted this afternoon by a 222-203 margin to pass the 'Slaughter solution' rule authorizing a single vote on the Senate health care bill which the House leadership wants to send to the president for signature plus the reconciliation health measure the House leadership wants to send to the Senate."

Fox News estimates: The new tally is 211 yeas to 220 nays.

Firedoglake's guess: Health care whip count update: 191 Yes, 206 No (203-210 with leaners).

Senators grill Obama nominee Mari Carmen Aponte’s ties to Cuban officials.

Michael Gerson: Eric Holder's massive ineptness.

The CBO’s most recent analysis is out, and it’s not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence.  Even the Democrats are granting that the latest version of their proposed health care overhaul would cost $69 billion more than the previous version.  According to the CBO, this version would siphon even more money out of Medicare, make even further cuts to Medicare Advantage, and levy even higher taxes and fines on the American people.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and their allies, are cheerfully citing “ten year” costs of $940,000,000,000.00 — apparently believing this to be a far more palatable figure than $1 trillion.  But even this colossal tally is like the introductory price quoted by a cell phone provider.  It’s the price before you pay for minutes, fees, and overcharges — and before the price balloons after the introductory offer expires. 

For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn’t remotely reflect the bill’s real ten-year costs.  First, it includes 2010 as the initial year.  As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time.  Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009.  But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare.  If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill’s ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.

But even that wouldn’t come close to reflecting the bill’s true costs.  The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill’s alleged “ten year” costs would hit:  just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming.  In fact, the costs through President Obama’s entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion.  What would the president leave behind for his successor?  According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor’s first term alone.  If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs — about six times its costs during Obama’s own tenure.  This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.

To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014.  The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs.  Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.”  Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade. 

How would we pay for all of this?  According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion.  Among the Medicare cuts would be cuts of $25,000 in Medicare Advantage benefits per enrollee — up from $21,000 in the previous scoring.  To be clear, those living in South Florida wouldn’t have to worry about this, as the newly politicized nature of health care would cause them to be exempted.  These cuts would affect only less-fortunate seniors, namely those living in just about any other part of the country.

E.J. Dionne is pretty excited that NETWORK, an organization of Catholic nuns, supports the Senate health care bill and says it doesn't use federal dollars to pay for abortions. That claim isn't true (more on that soon), but the endorsement is supposed to give Democrats cover to vote for the bill. The Post's news report by staff writers Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane shows you why Dionne thinks this is such a big deal:

Meanwhile, in an unusual schism within the Catholic Church over abortion, a consortium of 59,000 nuns waded into the debate, declaring their support for the legislation despite the insistence of the nation's bishops and antiabortion groups that it would open the door to federal funding of abortion.

"Despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions," the group said in a letter signed by leaders of dozens of religious orders. "It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments . . . in support of pregnant women. This is the real pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it."

The Post reporters give no hint that NETWORK is a "progressive" organization, but that's exactly how the group describes itself on its own website. One of the group's board members works at "Wellstone Action," an organization named after the late left-wing--and pro-abortion--senator Paul Wellstone. Among the top 10 issues on NETWORK's agenda, you'll see that defending the right to life is not on the list. This is hardly an "unusual schism" within the Catholic Church.

But the Post's most egregious error is its report that 59,000 nuns endorsed the health bill, when 59,000 is roughly the total number of nuns in the United States. Steven Ertelt reports:

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, the director of media relations for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, emailed LifeNews.com with a rebuttal.

"A recent letter from Network, a social justice lobby of sisters, grossly overstated whom they represent in a letter to Congress that was also released to media," she writes. "Network’s letter, about health care reform, was signed by a few dozen people, and despite what Network said, they do not come anywhere near representing 59,000 American sisters."

"The letter had 55 signatories, some individuals, some groups of three to five persons. One endorser signed twice," she noted. "There are 793 religious communities in the United States. The math is clear. Network is far off the mark."

In fact, there are only 59,000 women in Catholic religious orders in the United States, meaning the Network letter could never have represented all, or even most, of them.

Meanwhile, in a new statement, the Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious spoke out against the letter endorsing the pro-abortion health care bill, saying it is “directly” opposed to Catholic Church teachings.

The CMSWR statement declares the Senate health insurance bill unacceptable based on the legislation’s expansion of abortion funding and its inadequate protection of health care workers’ right of conscience. [...]

The CMSWR represents over 103 women religious communities and 10,000 members.

Don't make Retracto the Correction Alpaca come after you, WaPo reporters. Spare him the trouble, and correct this error now.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan:

"I have very closely taken a look at the compromise version, I read the (Congressional Budget Office) budget analysis today and I have decided that I am going to support this bill and vote for the bill," the Fort Collins Democrat said.

Her home paper, The Denver Post, on the bill, last week:

We once were strong proponents of health care reform and had hoped to see a bill that included a public option to bring down costs.

This is a bad bill, and it's not worth Democrats jumping off this cliff.

Her constituents in CO-4 oppose the bill by about 56-33, according to Politico's Josh Kraushaar.

A perspicacious reader writes:

What, of course, is interesting about the arm twisting of undecided congressmen is how little Joe Biden is involved. You would think a guy who was in Congress for forever would be able to convince colleagues, or at least would be tasked with such an assignment. That Obama is doing it personally reflects little confidence in Biden and also a micro-managing of the legislation he refused to be involved in drafting and ironing out. Compare with Bush, who delegated this responsibility to Cheney, who was apparently far more effective than either Biden or Obama. Certainly his victories were less public so there were not quite so many process stories, which seem like the only articles coming out of the White House any more.

One possibility: Obama doesn't want Biden anywhere near Congress because he fears our intrepid vice president, God love him, would make yet another silly gaffe.

Let's set the table. You can read the reconciliation text here. The preliminary CBO analysis is here.

Democrats played with the numbers in order to produce the result they wanted. If the bill had increased the deficit, it would have been unable to proceed under the Byrd reconciliation rule. So they went fishing for the perfect schedule of taxes and spending, fees, restrictions, and subsidies. And they found it. The problem? "The CBO process has now been so thoroughly gamed that it's useless," says Megan McArdle.

Health care reform is going to wind up being tremendously expensive. As Philip Klein notes: "Democrats have maintained the strategy of delaying the major spending provisions until 2014 to create the appearance that the bill is cheaper over the CBO's ten year budget window, from 2010 through 2019. In this version, the bill spends $17 billion in the first four years, while the remaining $923 billion, or 98 percent, is spent in the next six years."

Klein also produces this helpful chart. See if you can spot the trend:

Obamacare Chart: Philip KleinMeanwhile, Democrats hope to convince wavering members that they have the momentum. First Read floats a report saying Pelosi is only five votes away from victory. Ramesh Ponnuru says that's bogus: A whip count on K Street, he says, "has fewer than 30 undecideds, with Pelosi needing two-thirds." Look at the Firedoglake whip count, and there are still more Nos than Yeses. It's going to be a long weekend.

Dr. Coburn speaks. But will Democrats listen?

Rep. Stephen Lynch has just released the following statement:

Congressman Lynch does not support the Senate version of healthcare reform because it has stripped most of the serious reform from the House version of the bill and rewards insurance companies instead.

If there were a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill as it is currently written, Congressman Lynch would vote no. 

Furthermore, Mr. Lynch opposes using any procedural maneuvering to approve the bill without requiring members to actually vote on it, such as the so-called ‘deem and pass’ option.   He would prefer a straight-forward up or down vote on a bill of this magnitude.

As MKH notes below, Obama has postponed his Asia trip until June. Liberals are excited; surely Obama wouldn't have canceled the trip unless he was assured the bill would pass. I mean, it's not like he's been embarrassed by a last-minute travel decision before ... 

Sen. Kent Conrad, speaking to Roll Call and Fox, says the Senate will likely be unable to pass unchanged the reconciliation bill the House passes, even if the House can pass it:

Conrad said the Senate Parliamentarian has declined to make rulings on several issues in the bill that Republicans are likely to challenge under the “Byrd rule.” That rule states that, among other things, every provision of a budget reconciliation bill must have a budget impact and cannot be “extraneous.”

“Although we’ve spent many, many hours with the Parliamentarian, some things he has not yet rendered a conclusion” on, Conrad said. “He wants to hear from both sides before he does.”

Conrad continued: “Do I expect there will be some additional Byrd rule challenges that will be upheld? Yeah. I do.”

Sixty votes are needed to waive Byrd rule points of order, but with only 59 members in the Democratic Conference and united GOP opposition to the bill, Democrats are unlikely to meet that threshold if the Parliamentarian decides any provision in the bill violates the Byrd rule or the budget act. If a point of order is sustained, the offending provision would be struck from the bill, and the entire measure would need to passed again in the House before heading to the president for his signature.

Conrad said House leaders were fully aware that some Byrd rule challenges might be successful, even though House Members have insisted that the Senate pass the measure unamended and unchanged. The House is expected to vote on the reconciliation bill Sunday while simultaneously passing the larger Senate-passed health care bill.

“They’re fully aware where we stand,” Conrad said. “They know because they’ve agreed to take lots of things out in order to avoid Byrd rule issues, but they know full well, as do we, that the Parliamentarian has not reached conclusion on everything and won’t until he hears from both sides. And, you know, I just think that the odds would tell you — I mean out of 153 pages [in the bill] — that there are probably going to be a few things that still will be subject to a Byrd rule challenge and maybe some of them successful.”

Conrad also said the Parliamentarian has not ruled on whether changes to the “Cadillac” insurance tax would violate budget act rules prohibiting provisions from dealing with Social Security. Senate Republicans have said they are likely to mount a challenge to those changes.

No wonder Obama postponed his trip until June.

In order to obtain a friendly CBO score, the Democrats lowered the threshold at which health insurance plans will be subject to the excise tax. That threshold is now pegged at inflation, which means more and more plans will be subject to bracket creep over time.

Yet labor coalition Change to Win says it supports the revised Senate bill. And AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka is in talks with his executive committee over the changes to the tax. The AFL-CIO is expected to support the bill, as well, despite the changes. Why?

Yesterday Trumka was summoned to an unscheduled meeting at the White House. One wonders what he was told. Could it have been that the regressive changes to the taxes and subsidies shouldn't sway his support for the bill, since the Democrats can always cancel them once they kick down the door?

In his press conference today, the first held in the Rose Garden, Robert Gibbs announced that Obama will push off his trip to Indonesia and Australia to June so that he can be around for the health-care reform vote, expected to happen Sunday.

"The president greatly regrets the delay," Gibbs said. "But passage of health care reform is of paramount importance, and the president is determined to see this battle through."

Nancy Pelosi reacts:

"I'm glad. I like having him here," she said.

Chip Reid asked Gibbs whether the President would be worried about the constitutionality of a bill passed with "deem-and-pass." Gibbs said he'd have no reservations about signing such a bill:

"He would sign that bill, yes."

From Hotline:

A key House Dem has begun informing party leaders he plans to vote against health care legislation both on the House floor and in the rules committee, on which he sits.

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-NY), a sophomore Dem who had a tougher-than-expected re-election bid in '08, has told the Dem caucus he will vote against the bill.

He becomes the 3rd member, along with Reps. Joe Donnelly (D-IN) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), to have switched from supporting the first bill, in Nov., to opposing the Senate version.

Arcuri had made noises suggesting he'd vote "no," but a confirmation today right before the Democrats' press conference was helpful. I can't emphasize enough how fluid these vote confirmations may end up being, but Arcuri is a yes-to-no flip from a non-Stupak Democrat, so if he stays that way, it's good news.

John McCormack sends this story from two days ago, which suggests Nancy Pelosi's arm-twisting may not be as effective as she's hoping:

Like many others, Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.), a member of the Rules Committee who had signaled he might vote against the package, is waiting on a chance to read the final bill. But that didn’t stop Pelosi from giving him the personal treatment late last week in her office. As he left, Pelosi had him up against the wall of her hallway in an intense conversation.

But Arcuri, whose vote could prove critical, said immediately afterward that his position had not changed, and he is still undecided.

House majority leader Steny Hoyer has informed his colleagues of the CBO health bill score. Politico reports: 

The bill would cost $940 billion, and reduce the deficit by $130 billion over the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years. The deficit numbers Democrats have been most worried about, and will be key to convincing moderates to coming on board with the bill.

Keep in mind that the second decade estimate is incredibly speculative. Overall, though, this score may move some undecided congressmen into the Yes column. Whether those congressmen will be members who voted No last year is another question entirely, however. Perhaps they will have seen this video:

More CBO details, and the final reconciliation language, are expected later today. A Sunday morning vote is now likely. Gentlemen: Start your engines! The countdown has begun.

Update, 11:03 a.m. Via NRO, the guy in the video is challenging the notion that the numbers leadership is peddling are accurate: “The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate.  Yet House Democrats are touting to the press — and spinning for partisan gain — numbers that have not been released and are impossible to confirm.  Rep. James Clyburn stated he was 'giddy' about these unsubstantiated numbers.  This is the latest outrageous exploitation by the Majority — in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost.”

Something to keep in mind as the conversation unfolds today. Unless of course politics is temporarily suspended for the March Madness tip-off.

Update, 11:30 a.m. CBO says the numbers are preliminary: “Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.”

Will the Hoyer leak backfire?

The link to the full, new CBO score is, here (PDF).

But this is health care. There is never any sense of closure or finality to be had, so I give you the CBO's up-front caveat about this score:

Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its
release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its
consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a
review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and
refinement of the budgetary projections.

Our friend Phil Klein is doing a quicker read of the score than most, and his updates can be found, here. Factoid:

HC bills would cost $17 billion in first 4 years, $923 billion in remaining 6 years!

The White House reacts, as reported by Major Garrett on Twitter: "WH anxiety was over a CBO setback, not hope for a clincher. WH believes its on track and House will pass bill Sunday."

Update: Congress Daily reporter Anna Edney reports a leadership aide tells her a final CBO score will be released Friday or Saturday.

Historian Robert Darnton on early modern blogs:

Short, scurrilous abuse proliferated in all sorts of communication systems: taunts scribbled on palazzi during the feuds of Renaissance Italy, ritual insult known as “playing the dozens” among African Americans, posters carried in demonstrations against despotic regimes, and graffiti on many occasions such as the uprising in Paris of May–June 1968 (one read “Voici la maison d’un affreux petit bourgeois”). When expertly mixed, provocation and pithiness could be dynamite—the verbal or written equivalent of Molotov cocktails.

This subject deserves more study, because for all of their explosiveness, the blog-like elements in earlier eras of communication tend to be ignored by sociologists, political scientists, and historians who concentrate on full-scale texts and formal discourse.

To appreciate the importance of a pre-modern blog, consult a database such as Eighteenth Century Collections Online and download a newspaper from eighteenth-century London. It will have no headlines, no bylines, no clear distinction between news and ads, and no spatial articulation in the dense columns of type, aside from one crucial ingredient: the paragraph. Paragraphs were self-sufficient units of news. They had no connection with one another, because writers and readers had no concept of a news “story” as a narrative that would run for more than a few dozen words. News came in bite-sized bits, often “advices” of a sober nature—the arrival of a ship, the birth of an heir to a noble title—until the 1770s, when they became juicy. Pre-modern scandal sheets appeared, exploiting the recent discovery about the magnetic pull of news toward names. As editors of the Morning Postand the Morning Herald, two men of the cloth, the Reverend Henry Bate (known as “the Reverend Bruiser”) and the Reverend William Jackson (known as “Dr. Viper”) packed their paragraphs with gossip about the great, and this new kind of news sold like hotcakes. Much of it came from a bountiful source: the coffee house.

Fantastic stuff. And almost as gripping as this story about a surfing alpaca.

More bad news for Democrats in the latest Pew survey. Forty-eight percent oppose the health bill, 38 percent approve. Obama's job approval is down to 46 percent, with 43 percent disapproval. A majority says health care costs will increase despite passage of health care reform. Ask voters what they think of Congress, and the four words you are most likely to hear are “dysfunctional,” “corrupt,” “self-serving,” and “inept.” "Tickle fight" didn't make the cut.

On a brighter note, the public continues to admire and like Obama personally, even if they are deeply divided when evaluating his job performance. And voters also say the war in Afghanistan is improving. Prosecution of the war there continues to be one of the president's strongest issues.

Even so, the more time the Democrats spend on health care, the worse their political situation becomes. A new PPP poll gives the GOP a three-point lead in the generic ballot. Republicans are intensely enthusiastic about the midterm election while Democrats are not. Obama's Gallup numbers are no good. And yet the Democrats press on and on and on.

The Democrats' race to pass health care reform is getting exhausting. It's not only the constant rush of developments to the story. The poor undecided congressmen are also tuckered out:

Rep. Jason Altmire has met with President Obama twice this month and received a phone call from Air Force One. Two planes circled his western Pennsylvania district, trailing banners urging him to vote against the health-care bill. And conservative "tea party" activists confronted him at his office, trying to force him to answer: "Are you for or against the bill?"

The pressure has been extreme over the past two weeks on Altmire and the few dozen House Democrats who say they still have not decidedhow they will vote on ambitious legislation designed to remake the nation's health-care system.

Says Bart Stupak: “All the phones are unplugged at our house — tired of the obscene calls and threats. [My wife] won’t watch TV,” Stupak said during an hourlong interview with The Hill in his Rayburn office. “People saying they’re going to spit on you and all this. That’s just not fun.”

No, it's not. It's a do-or-die moment and one of the most significant (and costly) social reforms in American history is at stake. The president isn't exactly kidding when he says his presidency is on the line. If health care fails, he'd surely have time to recover. But his credibility would take a huge blow and Democrats would run away screaming from his agenda. At least I think that's the point Jacob Hacker makes here.

Not that passing the bill would make things any better. Grover Norquist points out that, if health care reform passes, Obama would break his pledge not to raise middle-class taxes -- and thus doom his reelection bid. It's a bad idea to make predictions about an election that is several geologic ages away. But the no-new-middle-class-taxes pledge is going to come back to Obama for sure.

Where does the bill stand? The Kucinich flip helps Pelosi. But he's still the only No Democrat to announce he's a Yes this time around. Still to come: the heretofore mythical CBO score and the introduction of the rule, which will include the final reconciliation language. At this point the earliest a vote can be called is Sunday morning. Don't be surprised if Obama postpones his Pacific trip once more.

G.B. Shaw famously said you could lay a thousand economists end to end and they would not reach a conclusion. Even so, today a group of 100 economists sent a letter to Obama and Pelosi explaining how the Senate bill will saddle the economy with tax increases, increased health costs, and burdensome public debt.

Also, set some time aside to read Fred Barnes's Wall Street Journal op-ed today. He makes a crucial point: Whatever happens this week is the beginning, not the end, of the health care debate. If the bill passes, it will reshape politics. The Democrats will move quickly to add a public option and more generous (i.e., expensive) subsidies and benefits. Legal challenges and the battle to change or repeal the law will begin. Every year, the parties will clash over spending. If wavering Democrats are tired now, just wait. Before long they'll be collapsing from fatigue.

Provided they still have a job, of course.

A new Resurgent Republic poll released today finds a host of opportunities for Republicans among this fast growing group of Americans.

In an article summarizing the results of the survey, Ed Goes and Leslie Sanchez (both Resurgent Republic advisory board members) underscore the importance of this growing demographic group of Americans.

It is widely expected that the 2010 Census will show the U.S. Hispanic population continues to be our nation’s largest, fastest growing minority group, surpassing the present totals of 47 million people or over 15 percent of the population.

The poll finds Hispanics care a lot about fiscal policy issues. And despite historically aligning with Democrats, they now side more with a host of GOP messages when it comes to spending and the deficit. Goeas and Sanchez write: 

On the economy, reckless government spending and record federal deficits lay the groundwork for Republicans to increase their standing with Hispanic voters, 50 percent of whom believe the nation is on the wrong track. Democrat leaders boldly embrace an $800 billion-plus shovel-ready stimulus, yet Hispanic voters say it is not working and that any unspent funds should be used to reduce the deficit, 51 to 43 percent.

When asked if the federal government should spend more to help the economy recover or spend less to help reduce the budget deficit, Hispanic voters support spending less by a margin of 54 to 38 percent.

Despite supporting  Barack Obama by a large 67 -31 percent margin in 2008, many Hispanics now express some buyer’s remorse. Goeas and Sanchez write:

For all the high expectations and promise of the Obama presidency, only 15 percent believe the situation for Hispanics is better compared to a year ago. While a strong majority (61 percent) believe the situation for Hispanics is about the same, 20 percent believe it’s worse.

Goeas and Sanchez conclude their analysis by pointing to national security and fiscal policy issues as the areas of greatest opportunity for Republicans.

Disenchantment with many of the policies of President Obama and the Democratic Congress has caused Hispanic voters to be more open to persuasion from Republicans. Embracing commonality with Hispanic voters on fiscal and national security issues could reshape the long-term political narrative in a significant way

Read the full results of the Resurgent Republic survey here.

If the Democrats’ health care bill were a chemical, the Environmental Protection Agency might label it as a toxic substance lethal to incumbents.  More wavering House lawmakers are realizing this chilling electoral reality as the showdown vote approaches in the next several days.

What’s keeping vulnerable Democrats up at night? The likelihood that even voting “no”  might not be enough to protect some of them from the poisonous political atmosphere that has been building and that passage of the bill could further aggravate.

Just ask some of the incumbent Republicans who lost in the pro-Democratic tsunamis of 2006 and 2008, like former GOP Reps. Chris Shays or Rob Simmons of Connecticut, Phil English of Pennsylvania, or Jeb Bradley and Charlie Bass in New Hampshire.

At various times these House members voted against President George W. Bush or their leadership in Congress, thinking it would distnace them from their party’s increasingly poisonous brand and angry voters.  It didn’t work.

“In those two cycles -- in certain districts -- just having an R next to your name was toxic,” Ken Spain, communications director of the House Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, said. “These incumbents worked hard and tried everything, including voting against their leadership and the White House on occasion.  But even that wasn’t enough,” he added. 

The three dozen or so Democrats who end up voting against the health care bill could be in the same boat.  With 253 Democrats in the House, up to 37 could vote “no” and the measure would still reach the bare minimum 216 needed, assuming every Republican also opposes the plan. Passage of the controversial measure will only further pollute the environment, making it impossible for some of them to survive.

Lee Smith: A Middle East Without American Influence? That's the logical outcome of the Obama administration's current policies.

Israel's image in America falls. Abe Greenwald takes a look. 

Top al Qaeda Operative Is Killed in U.S. Drone Attack.

Tevi Troy in National Affairs: Bush, Obama, and the Intellectuals.

The president fills in his March Madness bracket:

Fox News Channel's Bret Baier interviewed President Obama today. It wasn't what you'd call a friendly encounter. Baier, concerned that the president was filibustering, repeatedly interrupted the chief executive. Obama quickly grew frustrated. Before long, the look on his face suggested he was wondering why he agreed to the interview in the first place.

Obama stuck to his talking points. He emphasized the social benefits of reform -- everyone would have to have health insurance, no one would be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions, insurance companies couldn't drop you from the rolls when you got sick. That's the ice cream. What tripped Obama up was the spinach. He found it hard to defend special deals like the Cornhusker Kickback, Gator Aid, and Louisiana Purchase. He gave a rambling and evasive answer when Baier asked why the bill double-counts Medicare "savings." He said health care reform would pass because "it's the right thing to do." Guess that settles it, then.

I'll leave you with this great quote from David Brooks:

Either this whole city has gone insane or I have or both. But I’m out here on the ledge and I’m not coming in the window. In my view this is no longer about health care. It’s just Democrats wanting to pass a bill, any bill, and shredding anything they have to in order to get it done. It’s about taking every sin the Republicans committed when they were busy being corrupted by power and matching it with interest.

And the rest of us get stuck with the bill.

Yossi Klein Halevi comments from Jerusalem on "The Crisis" in the liberal New Republic. He ends with a serious charge: "[W]hat is clear today in Jerusalem is that Obama's recklessness is endangering Israeli--and Palestinian--lives. As I listen to police sirens outside my window, Obama's political intifada against Netanyahu seems to be turning into a third intifada over Jerusalem." 

Here's the first part of his piece:

JERUSALEM—Suddenly, my city feels again like a war zone. Since the suicide bombings ended in 2005, life in Jerusalem has been for the most part relatively calm. The worst disruptions have been the traffic jams resulting from construction of a light rail, just like in a normal city. But now, again, there are clusters of helmeted border police near the gates of the Old City, black smoke from burning tires in the Arab village across from my porch, young men marching with green Islamist flags toward my neighborhood, ambulances parked at strategic places ready for this city's ultimate nightmare.

The return of menace to Jerusalem is not because a mid-level bureaucrat announced stage four of a seven-stage process in the eventual construction of 1,600 apartments in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood in northeast Jerusalem. Such announcements and building projects have become so routine over the years that Palestinians have scarcely responded, let alone violently. In negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis, the permanence of Ramat Shlomo, and other Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, has been a given. Ramat Shlomo, located between the Jewish neighborhoods of French Hill and Ramot, will remain within the boundaries of Israeli Jerusalem according to every peace plan. Unlike the small Jewish enclaves inserted into Arab neighborhoods, on which Israelis are strongly divided, building in the established Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem defines the national consensus.

Why, then, the outbreak of violence now? Why Hamas's "day of rage" over Jerusalem and the Palestinian Authority's call to gather on the Temple Mount to "save" the Dome of the Rock from non-existent plans to build the Third Temple? Why the sudden outrage over rebuilding a synagogue, destroyed by the Jordanians in 1948, in the Old City's Jewish Quarter, when dozens of synagogues and yeshivas have been built in the quarter without incident?

The answer lies not in Jerusalem but in Washington. By placing the issue of building in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem at the center of the peace process, President Obama has inadvertently challenged the Palestinians to do no less.

In addition to this New Republic piece, be sure to read Shlomo Avineri's recent review of Dennis Ross's and David Makovsky's book in the Jewish Review of Books. Here's a snippet:

The authors try to reintroduce realism into US policy in the region, but realism based on reality, not on abstract constructs. They also argue that the administration should carefully nurture reform in the Arab world—and they identify some of the more prominent reformers who should be encouraged. But this should be done without undermining existing regimes, realizing this is a long-term process, not a deus ex machina. After all, Bush’s insistence on Palestinian elections granted Hamas not only a plurality but also quasi-democratic legitimacy. Pushing for peace should also be accompanied by a measured assessment of what is feasible, as opposed to a pipe dream, even if it looks nice on paper. Hence, conflict management rather than conflict resolution should be seriously considered—after all, this has been the approach in Cyprus, Bosnia, and Kosovo after more ambitious peace plans have failed.

There is an obvious subtext to all of this: aside from telling a political story, the authors also maintain that the claim that the US should “distance” itself from Israel, and thus regain its standing in the Arab world, is wrong-headed. It is a timely reminder, bolstered by sound historical knowledge and understanding of the region.

The book’s value is enhanced by the fact that both authors are “doves”: they believe in a two-state solution and find the Israeli settlement policies unconscionable on both moral and political grounds. In the past, Ross has sometimes been accused by Israeli negotiators of being “pro-Palestinian.” But being dovish does not mean being starry-eyed or ignorant. Therein lie wisdom and moderation.

Read the whole thing.