A few weeks ago, I commented on a New York Times story discussing the Texas State School Board of Education and how the Christian conservatives on the board are aiming to rewrite American history, painting our Founders as unwavering Christians.  Turns out on Tuesday, Don McLeroy, the staunchly-Christian-conservative board member featured prominently in the Times article, was defeated in his reelection bid.  I’m curious how this will effect the state’s curriculum discussions with McLeroy’s successor having more moderate positions.  Hopefully for the better since the board has national implications.

(Nod: GOOD)

From Funny or Die, President Obama is visited by past presidents trying to convince Obama to fight for the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.  All-star cast and directed by Ron Howard:

Behind the scenes:

A CFPA overview from the LA Times:

The core idea behind the proposal, supporters say, is to pull together consumer oversight powers that are now scattered among various agencies, and to put consumer interests where they should be—much higher on the priority list than they were during the years leading up to the housing and credit bubble and bust.

Along with something else, a consumer protection agency is an area where we lag behind of other Western nations.

Tom Toles:

(Nod: Ezra Klein)

Roll Call notes:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) predicted Sunday that she would find the votes to pass a health care overhaul and said Democrats had already made major concessions to Republicans, including ditching the public insurance option.

Yes, Democrats have made significant concessions to Republicans, and I can’t believe the Democrats are still open to negotiating.  The Congressional GOP will not be happy until Democrats have conceded everything in the bill and there’s nothing left—a.k.a. they won’t be happy until the bill is dead.

This was evident from this week’s health-care summit.  How many GOP Congresspeople said Congress should start over with a “blank sheet of paper.”  Rubbish.  This is code for “we want to kill the bill.”  They argue the bill is too long.  Then the president’s plan is too short.  Then C-SPAN cameras should have been in the negotiating rooms.  Then when the cameras are present, it’s all political theater.  Enough already.

Clearly the GOP is uninterested in crafting legislation to help Americans in need—the same Americans they often say they’re fighting for.  I don’t know which Americans they’re fighting for, but certainly not for those in need.

Congressional Democrats are going to be judged in November on what they’ve accomplished.  Now is the time to accomplish something.  But not just anything.  Something that makes a difference.

So if the GOP is uninterested in cooperating, Democrats should move forward on their own—and on their own terms, terms that include the public option.  Time to close this concession stand.  No more give-aways.

Ezra Klein yesterday posted this video of Republican New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg from 2005 talking about budget reconciliation:

Klein goes on:

The idea “that it is outside the rules to proceed within the rules,” Gregg laughs, “is a very unique view on the rules.” He’s right! Sadly, he has now adopted that unique view on the rules, complaining that reconciliation is “running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River.”

Obviously, Democrats were similarly hypocritical at the time, arguing that reconciliation was a terrible abuse of power. And so it goes: People start from their preferred outcome and then make up principles that support it. But at all times, the most convincing argument is the one Gregg uses above: Elections generally work on the principle that if you have 51 percent of the vote, you win. That’s how we ratified the Constitution at the Massachusetts Convention. That’s how we elected Scott Brown and Ronald Reagan. That’s how the House of Representatives passes legislation. And it’s how the Senate should work.

I’m still not sure how I feel about jettisoning the filibuster.  When legislation you support is being strangled by one or more senators, you dislike the filibuster; but when legislation you oppose is on the verge of passage, you want every power you can get to stop that legislation.  That said, with cloture votes doubled in this Congress, a supermajority is needed to pass far too many pieces of legislation.  Perhaps the filibuster needs to be vetoed.

(Side note: If the senate actually takes up debate on amending the rules to eliminate the filibuster, will some senator filibuster the filibuster debate?)

Hilarious:

The Washington Post “asked former politicians and others to name one idea—other than reforming the much-discussed filibuster—that might get Congress moving.”  Several interesting ideas, including this one from Mack McLarty, Chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, 1993-94:

…abolish the anonymous hold on nominations. Beyond fixing the Senate, this would also strengthen the governance of our country by allowing the president to more expeditiously get his full team in place.

And this one from former Rhode Island Senator Warren Rudman:

To restore the public’s trust and put senators back to work, we need to end their reliance on special-interest money. The best solution I know is citizen-funded elections: a system of small donations from constituents and matching public funds for qualifying candidates who forgo large donations.

(Nod: Ezra Klein)

In Texas, history is being written by those who have the most money.

For anyone interested in or concerned with how Christian conservatives continue to wield influence on American politics or anyone interested in reading the somewhat disturbing process on how school textbooks are written (hint: it’s all about politics and money—and now religion), New York Times reporter Russell Shorto’s article on recent events in Texas regarding their state social studies curriculum is a must-read.

Each year in Texas, the state board of education reviews a school subject and hears petitions on what to include in or what to remove from that subject’s curriculum.  Why this is important is because of its national implications.  Because of Texas’s large textbook-purchasing budget, textbook publishers cater to Texas standards.  Because publishers would rather not create multiple versions of the same textbook to meet other states’ requests, Texas wins, and what Texas wants, other states get, too.

The problem is that the Texas State Board of Education is half made-up of Christian conservatives who are interested in rewriting the history books to elevate religion and their claims of religious intentions of the Founders and downplay other political entities throughout American history.

Merely weaving important religious trends and events into the narrative of American history is not what the Christian bloc on the Texas board has pushed for in revising its guidelines. Many of the points that have been incorporated into the guidelines or that have been advanced by board members and their expert advisers slant toward portraying America as having a divinely preordained mission.

There is, of course, an established separation of church and state in the Constitution, a doctrine that has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Christian advocates in Texas, however, are adamant about challenging that doctrine and are trying to paint the Founders as ardent Christian crusaders.

But how Christian were the Founders?

…the founders were rooted in Christianity—they were inheritors of the entire European Christian tradition—and at the same time they were steeped in an Enlightenment rationalism that was, if not opposed to religion, determined to establish separate spheres for faith and reason. “I don’t think the founders would have said they were applying Christian principles to government,” says Richard Brookhiser, the conservative columnist and author of books on Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington. “What they said was ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God.’ They didn’t say, ‘We put our faith in Jesus Christ.’ ” Martin Marty says: “They had to invent a new, broad way. Washington, in his writings, makes scores of different references to God, but not one is biblical. He talks instead about a ‘Grand Architect,’ deliberately avoiding the Christian terms, because it had to be a religious language that was accessible to all people.”

…which makes many of the Founders deists, not Christians.  Furthermore,

The curious thing is that in trying to bring God into the Constitution, the activists—who say their goal is to follow the original intent of the founders—are ignoring the fact that the founders explicitly avoided religious language in that document.

Yes.  There is no mention of “God” in the Constitution, and the pseudo-religious mentions in the Declaration of Independence are all deist-minded: “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.”  Moses, Jesus, and the like are conspicuously—and purposefully—absent from both documents.

Do Christian activists in Texas merely want to bend history to their liking, or is there something else involved?  Brian Spears at The Rumpus writes:

…there is still a danger in allowing the history books to be rewritten to the degree these people wish. Orwell was right when he said “who controls the past, controls the future,” only in this case, the past I’m concerned about is not in the books, but in the memories of the kids who’ll read those books. The people pushing for these changes aren’t looking for nuanced view of early America–they want a curriculum loaded with Christian Dominionism and American exceptionalism, because they’re hoping to convert people to the cause, and a good place to start is in the public schools.

I wonder how the people at Fox News might respond to political indoctrination.  Still, this is definitely a fight worth watching, no matter your position on religion and politics.  Both the past and the future are at stake.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein yesterday noted Democrats, after repeated setbacks on the health-care reform bill, have kept working:

That, of course, is the real plan: finish the bill. The Democrats have been roundly criticized for mishandling the politics of health-care reform, and those criticisms have often been justified. But there’s a larger truth, too: The only way to win this issue is to pass the bill. Their biggest mistake has been letting the legislation take so long. But that doesn’t mean they’ve failed. They fail if the bill fails, and they succeed if the bill passes. The progress has become slow and halting and unsteady, but they are still moving toward the finish line.

Why is this not surprising?  Perhaps because we’re too busy chasing ghosts in airport security lines?  Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, “Muslim extremists” aren’t the only threat to national security:

A large-scale simulated cyberattack on the U.S. yesterday proved one thing, according to organizers: The country isn’t prepared for a real attack. [...]

The simulation envisioned an attack that unfolds during a single day in July 2011. When the council convenes to face this crisis, 20 million of the nation’s smartphones have already stopped working. The attack — the result of a malware program that had been planted in phones months earlier through a popular “March Madness” basketball bracket application — disrupts mobile service for millions. The attack escalates, shutting down an electronic energy trading platform and crippling the power grid on the Eastern seaboard.

“A useful aspect of something like this simulation is it helps people visualize what is realistic and possible in some circumstances,” says John McLaughlin, who played the role of director of national intelligence. “The smart thing is to prepare now, to do the legislation now, to do the bipartisan work now, to do the intelligence work now, the foreign policy work. These are all very complicated things, and we need to get started on them.”

(Nod: Bruce Schneier)

Add this to the argument that today’s Republican Party is not the Republican Party of Barry Goldwater. In today’s straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rep. Ron Paul won — but here’s the kicker:

When Mr. Paul’s name was announced in the packed ballroom of a Washington hotel, it elicited hoots and boos along with applause. Although Mr. Romney won fewer votes, he seemed to draw stronger applause.

Yes, so-called conservatives booed the only real conservative from the 2008 GOP presidential primary.

In time for President’s Day yesterday, Nerve ranked the 43 men who’ve occupied the White House, but not by effectiveness, historical significance, or popularity.  No, they ranked the presidents by sexiness.  The commentary is pretty funny.  Here’s what they had to say for #5 Franklin Pierce:

There’s not much to say about this obscure president, except that he’s gorgeous. He’s like Johnny Depp, but without as much to show for himself.

(Nod: @ezraklein)

Ezra Klein at The Washington Post argues Obama can’t fire anyone because he can’t be guaranteed they’ll be replaced in a timely manner because of the extreme gridlock in the Senate.  Quote:

The Treasury Department is a good case in point. This may be the most turbulent economy since the 1930s, but the agency tasked with navigating it is still waiting for a number of key nominees to be confirmed, including the undersecretary for international affairs and the undersecretary for domestic finance. Meanwhile, the boss himself, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, is under tremendous criticism from Democrats and Republicans alike. Some even want him fired.

But he can’t be fired, and it’s not because he’s doing a bang-up job. It’s because Obama can’t be confident that he could be smoothly replaced. The only thing worse than an unpopular Treasury secretary is no Treasury secretary at all.

The problem gets worse as it goes deeper. It’s not just that Geithner can’t be fired. It’s that he, in turn, can’t fire anybody. Treasury is understaffed, and there’s little reason to believe that the Senate will consider its nominees anytime soon. If Geithner is displeased with the performance of an appointed subordinate, he can’t ponder whether America would be better off with another individual in that office. Instead, he must decide whether America would be better off if that office were empty.

Klein’s solution?

The easiest way to fix all this would be to reduce the number of positions requiring Senate confirmation. It’s obvious why the nominee for Treasury secretary must come before the Senate, but do we need a hearing for the director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development? The undersecretary of commerce for export administration? The co-chair of the Northern Border Regional Commission? How many senators, exactly, do we think have an informed opinion on these positions, much less on the nominees to fill them? There’s a reason that a board of directors will pick a company’s chief executive but not vote on each and every product manager.

I’m not familiar enough with the appointment process to know if Senate confirmation is necessary on these lesser positions by tradition (aka “we’ve always done it this way, so that’s they way we’re going to do it,” like voting on a Tuesday) or by codified law, but if confirmation is necessary by tradition, perhaps we need to rethink the tradition.  When said tradition no longer makes any sense, we need to move on.

From FOXNews.com:

Sarah Palin has President Obama in her sights, telling FoxNews.com she “would be willing” to challenge him in the 2012 presidential race.

The former Alaska governor, in an interview Saturday on the sidelines of the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, said President Obama’s “lack of experience” has held him back his first year in office and that she would put her credentials up against his any day.

“I would be willing to if I believe that it’s right for the country,” Palin said when asked if she would run for president in 2012.

For real?  Former Governor Sarah Palin thinks she’s as or better qualified to be president than President Obama is?  I’d like to see her engage in Question Time like Obama did with the GOP sans teleprompter or notes written on his hand.  Palin could never engage in this kind of policy discussion; she is ill-suited for the format, ill-prepared to discuss policy on this level, and more interested in delivering zingers, sass, and sarcasm than solutions and policy opinions.  This woman is an empty suit, and I’m tired of all the attention she’s getting (and yet I’m posting this, I know).

Sarah Palin represents everything that is wrong in American politics: the idea that repeating egregious, easily-proven lies will one day make them the truth; the idea that politicians are politicians for fame, prestige, and the title; the idea that the job is only about campaigning for office and winning elections and never about actually governing; the idea that scoring cheap political points is more important than the actual work of the office; and the idea that government is always, always the bad guy.

Not knowing the issues or not being able to construct intelligent, thoughtful answers to questions on the issues is one thing; taking pride in being ignorant is something else.  That, to me, is what Sarah Palin represents.

I guess that just makes me one of those “liberal elites.”

A few quick reactions to President Obama’s State of the Union address tonight:

• This was the Barack Obama I voted for in November 2008.  This Barack Obama got lost somewhere in the White House.  Now that he’s been found, I hope he stays a while.  This was Obama fired up and ready to go and was a reminder of how good he can be when he tries.  Now that he’s drawn the blueprints, he needs to ensure his plans are built correctly.  He said he doesn’t quit.  We must hold him to his words—and we can’t quit either.
• Several points in his speech were significant co-opts of Republican policies (all the talk about small businesses, nuclear power, off-shore drilling).  How can the party of “no” oppose these?  If Obama is serious about these proposals, he’s forced the GOP to work with him, not against him.
• As he said, the idea that no matter what you think about global warming, a robust energy policy for the sake of efficiency and creating jobs is something we all can—and should—agree upon.
• I was both saddened that he had to and pleased that he did play the role of angry parent scolding his two children who can’t play nice: the GOP who oppose his policies for the sake of opposing them, and his fellow Dems who don’t have the balls to govern.
• Obama said, “In the 21st century, one of the best anti-poverty programs is a world-class education.”  I fully agree.  Education can be the silver bullet to many of society’s problems—if only it were treated as such.
• Justice Samuel Alito had tonight’s Joe “You Lie” Wilson moment.  Obama called-out the Supreme Court for their recent decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and the supposed-to-be-impartial-at-a-political-speech Alito visibly showed his distaste for the president’s words and appears to have mouthed “not true.”  Watch the video at about the 0:38 mark.  Alito was the only justice of the six in attendance to react.
• Any time these types of events roll around, I always enjoy seeing how many Washington faces I can name.  I’m getting pretty good.

With his State of the Union address, President Obama seems to have reinvigorated himself and likely many straying supporters.  Let’s see if he can keep the fire going and deliver on his calls to action.  Our future is waiting.  The status quo simply doesn’t work anymore.

I’m nearly finished listening to the oral arguments from the U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  In thinking over the weekend about last week’s ruling and in listening to the arguments, I have these observations:

• I find the ruling an abomination.  The political system is already drowning in corporate money, and this ruling will likely make our democracy progress (digress?) further toward a corporate state.  Furthermore, individuals’ contributions will be further choked by corporate contributions.
• That said, given the plain text of the First Amendment, I can’t see how the ruling could have gone any other way.  Constitutionally, the ruling had to be made.  The amendment says “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.”  If campaign contributions amount to political speech, then corporations should be allowed to contribute as much as they want.  I, of course, don’t agree (as stated above), but the Constitution is the owner’s manual we have to follow.  To me, this was a clear case from the start, and I’m surprised the ban wasn’t struck-down earlier.
• So now that this precedent has been established, can I as an individual petition the court to strike down the limits on individual campaign contributions?  If I have $6 million, why can’t I contribute it to whomever I please?  Why must I be limited to only contributing $2,400?  Based on Citizens United v. FEC, aren’t the individual limits unconstitutional, too?  I can’t see how any limits on political speech can be upheld now.
• Seems to me the only way to really solve this issue is a complete ban on private money in elections—via a constitutional amendment establishing robust public financing.

If the political/news/blog world weren’t so wrapped up in the special election in Massachusetts, we might actually be talking about this.  But we aren’t.

James Fallows at The Atlantic posted this graph and comment yesterday (click for larger version):

Notes Fallows:

The blue line, on the top, is the significant one: it is a gauge of how often bills or nominations were subjected to the need for a “supermajority” vote, rather than a regular Constitutional majority. The goldish line, on the bottom, indicates how often the supermajority prevailed — how often they “broke the filibuster.” As a reminder, there is nothing in the Constitution about this practice. (Supermajorities for certain situations, like impeachment or ratifying treaties or passing Constitutional Amendments, yes; as a general practice, no.)

Easy to see why not much gets done.

Will the many conservative politicians who in the past have lambasted state supreme courts’ decisions in support of gay marriage as “judicial activism” also condemn Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision eliminating the ban on corporations’ spending limits in political campaigns as “judicial activism”?

I’m going to guess “no.”

If air travel worked like the health care system.  In this context, I’m amazed that we tolerate such a disgustingly broken and inefficient system.

(Nod: The Daily Dish)

In Senate-speak, Senator Franken tells Senator Lieberman to sit down and shut up and pisses-off Senator McCain in the process.

No, Joe, do take it personally.  Perhaps it “harms the comity” as Senator McCain said, but it sure doesn’t harm the comedy.

(Nod: AmericaBlog)

Apparently so for ACORN after the recent undercover videos of the dishonest and wrongful behavior by a handful of representatives.  I’m very disappointed by both ends of this story.  On one end: the actions of the ACORN workers caught on video.  Their actions were absolutely indefensible, and the workers ought to be properly dealt with.  On the other end: the resulting political aftermath: the loss of federal funding.  Last week, the U.S. Senate voted to strip ACORN of funding; the House followed.  According to their website, ACORN works to, among other things,

raise the minimum wage or enact living wage policies; eliminate predatory financial practices by mortgage lenders, payday lenders, and tax preparation companies; win the development of affordable housing and community benefits agreements; [and] improve the quality of and funding for urban public schools.

I’m saddened that such a breach of the public trust took place, and I’m saddened that a seemingly beneficial organization is being punished as a result, because the people ACORN helps are the real victims here.  Disenfranchising the disenfranchised even more.

I learned this week from the website OpenCongress a federal lawsuit was filed charging the method used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives effectively disenfranchises voters in smaller-population states.  OpenCongress cites a New York Times article by Peter Baker.  From the NYT:

In theory, every member of the House represents roughly the same number of people. But because each state gets at least one seat, no matter how small its population, and because the overall size of the House has not changed in a century, the number of people represented by a single congressman can vary widely.

The most populous district in America right now, according to the latest Census data, is Nevada’s 3rd District, where 960,000 people are represented in the House by just one member. All of Montana’s 958,000 people likewise have just one vote in the House. By contrast, 523,000 in Wyoming get the same voting power, as do the 527,000 in one of Rhode Island’s two districts and the 531,000 in the other.

That 400,000-person disparity between top and bottom has generated a federal court challenge that is set to be filed Thursday in Mississippi, charging that the system effectively disenfranchises people in certain states. The lawsuit asks the courts to order the House to fix the problem by increasing its size from 435 seats to at least 932, or perhaps as many as 1,761. That way, the plaintiffs argue, every state can have districts that are close to parity.

Baker cites the historical background of the current House situation:

The issue traces back to the founding of the country. The Constitution stipulated that every 10 years, the House should be reapportioned so that each state had at lease one representative and that no Congressional district contained fewer than 30,000 people. But it was left to Congress to decide how many total House seats there should be.

The original House had 65 representatives, one for every 33,000 people. As the country’s population grew over the next century, so did the size of the House, until it reached 435 in 1911, when each member at that time representing an average of 212,000 people.

But Congress refused to reapportion after the 1920 Census, as a wave of immigration threatened to shift voting power from the South and Midwest to the urban Northeast. Eventually, Congress voted to keep the House at 435 seats regardless of rising population. Except for a brief period when it enlarged to 437 because Alaska and Hawaii had joined the union with one seat each, the House has remained at 435 ever since.

This is certainly an interesting idea.  Imagine your Congressperson having a more intimate knowledge of your district and your needs while being part of a more equitable system.

But the first thing I thought of when I was reading this story was not the future implications on our democracy if the House was expanded to double its current size.  The first thing I thought of was where do you put all these new representatives?  Surely an addition on the House—or, gasp, a new building—would be necessary, no?  Will the House turn into the Galactic Senate from Star Wars?

A neat photo just released on the White House’s Flickr photostream:

From the description:

Seated from left: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Standing second row, from left: Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations Susan E. Rice, Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric K. Shinseki, and Education Secretary Arne Duncan.

Back row, from left: Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan, Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, and Council of Economic Advisers Chair Christina Romer.   (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

Ugh.  More questionable news from the world of electronic voting machines.  Kim Zetter at Wired is reporting Premier Election Solutions, Diebold’s voting machine division, is being sold to a competitor, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), but the sale may run into some trouble:

The sale gives ES&S, already the largest voting machine maker in the country, a near monopoly on the voting machine industry. According to the company’s website, its systems, used in 43 states, counted “approximately 50 percent of the votes in the last four major U.S. elections.”

Hart InterCivic, a voting machine firm based in Texas, filed an antitrust suit (.pdf) on Friday, seeking a temporary and permanent injunction against the sale. According to the suit, the sale “poses a significant and imminent threat of irreparable antitrust injury to plaintiffs.”

The sale also threatens harm to election districts that purchase voting equipment in that it will likely increase the costs of equipment and result in a decrease in the quality of products, the suit alleges. It will also, ultimately, cause “harm to the voters of the United States, in the form of loss of confidence in the integrity and security of the means by which elections are performed.”

Hah.  “Loss of confidence in the integrity and security” of the voting system in this country?  I already had no confidence.  Zetter continues:

The suit alleges that Diebold and ES&S have long engaged in anti-competitive practices to win bids “through both legitimate and illegitimate acts and conduct.”

This behavior includes submitting low-ball bids to get contracts, after which the companies allegedly gouge customers with additional expenses for after-market service and upgrades. The suit alleges the companies also exaggerate the capabilities of their systems, misrepresent the status of their certification and exert improper and undue influence on government officials to win contracts.

The suit identifies ES&S as serving 45 percent of the country’s approximately 180,000 voting precincts. Premier serves approximately 23 percent; Sequoia Voting Systems serves 18 percent; Hart InterCivi serves 9 percent; and Dominion Voting Systems serves 5 percent.

Because of the anti-trust concerns, Senator Charles Schumer has asked the Justice Department to look into the sale.  Wired reports Sen. Schumer saying

the deal raises anti-competitiveness concerns and has “adverse implications on how our country votes.”

I hope Sen. Schumer doesn’t stop at asking the Justice Department to investigate this sale of Premier.  This is a start, but please, senator, let’s investigate the entire electronic-voting-machine industry and force them to adopt rigorous integrity and security standards.  Is it too much to ask that we ensure our voting system actually works?

I went into President Obama’s Wednesday night national address with very high expectations.  After watching the White House essentially sit back and watch the health care debate run away from them, I anticipated an effort by the president to start changing the debate.  What I watched Wednesday night was exactly what I expected and was hoping for.

Obama’s address was both decisively strong and aggressively determined.  I wrote last month about the differences between Candidate Obama, who seemed to always have the appropriate response at the appropriate time while his opponents ran around with their collective hair ablaze, and President Obama, who seemed to allow his administration’s collective hair to burn.  I felt the Obama White House had not been aggressive and vocal enough with their argument in favor of health insurance reform.  Well, on Wednesday, Candidate Obama must have had some words with President Obama, because both Obamas showed up for the address.  We saw the passionate, rhetorically-superb campaign-trail Obama together with the calm, reasoned I’m-president-now Obama.

From the I-know-how-to-fire-up-a-crowd Candidate Obama:

Well, the time for bickering is over.  The time for games has passed.  (Applause.)  Now is the season for action.  Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do.  Now is the time to deliver on health care.  Now is the time to deliver on health care.

His address reminded me somewhat of his acceptance speech last summer in Denver: excellent rhetoric coupled with details and specifics.  Anyone (read: me) who argued the president was too timid in his pitch for reform was silenced on Wednesday.

Obama skillfully positioned himself as a reasoned centrist.  He made comments about and gestures toward the left and the right and talked about how his plan borrowed ideas from both (including two past rivals: Hillary Clinton and John McCain) and that it wasn’t, in fact, an enormous plot to “destroy” the system we have now:

Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.

This is what he outlined:

The plan I’m announcing tonight would meet three basic goals.  It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance.  It will provide insurance for those who don’t.  And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.

In the address, the president touched on a critical hurdle to reform: convincing those with coverage that reform is necessary:

But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured.  Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today.   More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too.  More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care.  It happens every day.

In his address, the president also fought-back against the unfounded lies being told about reform plans in perhaps his strongest language yet on the matter:

Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost.  The best example is the claim made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but by prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.  Now, such a charge would be laughable if it weren’t so cynical and irresponsible.  It is a lie, plain and simple.

In calling members of Congress to action, Obama said this:

I understand how difficult this health care debate has been.  I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them.  I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road—to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that is not what the moment calls for.  That’s not what we came here to do.  We did not come to fear the future.  We came here to shape it.  I still believe we can act even when it’s hard.  (Applause.)  I still believe—I still believe that we can act when it’s hard.  I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress.  I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history’s test.

Because that’s who we are.  That is our calling.  That is our character.

Finally, he expanded on what I have always thought was the most important reason for reform: the moral case.  The president invoked a letter he received posthumously from Senator Ted Kennedy:

“What we face,” he wrote, “is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.” [...]

That large-heartedness—that concern and regard for the plight of others-is not a partisan feeling.  It’s not a Republican or a Democratic feeling.  It, too, is part of the American character-our ability to stand in other people’s shoes; a recognition that we are all in this together, and when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand; a belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

Obama gave strong and assertive speech Wednesday night, one that surely invigorated a stagnant and discouraged base.  Now the hard work begins: making reform a reality.

(Photo: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)