SELECT YOUR VOTE

Steve Steckler: Republicans are absolutely right to demand that the discussion start from scratch, since they have been left out of the all-important foundational House discussion; that is, the one that established coverage expansion and the method for achieving it as the central goal of reform instead of starting with cost control and regulatory improvement. To be invited to tinker around the edges with these two dirty bombs is like asking whether they would like to use a red wire or a yellow wire to arm the device.

We need to start from scratch because the House bill vastly expands government’s reach and obligations while pretending to control costs with nothing better than "so what" pilot programs and crude price capping, which is always a losing strategy. No fundamental change in incentives or injection of unsubsidized competition. The Senate bill is a simply a fraud, because it relies for its funding on Medicare provider cuts that simply will not happen, as well as other implausible assumptions. And by the time anything is passed, ending the tax-free status of employer-provided insurance will have been watered down to club soda. This is not an invitation to participate; it’s an offer to be dragged along once you’re lashed to the train.

Martin Frost: Jack Murtha was a dedicated supporter of our men and women in uniform. When he broke with Bush over Iraq, it was the equivalent of Walter Cronkhite breaking with LBJ over VietNam. He will be missed by the Democratic Party and by our Armed Forces.

Ross Baker: John Murtha was the boss of the "Pennsylvania" corner in the House chamber where he sat surrounded by lesser men who looked to him for political guidance. He was Tip O’Neill’s "enforcer" on pay raises which are eternally unpopular but which he and O’Neill always though members richlydeserved. He was without equal in earmarking, pork-barrelling, and lavishing on the sad little city of Johnstown, PA some of the most elaborate gifts the Treasury possessed including an airport worthy of a much greater metropolis. As Solon the Lawgiver reminded us, "Of the dead say nothing but good."

Christine Pelosi: RIP Jack Murtha, champion of military families and warrior for peace and freedom. Nobody fought harder for our troops. Condolences to his loved ones, especially his wife Joyce. Many thanks from a grateful nation.

James Carafano: John Murtha: Farewell the Warrior

Last talked to John Murtha several years ago at a debate in New York on the Iraq War. I was on one side, John and George McGovern on the other.

His stance on the war and other controversies aside, you could never question John’s respect, admiration and love for our men and women in uniform.

Fred Barbash: John Murtha dies at 77

Thomas J. Whalen: Sarah Palin is all about crass opportunism. Whether she decides to run for president or not, she will still enjoy a big pay day via her Fox News gig and national speaking engagements. I suppose that’s the real reason why she cynically abandoned her constituents in Alaska before her term of office was up. Fame and fortune trumps duty and honor for the likes of Wasilla’s first citizen any day. File under “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

Mo Elleithee: It should be easy to dismiss Sarah Palin as a joke. She is one of the least substantive figures in American politics, and every time she opens her mouth, she proves that she has no depth, no ideas, and no clue. It’s no surprise that she and Rush Limbaugh are so close — they rival only each other in their ability to turn the absurd into headlines.

So, it SHOULD be easy to dismiss her as a joke. However, Republicans would be mistaken to do so.

Palin’s ability to grab headlines and position herself as THE leading voice of the Republican party demonstrates just how deep the GOP’s problems are. The lack of any cohesive Republican message has left a huge void among the party’s activists — a void that Palin has easily stepped in to fill. Republican leaders in the House and Senate are content to position themselves as nothing more than the “Party of No,” refusing to participate in the business of governing. They’ve shown no willingness to deal with the challenges that the middle class face, refusing to even come to the bargaining table for fear of giving the President or Democrats in Congress any sort of political victory.

So in steps Sarah Palin.

But here’s the rub. She’s no better than they are. She’s just better with a quote.

Take for example, her speech to the Tea Party convention over the weekend. She took a huge jab at the President, calling him a “charismatic guy with a teleprompter.” Moments later, she had to refer to notes on her hand while recounting her “core principles.”

She mocked the President and the millions of people who voted him into office, asking “How’s that hopey-changey thing working out for you?” What the former Governor fails to recognize is that people are still looking for change from the policies of the last 8 years that created the mess we’re in. And the American people are still filled with hope, and looking for leaders who can inspire it — not mock it.

Sarah Palin is riding a huge wave of publicity right now. She is the face of the Republican Party because no responsible leader has stepped up to the plate. But make no mistake — she’s not in this because of some higher calling or set of core principles. She’s in this for herself. And so far, she’s doing well for herself. But she’s not doing any good for the American people.

Karen Finney: At this point Sarah Palin is a clever political celebrity, capable of entertaining performances. But she remains largely unknown and untested. Since stepping down from the Governorship she has chosen to avoid taking positions or leading on any specific issues.
In fact, she’s stayed away from specifics altogether, preferring instead to stick to her sarcastic barrage of distort, distract and divide. Nor has she taken any risks or put herself in a position to be asked tough, but fair questions. Instead we see her appearing at book signing events, paid speeches to safe audiences (perhaps cancelling on appearances not deemed safe enough?) and in her new role as a Fox News contributor.
Frankly, the more we learn about and hear from Sarah Paln the more she sounds like a typical politician. As MSNBC revealed last week in various emails between Palin, her staff and her husband Todd, she is more than fine with, and frankly seems to feel entitled to abusing her power or the people’s money on things like family trips and electricity for a tanning bed, or spending $65k of her PAC money to buy copies of her own book, not to mention the blatant hypocrisy of splitting hairs on the use of the word retarded by WH Chief of Staff vs. beloved right-winger Rush Limbaugh. If she were really the maverick she’d like us to think she is, she’d at least have had the courage to acknowledge that the use of the word in a derogatory manner is out of bounds no matter who says it, rather than cowing to Rush like every other GOP politician.

Robert Zelnick: It is difficult for this observer to imagine how anyone watching Sarah Palin perform at the Tea Party gathering this past week-end, or to match wits with the fair-minded highly professional Chris Wallace on Fox News, could fail to take her seriously as a potential Republican candidate in the 2012 presidential campaign. No longer the ill-informed chatter from a person snatched from the boondocks and told to start playing VEEP. No more the frantic improvisation of the truly ill-informed. No more issue kayos from the likes of Katie Couric.For now at least,a movement and and a person ready both to follow and lead it have arrived.While the moment for coronation (or emigration)has clearly not yet arrived, it might be prescient to undertake a few inquiries designed to put Palin’s situation in perspective:

First, Is there any clear GOP front-runner likely to pre-met a serious Palin campaign? Probably not. In recent years the Republicans have tended to nominate the candidate with the most impressive seniority ( if there is one) assuming they can pass a moderately rigorous (no newer taxes, anti-choice) ideological purity test. By this standard, Mitt Romney would be the front-runner, with Palin close behind. Mike Huckabee might one day be a threat to Palin’s Neilson Ratings on Fox News, but not for the presidency.

Second, does the candidate have a firm political/fundraising base?Romney’s consists of those who find anyone else unacceptable, while his fundraising base consists mainly of his own deep pockets. Palin, and her conservative populists have the big nod here, a situation unlikely to change.

Third, will conditions support or undermine a protest candidate as Palin would surely be? Probably. The economy will likely be improving, but it will be a disfiguring memory. Taxes will probably rise, the government role in stabilization, financial regulation, and health care will continue to spark protest, Iran may have the bomb, and Afghanistan may continue to generate rising discord. A successful terrorist attack inside the U.S.would further discredit the current liberal administration.

Fourth, what, if any are Palin’s political disabilities? Her vice presidential campaign turned off more people than it turned on,leaving many in mortal dread of her ever becoming president. For more than a few, this impression was carved in stone; there is nothing she can ever do to change it. Others, somewhat more dispassionately, see her as a reflection of America’s love of celebrity a love which in this case has turned into a political goddess someone born to lead the dissident faction at public school PTA meetings.

Fifth, does she have the ego and the thick skin necessary to survive something close to a four-year campaign? My sense is that she does and may even grow stronger once she has shown herself able to take a punch and still throw her own leather.

Fred Barbash: Tea party: What’s it all about?

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Martin Frost: The Tea Party could be real trouble for the Republican Party if it serves as a vehicle to unite all the wing nuts on the right — birthers, creationists and people who want to privatize Social Security. The result could be Republican nominees that can not win general elections. As a Democrat, I’m all for the Tea Party going as far right as possible.

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Martin Frost: The Tea Party could be real trouble for the Republican Party if it serves as a vehicle to unite all the wing nuts on the right — birthers, creationists and people who want to privatize Social Security. The result could be Republican nominees that can not win general elections. As a Democrat, I’m all for the Tea Party going as far right as possible.

>>Lou Zickar: The Tea Party: What’s it all about?
I think the Tea Party movement is ultimately about value, and the fact that when Americans send their money off to Washington, they don’t think they’re getting much back in return. This is especially true during tough economic times. People are cutting back; they are justifying every dollar they spend. And yet when they look at how Washington is spending their money, they see waste and they see dysfunction. This is a pox on both parties’ houses, because Democrats seem to want nothing more than to make government bigger, while Republicans seem to want nothing to do with government at all. At some point, people are going to say — who’s watching over my investment? Who’s making sure my money is being well spent?

I think this sentiment — these kinds of questions — are at least part of what’s driving the Tea Party Movement. In that regard, it is very similar to the movement, and the sentiment, that propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Part of the problem as well is candor, and the fact that Americans don’t believe that their leaders in Washington, and this is increasingly starting to include President Obama, are leveling with them. Ross Perot was famous for his straight talk — for his promise to "get under the hood" and fix the problems facing our country. That was a big part of his appeal.

There is a pronounced shortage of that in Washington today. And I think the American people — and especially those in the Tea Party movement — are fed up with it. Robert Samuelson has an excellent column today on the candor gap which I highly recommend.

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Martin Frost: The Tea Party could be real trouble for the Republican Party if it serves as a vehicle to unite all the wing nuts on the right — birthers, creationists and people who want to privatize Social Security. The result could be Republican nominees that can not win general elections. As a Democrat, I’m all for the Tea Party going as far right as possible.

>>Lou Zickar: The Tea Party: What’s it all about?
I think the Tea Party movement is ultimately about value, and the fact that when Americans send their money off to Washington, they don’t think they’re getting much back in return. This is especially true during tough economic times. People are cutting back; they are justifying every dollar they spend. And yet when they look at how Washington is spending their money, they see waste and they see dysfunction. This is a pox on both parties’ houses, because Democrats seem to want nothing more than to make government bigger, while Republicans seem to want nothing to do with government at all. At some point, people are going to say — who’s watching over my investment? Who’s making sure my money is being well spent?

I think this sentiment — these kinds of questions — are at least part of what’s driving the Tea Party Movement. In that regard, it is very similar to the movement, and the sentiment, that propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Part of the problem as well is candor, and the fact that Americans don’t believe that their leaders in Washington, and this is increasingly starting to include President Obama, are leveling with them. Ross Perot was famous for his straight talk — for his promise to "get under the hood" and fix the problems facing our country. That was a big part of his appeal.

There is a pronounced shortage of that in Washington today. And I think the American people — and especially those in the Tea Party movement — are fed up with it. Robert Samuelson has an excellent column today on the candor gap which I highly recommend.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Tea Party movement mainly reflects the fact that many Americans, despite the teachers’ unions best efforts, are still able to do arithmetic. Americans of all political persuasions know that the government’s spending and taxation policies are not sustainable, and that the only way to make them sustainable is to cut spending growth, lest we become a banana republic. Of course, the Tea Party reflects other factors as well, most importantly the Administration’s and Congress’s extreme leftward push, which has put a large distance between themselves and most of the country. As I predicted in these pages a year ago, Obama and the leftist Dems’ hubris would be their undoing.

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Martin Frost: The Tea Party could be real trouble for the Republican Party if it serves as a vehicle to unite all the wing nuts on the right — birthers, creationists and people who want to privatize Social Security. The result could be Republican nominees that can not win general elections. As a Democrat, I’m all for the Tea Party going as far right as possible.

>>Lou Zickar: The Tea Party: What’s it all about?
I think the Tea Party movement is ultimately about value, and the fact that when Americans send their money off to Washington, they don’t think they’re getting much back in return. This is especially true during tough economic times. People are cutting back; they are justifying every dollar they spend. And yet when they look at how Washington is spending their money, they see waste and they see dysfunction. This is a pox on both parties’ houses, because Democrats seem to want nothing more than to make government bigger, while Republicans seem to want nothing to do with government at all. At some point, people are going to say — who’s watching over my investment? Who’s making sure my money is being well spent?

I think this sentiment — these kinds of questions — are at least part of what’s driving the Tea Party Movement. In that regard, it is very similar to the movement, and the sentiment, that propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Part of the problem as well is candor, and the fact that Americans don’t believe that their leaders in Washington, and this is increasingly starting to include President Obama, are leveling with them. Ross Perot was famous for his straight talk — for his promise to "get under the hood" and fix the problems facing our country. That was a big part of his appeal.

There is a pronounced shortage of that in Washington today. And I think the American people — and especially those in the Tea Party movement — are fed up with it. Robert Samuelson has an excellent column today on the candor gap which I highly recommend.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Tea Party movement mainly reflects the fact that many Americans, despite the teachers’ unions best efforts, are still able to do arithmetic. Americans of all political persuasions know that the government’s spending and taxation policies are not sustainable, and that the only way to make them sustainable is to cut spending growth, lest we become a banana republic. Of course, the Tea Party reflects other factors as well, most importantly the Administration’s and Congress’s extreme leftward push, which has put a large distance between themselves and most of the country. As I predicted in these pages a year ago, Obama and the leftist Dems’ hubris would be their undoing.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman:   The Tea Party is not a party at all. It is a manifestation of frustration aimed at both Republicans and Democrats and brought about by their reckless disregard for economic responsibility. The Tea People are more likely to be Conservatives or Republicans than Democrats. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republicans to reach out to the Tea people to “come home” to the party or to at least at this point support and vote for Republican candidates in 2010. The midterm elections will be a good indicator what real and sustained political power the Tea People have to mobilize and influence elections.

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Martin Frost: The Tea Party could be real trouble for the Republican Party if it serves as a vehicle to unite all the wing nuts on the right — birthers, creationists and people who want to privatize Social Security. The result could be Republican nominees that can not win general elections. As a Democrat, I’m all for the Tea Party going as far right as possible.

>>Lou Zickar: The Tea Party: What’s it all about?
I think the Tea Party movement is ultimately about value, and the fact that when Americans send their money off to Washington, they don’t think they’re getting much back in return. This is especially true during tough economic times. People are cutting back; they are justifying every dollar they spend. And yet when they look at how Washington is spending their money, they see waste and they see dysfunction. This is a pox on both parties’ houses, because Democrats seem to want nothing more than to make government bigger, while Republicans seem to want nothing to do with government at all. At some point, people are going to say — who’s watching over my investment? Who’s making sure my money is being well spent?

I think this sentiment — these kinds of questions — are at least part of what’s driving the Tea Party Movement. In that regard, it is very similar to the movement, and the sentiment, that propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Part of the problem as well is candor, and the fact that Americans don’t believe that their leaders in Washington, and this is increasingly starting to include President Obama, are leveling with them. Ross Perot was famous for his straight talk — for his promise to "get under the hood" and fix the problems facing our country. That was a big part of his appeal.

There is a pronounced shortage of that in Washington today. And I think the American people — and especially those in the Tea Party movement — are fed up with it. Robert Samuelson has an excellent column today on the candor gap which I highly recommend.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Tea Party movement mainly reflects the fact that many Americans, despite the teachers’ unions best efforts, are still able to do arithmetic. Americans of all political persuasions know that the government’s spending and taxation policies are not sustainable, and that the only way to make them sustainable is to cut spending growth, lest we become a banana republic. Of course, the Tea Party reflects other factors as well, most importantly the Administration’s and Congress’s extreme leftward push, which has put a large distance between themselves and most of the country. As I predicted in these pages a year ago, Obama and the leftist Dems’ hubris would be their undoing.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman:   The Tea Party is not a party at all. It is a manifestation of frustration aimed at both Republicans and Democrats and brought about by their reckless disregard for economic responsibility. The Tea People are more likely to be Conservatives or Republicans than Democrats. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republicans to reach out to the Tea people to “come home” to the party or to at least at this point support and vote for Republican candidates in 2010. The midterm elections will be a good indicator what real and sustained political power the Tea People have to mobilize and influence elections.

>>Ross Baker: The Tea Party: A collection of Revolutionary War re-enactors and Civil War deniers.

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Martin Frost: The Tea Party could be real trouble for the Republican Party if it serves as a vehicle to unite all the wing nuts on the right — birthers, creationists and people who want to privatize Social Security. The result could be Republican nominees that can not win general elections. As a Democrat, I’m all for the Tea Party going as far right as possible.

>>Lou Zickar: The Tea Party: What’s it all about?
I think the Tea Party movement is ultimately about value, and the fact that when Americans send their money off to Washington, they don’t think they’re getting much back in return. This is especially true during tough economic times. People are cutting back; they are justifying every dollar they spend. And yet when they look at how Washington is spending their money, they see waste and they see dysfunction. This is a pox on both parties’ houses, because Democrats seem to want nothing more than to make government bigger, while Republicans seem to want nothing to do with government at all. At some point, people are going to say — who’s watching over my investment? Who’s making sure my money is being well spent?

I think this sentiment — these kinds of questions — are at least part of what’s driving the Tea Party Movement. In that regard, it is very similar to the movement, and the sentiment, that propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Part of the problem as well is candor, and the fact that Americans don’t believe that their leaders in Washington, and this is increasingly starting to include President Obama, are leveling with them. Ross Perot was famous for his straight talk — for his promise to "get under the hood" and fix the problems facing our country. That was a big part of his appeal.

There is a pronounced shortage of that in Washington today. And I think the American people — and especially those in the Tea Party movement — are fed up with it. Robert Samuelson has an excellent column today on the candor gap which I highly recommend.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Tea Party movement mainly reflects the fact that many Americans, despite the teachers’ unions best efforts, are still able to do arithmetic. Americans of all political persuasions know that the government’s spending and taxation policies are not sustainable, and that the only way to make them sustainable is to cut spending growth, lest we become a banana republic. Of course, the Tea Party reflects other factors as well, most importantly the Administration’s and Congress’s extreme leftward push, which has put a large distance between themselves and most of the country. As I predicted in these pages a year ago, Obama and the leftist Dems’ hubris would be their undoing.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman:   The Tea Party is not a party at all. It is a manifestation of frustration aimed at both Republicans and Democrats and brought about by their reckless disregard for economic responsibility. The Tea People are more likely to be Conservatives or Republicans than Democrats. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republicans to reach out to the Tea people to “come home” to the party or to at least at this point support and vote for Republican candidates in 2010. The midterm elections will be a good indicator what real and sustained political power the Tea People have to mobilize and influence elections.

>>Ross Baker: The Tea Party: A collection of Revolutionary War re-enactors and Civil War deniers.

>>Michele Combs: The Tea Party movement was obviously formed because the power structure, in both parties, was not paying attention to the American people. Even before the elections in New Jersey, Virginia and in Massachusetts delivered a body blow to the Democratic Party, the White House and the congressional leadership had been warned repeatedly in town-hall meetings this past summer that Americans did not like the big-spending policies coming out of Washington D.C. including the stimulus bill early last year and most especially, the government-takeover of health care. The Tea Party includes a lot of Independents, many of whom voted for Barack Obama hoping for change and they do not like the change they are seeing coming out of Washington D.C. Sarah Palin, in her speech at the Tea Party conference in Nashville this past Saturday, asked the audience: "How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff workin’ out for ya?" The answer from the Tea Party is "Not so well."

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Martin Frost: The Tea Party could be real trouble for the Republican Party if it serves as a vehicle to unite all the wing nuts on the right — birthers, creationists and people who want to privatize Social Security. The result could be Republican nominees that can not win general elections. As a Democrat, I’m all for the Tea Party going as far right as possible.

>>Lou Zickar: The Tea Party: What’s it all about?
I think the Tea Party movement is ultimately about value, and the fact that when Americans send their money off to Washington, they don’t think they’re getting much back in return. This is especially true during tough economic times. People are cutting back; they are justifying every dollar they spend. And yet when they look at how Washington is spending their money, they see waste and they see dysfunction. This is a pox on both parties’ houses, because Democrats seem to want nothing more than to make government bigger, while Republicans seem to want nothing to do with government at all. At some point, people are going to say — who’s watching over my investment? Who’s making sure my money is being well spent?

I think this sentiment — these kinds of questions — are at least part of what’s driving the Tea Party Movement. In that regard, it is very similar to the movement, and the sentiment, that propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Part of the problem as well is candor, and the fact that Americans don’t believe that their leaders in Washington, and this is increasingly starting to include President Obama, are leveling with them. Ross Perot was famous for his straight talk — for his promise to "get under the hood" and fix the problems facing our country. That was a big part of his appeal.

There is a pronounced shortage of that in Washington today. And I think the American people — and especially those in the Tea Party movement — are fed up with it. Robert Samuelson has an excellent column today on the candor gap which I highly recommend.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Tea Party movement mainly reflects the fact that many Americans, despite the teachers’ unions best efforts, are still able to do arithmetic. Americans of all political persuasions know that the government’s spending and taxation policies are not sustainable, and that the only way to make them sustainable is to cut spending growth, lest we become a banana republic. Of course, the Tea Party reflects other factors as well, most importantly the Administration’s and Congress’s extreme leftward push, which has put a large distance between themselves and most of the country. As I predicted in these pages a year ago, Obama and the leftist Dems’ hubris would be their undoing.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman:   The Tea Party is not a party at all. It is a manifestation of frustration aimed at both Republicans and Democrats and brought about by their reckless disregard for economic responsibility. The Tea People are more likely to be Conservatives or Republicans than Democrats. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republicans to reach out to the Tea people to “come home” to the party or to at least at this point support and vote for Republican candidates in 2010. The midterm elections will be a good indicator what real and sustained political power the Tea People have to mobilize and influence elections.

>>Ross Baker: The Tea Party: A collection of Revolutionary War re-enactors and Civil War deniers.

>>Michele Combs: The Tea Party movement was obviously formed because the power structure, in both parties, was not paying attention to the American people. Even before the elections in New Jersey, Virginia and in Massachusetts delivered a body blow to the Democratic Party, the White House and the congressional leadership had been warned repeatedly in town-hall meetings this past summer that Americans did not like the big-spending policies coming out of Washington D.C. including the stimulus bill early last year and most especially, the government-takeover of health care. The Tea Party includes a lot of Independents, many of whom voted for Barack Obama hoping for change and they do not like the change they are seeing coming out of Washington D.C. Sarah Palin, in her speech at the Tea Party conference in Nashville this past Saturday, asked the audience: "How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff workin’ out for ya?" The answer from the Tea Party is "Not so well."

>>Larry J. Sabato: The Tea Party and the Ghost of Ross Perot

Sarah Palin wasn’t the only presidential presence at the Tea Party convention. The ghost of Ross Perot was hovering above the Nashville hotel.

If the Tea Party is smart, it will learn from the implosions that cratered the Perot movement from 1992 to 1996. The only thing holding this very diverse cast of Tea characters together is an emphasis on the fiscal—spending, taxes, and debt. As with Perot, these concerns resonate with a substantial portion of the population, especially Independents. The Tea Party needs to borrow (or buy at a discount) some of Perot’s color-coded pie charts, and keep its followers focused there.

Just below the surface, the same problems faced by the Perotistas lurk for Tea Partiers. Did you listen to the conference attendees in Nashville? They are a mix of Libertarians and conservative Christians. In other words, social issues—if they rise to the forefront—will create deep fissures because there is sharp internal conflict.

Second, some of the leaders suffer from the egotism that dogs all political movements. Clashes are inevitable in the struggle for control, nationally and locally, with a consequent loss of momentum.

Finally, while some Tea Party people have political experience, most don’t. Naïveté in the ranks proved troublesome for the Perot movement, and it will for the Tea Party, too. Anger is not a governing philosophy. Constructive proposals will attract broader support.

>>Julian E. Zelizer: The Tea Party is an effort to recapture some of the organizational and ideological excitement that existed within the emerging conservative movement in the 1970s, after years when the Republicans being in power left them drained of that energy. The problem, as in the 1970s, is that many of the people at the forefront of the movement were toward the extremes of the political spectrum. In 1980, Ronald Reagan brought the movement to mainstream American and focused in on those elements that could win broad support. Currently, there is no politician doing that. Indeed, some of the top Republicans are moving toward the extremes rather than trying to bring the movement to the middle.

>>Martin Frost: The Tea Party could be real trouble for the Republican Party if it serves as a vehicle to unite all the wing nuts on the right — birthers, creationists and people who want to privatize Social Security. The result could be Republican nominees that can not win general elections. As a Democrat, I’m all for the Tea Party going as far right as possible.

>>Lou Zickar: The Tea Party: What’s it all about?
I think the Tea Party movement is ultimately about value, and the fact that when Americans send their money off to Washington, they don’t think they’re getting much back in return. This is especially true during tough economic times. People are cutting back; they are justifying every dollar they spend. And yet when they look at how Washington is spending their money, they see waste and they see dysfunction. This is a pox on both parties’ houses, because Democrats seem to want nothing more than to make government bigger, while Republicans seem to want nothing to do with government at all. At some point, people are going to say — who’s watching over my investment? Who’s making sure my money is being well spent?

I think this sentiment — these kinds of questions — are at least part of what’s driving the Tea Party Movement. In that regard, it is very similar to the movement, and the sentiment, that propelled Ross Perot in 1992. Part of the problem as well is candor, and the fact that Americans don’t believe that their leaders in Washington, and this is increasingly starting to include President Obama, are leveling with them. Ross Perot was famous for his straight talk — for his promise to "get under the hood" and fix the problems facing our country. That was a big part of his appeal.

There is a pronounced shortage of that in Washington today. And I think the American people — and especially those in the Tea Party movement — are fed up with it. Robert Samuelson has an excellent column today on the candor gap which I highly recommend.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Tea Party movement mainly reflects the fact that many Americans, despite the teachers’ unions best efforts, are still able to do arithmetic. Americans of all political persuasions know that the government’s spending and taxation policies are not sustainable, and that the only way to make them sustainable is to cut spending growth, lest we become a banana republic. Of course, the Tea Party reflects other factors as well, most importantly the Administration’s and Congress’s extreme leftward push, which has put a large distance between themselves and most of the country. As I predicted in these pages a year ago, Obama and the leftist Dems’ hubris would be their undoing.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman:   The Tea Party is not a party at all. It is a manifestation of frustration aimed at both Republicans and Democrats and brought about by their reckless disregard for economic responsibility. The Tea People are more likely to be Conservatives or Republicans than Democrats. Therefore, it is incumbent upon Republicans to reach out to the Tea people to “come home” to the party or to at least at this point support and vote for Republican candidates in 2010. The midterm elections will be a good indicator what real and sustained political power the Tea People have to mobilize and influence elections.

>>Ross Baker: The Tea Party: A collection of Revolutionary War re-enactors and Civil War deniers.

>>Michele Combs: The Tea Party movement was obviously formed because the power structure, in both parties, was not paying attention to the American people. Even before the elections in New Jersey, Virginia and in Massachusetts delivered a body blow to the Democratic Party, the White House and the congressional leadership had been warned repeatedly in town-hall meetings this past summer that Americans did not like the big-spending policies coming out of Washington D.C. including the stimulus bill early last year and most especially, the government-takeover of health care. The Tea Party includes a lot of Independents, many of whom voted for Barack Obama hoping for change and they do not like the change they are seeing coming out of Washington D.C. Sarah Palin, in her speech at the Tea Party conference in Nashville this past Saturday, asked the audience: "How’s that hope-y, change-y stuff workin’ out for ya?" The answer from the Tea Party is "Not so well."

>>Larry J. Sabato: The Tea Party and the Ghost of Ross Perot

Sarah Palin wasn’t the only presidential presence at the Tea Party convention. The ghost of Ross Perot was hovering above the Nashville hotel.

If the Tea Party is smart, it will learn from the implosions that cratered the Perot movement from 1992 to 1996. The only thing holding this very diverse cast of Tea characters together is an emphasis on the fiscal—spending, taxes, and debt. As with Perot, these concerns resonate with a substantial portion of the population, especially Independents. The Tea Party needs to borrow (or buy at a discount) some of Perot’s color-coded pie charts, and keep its followers focused there.

Just below the surface, the same problems faced by the Perotistas lurk for Tea Partiers. Did you listen to the conference attendees in Nashville? They are a mix of Libertarians and conservative Christians. In other words, social issues—if they rise to the forefront—will create deep fissures because there is sharp internal conflict.

Second, some of the leaders suffer from the egotism that dogs all political movements. Clashes are inevitable in the struggle for control, nationally and locally, with a consequent loss of momentum.

Finally, while some Tea Party people have political experience, most don’t. Naïveté in the ranks proved troublesome for the Perot movement, and it will for the Tea Party, too. Anger is not a governing philosophy. Constructive proposals will attract broader support.

>>Karen Finney: Question: Is it really a "revolution" if less than 1,000 people show up and you have to pay the keynote speaker $100,000 to get her there?

Answer: Probably not. We don’t really yet know what the Tea Party is all about. Unlike the Netroots movement that gained strength in 2004, playing a large role in democratic successes in 2006 and 2008; we have yet to see whether or not the tea party-ers will play a significant role in actually organizing around a candidate or agenda and mobilizing voters, not just rallies. The Netroots movement became a key part of the most robust progressive infrastructure we’ve had in a long time. They have demonstrated political heft and mobilization around a specific progressive agenda – and a willingness to hold the Democratic Party’s feet to the fire. Now certainly while they won’t admit it, GOP candidates are definitely afraid of the Tea Party showing up their ‘hood. But is that a pre-cursor to “revolution”?

In the context of the larger cultural, economic and societal shifts our nation is undergoing, the Tea Party may actually be part of a much bigger story about what Americans are really thinking and feeling. By merely viewing this through a political-partisan lens of one party vs. the other, do we risk oversimplifying or ignoring larger trends. In doing so, do we fail to give American voters — who are almost always several steps ahead of the politicians who court their votes — enough credit? The one clear message from the left, right, center, Tea Party, Netroots you name it: What have you done for me lately?

Katrina vanden Heuvel: Sen. Shelby’s truculence
It was a Joseph Welch-Joe McCarthy moment in the Senate on Thursday. Frustrated by Sen. Richard Shelby’s blanket hold on more than 70 of President Obama’s executive nominations, an exasperated Harry Reid announced that he might bypass Shelby’s procedural truculence by encouraging Obama to make recess appointments. “What alternatives do we have?” asked Reid on the Senate floor. “What alternative do we have?”

 Unfortunately, there is no alternative. Shelby is not opposed to Obama’s nominations on any ideological grounds, but instead because of two unrelated earmarks (a lucrative Air Force project for Mobile, an FBI facility for Redstone Arsenal) that he feels are not forthcoming to the Yellowhammer State quickly enough. Through the vagaries of Senate rules, Shelby’s hold essentially requires a 60-vote supermajority to get any of Obama’s nominations approved, a Herculean task now that the Democratic majority has slipped to 59-41. The nominees are universally considered qualified, and under less ridiculous conditions, the Constitutionally-mandated “Advice and Consent” of the Senate would be to approve them expediently and to move on to more pressing matters. Nevertheless, Shelby wants his earmarks, and he does have the rules on his side. It’s hard not to think of John Goodman’s Walter Sobchak from The Big Lebowski, petulantly brandishing his gun at the bowling alley over a meaningless point of procedure and asking, “Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a s*** about the rules?”

 But Obama has the rules on his side, too, and he can sidestep GOP recalcitrance by making what Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson calls, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, an “omnibus recess appointment,” which would fill the empty positions until the next Senate reconvenes in January 2011. Obama, for that matter, has history—and the high road—on his side, too. At this time in the Bush administration, the president had 70 pending nominations, had made 10 recess appointments, and had repeatedly railed against Democrats for gumming up the works. Today, Obama has more than 200 pending nominations and has made zero recess appointments. Obama should take Reid’s “alternative” and make the recess appointments when the Senate adjourns for President’s Day Weekend. Given this bit of history, Republican naysayers would have only hypocrisy to lean on for rhetorical support.

Steven G. Calabresi: Shelby’s holds: "unconstitutional"
The Senate practice of allowing one senator out of 100 to put holds on presidential executive and judicial nominees is outrageous and is clearly inconsistent with the proper functioning of our democracy. Principled arguments can be made for and against the filibuster of legislation, but there is no case at all to defend the power of one senator to stop a president’s nominees. If it is necessary to get rid of holds that the Senate amend its rules then the Senate should do so.
A principal reason why the Framers adopted the Constitution and gave up on the Articles of Confederation was because the unanimity rule and super-majority rules of the government under the Articles were unworkable. The current Senate practice of allowing holds on nominees is quite frankly unconstitutional because it is contrary to the text and original history behind the Constitution.
Holds also produce bad policy consequences because they give parochial senators too much power. The Senate should get rid of holds now. Americans devote more energy and attention to electing the President than they do to picking any other officer of our government. One senator, acting alone, ought not to be able to undo the results of a presidential election as to a particular nominee or policy by putting a hold on that nominee. The senatorial courtesy that allows for one senator holds on nominees needs to be permanently abolished.

Steve Steckler: Sarah Palin’s speech to the Tea Party convention was broadcast live by all three cable news networks, and that alone ought to tell you something about the increasing relevance of the Tea Party in this tumultuous economic and political environment. In such conditions, subtle debates over health care, energy and foreign policy not only get lost, they can actually antagonize many in the electorate. But something else happens as well: Sarah Palin rises, and through this rise she begins to shape — one could say, distort — the public discussion.

Palin’s ambitions clearly extend beyond the Tea Party movement, but for now the Party is a platform perfectly suited to her outsider image and searing rhetorical abilities. It does not matter that she justifiably worries most Republicans or that the mere sound of her voice provokes a skin rash among Democrats and most mainstream media figures; in fact, it probably helps. Many eyes are upon her now, and they will probably stay there so long as this recession lasts and she is seen as the personification of a heretofore leaderless radical countermovement to the Democrats’ opportunistic government expansion.Am I happy about this? No, but mostly because elections are not won by small arms insurgencies, and neither the Tea Partiers nor Sarah Palin have yet demonstrated that they can do more than shoot at sitting liberal ducks (enjoyable as it is to watch). But if Palin can successfully organize, vocalize and, in an ironic way, mainstream the disjointed sentiments of the Tea Partiers, and somehow make it seem constructive, which it currently is not, then she will have finally accomplished something more politically interesting than provoking guffaws in the Oval Office and major network newsrooms. And if she can thereby convert enough disenchanted conservatives and independents to her and the Tea Partiers’ cause, then she may finally legitimize what has so far been a very lightweight pre-candidacy and make herself into a near-plausible choice in the 2012 Republican primaries.

Michael O’Hanlon: On another topic: "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell"
Having been quoted in a way that some find objectionable on CNN on the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell issue, I would like to clarify that as I’ve written elsewhere I support repeal of the policy and integration of openly gay and lesbian individuals into the U.S. military. I believe the cultural issues can be addressed. I also believe that the policy review should not be belabored; that would be unnecessarily incendiary and provide fodder for nasty debates. We can and should do this with minimal fanfare and treat it as an administrative issue for military command, not as a top level national security or politics matter.

You Vote:  

Is Sarah Palin a viable presidential contender?(poll)

Christopher L. Eisgruber: Sen. Shelby’s holds:
Richard’s Shelby’s appalling across-the-board hold is just the latest indication that the federal appointments process is broken. I am defender of the Senate’s prerogative to contest Supreme Court nominations vigorously. But the Senate’s casual, routine refusal to confirm nominees to executive branch positions and the lower federal courts has become a disgrace. If we do not allow presidents to appoint officials, we cannot expect them to govern effectively. And the delays virtually guarantee a continuing spiral of acrimony in Washington politics—not only do they interfere with effective governance, they put people’s lives on hold, and those people, and their friends, have long memories. Both parties are at fault—it may be the Republicans who are dragging their feet now, but Democrats have done so in the past—and all of us should be concerned.

Victor Kamber: Sarah Palin is about money, power and politics. She is no different than many political figures. She has had a taste of the politics at the top and wants to continue. Make as much money as she can now to help raise her family and give her the political independence to do and say what she wants, She wants the attention that comes with this visibility and the power it brings to help formulate policy she believes will help shape America in her vision. Lastly she wants to keep her options open for the possibility of elected politics (the Presidency). What more could any political figure want. She wants it all. She is a normal politician who desires it all, money , power, and politics!

Walter Russell Mead: President Palin?
We Americans are clearly the most optimistic people on earth.

In 2000 we elected a charismatic outsider who didn’t have much experience per se but who seemed to be in touch with some important values and had a deep emotional rapport with a lot of ordinary Americans. We figured his terrific instincts would more than compensate for his lack of national and international experience, so we put George W. Bush in the White House.

By 2008 we weren’t so sure how well that had worked, so we decided to — put another charismatic outsider without much national or international experience in the White House. That, we figured, would surely fix things. President Obama’s deep instinctive grasp on the important values of life and his deep emotional rapport with a lot of ordinary Americans would surely trump any little problems caused by his near-total lack of experience managing large institutions, or dealing with the many complicated problems of national governance and foreign policy.

Well here it is 2010 and a lot of folks wonder whether President Obama is The One or just another one — another president overwhelmed by the demands of the job. (Personally I think he and we are just starting to find out what he’s made of and it’s much too soon to write him off, but that’s another issue.) In any case, we seem to have a bit of buyer’s remorse and are casting around for somebody new for 2012.

And look what we’ve found: somebody without much national or international experience, but with a wonderful set of instincts and a deep emotional rapport with ordinary Americans — Sarah Palin. George W. Bush failed, and Barack Obama is having trouble, but the third time is obviously the charm.

They say that repeating the same action and expecting a different result is a form of insanity, but that’s depressing old think. Here in America, everything is fresh, new and appealing until, quite suddenly, it’s old and stale.

>>Greg Dworkin: President Palin?
Sarah Palin represents the many ordinary Americans who happen to have their own TV studio in their living room (from which she can see America.) I don’t know what’s more depressing… her know-nothing knowledge base, or her enablers who write that off as representing ‘ordinary Americans’ (which it most assuredly does not.) Sarah’s all about the money - no fee, no speech. But, alas, there’s always someone willing to be conned. Still, if you check the media reports and editorials, her speech was not well received outside the hall, where 600 people paid big bucks to hear her. Oh, well, there’s a sucker born every minute.

Bradley A. Blakeman: President Palin?
Sarah Palin is all about Sarah Palin. She has become a “brand” and a political celebrity. She is the
Miley Cyrus of Republican and Conservative politics. Palin is all about making as much money as quickly as she can and staying relevant and newsworthy, all at the same time. She is selling books, giving speeches, sitting down for interviews, writing Op-ed’s, and dipping her toe in 2012 battle-ground states. Unless she becomes a serious candidate herself, her star will fade and someone real will emerge and eclipse her.

Darrell M. West: If Sarah Palin wants to be president, the most important thing she needs to do is boost her knowledge level. Her platform obviously would be deficit reduction, lower taxes, and less federal spending. But to be a credible candidate, she needs to be able to discuss these issues with greater authority than currently is the case. She must convince people she is up to the job, something she was not able to accomplish during the 2008 campaign, even among Republicans. She will require much deeper knowledge of foreign and economic policy because those are likely to be the major issues in 2012.

Charles W. Calomiris: Sarah Palin’s popularity with many Americans is also easy to figure out. She is a fighter. She is smart but not in ways that most politicians are smart; for liberal politicos she is a homespun joke, but for many Americans she is a normal person rather than the typical patronizing arrogant ass they are used to seeing on television (think Joe Biden and you will have the right picture in mind). She has core beliefs that drive her ambition and she does not give them up based on the latest polls. And, it doesn’t hurt that she has a winning personality, radiates warmth, has a sense of humor, and is gorgeous, does it? Despite all those positives, I am hoping the Republican Party, and the Tea Party, will find someone a little less polarizing and a little more qualified to be President to put on the ballot in three years.

Michael Fullilove: Three points leaped out of Sarah Palin’s interview on Fox News Sunday.

The first was the eagerness with which Governor Palin affirmed that she ‘would’ run for president if it made sense for the United States and the Palin family. Her response was much less equivocal than I would have imagined. She wants that job, bad.

Second, she went awfully close to saying that, if he wants to get re-elected, President Obama should declare war on… someone. She was not precise about who exactly. She cannot have meant to say that the US commander-in-chief should risk American lives (and take foreign lives) in order to win an election. Perhaps it points to the difficulty of segueing between the roles of political leader and political commentator.

Finally, Sarah Palin set ourself up for increased scrutiny of her knowledge of national and international events. During the 2008 race, she implied, she was green. What about now? ‘I sure as heck better be more astute on these current events and national events than I was two years ago’. I’m aware that The New York Times has reported she is getting daily emails from advisers on policy developments. But based on the reportage in Game Change, it would take a vast number of such emails before Governor Palin has the minimum knowledge required to withstand the rigors of a presidential race.

>>Fred Barbash: On her possible candidacy, here are some excerpts from the Fox interview yesterday:
WALLACE: Why wouldn’t you run for president?

PALIN: I would. I would if I believe that that is the right thing to do for our country and for the Palin family. Certainly, I would do so.

WALLACE: And how do you make that decision over the next three years?

PALIN: It’s going to be thankfully a lot of time to be able to make such a decision. Right now, I’m looking at, as I say, other potential candidates out there who are strong. They’re in a position of having the luxury of having more information at their fingertips right now. So that the current events that we’re talking about today, they –

WALLACE: Wait, wait, wait. Because — you’re basically saying you will consider it.PALIN: I think that it would be absurd to not consider what it is that I can potentially do to help our country. I don’t know if it’s going to be every seeking a title though. It may be just doing a darn good job as a reporter or covering some of the current events.

WALLACE: But you’re going to consider, you’re go to go through the process of thinking –

PALIN: I won’t close the door that perhaps could be open for me in the future. I don’t want any American to ever close the door in their personal or their professional lives and put themselves in a box and say, heck, yes I’m going to do that. Or, no way I’m not going to do that, when we don’t know what the future holds.

WALLACE: There’s a report this weekend that you are now getting daily e-mail briefings on domestic and foreign policy issues from a group of top advisors in Washington, D.C.
How come?

PALIN: Ever since our PAC was formed, we have had good people contributing. Some — many volunteers, I guess you would call them advisors, yes, firing away e-mails to me every morning saying, this is what’s happened in Washington overnight. You need to be aware of this. Good. It’s great. It’s helpful.

WALLACE: Do you — isn’t that the move of somebody who is thinking about running for president?

PALIN: You mean, conventionally how someone would — I have no idea how conventionally people do this. How they try to open a door that’s cracked, if it’s even open. And if that involves having a group of advisors send them e-mails every morning. I don’t know how any of that stuff works. I don’t know, I’m just appreciative of having some good information at my fingertips right now.

WALLACE: Would you say that you’re more knowledgeable about domestic and foreign affairs now than you were two years ago?
PALIN: Well, I would hope so. Yes, I am.

Fred Barbash: Obama’s health care gambit: Will it work?

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Republicans should attend President Obama’s healthcare conference and use it as an opportunity to put forward a real reform platform. They have good ideas for healthcare reform (several bills already exist that together could form the basis of a meaningful and smart reform package) but those bills have not gotten much attention from the press (what a surprise!). The President’s advisers perhaps are reminding him of how much it helped Bill Clinton to embrace, and then take credit for, Republican reform ideas (e.g., welfare reform). The President desperately needs a win (and at the moment it appears that he isn’t going to get one before the 2010 elections), and the President knows that he needs the Republicans to get that win. By coming to the table the Republicans could bolster their credentials for being able to solve important problems, and also reduce some of the cynicism in the country about the pettiness, intransigence and selfishness of our political class.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Republicans should attend President Obama’s healthcare conference and use it as an opportunity to put forward a real reform platform. They have good ideas for healthcare reform (several bills already exist that together could form the basis of a meaningful and smart reform package) but those bills have not gotten much attention from the press (what a surprise!). The President’s advisers perhaps are reminding him of how much it helped Bill Clinton to embrace, and then take credit for, Republican reform ideas (e.g., welfare reform). The President desperately needs a win (and at the moment it appears that he isn’t going to get one before the 2010 elections), and the President knows that he needs the Republicans to get that win. By coming to the table the Republicans could bolster their credentials for being able to solve important problems, and also reduce some of the cynicism in the country about the pettiness, intransigence and selfishness of our political class.

>>Tevi Troy: If President Obama’s vision for his Blair House health care summit is of a debate where he uses the authority of the presidency to browbeat Republicans about the merits of the Congressional Democrats’ plan, this idea is destined for failure. If he wants to have a serious discussion about fixing health care, with a willingness to start over and accept new ideas, then this conversation could be good for Obama, good for health care, and good for America.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Republicans should attend President Obama’s healthcare conference and use it as an opportunity to put forward a real reform platform. They have good ideas for healthcare reform (several bills already exist that together could form the basis of a meaningful and smart reform package) but those bills have not gotten much attention from the press (what a surprise!). The President’s advisers perhaps are reminding him of how much it helped Bill Clinton to embrace, and then take credit for, Republican reform ideas (e.g., welfare reform). The President desperately needs a win (and at the moment it appears that he isn’t going to get one before the 2010 elections), and the President knows that he needs the Republicans to get that win. By coming to the table the Republicans could bolster their credentials for being able to solve important problems, and also reduce some of the cynicism in the country about the pettiness, intransigence and selfishness of our political class.

>>Tevi Troy: If President Obama’s vision for his Blair House health care summit is of a debate where he uses the authority of the presidency to browbeat Republicans about the merits of the Congressional Democrats’ plan, this idea is destined for failure. If he wants to have a serious discussion about fixing health care, with a willingness to start over and accept new ideas, then this conversation could be good for Obama, good for health care, and good for America.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The Democrats are battening down the hatches on health care and seem oblivious to the public gale force opposition to health care reforms at the expense of the greater economy. The Republican mantra should be, “what good is affordable health care if Americans do not have a job to pay for it?.” Republicans should demand health care get put on the back burner, unless and until the economy improves. That means a total and complete focus on jobs and getting people back to work. Republicans better not get suckered into a “bipartisan” effort on health care. The best thing Republicans can do is kill any attempt to focus on health care and push for economic relief and recovery first and foremost.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Republicans should attend President Obama’s healthcare conference and use it as an opportunity to put forward a real reform platform. They have good ideas for healthcare reform (several bills already exist that together could form the basis of a meaningful and smart reform package) but those bills have not gotten much attention from the press (what a surprise!). The President’s advisers perhaps are reminding him of how much it helped Bill Clinton to embrace, and then take credit for, Republican reform ideas (e.g., welfare reform). The President desperately needs a win (and at the moment it appears that he isn’t going to get one before the 2010 elections), and the President knows that he needs the Republicans to get that win. By coming to the table the Republicans could bolster their credentials for being able to solve important problems, and also reduce some of the cynicism in the country about the pettiness, intransigence and selfishness of our political class.

>>Tevi Troy: If President Obama’s vision for his Blair House health care summit is of a debate where he uses the authority of the presidency to browbeat Republicans about the merits of the Congressional Democrats’ plan, this idea is destined for failure. If he wants to have a serious discussion about fixing health care, with a willingness to start over and accept new ideas, then this conversation could be good for Obama, good for health care, and good for America.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The Democrats are battening down the hatches on health care and seem oblivious to the public gale force opposition to health care reforms at the expense of the greater economy. The Republican mantra should be, “what good is affordable health care if Americans do not have a job to pay for it?.” Republicans should demand health care get put on the back burner, unless and until the economy improves. That means a total and complete focus on jobs and getting people back to work. Republicans better not get suckered into a “bipartisan” effort on health care. The best thing Republicans can do is kill any attempt to focus on health care and push for economic relief and recovery first and foremost.

>>David Biespiel: If the government is going to create health care TV, then the president might as well do it right as the latest form of Washington/ Hollywood-ization of governance. In fact, he should just invite Simon Cowell, Ryan Seacrest, and crew to host and judge the health care show because who on Earth believes that the political entertainment media will do nothing less than cover the event as the equivalent of American Health Care Idol? Both this idea and the thrust of the Tea Party movement are indications that American democracy is teetering in the direction of referendum governance. Because that’s what true populism (well that kind that doesn’t lead to a mob, that is) leads to.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Republicans should attend President Obama’s healthcare conference and use it as an opportunity to put forward a real reform platform. They have good ideas for healthcare reform (several bills already exist that together could form the basis of a meaningful and smart reform package) but those bills have not gotten much attention from the press (what a surprise!). The President’s advisers perhaps are reminding him of how much it helped Bill Clinton to embrace, and then take credit for, Republican reform ideas (e.g., welfare reform). The President desperately needs a win (and at the moment it appears that he isn’t going to get one before the 2010 elections), and the President knows that he needs the Republicans to get that win. By coming to the table the Republicans could bolster their credentials for being able to solve important problems, and also reduce some of the cynicism in the country about the pettiness, intransigence and selfishness of our political class.

>>Tevi Troy: If President Obama’s vision for his Blair House health care summit is of a debate where he uses the authority of the presidency to browbeat Republicans about the merits of the Congressional Democrats’ plan, this idea is destined for failure. If he wants to have a serious discussion about fixing health care, with a willingness to start over and accept new ideas, then this conversation could be good for Obama, good for health care, and good for America.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The Democrats are battening down the hatches on health care and seem oblivious to the public gale force opposition to health care reforms at the expense of the greater economy. The Republican mantra should be, “what good is affordable health care if Americans do not have a job to pay for it?.” Republicans should demand health care get put on the back burner, unless and until the economy improves. That means a total and complete focus on jobs and getting people back to work. Republicans better not get suckered into a “bipartisan” effort on health care. The best thing Republicans can do is kill any attempt to focus on health care and push for economic relief and recovery first and foremost.

>>David Biespiel: If the government is going to create health care TV, then the president might as well do it right as the latest form of Washington/ Hollywood-ization of governance. In fact, he should just invite Simon Cowell, Ryan Seacrest, and crew to host and judge the health care show because who on Earth believes that the political entertainment media will do nothing less than cover the event as the equivalent of American Health Care Idol? Both this idea and the thrust of the Tea Party movement are indications that American democracy is teetering in the direction of referendum governance. Because that’s what true populism (well that kind that doesn’t lead to a mob, that is) leads to.

>>Lanny Davis: President Obama proved that civil discourse is possible in his brilliant GOP caucus appearance — and also proved that there may be thoughtful Republicans who may be willing tow ork with him on their market-based, conservative ideas that represent genuine, albeit minimal, health care reform, making progress towards (1) transparency, (2) competitiveness, and (3) cost reductions and cost-reduction incentives in Medicare and by health care providers.

We have this great great president who has set a standard of decency and civility, even towards GOP extreme partisans who have engaged in vicious personal attacks and false and scurrilous name-calling. I hope the responsible voices I heard at the GOP House caucus and those thoughtful and constructive conservative Senators I know who are ready to work with the president on common ground will also reach out to him.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Republicans should attend President Obama’s healthcare conference and use it as an opportunity to put forward a real reform platform. They have good ideas for healthcare reform (several bills already exist that together could form the basis of a meaningful and smart reform package) but those bills have not gotten much attention from the press (what a surprise!). The President’s advisers perhaps are reminding him of how much it helped Bill Clinton to embrace, and then take credit for, Republican reform ideas (e.g., welfare reform). The President desperately needs a win (and at the moment it appears that he isn’t going to get one before the 2010 elections), and the President knows that he needs the Republicans to get that win. By coming to the table the Republicans could bolster their credentials for being able to solve important problems, and also reduce some of the cynicism in the country about the pettiness, intransigence and selfishness of our political class.

>>Tevi Troy: If President Obama’s vision for his Blair House health care summit is of a debate where he uses the authority of the presidency to browbeat Republicans about the merits of the Congressional Democrats’ plan, this idea is destined for failure. If he wants to have a serious discussion about fixing health care, with a willingness to start over and accept new ideas, then this conversation could be good for Obama, good for health care, and good for America.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The Democrats are battening down the hatches on health care and seem oblivious to the public gale force opposition to health care reforms at the expense of the greater economy. The Republican mantra should be, “what good is affordable health care if Americans do not have a job to pay for it?.” Republicans should demand health care get put on the back burner, unless and until the economy improves. That means a total and complete focus on jobs and getting people back to work. Republicans better not get suckered into a “bipartisan” effort on health care. The best thing Republicans can do is kill any attempt to focus on health care and push for economic relief and recovery first and foremost.

>>David Biespiel: If the government is going to create health care TV, then the president might as well do it right as the latest form of Washington/ Hollywood-ization of governance. In fact, he should just invite Simon Cowell, Ryan Seacrest, and crew to host and judge the health care show because who on Earth believes that the political entertainment media will do nothing less than cover the event as the equivalent of American Health Care Idol? Both this idea and the thrust of the Tea Party movement are indications that American democracy is teetering in the direction of referendum governance. Because that’s what true populism (well that kind that doesn’t lead to a mob, that is) leads to.

>>Lanny Davis: President Obama proved that civil discourse is possible in his brilliant GOP caucus appearance — and also proved that there may be thoughtful Republicans who may be willing tow ork with him on their market-based, conservative ideas that represent genuine, albeit minimal, health care reform, making progress towards (1) transparency, (2) competitiveness, and (3) cost reductions and cost-reduction incentives in Medicare and by health care providers.

We have this great great president who has set a standard of decency and civility, even towards GOP extreme partisans who have engaged in vicious personal attacks and false and scurrilous name-calling. I hope the responsible voices I heard at the GOP House caucus and those thoughtful and constructive conservative Senators I know who are ready to work with the president on common ground will also reach out to him.

>>Thomas E. Mann: I think this call for a bipartisan meeting on health reform is part of a broader approach to shift the pivot of the 2010 elections from a referendum on the party in power to a choice between two parties. Obama believes correctly that the Republican strategy is to kill every remaining item on his agenda, not to negotiate agreements with the party that won the last two elections. He also believes that bringing public attention to whatever Republican alternatives exist will strengthen his position with the public and with nervous Democrats in Congress. The chances of bipartisan agreement on health reform this year are close to zero. But the chances of health reform clearing its final hurdles with support only from Democrats are very much alive — and increased by a public airing of party differences.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Republicans should attend President Obama’s healthcare conference and use it as an opportunity to put forward a real reform platform. They have good ideas for healthcare reform (several bills already exist that together could form the basis of a meaningful and smart reform package) but those bills have not gotten much attention from the press (what a surprise!). The President’s advisers perhaps are reminding him of how much it helped Bill Clinton to embrace, and then take credit for, Republican reform ideas (e.g., welfare reform). The President desperately needs a win (and at the moment it appears that he isn’t going to get one before the 2010 elections), and the President knows that he needs the Republicans to get that win. By coming to the table the Republicans could bolster their credentials for being able to solve important problems, and also reduce some of the cynicism in the country about the pettiness, intransigence and selfishness of our political class.

>>Tevi Troy: If President Obama’s vision for his Blair House health care summit is of a debate where he uses the authority of the presidency to browbeat Republicans about the merits of the Congressional Democrats’ plan, this idea is destined for failure. If he wants to have a serious discussion about fixing health care, with a willingness to start over and accept new ideas, then this conversation could be good for Obama, good for health care, and good for America.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The Democrats are battening down the hatches on health care and seem oblivious to the public gale force opposition to health care reforms at the expense of the greater economy. The Republican mantra should be, “what good is affordable health care if Americans do not have a job to pay for it?.” Republicans should demand health care get put on the back burner, unless and until the economy improves. That means a total and complete focus on jobs and getting people back to work. Republicans better not get suckered into a “bipartisan” effort on health care. The best thing Republicans can do is kill any attempt to focus on health care and push for economic relief and recovery first and foremost.

>>David Biespiel: If the government is going to create health care TV, then the president might as well do it right as the latest form of Washington/ Hollywood-ization of governance. In fact, he should just invite Simon Cowell, Ryan Seacrest, and crew to host and judge the health care show because who on Earth believes that the political entertainment media will do nothing less than cover the event as the equivalent of American Health Care Idol? Both this idea and the thrust of the Tea Party movement are indications that American democracy is teetering in the direction of referendum governance. Because that’s what true populism (well that kind that doesn’t lead to a mob, that is) leads to.

>>Lanny Davis: President Obama proved that civil discourse is possible in his brilliant GOP caucus appearance — and also proved that there may be thoughtful Republicans who may be willing tow ork with him on their market-based, conservative ideas that represent genuine, albeit minimal, health care reform, making progress towards (1) transparency, (2) competitiveness, and (3) cost reductions and cost-reduction incentives in Medicare and by health care providers.

We have this great great president who has set a standard of decency and civility, even towards GOP extreme partisans who have engaged in vicious personal attacks and false and scurrilous name-calling. I hope the responsible voices I heard at the GOP House caucus and those thoughtful and constructive conservative Senators I know who are ready to work with the president on common ground will also reach out to him.

>>Thomas E. Mann: I think this call for a bipartisan meeting on health reform is part of a broader approach to shift the pivot of the 2010 elections from a referendum on the party in power to a choice between two parties. Obama believes correctly that the Republican strategy is to kill every remaining item on his agenda, not to negotiate agreements with the party that won the last two elections. He also believes that bringing public attention to whatever Republican alternatives exist will strengthen his position with the public and with nervous Democrats in Congress. The chances of bipartisan agreement on health reform this year are close to zero. But the chances of health reform clearing its final hurdles with support only from Democrats are very much alive — and increased by a public airing of party differences.

>>Steve Steckler: Republicans are absolutely right to demand that the discussion start from scratch, since they have been left out of the all-important foundational House discussion; that is, the one that established coverage expansion and the method for achieving it as the central goal of reform instead of starting with cost control and regulatory improvement. To be invited to tinker around the edges with these two dirty bombs is like asking whether they would like to use a red wire or a yellow wire to arm the device.

We need to start from scratch because the House bill vastly expands government’s reach and obligations while pretending to control costs with nothing better than "so what" pilot programs and crude price capping, which is always a losing strategy. No fundamental change in incentives or injection of unsubsidized competition. The Senate bill is a simply a fraud, because it relies for its funding on Medicare provider cuts that simply will not happen, as well as other implausible assumptions. And by the time anything is passed, ending the tax-free status of employer-provided insurance will have been watered down to club soda. This is not an invitation to participate; it’s an offer to be dragged along once you’re lashed to the train.

>>Dean Baker: The Republican Party believes that it has had great success as the party of obstruction. The Democrats, with control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, are expected to produce results. Certainly when it comes to health care, they have not thus far been able to.
Unless President Obama can make them feel pain for this obstructionism, which means getting clear public support for important parts of his health care package, the Republicans have little reason to change course. Thus far, there is no evidence that anything that President Obama is saying or doing will change this dynamic. Perhaps it is not possible to change the dynamic at this point, but if the Republicans had wanted to help President Obama pass a health care plan, we would have seen evidence long before now.

>>Timothy Stoltzfus Jost: Obama’s strategy is high risk, but it might be worth taking. Few people will watch the entire broadcast, so it will all depend on the sound bites the news media choose to pass on. The Republicans have a simple and familiar narrative: high malpractice costs, excessive regulation, government takeover, higher taxes, and Medicare cuts and Fox will showcase it. The fact that their plan covers one tenth as many uninsured and reduces the deficit half as much as the Democrats plan according to the cbo will get lost. The Democrats have a much more complicated and unfamiliar plan to sell. The fact that it will actually work may get lost. But at this point something needs to be done to move forward, and one always hopes that truth and reason will triumph, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

>>Charles W. Calomiris: The Republicans should attend President Obama’s healthcare conference and use it as an opportunity to put forward a real reform platform. They have good ideas for healthcare reform (several bills already exist that together could form the basis of a meaningful and smart reform package) but those bills have not gotten much attention from the press (what a surprise!). The President’s advisers perhaps are reminding him of how much it helped Bill Clinton to embrace, and then take credit for, Republican reform ideas (e.g., welfare reform). The President desperately needs a win (and at the moment it appears that he isn’t going to get one before the 2010 elections), and the President knows that he needs the Republicans to get that win. By coming to the table the Republicans could bolster their credentials for being able to solve important problems, and also reduce some of the cynicism in the country about the pettiness, intransigence and selfishness of our political class.

>>Tevi Troy: If President Obama’s vision for his Blair House health care summit is of a debate where he uses the authority of the presidency to browbeat Republicans about the merits of the Congressional Democrats’ plan, this idea is destined for failure. If he wants to have a serious discussion about fixing health care, with a willingness to start over and accept new ideas, then this conversation could be good for Obama, good for health care, and good for America.

>>Bradley A. Blakeman: The Democrats are battening down the hatches on health care and seem oblivious to the public gale force opposition to health care reforms at the expense of the greater economy. The Republican mantra should be, “what good is affordable health care if Americans do not have a job to pay for it?.” Republicans should demand health care get put on the back burner, unless and until the economy improves. That means a total and complete focus on jobs and getting people back to work. Republicans better not get suckered into a “bipartisan” effort on health care. The best thing Republicans can do is kill any attempt to focus on health care and push for economic relief and recovery first and foremost.

>>David Biespiel: If the government is going to create health care TV, then the president might as well do it right as the latest form of Washington/ Hollywood-ization of governance. In fact, he should just invite Simon Cowell, Ryan Seacrest, and crew to host and judge the health care show because who on Earth believes that the political entertainment media will do nothing less than cover the event as the equivalent of American Health Care Idol? Both this idea and the thrust of the Tea Party movement are indications that American democracy is teetering in the direction of referendum governance. Because that’s what true populism (well that kind that doesn’t lead to a mob, that is) leads to.

>>Lanny Davis: President Obama proved that civil discourse is possible in his brilliant GOP caucus appearance — and also proved that there may be thoughtful Republicans who may be willing tow ork with him on their market-based, conservative ideas that represent genuine, albeit minimal, health care reform, making progress towards (1) transparency, (2) competitiveness, and (3) cost reductions and cost-reduction incentives in Medicare and by health care providers.

We have this great great president who has set a standard of decency and civility, even towards GOP extreme partisans who have engaged in vicious personal attacks and false and scurrilous name-calling. I hope the responsible voices I heard at the GOP House caucus and those thoughtful and constructive conservative Senators I know who are ready to work with the president on common ground will also reach out to him.

>>Thomas E. Mann: I think this call for a bipartisan meeting on health reform is part of a broader approach to shift the pivot of the 2010 elections from a referendum on the party in power to a choice between two parties. Obama believes correctly that the Republican strategy is to kill every remaining item on his agenda, not to negotiate agreements with the party that won the last two elections. He also believes that bringing public attention to whatever Republican alternatives exist will strengthen his position with the public and with nervous Democrats in Congress. The chances of bipartisan agreement on health reform this year are close to zero. But the chances of health reform clearing its final hurdles with support only from Democrats are very much alive — and increased by a public airing of party differences.

>>Steve Steckler: Republicans are absolutely right to demand that the discussion start from scratch, since they have been left out of the all-important foundational House discussion; that is, the one that established coverage expansion and the method for achieving it as the central goal of reform instead of starting with cost control and regulatory improvement. To be invited to tinker around the edges with these two dirty bombs is like asking whether they would like to use a red wire or a yellow wire to arm the device.

We need to start from scratch because the House bill vastly expands government’s reach and obligations while pretending to control costs with nothing better than "so what" pilot programs and crude price capping, which is always a losing strategy. No fundamental change in incentives or injection of unsubsidized competition. The Senate bill is a simply a fraud, because it relies for its funding on Medicare provider cuts that simply will not happen, as well as other implausible assumptions. And by the time anything is passed, ending the tax-free status of employer-provided insurance will have been watered down to club soda. This is not an invitation to participate; it’s an offer to be dragged along once you’re lashed to the train.

>>Georges C. Benjamin: The President’s effort to engage both sides in a bipartisan way is an important next step. Once and for all we will be able to have a policy discussion on major ideas from both sides and compare them. The discussion must be policy based and lay out the pro’s & con’s of each idea. The media will need to give the ideas a fair hearing to make this work however and stop reiterating taking points without substance. In addition, political talking heads will need to be accurate in their reporting and take some responsibility to correct errors in reporting when they occur. Look, if Leno and Letterman can get together in the best interest of "what’s funny" you would think that Congress could get together to "save lives, reduce costs and improve health access for our citizens."

Fred Barbash: We welcome reader commentary and try to publish as much as possible. To comment, sign in here, with my assurance that the information is used only when necessary to authenticate a post. There is sometimes a considerable time lag between submitting your comment and seeing it published; that’s because publication is not automatic; I read each post before approving it and often I fall behind. Sorry. It helps to avoid:
A)Writing in all capital letters
B)Personal attacks (trashing a person instead of what the person is saying)
C)Profanity
Thanks for participating.