News conference recap

By Jennifer J. Foster

For those of you who missed President Obama’s news conference tonight, you might be interested in my instant reactions from my Twitter feed. You can check them out here.

Also, if you did watch the news conference, you might be interested in this fact check piece that the Associated Press had out within the hour of the end of the president’s hour on the podium. Guess what? There are some factual problems with some of the president’s central claims about the effort. Here’s an excerpt:

OBAMA: “If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you’d have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we’ve made, it’s going to be $7.1 trillion.“

THE FACTS: Obama’s numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president’s budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.

Oh, and there’s so much more.

Please note: This information is compiled by the AP—NOT the Republican caucus.

And, while we’re at it, here’s a piece CNN has on the concerns pro-life Republican and Democratic congressmen have with the health care reform package—and how the president and Democratic congressional leadership refuse to assuage them.

I’ll have a lot more to say about this in my column this weekend.

Presidential TV

By Jennifer J. Foster

Facing increasing opposition, especially within his own party, to his massive health care reform plans, President Obama will take to the nation’s airwaves tonight in a primetime news conference to try to salvage wavering public support for his efforts.

Tonight’s episode of Obama TV will be Obama’s fourth such news conference since taking office in January.

(Actually, it’s been several weeks since he took politics to the people. So I guess we should have been ready for this announcement.)

But not everyone was on board. The networks are beginning to balk at the president’s habit for using their lucrative airtime to advance his political agenda. Typically, presidents only request network airtime in instances of national emergency; Obama, it seems, interprets “national emergency” to include those times when his political agenda is on the rocks.

It took some negotiating for the folks at the White House to convince the networks to carry tonight’s episode of Obama TV. CBS said yes right away, since they have reruns all summer (and no one really watches CBS for news, anyway). Fox flatly refused, knowing that folks can turn to their cable news channel if they want to see it. ABC wasn’t exactly thrilled about the prospect of parting with an hour of “Wipeout,“ perhaps the most aptly named television show—with the exception of MTV’s “Jackass”—that has ever existed. And NBC, after heavily promoting an episode of the hit show “America’s Got Talent” featuring an interview with British YouTube singing sensation Susan Boyle, basically said, “Thanks, but no thanks.“

Yes. Susan Boyle trumped the president of the United States.

So, to get NBC on board and calm the “Wipeout” concerns—

IRONY ALERT! The president wanted to pre-empt “Wipeout” to help avoid a political wipeout of his own. Hahaha! END IRONY ALERT

—the White House had to pull the president forward an hour, from their desired time of 9 p.m. Eastern to 8 p.m. This means that there are going to be a lot of folks on the West Coast who are still going to be on the 5, the 101 and the 405 when the president takes to the airwaves to make his case.

I guess they’ll have to make do with radio.

Anyway, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn was asked earlier on CNN what he’d like to hear from the president tonight. Coburn was gracious in his comments about Obama’s agenda; he said he believes the president wants “real reform,“ done in a “bipartisan” fashion that makes a real difference for Americans.

But congressional Democrats are the problem, Coburn said, and he’d like to hear the president say that it’s more important to get health care reform right than to meet a political deadline.

(Hey, that sounds familiar, too. Probably because it’s common sense.)

Coburn also said that he’d like to hear the president say that Congress should start over with the reform efforts and approach it in a bipartisan way, free of the aggressive social components that are included in the working bills.

Memo to Sen. Coburn, the last living idealist in Washington: Good luck. On both counts.

Annie, get your gun (permit optional)

By Jennifer J. Foster

UPDATE, 11:31 a.m. CT: The Senate has defeated the Thune amendment, 58-39. I will post the roll call vote here when it is made available by the Senate. END UPDATE

UPDATE 2, 12:38 p.m. CT: Here’s the link to the roll call vote on the Thune amendment. Both of Alabama’s senators voted for the amendment.

A couple of interesting notes: One, far more Democrats voted for the amendment than Republicans opposed it. Look at the states from which those supporting Democratic senators hail. Behold, purple America.

Similarly, there are three potential senators whose votes could have pushed this thing over the top: Arlen Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat; Bill Nelson, a moderate Democrat from Florida (which has the Castle Doctrine, folks, so don’t be breaking into any houses down there) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.). It will be interesting to see how this vote plays in Specter’s re-election campaign. END UPDATE 2

The U.S. Senate is set to vote in the next few minutes on an amendment by U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) that would allow gun owners with valid permits to cross state lines with concealed weapons.

From The New York Times:

A group of Senate Democrats is mobilizing to defeat the amendment, but it remains to be seen whether they can amass the 40 votes necessary to filibuster the provision. (Another gun amendment attached to the D.C. voting rights bill earlier this year passed the Senate with bipartisan support and has crippled House Democrats’ efforts to bring up the voting legislation without the gun measure.)

It’s going to be interesting. U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin is hoping to defeat the amendment, but according to NPR, he doesn’t even have his own leadership behind him: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who finds himself in a tight re-election fight in Nevada, plans to vote for provision.

Thune said in a statement that his proposal “strikes the appropriate balance between individual and states’ rights.”

I guess I’m going to need a constitutional scholar out there to explain to me why this provision is even necessary. Given the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, driver’s licenses are valid across state lines. What’s different about concealed weapons permits?

What are you willing to give up—part 2

By Jennifer J. Foster

In my previous post, I told you about a CNN blog post that asks you what you’re willing to give up in the health care reform debate.

I was notified this morning by regular reader Don S. that my comment, which I told you appeared on the list at 11:46 a.m., may not be appearing on the blog. I just checked it, and it says it’s “awaiting moderation.“

I don’t know whether that means it’s just visible to me in the short term or what, but I thought I’d go ahead and post it here since, if it’s still awaiting moderation almost 24 hours later, it might still be awaiting moderation by the time lawmakers get done with this business. So here it is:

The question isn’t about what I’m willing to give up. That’s irrelevant to the people making the decisions. The question is, what is the government willing to take from me to make this happen?

And the answer seems to be, anything that’s necessary.