Health care, C-SPAN and Twitter

By Jennifer J. Foster

You have surely heard, and you have probably read, about what happened in the U.S. House of Representatives on Saturday when members of that body passed a health care bill by a narrow five-vote margin.

I watched the entire thing.

Yes, I know it was Saturday. I know it was a Saturday in November. And I know that college football was on TV—free TV, even—all day long.

I chose C-SPAN willingly and without hesitation.

I understand why a lot of folks (OK, pretty much all the folks) don’t get this. Yes, I am a nerd. But what can I say? This—politics, government, policy—is my thing.

Dare I make the comparison?

For me, this debate was like Bowl Week.

I waited all day for the Stupak Amendment to come up. As I said on Twitter later, it is rare that we get to see Congress in action (not inaction, but in action—separate words) in a way that is not predetermined. It is rare that they ever hold votes whose outcomes aren’t assured. Everything is so boringly choreographed up there.

The Stupak Amendment was one occasion wherein Congress was a beautiful mess—a beautiful, chaotic, absolute mess.

In the end, a staggering 64 Democrats voted for the language opposed by the Speaker of the House, the president and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

Sixty-four.

We had heard 40, at the most.

Anyway, I knew I was coming up on my 2,000th tweet late last week. As Congress kicked off action on the health care bill Saturday, I crept ever closer to the milestone.

I whizzed right by it ... and 70-some tweets later, I was done for the day.

I plan to cover the bill’s future and some of the specific issues raised during debate in my column next weekend. But suffice it to say that Saturday was a fascinating day of legislating and politicking.

I can’t wait to see what happens in the Senate.

See also:

If you’re interested in catching up with my tweets from the health care debate and C-SPAN coverage, click here and backtrack through my feed to Nov. 7.

Trust me—it isn’t as dry as it sounds. For example, you might know that Marsha Blackburn is a Republican congresswoman from Tennessee. But did you know that “Marsha Blackburn” is also a verb? See my tweet at 11:51 a.m.

This week’s column

By Jennifer J. Foster

In case you missed it in Saturday’s Opelika-Auburn News, or if you live outside the print delivery area, my most recent column is now available online. Check it out:

Exactly what are they afraid of?

You might also be interested in this News editorial, which reflects on the need for tax reform—through constitutional reform—in Alabama.

Folks, if you haven’t already, please join us in support of a constitutional convention to right the wrongs of the Alabama Constitution of 1901.

We need you—and so does your state.

Listen to me!! (But don’t tell anyone)

By Jennifer J. Foster

From CNN’s Political Ticker:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

You know, circumstance (and some sketchy decision-making) made Sarah Palin a national figure when she was chosen as John McCain’s out-of-nowhere VP pick.

She insists that whatever poor or unfavorable impressions people have of her are the result of attacks on her by the national media (only the “liberal” members of the national media, though).

But here’s the thing: If you believe that the media parses your words and edits your tapes to make you look like an idiot, why wouldn’t you want as many legitimate, complete representations of your speeches as possible to counter your “attackers”?

I was hopeful that Palin was right—that McCain’s campaign staff had mishandled her and that the incompetency she appeared to show during her national roll-out was not her fault.

But a year later, I still don’t get Sarah Palin.

And it appears that I’m not alone: According to a Gallup poll noted by CNN, only about one in three Americans would seriously consider casting their vote for her.

I’m one of the other two.

Still not settled

By Jennifer J. Foster

Here’s your latest update on the status of the ongoing controversy over whether abortion will be covered in the pending public option.

From The New York Times:

House Democratic leaders struggled Wednesday to strike a deal that would restrict the use of federal money to pay for abortions under sweeping health care legislation headed for debate on the House floor this week ...

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a supporter of abortion rights, has little choice but to heed the concerns of members of her caucus who oppose abortion. As many as 40 House Democrats, a potentially decisive bloc, have threatened to oppose the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion.

As the Times reports, the current House bill neither requires nor forbids health plans from covering abortions; Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, would decide whether the public option would cover them.

Sebelius has a long record of support from and cooperation with Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the world. So while the House bill doesn’t stipulate that the public option would cover abortion, everyone knows that if Sebelius is making the decision, it will.

I’ve told you here previously about the effort by U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak to ensure that tax dollars are not used to fund abortions. Stupak’s amendment, though it is being assailed as an infringement on women’s rights, would simply continue the policy the federal government has had to abortion funding for 30 years.

U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth now has a compromise proposal. As the Times reports, “if the public plan decides to cover abortion, it would have to hire private contractors to handle money that might be used for that purpose.

Predictably, neither side is happy.

Supporters of abortion rights, like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the proposed restrictions went too far.

Laurie Rubiner, vice president of Planned Parenthood, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal would “tip the balance away from women’s access to reproductive health care.”

“Abortion should not be treated any differently from any other medical benefit or procedure,” Ms. Rubiner said. “It is our hope and expectation that the secretary would decide to include coverage of abortion in the public option.“

... The bill stipulates that in every part of the country, there must be at least one insurance plan that provides coverage of abortions and at least one that does not.

Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal was “a phony compromise.”

“It serves no purpose except to assist Speaker Pelosi in peeling votes away from an amendment that would flatly prohibit the public plan from paying for elective abortions,” Mr. Johnson said. That amendment was offered by Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan.

It’s been said that a sign of a good compromise is that neither side likes it. That may be true. But Ellsworth’s proposal does come off as a cop-out of sorts—not specifically precluding the public option from covering abortion, but simply providing a middleman to handle the money.

I hope the pro-life members of the Democratic Caucus see this for what it is: Worthless window dressing.

 

Hurrah for Hillary

By Jennifer J. Foster

Hurrah for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who’s finally speaking bluntly to Pakistani leaders and their people.

From the Associated Press:

In a lively give-and-take with students at the Government College of Lahore, Clinton said inaction by the government would have amounted to ceding ground to terrorists.

“If you want to see your territory shrink, that’s your choice,“ she said, adding that she believed it would be a bad choice.

Clinton likened Pakistan’s situation—with Taliban forces taking over substantial swaths of land in the Swat valley and in areas along the Afghan border—to a theoretical advance of terrorists into the United States from across the Canadian border. It would be unthinkable, she said, for the U.S. government to decide, “Let them have Washington (state)“ first, then Montana, then the sparsely populated Dakotas, because those states are far from the major centers of population and power on the East Coast.

Clinton was responding to a student who suggested that Washington was forcing Pakistan to use military force on its own territory. It was one of several questions from the students that raised doubts about the relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

I like that comparison Clinton made regarding the land concessions. The Pakistani approach takes on a new feel when you look at it from that perspective, doesn’t it?

The bottom line for Pakistanis is that, for better or worse, their country is a nuclear power. They wanted to achieve that status, and now they have to live with the responsibility of being one. If they are not going to do the things necessary to ensure the viability of their democratically elected government—and, therefore, the security of those nukes—then someone has to.

And all of us—Americans, Europeans, Talibanis, al Qaeda and everyone else alike—know that it’s not going to be the U.N.

Pakistan has a choice. They can do what’s necessary to stop the advance of the Taliban, or they can watch while someone else does.