That is what elections are for

I caught a little bit of the health-care summit this past week.

I must admit I did not have the full seven hours to devote to watching this on television or the Internet. I do commend the president of the United States for sitting in a room with members of Congress for seven hours. The hot air had to be stifling. For that matter, I commend the members of Congress who sat in the same room with the President (and Vice President Biden) for seven hours.

There are couple of suggestions I might make to liven up the program next time he decides to do this: First, how about Ryan Seacrest reading off the results of a nationwide vote about every hour or so and one member of Congress or the Administration getting kicked out of the room? Second, perhaps we could have Donald Trump and come in and fire one of the participants every hour or so. I do believe one of these might make for a little more compelling television.

The president said one thing that I do agree with: "that's what elections are for". I do not understand the Republican strategy of attempting to filibuster or derail the health-care bill. The president and the Democrats won the 2008 election. They have large majorities in both houses. This is their signature initiative. I agree with many of the Republicans' reservations and objections to the health-care plan but, the Democrats did win the last election. So I say to the Republicans: let them pass it and, more importantly, let them defend it.

There seems to be some fear amongst Republicans that the creation of this large entitlement program might ultimately be something that the American public likes. Let's face it, although many Americans profess to be fiscal conservatives, many Americans like their government services. We just don't like paying for government services for other states, cities or voters.

There is probably a legitimate fear amongst Republicans that, once the health-care plan gets embedded in the American way of life, the public will grow to like the benefits they receive and a Republican president and Republican Congress will not be able to undo it in the future. Let's face it, Ronald Reagan vowed to abolish the Department of Education and it is still around, bigger and more expensivethan ever. George W. Bush in eight years did little to reduce the size and cost of government.

If the American people finally like this large new entitlement program that is their prerogative. Again, as the president said that is what elections are for.

If however the American public finds come as I believe they will, that they are spending much more on health insurance and receiving much less, there will be a price to pay. The Democrats, having passed this on a strict party line vote will be the ones to pay the price. The Republicans must avoid the temptation to take a paternalistic attitude and try to "protect" the American people from themselves. If ultimately the American people do not like Obama care, President Obama and his party will pay the polls in 2010 and 2012.

So what should the Republicans do? I say participate vigorously in the debate. Set forth the reasons you object to the bill as proposed. Put forth your alternatives to Obama care. Then, the Congress vote and if it passes but the president signed. We had an election in 2008 he won.

The Democrats are going to try to pass health care in the US Senate through a process known as reconciliation. Honestly I believe the vast majority of the American people, including this writer, do not understand the reconciliation is, or if we do we think it is something that Charlie Sheen and his wife are doing. Therefore, I'm not sure that Republican objection to reconciliation is an effective argument that is going to resonate with the American people. Again, the Republicans should focus on their plan and the reasons they don't support Obama care, then let Congress vote, and let the President sign it.

And, as the president said, that's what elections are for. Maybe we can get Ryan Seacrest to read the results in November 2010.

Bye Bayh for Now

It is not a good year to be a United States senator and a Democrat. With President Obama dropping in the polls and the United States Congress even less popular, several prominent Democratic senators have decided it is time to retire rather than run for another term. Perhaps the most surprising announcement came today from Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana.

Bayh is one of those Senators who has an outstanding profile for a presidential candidate. He came into political office as the son of a prominent senator from his home state of Indiana. He ran for governor and was a successful two-term governor. He then ran for and was elected to the United States Senate. In the last three elections he has apparently been on the short list of potential Democratic nominees for vice president.

He is a fairly moderate senator from a state that normally leans Republican. He has managed to win there by taking more moderate positions on economic issues than the rest of his party. He has frequently been an advocate of responsible fiscal policy and controlling government spending. These positions are frequently set him apart from the rest of his party, particularly Democrats in Congress.

Still, it was a surprise today when he said he was through. He cited the excessive partisanship in Washington DC as the reason for his retirement. He noted that partisanship prevents anything substantive from getting done.

The way he is going out, sending warning about excessive partisanship along with a responsible fiscal record makes me wonder if we have seen the last of Evan Bayh. Let's fast forward ahead to 2012. I will say at the very beginning that incumbent presidents generally when renomination even in the face of relatively strong challenges from within their party. Jimmy Carter fought off the icon of Democratic liberalism Ted Kennedy in 1980. Gerald Ford held off the icon of Republican conservatism, Ronald Reagan, in 1976. Beating an incumbent president for the party's nomination is difficult and rare.

Evan Bayh however may be very well positioned to do just that. Polls are showing that President Obama's popularity is sinking rapidly. The perception has arisen that his Administration is engaged in reckless spending and growth of big government at home and a weak foreign-policy abroad. Critics both within and without the Democratic Party have questioned his pursuit of health care reform ahead of jobs creation. Likewise, many responsible critics have questioned the effort to turn the war on terror into a criminal investigation and prosecution rather than a more. Finally, the Nobel Prize seems to be simply a taunt from the rest of the world and a punchline here at home.

Democratic members of Congress, Democratic governors and democratic state legislators may become very concerned about their own electoral well-being in 2012. The prospect of an unpopular president Obama at the top of the ticket may begin to frighten them and they may discuss finding a candidate who can win.

What would be the alternatives within the Democratic Party to Barack Obama in 2012? By serving in the Cabinet, Hilary Clinton has effectively taken herself out of the running. She now takes ownership of the Obama administration's policies and would be perceived as extremely disloyal for running against him. She lacks any real credibility if she were to try and discount her role in the administration. The 22nd amendment prevents Bill Clinton from pulling a Teddy Roosevelt and trying to challenge one of his successors in a party primary. So who is there that could challenge Barack Obama?

Evan Bayh may be that person. A candidate with executive experience as a governor and a relatively fiscally conservative record as a senator. He hails from the Midwest, an area where Democrats need to win to break up the Reagan coalition and retain the White House. He is young, articulate and telegenic. It would be hard to dismiss him as a cook, a crank or an egomaniac for challenging the President within his own party.

This may be, and probably is, far-fetched but if you read sometime next year that Bayh is giving a speech in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, the White House should get very nervous.

At least they're not President

I have not been a fan of Pres. Obama but the bookshelves this week and give me reason to be happy he's president is opposed to at least two other people: Mark Sanford and John Edwards.

Two books are out this week by people close each of the former presidential contenders. The Edwards book is written by a former aide and the Sanford book was written by his soon-to-be ex-wife. I have not, and probably will not, read the books, but I have seen and read interviews with the authors. Apparently both books detail extramarital affairs being carried on by both presidential contenders. In Edwards' case the extramarital affair also produced a child that he now acknowledges is his. In the Sanford case the extramarital affair produced the now infamous "hiking trip" and the confession that his mistress was his "soul mate".

Yes, I am really glad these two are not President and will never be president. I am not going to get into the moral discussion of their behavior and the violation of their wedding bows. That seems rather obvious. To me, what shows that these men are not fit to be president and never were is the sheer arrogance, coupled with stupidity, of their actions.

Let's start with Sen. Edwards. He had a natural profile for high public office: very successful trial lawyer who won election to the U.S. Senate from a state that is fairly conservative. He managed to land a spot on the 2004 Democratic ticket as the vice presidential candidate and was viewed by many as just the type of moderate Southerner in the Democratic Party needed to reclaim the White House. The problem was, he was not real moderate in certain areas.

It is alleged that he carried a lengthy affair and got his mistress pregnant all while running for president. He never considered for one moment dropping out of the race even when confronted with his infidelities and the pregnancy of his mistress. His former aide alleges that an elaborate scheme was hatched to hide the mistress at various locations throughout the country while Edwards continue to campaign for the presidency. Only the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire state Democratic Party, and possibly the country, from a gripping scandal. Now it is just salacious and amusing, but what if Edwards was the Vice President or President of the United States? Thank you Iowa, thank you New Hampshire and thank you Barack Obama (bet you never thought I would say that).

I just have to shake my head when I hear the Edwards story. How could this man think that he could carry out a campaign for president of the United States and not get caught? In this day and age, how could he think the media would not eventually track down the story and publish it? As I said, it is either the height of arrogance or the height of stupidity. With that level of arrogance and stupidity, I'm thankful that he is not a person who will ever sit behind the desk in the Oval Office.

With Sanford, the story involves arrogance and stupidity mixed with just plain pathetic. Again, we have a man who was by all accounts was making plans to run for President of the United States. He has apparently been carrying on a relationship with this woman from Argentina over the course of several years. The whole thing came to light when the governor disappeared for a week.

When you're a governor of a state you cannot just disappear for a week. Literally nobody knew where he was including his own security detail. When the governor reappeared he initially said he was hiking to clear his head. He only later did he admit that he had been down in Argentina visiting his mistress. The governor had left the country and nobody knew about it.

Next however, the Sanford story seems to be slightly different from Edwards's. Sanford did not intend to continue a presidential campaign. He went on another type of campaign that was simply pathetic. He began doing a series of televised confessionals. Going on television and admitting he had been unfaithful to his wife would have been bad enough, but he went further. He went on to tell the world that his mistress was in fact his "soul mate". He said he was going to "try" to fall back in love with his wife. I think most of us watching those interviews were ready to draw the divorce papers for Mrs. Sanford for free.

For now, it appears these two are done with politics, particularly presidential politics. Remember, America does love a come back story. John Edwards already managed to get down to the earthquake ravaged Haiti and get himself in front of the cameras. I'm not convinced we've seen the last of him.

Sanford seems content serving out his term as governor and then hopefully going away. That said, there's no guarantee he will not find some cause to do his "good work" and an eventually turn up on Oprah to tell all of America that he has learned so much from all of his mistakes.

We do love comebacks.

For all my criticisms of President Obama, I can truly say I am glad he is president and not either of these two guys.