Bob McDonnell won Virginia’s governorship by a 17-point margin.  Chris Christie only won by 4 percent, but he did so in New Jersey, a state that went for Barack Obama by 15 points last year.  Furthermore, Christie beat the incumbent Jon Corzine despite being significantly outspent during the campaign.  Both Republican victories are frightening for Democrats. 

Pundits are debating how much these results reflect on President Obama.  The president certainly did a lot of campaigning in New Jersey, so it’s embarrassing for him to see Corzine defeated.  Creigh Deeds, the Democrat in Virginia, also tried to appeal to Obama supporters without great success.   The president’s poll numbers have certainly slipped over the past year.  Nevertheless, this election may not mean much for Obama, directly, since he has three more years before he runs for reelection. 

The people who really need to be nervous are the Democratic congressmen and senators who will be on the ballot in 2010.  Many of these politicians are from states that are far more conservative than New Jersey.  These legislators have won their seats by campaigning (and sometimes governing) as moderates or populists rather than hard-core liberals.  Unfortunately for these folks, the Democratic Party is pushing them farther and farther to the left.  The best example is the current fight over President Obama’s healthcare reform plan.  Democrats who are fiscally conservative or pro-life are being pressured to vote with their party, not with their constituents.

This is, indeed, a scary predicament for such Democrats.  Remember those town hall meetings this past summer?  Remember all the people speaking out against the Democrats’ healthcare plan?  Those town hall meetings were the like part in a horror movie when some old crone with a smoker’s cough warns you not to enter the spooky house.  But yesterday’s elections were much scarier.  They were like the scene where you enter the house anyway and find the first mutilated corpse.

Democratic legislators need to remember who their real bosses are.  They don’t work for Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, or even Barack Obama.  They work for the American people.  If Democrats want to be reelected next year, they need stop letting their party leaders intimidate them and start listening to the voters, instead. 

In horror movies of course, the characters usually keep going deeper into the spooky house and eventually get picked off one at a time by whatever mutated, spectral, undead, or otherwise evil creature(s) they manage to disturb.  But here’s betting the politicians have a stronger sense of self-preservation than that.

Thanks, but no thanks.  That’s what President Obama should have said when news broke early this morning about his Nobel Peace Prize.  Apparently, the Norwegian Nobel Committee surprised him almost as much as it surprised the rest of the world with its decision.  The president said he didn’t feel like he deserved to be in the company of past Nobel Prize winners, but he went ahead and accepted the award, anyway.  

So what has Obama done to deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?  The committee said it was choosing him because of “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”  But several news outlets, including ABC and CNN have observed that the nomination deadline for the Nobel Peace Prize was February 1^st.  That means Obama could not have been president for more than 11 days before he was nominated.  During that time he did promise to close Guantanamo Bay (something he still hasn’t done).  But beside that?  Bupkis.

Even if one assumes that the Nobel Committee considered all of Obama’s activities since he was nominated, the list of achievements is short.  Is the war in Afghanistan over?  No, but at least it’s going badly.  Is Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions?  Actually, Ahmadinejad is testing new missiles.  Is Russia playing nice with its neighbors?  Nope, Putin is still a bully. 

The truth is President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for some great speeches.  Which, come to think of it, is also the reason he won the presidency.  But even Time Magazine (by no means part of the vast right-wing conspiracy) has observed that Americans want Obama to start delivering on his promises, not just making them.  This Noble Prize has the unintended effect of shining a spotlight on Obama’s lack of accomplishments.

That’s why the president should have turned it down.  He knows he doesn’t deserve it.  He said as much in his acceptance speech.  Most Americans know it, too.  If Obama had shown the courage and humility to decline the Nobel Peace Prize he would have sent a powerful signal that he understands how much hard work he still has to do.  On the other hand, his acceptance makes it look like he cares more about the good opinion of five Norwegian dudes than of 300 million Americans.

Which he might.

Then the president started talking about health care for illegal immigrants and things got more interesting…

 Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) actually yelled, “You lie!” when President Obama said his health care plan would not apply to illegal immigrants.  Republicans and Democrats murmured their disapproval at the interruption. The indignation on Nancy Pelosi’s face was priceless.  

President Obama should send Joe Wilson a thank-you card and a fruit basket.  The congressman’s outburst completely overshadowed the speech, itself.  Republicans have widely condemned Wilson, and he has apologized for his “lack of civility.”  The incident has distracted people from the content of the president’s remarks and Obama should be grateful.

For one thing, the president’s speech was a waste of time.  He said very little that was substantively new.  He did not “reframe” or “reboot” the health care debate as some news outlets predicted.  Mostly, he just interrupted a lot of people’s prime time television shows.

For another thing, President Obama did lie – or at least mislead people – at several points in his speech.  The Associated Press ran a fact checking article that said Obama was wrong to claim that preventative health care saves money.  He was wrong to claim that his plan would not increase the deficit, too. 

Obama also asserted that his plan would not cut Medicare or force people to give up their health insurance.  The AP says those claims are technically true, but there is nothing in Obama’s plan that would guarantee Medicare does not get cut, or that employers don’t stop providing health insurance.

On the issue of health care for illegal immigrants, the AP sides with Obama and against Congressman Wilson.  It points out that legislation in the House prohibits federal health care money from going to illegal immigrants.  But how will the government enforce that rule?  The Heritage Foundation reports that Republicans have tried to include requirements in the bill that would verify people’s citizenship.  Democrats have blocked those efforts.

President Obama probably doesn’t want these issues to be on everyone’s mind today.  He would rather have people feel sorry for him because a congressman from South Carolina called him a liar.  Still, it raises an interesting question:  Is it worse to call someone a liar, or to be one?

Senator Edward Kennedy

Perhaps it is gauche to move immediately to the political ramifications of Kennedy’s passing, but anyone who remembers the memorial service for Senator Paul Wellstone knows that Democrats are not above politicizing these things.  Ted Kennedy was a staunch supporter of government-run health care, and his death will have an impact on that debate.  

For one thing, Kennedy’s senate seat may be unoccupied for a few months until Massachusetts can hold a special election.  The current law requires the governor to call such an election within 160 days of a vacancy.  However, some Democrats are trying to change the law so that the governor can appoint a replacement right away.

No matter who takes over Kennedy’s seat, it will probably be a liberal (this is Massachusetts, after all).  On the other hand, it may not be a liberal who is as bold as Ted Kennedy, and it certainly won’t be anyone with the political clout he had.  In this sense, the loss of Ted Kennedy will weaken the Democratic push for health care reform.

At the same time, it will be interesting to see if Democrats try to use Kennedy’s legacy to garner sympathy in the health care debate.  This would be a risky strategy, since any public perception that they are cheapening the senator’s death with political maneuvering could offend voters.  Still, appealing to Teddy’s memory might be an effective way to mobilize the left-wing base of the Democratic Party.  In other words, it might be a good fund-raising tactic.

Finally, here is an off-the-wall theory about how Democrats might use Kennedy’s death in the health care debate:  They might see it as an exit strategy.  They might give up on health care reform and say that Kennedy’s death derailed the debate.  After all, Democrats like Russ Feingold are already predicting that no health care deal will be reached this year.  That would mean Congress has to tackle the issue in 2010 – an election year.  Moderate Democrats who have been trying to balance their reelection chances with their party loyalty might appreciate an excuse to let the whole issue drop.  Even President Obama, who has staked much of his political career on health care reform, might be willing to accept defeat (for now) if he could blame it on the loss of Ted Kennedy and not on his own failure to persuade the American people.

Is this really a likely scenario?  Probably not, since liberal Democrats want government-run health care more than children want ponies for Christmas.  Obama & Co. will most likely forge ahead with their plans for radical government expansion.  But no matter what they do, look for them to do it in the name of Ted Kennedy.

UPDATE: Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) has issued a statement that calls for renaming the health care bill after Senator Kennedy.  And so it begins…

Prediction:  If swine flu does become a serious problem this year, Barack Obama and congressional Democrats will take it as evidence that America needs their health care reform plan.  In fact, health care will become like global warming – sorry, climate change.  Just as any temperature fluctuation, unusual weather pattern, or passing breeze is supposedly proof that human activity is destroying the environment, so any change in health care will signal the coming medical apocalypse. 

Remember, that’s any change in health care.  If more people start going to the doctor, it will prove that we need government-run health care to accommodate so many patients.  If fewer people start going to the doctor, it will prove that we need government-run health care to encourage more people to get check-ups.  When scientists find cures for diseases, we’ll be told how health care reform is the only way to make sure everyone has access to those cures.  When scientists don’t find cures, we’ll hear that health care reform might provide the money and resources to spur them on.

In 1962, Abraham Maslow wrote, “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” 

Well, if the only tool you have is government health care…

1.)    If McCain lost, the Republican Party would be motivated to return to its conservative roots.

2.)    If McCain lost, Democrats would start taking the blame for America’s problems.

3.)    If McCain lost, the Republicans in Congress would not feel obligated to support his liberal ideas.  Instead, they would be free to oppose Obama’s liberal ideas.

After seven months of Obama’s presidency, it is getting easier to see the upside for conservatives.  Most of the proposed benefits of a McCain defeat are being realized. 

First, the GOP seems to be listening to its more conservative voices again.  People like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, and Mitt Romney have been far more outspoken in the current health care debate than John McCain has been.  Republicans are still struggling to find their next generation of leaders, but at least they aren’t looking to the squishy center anymore.

Second, there is no doubt that Democrats are starting to take ownership of America’s current troubles.  President Obama has seen his poll numbers fall sharply.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trailing two Republican challengers in Nevada.  Voters are starting to question whether or not Democrats in power are any better than Republicans.

Third, the Republicans have done a respectable job opposing President Obama on things like his second stimulus bill, his cap and trade legislation, and his proposed health care reform.  It is likely that John McCain would have pushed some of these same policies.  Does anyone believe that congressional Republicans would have stood up to him?

Despite this glass-half-full perspective, Obama’s presidency has certainly come with a high price.  Obama’s tinkering with the economy has created a nine trillion dollar deficit over the next ten years.  His appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has strengthened judicial activism in America for decades.  His handling of the political unrest in Iran and Honduras has been a slap in the face for supporters of freedom and democracy.  A President McCain would have done better.

Even so, the presidency of Barack Obama is giving Republicans a much-needed chance to regroup and rebuild.  Here’s hoping they don’t squander it.

Health care in America does need reform.  The cost of medical treatment is going up too fast and it is straining the budgets of individuals, employers, and the government, alike.   One reason for skyrocketing costs is that medical malpractice lawsuits are out of control.  Another is that most people don’t shop around for the best prices, since the government or their insurance company picks up the tab, anyway.  If health care reform was about restoring market forces to the system it might actually do some good.

Unfortunately, those aren’t the priorities for liberal Democrats.  They are more concerned with making sure the government runs the health care system.  For evidence, just look at their reaction to President Obama’s suggestion that he might support legislation without a “public option” for health insurance. 

As reported by The Washington Post, many Democrats are up in arms.  Apparently the White House has been surprised by the backlash:

“I don’t understand why the left of the left has decided that this is their Waterloo,” said a senior White House adviser, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “We’ve gotten to this point where health care on the left is determined by the breadth of the public option. I don’t understand how that has become the measure of whether what we achieve is health-care reform.”

The answer is simple.  Liberals don’t care if health care costs come down, or if people become healthier.  They just want government power to expand.  Even if a government-run health care system leads to higher costs, longer waits for treatment, and a shortage of doctors (like it has in other countries), liberals will still support it.  For them, government is always the answer and neither private citizens nor the free market are to be trusted.

What other explanation is there?  If liberals really wanted to fix what was broken they would gladly listen to any ideas – especially ideas that might generate bipartisan support for legislation that is currently on life-support (Where is that death panel when you need it?).  However, the way liberals are treating their own president is exposing their real agenda.

In case anyone is wondering, the president’s latest idea of nonprofit health care co-ops is still problematic.  It may take longer for this system to morph into full-blown socialized medicine, but it will eventually happen.  A government health insurance program is a quicker way to put private insurance companies out of business and make all Americans reliant upon Washington, but excessive regulation of insurance companies or co-ops will have the same practical effect.  When the government tells people exactly what they can and cannot do, it might as well own them.  President Obama wants the same things his Democratic colleagues do; he’s just willing to be more patient.    

Nevertheless, the fact that Obama is backing away from government health insurance means that Republican attacks are working.  It also helps to expose the true big-government agenda of the Democratic Party.  These are positive developments, as long as the GOP stays alert to one potential danger:  If President Obama does convince his party to accept a bill with no public option, he will try to say that the threat of socialized medicine is gone.  Republicans must educate voters to keep them from falling for this ruse.

No doubt, Barack Obama still wants the government to run health care, too.  It’s just that he has a tougher road to reelection than Nancy Pelosi.  Pelosi gets to run in California’s hard-left, sandal-wearing, tree-hugging, granola-crunching, 8^th Congressional District.  Obama has to run in all 50 states.  It’s far more important for him to pass some health care bill and claim victory than to pass the perfect liberal health care bill.  Besides, Democrats can always hand over the system to Washington in a few years, anyway. 

Since his national political career began, Obama has seemed to realize that America is not as liberal as he is.  His carefully-crafted rhetoric and vague promises have always been designed to hide his true ideology from voters.  His speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention was an inspiring call to personal responsibility.  Many of his proposals during the 2008 presidential campaign, such as pledging not to raise taxes on the middle class and to trim wasteful spending, sounded like moderate or conservative ideas.  Americans voted for Obama because they were tired of the devil they knew and he didn’t seem too scary.

Unfortunately for Obama, since he was elected by a wide margin, along with a super-majority of Democrats in Congress, his liberal horns have been showing.  He has moved too quickly to spend taxpayers’ money and expand government power.  He has started to frighten voters who thought they were electing a moderate.

A recent Gallup poll found that more people self-identify as conservatives than as liberals in every single state.  Including California.  And Massachusetts.  This is true even though Democrats outnumber Republicans in many states. 

What does this mean for President Obama?  Simply this:  If Obama wants to remain popular, he has to govern the same way he campaigned – as a moderate.  Liberals will try to pull him farther and farther left, and his natural inclination will be to follow them.  However, his political self-interest will require him not to stray too far from the middle.

If conservatives want to stop the government take-over of American health care, they must convince the president and members of Congress that this reform plan is too politically costly.  So far they have done a pretty good job.

The president’s analogy is troubling for a couple of reasons. 

First, the U.S. Postal Service has a government-protected monopoly on delivering letters and using mailboxes.  UPS and FedEx are only allowed to ship packages and extremely urgent documents.  Imagine what would happen if the federal government decided to give itself a monopoly on, say, visits to general practitioners.  Americans could still have private health insurance to pay for specialists, but that insurance could not cover the family doctor.  In a situation like that, most people would be forced to use the government’s public option, while a few would choose to pay extra for private coverage, as well.  This type of monopoly is not in the current legislation, but if President Obama wants to compare government health care to the Post Office, people should consider the future implications of that.

Second, UPS and FedEx are allowed to provide (or not provide) any services they like; just so long as they do not interfere with the Post Office’s monopoly.  This isn’t at all like the current health care proposal.  The president’s health care plan calls for the creation of a health insurance exchange.  This exchange is supposed to be a marketplace where consumers would choose from several insurance options, including both public and private plans.  The problem is, Obama wants the federal government to dictate what is and isn’t covered under all of the different plans.  If a private health insurance company doesn’t cover the right treatments or services, the federal government can exclude it from the health insurance exchange.  It would be like forcing UPS and FedEx to provide stamps and post office boxes, whether their customers demanded those things or not.    

In other words, the relationship between the USPS and the private delivery companies is not analogous to the president’s proposed health care system, at all.  The Post Office cannot succeed without its monopoly, but Obama claims that public health insurance will.  UPS and FedEx are allowed to serve their customers according to the demands of the free market, but under Obama’s health care plan, private insurance companies won’t be.  Either President Obama isn’t a very logical thinker, or he isn’t a very honest speaker.

Or both.