SELECT YOUR VOTE

Comment On: Josh Gerstein in POLITICO: A four-hour stop in New Orleans, on his way to a $3 million fundraiser. Snubbing the Dalai Lama. Signing off on a secret deal with drug makers.Freezing out a TV network. Doing more fundraisers than the last president. More golf, too.

President Barack Obama has done all of those things — and more.

What’s remarkable is what hasn’t happened. These episodes haven’t become metaphors for Obama’s personal and political character — or consuming controversies that sidetracked the rest of his agenda.
Read the whole story

>>Charles W. Calomiris: I am shocked — SHOCKED!! — to discover that the media favor President Obama, give him constant free passes for things they would criticize about President Bush, and often neglect to focus on his foibles. My main reaction to the "Where’s the Outrage?" article is "Where’s the News?" My other reaction is that it might not be so bad that the media have decided not to report on the President’s golf or basketball games or how many hours he spent on a recent trip to New Orleans if the media used the space to delve deeper into substantive matters about policy.The bigger problem is that the media aren’t focusing on the litany of mistakes that matter. The list is a long one, enough to make Jimmy Carter jealous. In foreign policy: dithering over Afghanistan, betrayal of allies in eastern Europe to cowtow to Russia, ineffectual strategies on Iran and North Korea, and support for leftist blowhards in Latin America. In economic policy: anti-free trade policy visible in the failure to complete any bilateral trade deals and the imposition of a 35% tire tariff, intrusion into the GM and Chrylser bankruptcies to protect the unions from making sacrifices which will make it impossible for these firms to compete, huge proposed tax increases on income and carbon that will stunt growth, wasteful government spending masquerading as "stimulus," disastrous healthcare "reform" proposals that would increase costs and destroy competition among private healthcare providers, a poorly designed carbon tax policy that despite its costs will accomplish virtually nothing for the environment. And as for inappropriate White House actions that should be drawing attention, the press has said little about the use of a "pay czar" to micromanage the pay of individuals at seven government-assisted firms, deciding on a case-by-case basis who deserves a high salary and who does not, without oversight or accountability, and openly in pursuit of political expediency (as the "czar" put it when explaining some of his actions: “to avoid another public uproar over pay packages at the bailed-out company”). The pay cuts are also part of the President’s "show them the instruments" campaign to intimidate Wall Street so that they will stop "opposing change" on financial reform. And that is not an isolated incident. The President seems not to have much respect for concepts like due process and accountability when they get in the way of what he wants. Yes, the press is giving President Obama a free pass, but it’s not what they aren’t saying about his time on the golf course that worries me, it’s the things he does when he is not playing golf that deserve attention and criticism. But I guess (as noted in the "Where’s the Outrage?" article) that wouldn’t fit the "story line."

>>Charles W. Calomiris: I am shocked — SHOCKED!! — to discover that the media favor President Obama, give him constant free passes for things they would criticize about President Bush, and often neglect to focus on his foibles. My main reaction to the "Where’s the Outrage?" article is "Where’s the News?" My other reaction is that it might not be so bad that the media have decided not to report on the President’s golf or basketball games or how many hours he spent on a recent trip to New Orleans if the media used the space to delve deeper into substantive matters about policy.The bigger problem is that the media aren’t focusing on the litany of mistakes that matter. The list is a long one, enough to make Jimmy Carter jealous. In foreign policy: dithering over Afghanistan, betrayal of allies in eastern Europe to cowtow to Russia, ineffectual strategies on Iran and North Korea, and support for leftist blowhards in Latin America. In economic policy: anti-free trade policy visible in the failure to complete any bilateral trade deals and the imposition of a 35% tire tariff, intrusion into the GM and Chrylser bankruptcies to protect the unions from making sacrifices which will make it impossible for these firms to compete, huge proposed tax increases on income and carbon that will stunt growth, wasteful government spending masquerading as "stimulus," disastrous healthcare "reform" proposals that would increase costs and destroy competition among private healthcare providers, a poorly designed carbon tax policy that despite its costs will accomplish virtually nothing for the environment. And as for inappropriate White House actions that should be drawing attention, the press has said little about the use of a "pay czar" to micromanage the pay of individuals at seven government-assisted firms, deciding on a case-by-case basis who deserves a high salary and who does not, without oversight or accountability, and openly in pursuit of political expediency (as the "czar" put it when explaining some of his actions: “to avoid another public uproar over pay packages at the bailed-out company”). The pay cuts are also part of the President’s "show them the instruments" campaign to intimidate Wall Street so that they will stop "opposing change" on financial reform. And that is not an isolated incident. The President seems not to have much respect for concepts like due process and accountability when they get in the way of what he wants. Yes, the press is giving President Obama a free pass, but it’s not what they aren’t saying about his time on the golf course that worries me, it’s the things he does when he is not playing golf that deserve attention and criticism. But I guess (as noted in the "Where’s the Outrage?" article) that wouldn’t fit the "story line."

>>Bradley A. Smith: As to "where’s the outrage" and the coverage of President Obama, we can all, I hope, at least get a good morning chuckle out of this line: " Obama’s aides say the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding."

>>Charles W. Calomiris: I am shocked — SHOCKED!! — to discover that the media favor President Obama, give him constant free passes for things they would criticize about President Bush, and often neglect to focus on his foibles. My main reaction to the "Where’s the Outrage?" article is "Where’s the News?" My other reaction is that it might not be so bad that the media have decided not to report on the President’s golf or basketball games or how many hours he spent on a recent trip to New Orleans if the media used the space to delve deeper into substantive matters about policy.The bigger problem is that the media aren’t focusing on the litany of mistakes that matter. The list is a long one, enough to make Jimmy Carter jealous. In foreign policy: dithering over Afghanistan, betrayal of allies in eastern Europe to cowtow to Russia, ineffectual strategies on Iran and North Korea, and support for leftist blowhards in Latin America. In economic policy: anti-free trade policy visible in the failure to complete any bilateral trade deals and the imposition of a 35% tire tariff, intrusion into the GM and Chrylser bankruptcies to protect the unions from making sacrifices which will make it impossible for these firms to compete, huge proposed tax increases on income and carbon that will stunt growth, wasteful government spending masquerading as "stimulus," disastrous healthcare "reform" proposals that would increase costs and destroy competition among private healthcare providers, a poorly designed carbon tax policy that despite its costs will accomplish virtually nothing for the environment. And as for inappropriate White House actions that should be drawing attention, the press has said little about the use of a "pay czar" to micromanage the pay of individuals at seven government-assisted firms, deciding on a case-by-case basis who deserves a high salary and who does not, without oversight or accountability, and openly in pursuit of political expediency (as the "czar" put it when explaining some of his actions: “to avoid another public uproar over pay packages at the bailed-out company”). The pay cuts are also part of the President’s "show them the instruments" campaign to intimidate Wall Street so that they will stop "opposing change" on financial reform. And that is not an isolated incident. The President seems not to have much respect for concepts like due process and accountability when they get in the way of what he wants. Yes, the press is giving President Obama a free pass, but it’s not what they aren’t saying about his time on the golf course that worries me, it’s the things he does when he is not playing golf that deserve attention and criticism. But I guess (as noted in the "Where’s the Outrage?" article) that wouldn’t fit the "story line."

>>Bradley A. Smith: As to "where’s the outrage" and the coverage of President Obama, we can all, I hope, at least get a good morning chuckle out of this line: " Obama’s aides say the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding."

>>Greg Dworkin: Republicans ask where’s the outrage" over complaints (many superficial, some not) about the Obama WH? Even now, I don’t think Republicans are introspective enough about the damage Katrina did to the Bush Presidency, and the damage Bush did to the Republican party. One major reason is that these are more sober times, with Americans aware that there are more important things to worry about, but another is that the Bush legacy was set in stone when Katrina was mismanaged. It wasn’t simply an error of judgment by someone who could be replaced (mistakes happen, yea, even in Washington), it was the deliberate and intrinsic dismantling of FEMA and the replacement of disaster management professionals with political appointees like Michael Brown, and 20-something political minders assigned to prevent science from occurring at NOAA and other agencies if it didn’t fit a conservative agenda (and that included muzzling the Surgeon General, Richard Carmona.) We have a different approach now, one that’s widely known to be more grounded in science (thank goodness) and policy (agree or disagree) than politics. For that reason, charges that “the Obama WH is too political” have fallen on deaf ears.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: I am shocked — SHOCKED!! — to discover that the media favor President Obama, give him constant free passes for things they would criticize about President Bush, and often neglect to focus on his foibles. My main reaction to the "Where’s the Outrage?" article is "Where’s the News?" My other reaction is that it might not be so bad that the media have decided not to report on the President’s golf or basketball games or how many hours he spent on a recent trip to New Orleans if the media used the space to delve deeper into substantive matters about policy.The bigger problem is that the media aren’t focusing on the litany of mistakes that matter. The list is a long one, enough to make Jimmy Carter jealous. In foreign policy: dithering over Afghanistan, betrayal of allies in eastern Europe to cowtow to Russia, ineffectual strategies on Iran and North Korea, and support for leftist blowhards in Latin America. In economic policy: anti-free trade policy visible in the failure to complete any bilateral trade deals and the imposition of a 35% tire tariff, intrusion into the GM and Chrylser bankruptcies to protect the unions from making sacrifices which will make it impossible for these firms to compete, huge proposed tax increases on income and carbon that will stunt growth, wasteful government spending masquerading as "stimulus," disastrous healthcare "reform" proposals that would increase costs and destroy competition among private healthcare providers, a poorly designed carbon tax policy that despite its costs will accomplish virtually nothing for the environment. And as for inappropriate White House actions that should be drawing attention, the press has said little about the use of a "pay czar" to micromanage the pay of individuals at seven government-assisted firms, deciding on a case-by-case basis who deserves a high salary and who does not, without oversight or accountability, and openly in pursuit of political expediency (as the "czar" put it when explaining some of his actions: “to avoid another public uproar over pay packages at the bailed-out company”). The pay cuts are also part of the President’s "show them the instruments" campaign to intimidate Wall Street so that they will stop "opposing change" on financial reform. And that is not an isolated incident. The President seems not to have much respect for concepts like due process and accountability when they get in the way of what he wants. Yes, the press is giving President Obama a free pass, but it’s not what they aren’t saying about his time on the golf course that worries me, it’s the things he does when he is not playing golf that deserve attention and criticism. But I guess (as noted in the "Where’s the Outrage?" article) that wouldn’t fit the "story line."

>>Bradley A. Smith: As to "where’s the outrage" and the coverage of President Obama, we can all, I hope, at least get a good morning chuckle out of this line: " Obama’s aides say the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding."

>>Greg Dworkin: Republicans ask where’s the outrage" over complaints (many superficial, some not) about the Obama WH? Even now, I don’t think Republicans are introspective enough about the damage Katrina did to the Bush Presidency, and the damage Bush did to the Republican party. One major reason is that these are more sober times, with Americans aware that there are more important things to worry about, but another is that the Bush legacy was set in stone when Katrina was mismanaged. It wasn’t simply an error of judgment by someone who could be replaced (mistakes happen, yea, even in Washington), it was the deliberate and intrinsic dismantling of FEMA and the replacement of disaster management professionals with political appointees like Michael Brown, and 20-something political minders assigned to prevent science from occurring at NOAA and other agencies if it didn’t fit a conservative agenda (and that included muzzling the Surgeon General, Richard Carmona.) We have a different approach now, one that’s widely known to be more grounded in science (thank goodness) and policy (agree or disagree) than politics. For that reason, charges that “the Obama WH is too political” have fallen on deaf ears.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The media is still in the tank for Obama. The Politico article was right on in pointing to the double standard of coverage between Bush and Obama. There is no doubt that our current president is getting a pass on activities that would be fodder had Bush done the same things. The bottom-line for Republicans is this, do not be consumed with what the skewed coverage is and don’t harp on it. The way to regain parody with Democrats is through ideas and pointing to the deficiencies in their governance. Next week Republicans will pick up at least one governors race and may be two that are currently held by Democrats. Then will come in short order the mid-term elections where historically the party not in power picks up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans should be focused on 2010. The Democrats majority on the House and Senate could be short lived or dramatically curtailed.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: I am shocked — SHOCKED!! — to discover that the media favor President Obama, give him constant free passes for things they would criticize about President Bush, and often neglect to focus on his foibles. My main reaction to the "Where’s the Outrage?" article is "Where’s the News?" My other reaction is that it might not be so bad that the media have decided not to report on the President’s golf or basketball games or how many hours he spent on a recent trip to New Orleans if the media used the space to delve deeper into substantive matters about policy.The bigger problem is that the media aren’t focusing on the litany of mistakes that matter. The list is a long one, enough to make Jimmy Carter jealous. In foreign policy: dithering over Afghanistan, betrayal of allies in eastern Europe to cowtow to Russia, ineffectual strategies on Iran and North Korea, and support for leftist blowhards in Latin America. In economic policy: anti-free trade policy visible in the failure to complete any bilateral trade deals and the imposition of a 35% tire tariff, intrusion into the GM and Chrylser bankruptcies to protect the unions from making sacrifices which will make it impossible for these firms to compete, huge proposed tax increases on income and carbon that will stunt growth, wasteful government spending masquerading as "stimulus," disastrous healthcare "reform" proposals that would increase costs and destroy competition among private healthcare providers, a poorly designed carbon tax policy that despite its costs will accomplish virtually nothing for the environment. And as for inappropriate White House actions that should be drawing attention, the press has said little about the use of a "pay czar" to micromanage the pay of individuals at seven government-assisted firms, deciding on a case-by-case basis who deserves a high salary and who does not, without oversight or accountability, and openly in pursuit of political expediency (as the "czar" put it when explaining some of his actions: “to avoid another public uproar over pay packages at the bailed-out company”). The pay cuts are also part of the President’s "show them the instruments" campaign to intimidate Wall Street so that they will stop "opposing change" on financial reform. And that is not an isolated incident. The President seems not to have much respect for concepts like due process and accountability when they get in the way of what he wants. Yes, the press is giving President Obama a free pass, but it’s not what they aren’t saying about his time on the golf course that worries me, it’s the things he does when he is not playing golf that deserve attention and criticism. But I guess (as noted in the "Where’s the Outrage?" article) that wouldn’t fit the "story line."

>>Bradley A. Smith: As to "where’s the outrage" and the coverage of President Obama, we can all, I hope, at least get a good morning chuckle out of this line: " Obama’s aides say the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding."

>>Greg Dworkin: Republicans ask where’s the outrage" over complaints (many superficial, some not) about the Obama WH? Even now, I don’t think Republicans are introspective enough about the damage Katrina did to the Bush Presidency, and the damage Bush did to the Republican party. One major reason is that these are more sober times, with Americans aware that there are more important things to worry about, but another is that the Bush legacy was set in stone when Katrina was mismanaged. It wasn’t simply an error of judgment by someone who could be replaced (mistakes happen, yea, even in Washington), it was the deliberate and intrinsic dismantling of FEMA and the replacement of disaster management professionals with political appointees like Michael Brown, and 20-something political minders assigned to prevent science from occurring at NOAA and other agencies if it didn’t fit a conservative agenda (and that included muzzling the Surgeon General, Richard Carmona.) We have a different approach now, one that’s widely known to be more grounded in science (thank goodness) and policy (agree or disagree) than politics. For that reason, charges that “the Obama WH is too political” have fallen on deaf ears.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The media is still in the tank for Obama. The Politico article was right on in pointing to the double standard of coverage between Bush and Obama. There is no doubt that our current president is getting a pass on activities that would be fodder had Bush done the same things. The bottom-line for Republicans is this, do not be consumed with what the skewed coverage is and don’t harp on it. The way to regain parody with Democrats is through ideas and pointing to the deficiencies in their governance. Next week Republicans will pick up at least one governors race and may be two that are currently held by Democrats. Then will come in short order the mid-term elections where historically the party not in power picks up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans should be focused on 2010. The Democrats majority on the House and Senate could be short lived or dramatically curtailed.

>>Bill Bishop: This is the oldest social psychology experiment on earth. In 1951, students at Princeton and Dartmouth watched a film of a football game between the two schools. The students were asked to take note of foul play. Dartmouth students saw offenses committed by Princeton players. Princeton students saw Dartmouth’s fouls.

Israelis and Palestinians come to totally different conclusions after watching the same news spot. Francis Bacon wrote in 1620 that “human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”

This is what happens when politics (and news and religion and neighborhoods) go tribal.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: I am shocked — SHOCKED!! — to discover that the media favor President Obama, give him constant free passes for things they would criticize about President Bush, and often neglect to focus on his foibles. My main reaction to the "Where’s the Outrage?" article is "Where’s the News?" My other reaction is that it might not be so bad that the media have decided not to report on the President’s golf or basketball games or how many hours he spent on a recent trip to New Orleans if the media used the space to delve deeper into substantive matters about policy.The bigger problem is that the media aren’t focusing on the litany of mistakes that matter. The list is a long one, enough to make Jimmy Carter jealous. In foreign policy: dithering over Afghanistan, betrayal of allies in eastern Europe to cowtow to Russia, ineffectual strategies on Iran and North Korea, and support for leftist blowhards in Latin America. In economic policy: anti-free trade policy visible in the failure to complete any bilateral trade deals and the imposition of a 35% tire tariff, intrusion into the GM and Chrylser bankruptcies to protect the unions from making sacrifices which will make it impossible for these firms to compete, huge proposed tax increases on income and carbon that will stunt growth, wasteful government spending masquerading as "stimulus," disastrous healthcare "reform" proposals that would increase costs and destroy competition among private healthcare providers, a poorly designed carbon tax policy that despite its costs will accomplish virtually nothing for the environment. And as for inappropriate White House actions that should be drawing attention, the press has said little about the use of a "pay czar" to micromanage the pay of individuals at seven government-assisted firms, deciding on a case-by-case basis who deserves a high salary and who does not, without oversight or accountability, and openly in pursuit of political expediency (as the "czar" put it when explaining some of his actions: “to avoid another public uproar over pay packages at the bailed-out company”). The pay cuts are also part of the President’s "show them the instruments" campaign to intimidate Wall Street so that they will stop "opposing change" on financial reform. And that is not an isolated incident. The President seems not to have much respect for concepts like due process and accountability when they get in the way of what he wants. Yes, the press is giving President Obama a free pass, but it’s not what they aren’t saying about his time on the golf course that worries me, it’s the things he does when he is not playing golf that deserve attention and criticism. But I guess (as noted in the "Where’s the Outrage?" article) that wouldn’t fit the "story line."

>>Bradley A. Smith: As to "where’s the outrage" and the coverage of President Obama, we can all, I hope, at least get a good morning chuckle out of this line: " Obama’s aides say the positive coverage simply reflects the fact that their efforts are succeeding."

>>Greg Dworkin: Republicans ask where’s the outrage" over complaints (many superficial, some not) about the Obama WH? Even now, I don’t think Republicans are introspective enough about the damage Katrina did to the Bush Presidency, and the damage Bush did to the Republican party. One major reason is that these are more sober times, with Americans aware that there are more important things to worry about, but another is that the Bush legacy was set in stone when Katrina was mismanaged. It wasn’t simply an error of judgment by someone who could be replaced (mistakes happen, yea, even in Washington), it was the deliberate and intrinsic dismantling of FEMA and the replacement of disaster management professionals with political appointees like Michael Brown, and 20-something political minders assigned to prevent science from occurring at NOAA and other agencies if it didn’t fit a conservative agenda (and that included muzzling the Surgeon General, Richard Carmona.) We have a different approach now, one that’s widely known to be more grounded in science (thank goodness) and policy (agree or disagree) than politics. For that reason, charges that “the Obama WH is too political” have fallen on deaf ears.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The media is still in the tank for Obama. The Politico article was right on in pointing to the double standard of coverage between Bush and Obama. There is no doubt that our current president is getting a pass on activities that would be fodder had Bush done the same things. The bottom-line for Republicans is this, do not be consumed with what the skewed coverage is and don’t harp on it. The way to regain parody with Democrats is through ideas and pointing to the deficiencies in their governance. Next week Republicans will pick up at least one governors race and may be two that are currently held by Democrats. Then will come in short order the mid-term elections where historically the party not in power picks up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans should be focused on 2010. The Democrats majority on the House and Senate could be short lived or dramatically curtailed.

>>Bill Bishop: This is the oldest social psychology experiment on earth. In 1951, students at Princeton and Dartmouth watched a film of a football game between the two schools. The students were asked to take note of foul play. Dartmouth students saw offenses committed by Princeton players. Princeton students saw Dartmouth’s fouls.

Israelis and Palestinians come to totally different conclusions after watching the same news spot. Francis Bacon wrote in 1620 that “human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”

This is what happens when politics (and news and religion and neighborhoods) go tribal.

>>Christine Pelosi: The public’s outrage - not the pundit’s - is what makes or breaks a Presidency.
The public’s outrage is at the kitchen table when people open their bills; on the phone when fighting insurance companies over coverage; in the pharmacies when the drug costs soar. That is the outrage President Obama must address; that is the anxiety that demands the change Democrats are about to deliver.The pundit’s outrage is all over cable news where there is enough hot air to send a balloon 50 miles across Colorado. Both sides offer talkers who claim to be more besieged and belittled by the sensationalist media than the other. Take New Orleans for example - who exactly ordered the live coverage of President Obama’s town hall meeting suspended in favor of a balloon boy hoax? The media didn’t even bother with a split screen like the OJ white Bronco chase - it was goodbye Katrina hello balloon boy.

So what’s a President to do? Never forget whose outrage matters more - the public’s not the pundit’s. The White House gets this. That is why the President continues to methodically work to address the public’s outrage. Not fast enough for his supporters, to be sure. But steady enough that the American people still like and trust President Obama to do his job, respond to the public’s outrage, and deliver meaningful healthcare reform.

This Just In: Joe Lieberman: I’ll filibuster Harry Reid’s plan

Grover Norquist: The idea of opting out of stupid programs is a good idea. We should start by allowing citizens to opt-out of trial lawyers reopening their contracts and agreements with doctors and hospitals. We could enact the already written Shadegg legislation that would allow citizens of corrupt states to opt out of buying their health insurance in their home state that is loaded with “mandates” courtesy of the lobbyists and corrupt legislators. The Shadegg bill would drop health insurance costs 10-15 percent without any rationing or taxes. Americans choosing to buy their health insurance from companies in states with less costly mandates would save money for those who wish to. We could opt out of politically driven “mandates.”Reid’s proposal is not an opt-out. You cannot opt out of the taxes and regulations he plans to impose. You cannot opt out of the gutting of Medicare—specifically the choice and wellness provisions of Medicare. You cannot opt out of the murder of Health Savings Accounts which have actually led to lower insurance costs and more consumer control over their lives. You cannot opt out of the taxes and regulations that will stop new drugs from the market. The rationing that will flow inevitably (as in other nations) from a government post office health industry.

“Opt out” is a transparent ploy to give some Democrat Senator the pretense of being a moderate or not signing on to the actual bill. No Senator is stupid enough to believe this is a real change. Some senators may think their citizens are stupid enough to think this is helpful….I think they will find their contempt for their voters will be reciprocated.

Roger Pilon: Like every other part of ObamaCare, the "opt-out" proposal for the "public option" is a mystery — and almost certainly will continue to be even after the likely 1,500-page bill emerges, if ever it does. Will residents in states that opt-out be able to opt-out of the taxes needed to support the public option? (Please don’t say the public option will be self-supporting: we’re grown-ups.) Healthy taxpayers in North Dakota, after all, have no incentive to subsidize unhealthy New Yorkers. But if states can opt out of the tax part, then we’ll have "adverse selection" at the state level, the very thing the "individual mandate" is meant to stop at the individual level. Yet if states won’t be able to opt out of the tax component, then what’s the incentive for states to opt out of the public option? All pay, no benefit, is a sucker’s game.This is all smoke and mirrors. And it’s laughable to think that the Congressional Budget Office can score any of this, when nobody knows what "this" is. For all the backroom dealings so far, enough has taken place in public to enable the public to see what’s going on, and it’s not pretty. It’s the usual something-for-nothing gimmickry, like last week’s "doc-fix" joke. The vote on that is the best predictor so far of where this whole thing is going. When labor tells us they might accept a tax on high-value insurance plans if it doesn’t hit the middle class, we know the money isn’t there. May ObamaCare rest in peace until more sober people are able to attend to what’s really required to straighten out the health care mess that Congress created in the first place.

Christine Pelosi: Senator Reid took a huge step forward for the American people. Reid’s public option is a big boost to healthcare reformers. It is long past time to address the concerns of the American people dealing with higher premiums, spotty or dropped coverage, and soaring drug costs. The battle is whether the reforms come before or after the companies get at the millions of new consumers.We say reform existing coverage now - then add new consumers with a public option over the next few years. The test is whether those reforms come first, come soon, and come in time to help people who are barely making it. Not a week goes by without another horror story about someone who paid their premiums, played by the rules, and was denied quality care. Enough is enough. I’m pleased that public pressure and common sense yielded success.

Ross Baker: For nervous Senate Democrats, opt-out is like a handful of Xanax. It shifts the burden to the states and puts GOP governors and state legislators in a sticky position of having to go on record in opposition to the public option.

Michael F. Cannon: Including a Fannie Med with a “state opt-out” provision in the Senate Democrats’ health care bill accomplishes only this: it helps Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) survive as majority leader by appeasing his left wing. It doesn’t make it any more (or less) likely that Fannie Med will survive. (Cross posted at Cato@Liberty)

Bradley A. Blakeman: Health Care: Typical of the Democrats motis operandi, there is nothing on paper with regard to Reid’s Opt-out Public Option. The Democrats who promised to be the most open and transparent have been the most secretive and clandestine.It is hard to evaluate a plan when you are told what it is as opposed to seeing it and evaluating it in the context of a comprehensive bill. The “holy grail” for the Democrats with regard to health care reform has been the public option in some form. The idea is to get it introduced as part of mega health care bill now and then expand on it over time. Their ultimate goal down the road is a socialized medicine program akin to Canada and Europe. The final health care bill will be in excess of 1500 pages and will again come out close to a vote thereby preventing Members the time to digest and understand what they are voting for. Reid and Schumer are racing around the Senate office buildings telling colleagues what to be for and what the Opt-out really means.

David Orentlicher: Adding a public option increases the chances for a health care bill this year. Senator Reid avoids a serious divide with his more liberal colleagues by giving the public option a real chance at passage. Even if the option succumbs to amendment, people will see that Reid made a genuine effort to include it in the legislation, and public option proponents will be more inclined to support a compromise. Moreover, if the Reid version of the public option reduces the projected cost of the health care bill, it can help mollify the budgetary concerns of more moderate Senators and the broader public, thereby taking some of the wind out of the opposition’s sails.

Victor Kamber: The Democrats finally got there act together and listened to their base. They realized they had a President, a house of Representatives and 60 votes in the Senate. They finally realized they govern. There is still much to be done, and the conference will be difficult. Republicans have let the ‘noise makers’ set the tone. You can’t govern from talk radio or cable TV, There has be no clear leadership with ideas or a true alternative for the Republicans to rally around. Their only alternative has been NO and that’s not good enough. Whether planned or by luck Senator Reid comes out a hero. He can deliver.

Tom Korologos: Senator Reid’s announcement about including the public option surely implies he has run the numbers and has 60 votes to get it to the floor for debate and THEN 60 votes (which may or may not be the same 60) to get it to where the Senate can go to final passage. Given the recent oh-for-two record of trying to get 60–for Commerce State Justice appropriations and for the Medicare so-called "Doc Fix"–the odds are about as good as the Redskins winning all their remaining games.

Darrell M. West: In political terms, the opt-out makes it easier to sell a public option to recalcitrant moderates. But in policy terms, it opens up great uncertainty over implementation. If this was 1965 and there were a Medicare opt-out, we might have ended up with two-thirds of the states having Medicare while one-third opted out. In addition, the opt-out leads to a worrisome precedent for other policy areas. If states don’t like future congressional decisions on gun control or climate change, look for state legislators to demand an opt-out.

Dana Perino: I think the fact that we’re even asking that question today shows that it hurts the chances for a bill. His press conference yesterday was a rather sad affair - all by himself, back to square one, with a twinge of maybe-this-helps-me-in-Nevada politics.

Reading the press last week, one would have thought this was all a done deal, that consensus had won the day and all we were waiting for was a signing ceremony. I found those stories a bit over the top, especially as many were based on polling questions that were, to be charitable, skewed.

This development proves again that legislative reform efforts go in cycles - one week you’re up, the next your back on your heels.

Remember when they said they’d have it done by Columbus Day? Then it was Thanksgiving. Now it’s Christmas. Or, for the Senator from Nevada, maybe he prefers…Boxing Day.

Dean Baker: Reid has to navigate between the reality that many progressive Democrats in the House will not vote for a bill that doesn’t have a public option and that several Democrats in the Senate may not support a bill with a public option. His proposal with a state opt out may be the best middle course. The option should limit the extent of the hostility from those with the strongest objections. This may not get Reid to 60 votes for the bill, but he doesn’t need 60 votes for the bill, he just needs 60 senators who will let the president have a vote on his number 1 domestic priority. This is doable.

Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Public plan choice seems the perfect compromise between those who favor the cost control and access expansion potential of a public plan and those who oppose it. It not only allows uninsured individuals the choice of participating in a public plan or not (which has been the proposal all along), the opt out also allows states who want to deny their residents that choice a chance to do so. Opponents, however, are so terrified of a public plan that they not only want to deny Americans the choice of a public plan, they are also not satisfied with letting the states choose whether or not to allow their residents this choice. The irony, of course, is that many of these opponents are those who trumpet most loudly individual freedom of choice and states’ rights in other contexts.

Of course, the opponents of reform will do everything they can to slow reform down. They will insist on weeks of debate, even though they have no new ideas to offer. But movement toward reform continues inexorably. Hopefully the House and Senate can deliver reform as a Christmas present to the American people (if they can’t get the job done sooner).

James Carafano: Stupidity is an Option Too: Healthcare “reform” is dead, dead, dead. The White House and the leadership in the Congress had their chance. They failed. They failed to craft a plan that Americans want or need.Reid is rearranging the corpse.

Meanwhile, in the House the majority leader is “rebranding” the government option as the “consumer” or “competitive” option. Apparently, this will resurrect the dead…convincing Americans that this is not the government option that they don’t want.

Look, I am the security guy…and frankly its just my job to worry about how we keep the country safe and let other worry about what to do with the country…but healthcare has created a national security crisis because it has sucked up all the energy of the White House.

The president would have had plenty of time to make a deliberate decision on Afghanistan if he had spent the last nine months acting like a commander-in-chief and worrying about Afghanistan. Now we know he squandered almost the whole first year of his presidency to produce a healthcare plan that is a mess….where the goal has now become get anything passed.

And, we still have zero leadership on Afghanistan.