FOR ALL THE WRONG REASONS.... The House health care reform bill is a solid piece of legislation. It has flaws, and provisions I'd change if it were up to me, but this is, on the whole, a very good bill that would bring vast improvements to a fundamentally flawed system. If this bill were to become law, it'd be reform Americans could be proud of and benefit from.

But listening to the debate on the House floor, it's striking how misguided opponents' arguments really are. Instead of pointing to the bill's actual flaws, and highlighting the legislation's real shortcomings, the vast majority of the complaints deal with imaginary failings that seem to have been crafted by pollsters and campaign strategists, not policy experts or wonks (or really anyone who understands the policy at the most basic level).

The political world has been at this for most 2009, and people who should have some clue as to what they're talking about continue to make patently ridiculous claims. The two most common phrases from the lips of conservative lawmakers today are "government takeover" and "socialism."

Neither makes a lick of sense. Anyone who repeats them is, without exception, either charlatan or a fool.

The claim that the House bill would amount to "government-run health care" suffered a blow last week, when the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the so-called "public plan" in the revised bill wouldn't offer much in the way of competition to private insurers. But that hasn't stopped Republicans from repeating the claim.

For several months, we've been debunking assertions that Democratic health care bills call for a Canadian or British-type system in which everyone is insured, or insured and cared for, through the government. None of the bills being debated in Congress call for such a single-payer system. Conservative groups have also claimed that a federal health insurance plan would be the death knell for private insurance, offering a much cheaper alternative and eventually leading to "a government-run system." As we've written, how competitive the "public plan" would be depends greatly on how it's structured. And the latest iteration in the revised House bill isn't expected to have much of an impact on private insurers, according to the nonpartisan CBO and an independent analysis of this scenario.

But Republicans are still recycling "government-run" claims and old analyses that don't pertain to the bill. House Minority Leader John Boehner was saying back in June that the House bill "is a complete government takeover of our health care system," and again last week, Boehner told Fox News that the revised House bill is "nothing short of a complete government takeover of our health care system." Boehner partly blamed the federal insurance plan for the takeover, saying, "you' re going to drive every private health insurance company out of business."

We're hearing the same arguments, ad nauseum, today.

It's sad, for lack of a better word, that in the midst of the biggest, most significant, most consequential domestic policy debate in recent memory, an entire political party has committed itself to repeating talking points with no basis in reality. Claims have been routinely presented, debunked, and shamelessly repeated anyway. Arguments ranging from "fascism" to "death panels" to "socialized medicine" have become eerily common, despite having no connection to reality.

We're watching one of the rare instances in which a bill's actual flaws are ignored, while confused politicians debate the merit of ideas that aren't being proposed. What a waste.

I've long believed there's a greatness to American politics -- it's why I do what I do. It's genuinely embarrassing to the system and our traditions to see it go missing from a major political party during a debate of such importance.

THE ENDURING LOVE FOR EMERGENCY ROOMS.... This is easily my favorite conservative health care argument of them all.

While speaking out against Democratic proposals to increase access to quality, affordable health care, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) claimed, "all Americans have health care, every single one."

With 45,000 Americans dying every year because they lack coverage, King's nonsense is both foolish and offensive.

But there has to be some basis for the claim, right? King didn't specify what he meant, but the only way it makes any sense at all is if you believe that literally "all" Americans "have health care" by virtue of the fact that they can go to an emergency room. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) echoed this sentiment just this week, noting, "No one is going to go without health care because everyone can show up at the hospital."

This comes up all the time. In July, for example, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was asked about the 47 million Americans who go without health insurance, McConnell replied, "Well, they don't go without health care," because they can just go to the emergency room.

Last year, the conservative who shaped John McCain's health care policy said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance. The year before, Tom DeLay argued, "[N]o American is denied health care in America," because everyone can go to the emergency room. Around the same time, George W. Bush said the same thing: "[P]eople have access to health care in America. After all, you just go to an emergency room." In 2004, then-HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson said our healthcare system "could be defined as universal coverage," because of emergency rooms.

It's true that if you're uninsured and get sick, there are public hospitals that will treat you. But it's extremely expensive to treat patients this way, and it would be far cheaper, and more effective, to pay for preventative care so that people don't have to wait for a medical emergency to seek treatment. For that matter, when sick people with no insurance go to the E.R. for care, they often can't pay their bills. Since hospitals can't treat sick patients for free, so the costs are passed on to everyone else.

Steve King, Jim DeMint, and their cohorts have endorsed the most inefficient system of socialized medicine ever devised.

FIRING UP THE CAUCUS.... Taking the whip operation about as high as it can go, President Obama was on Capitol Hill this morning, urging House Democrats to do the right thing, seize this rare opportunity, and pass a health care reform bill.

Obama told lawmakers they have an opportunity to provide stability and security for those who have insurance and affordable coverage for those who don't, deputy press secretary Bill Burton said after the closed-door meeting with fellow Democrats. Obama again made the pitch that passing the proposals would bring down the cost of health care for families, small businesses and the government.

Obama met privately with Democrats for about an hour on Capitol Hill on Saturday as the House began debate on a health care overhaul and protesters objected.... Obama told lawmakers -- who spontaneously erupted in Obama campaign chant "fired up, ready to go" -- he preferred to sign a health overhaul bill by year's end, Burton said.

Rumor has it, the pumped up lawmakers could be heard chanting from the hall.

Now, we know there are more than a few House Democrats who think voting with Republicans tonight will immunize them from campaign attacks this year. The president reminded them of the futility of this approach.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told Sam Stein the president "talked about the politics and he said that the Republicans want us to fail." Waxman added that Obama said, "None of you can expect the Republicans not to go after you if you vote against this bill. They want this bill to go down for their own partisan reasons."

It should be a compelling message: up or down, the attack machine will churn. It's hardly an incentive for fearful lawmakers to do the wrong thing.

The president returned to the White House and delivered some brief remarks in the Rose Garden after the visit to the Hill, and noted, "I just came from the Hill where I talked to the Members of Congress and I reminded them that opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation. This is their moment, and this is our moment to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us.... It's time to finish the job."

OBJECTIONABLE BEHAVIOR.... Ah, the splendor of the American political process. Congressional Republicans, once again, making the country proud.

Members of the Democratic Women's Caucus, at the outset of the debate over health care reform, took to the floor of the House of Representatives to highlight the health needs of American women, and the ways in which reform is necessary. House Republicans decided not to let them speak.

Whenever one of the lawmakers would one come to the microphone, Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) would simply say, over and over again, in response to nothing, "I object, I object, I object."

It was a procedural gag order at its most inane.

Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio) asked, "Do I not have the right to be able to continue my sentence without objections that are trying to censor my remarks here on the floor that I have a right to make as a member of this House?"

Apparently not.

It's going to be a long day.

THE BISHOPS' BLESSING.... For center-right Democrats in the House, weighing whether or not to support a once-in-a-generation chance at passing health care reform, an endorsement from the AARP didn't much matter. An endorsement from the AMA didn't matter either. Support from the American Nurses Association and American Cancer Association barely raised an eyebrow.

But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops seems to make quite a difference.

House leaders have won the backing of the nation's Catholic bishops for health reform, a critical last-minute boost that could give the bill enough momentum -- and enough votes -- for passage as early as Saturday. [...]

"Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation," the bishops wrote in a letter to individual members. "Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion."

It's another bitter pill for liberal Democrats but party leaders are gambling that the amendment will be just the breakthrough they need to secure a majority. And in fact, most Democratic advocates of abortion rights appear likely to swallow hard and vote for a health care overhaul anyway.

"I don't believe any of us believe we can hold up what we've been fighting for ... and that's health care," said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

Asked whether her allies in the pro-choice movement would support the bill with the Stupak language, Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a one-word answer: "Yes."

As for the vote on the Stupak/Ellsworth measure, Greg Sargent reports this morning that most Republicans are likely to join the Dems who oppose abortion rights: "A senior GOP aide tells me only a handful of Republicans will oppose the amendment, and a majority will support it. So if the 40 or so anti-abortion Dems expected to support it don't change their position, it'll almost certainly pass."

In about 20 minutes, President Obama is scheduled to arrive on the Hill for some additional lobbying, reminding Democrats about the historic opportunity they'll have today.

This is not only relevant in pulling together some lawmakers who remain on the fence, it also reinforces the significance of the day -- if the leadership planned to push the vote off until tomorrow or next week, they probably wouldn't have the president making a final push.

THEY'RE NOT ABOVE LYING.... When House Republicans finally unveiled their health care reform proposal this week, one of the glaring problems was that it did not prohibit private insurance companies from discriminating against consumers with pre-existing conditions.

There weren't even any ambiguities. The Wall Street Journal reported this week, "Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio) said Monday that the plan wouldn't seek to prevent health-insurance companies from denying sick people insurance -- a key plank of the Democrats' legislation."

So, what did Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) have to say on the House floor last night?

"The Republican alternative makes it illegal for an insurance company to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a preexisting condition."

Seriously? That's clearly and demonstrably wrong. I can appreciate a good spin on a bad bill as much as the next guy, but "keeps it legal" and "makes it illegal" are not the same.

It's not even a close call: "[The] GOP alternative plan ... does not prohibit health insurance companies from denying coverage to people due to pre-existing medical conditions."

Congressional Republicans used to support these kinds of restrictions on private insurers, but dropped their commitment when crafting their own plan. Pretending otherwise isn't helpful. It's also a reminder about why bipartisan outreach hasn't gone well -- a few too many lawmakers don't know, or don't care about, the facts.

IT'S ALWAYS SUNNY IN WEEKLY STANDARD LAND.... Jonathan Chait had a great item the other day on the defining characteristic of one of the key Republican news outlets: the Weekly Standard.

A magazine like National Review specializes in making the case for conservative ideas. The Standard's contribution is to assert over and over that Republicans are succeeding, or at least doing better than you think they are. The idea is to buck up your side and encourage them to keep fighting, in order to ward off the self-defeating psychology of losing.

It's unclear to me why the subscribers of that magazine pay money to be the subjects of a disinformation campaign. To be sure, like any stopped clock, sometimes the Standard gets it right. But there's a distinctly Pravda-esque feel to the political coverage that makes back reading an enjoyable experience.

It is a curious phenomenon. I understand the purpose of National Review, even though I find it offensive. Its writers and editors believe their ideas are the right ones, and are committed to presenting their case (a case I find deceptive, incoherent, and misguided). I can also understand the purpose of Fox News, even though I think it makes a mockery of American journalism. There's an audience for a network that will present current events through a Republican lens, and FNC caters to the niche.

But the Weekly Standard is just a cheerleader in print. Chait and Noah Kristula-Green pulled together some classic examples from recent years. Last year, for example, the magazine assured readers that John McCain was likely to win the presidency and the "new and improved" Republican brand -- which "President Bush has helped" -- would help stem congressional losses.

In 2007, the Standard said Republicans should be optimistic about the 2008 elections. In August 2006, it said the same about the midterms (you know, the cycle when Democrats re-claimed the majority in both chambers). In July 2006, the Standard assured readers that George W. Bush may be "on his way to renewed popularity."

Indeed, this morning, I swung by the Stardard's site, and the lead story was from Fred Barnes, arguing that all recent current events are "good news for Republicans -- extremely good news."

Giving Republicans a copy of the Weekly Standard is a bit like giving them a doll that says, "Everything is going to be all right" every time you squeeze it.

REID TARGETS OBSTRUCTIONISM.... The average American has a hard enough time staying engaged and informed with the political process; asking them to appreciate Senate procedural issues probably isn't realistic. But it's worth at least some effort to shine a light on the unprecedented obstructionist tactics.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is understandably frustrated. As if it weren't enough addressing the multitude of crises left by eight years of incompetence, mismanagement, neglect, and corruption, Reid is the first Majority Leader in the history of the republic to also have to assemble supermajorities on every single vote of any consequence.

When he highlights the absurdities of Republican tactics, Reid can have success. Last month, for example, GOP senators refused to let the Senate vote on President Obama's surgeon general nominee, despite the H1N1 public health emergency. After Reid threw a fit, Republicans backed down.

Perhaps the lesson, then, is to keep screaming bloody murder.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is on a kick. Personally frustrated, and under pressure from the left, Reid has decided to take direct aim at Republican obstruction, and he's doing so in angry terms.

"For anybody watching, what's taken place the last three years knows the Republicans have become experts in wasting time, the American taxpayers' time, the American people's time, and yesterday was no exception," Reid said on the Senate floor Wednesday.

Democrats can't pass off all of the blame for the glacial pace of progress in the last several months. With a 60-member caucus, they in theory have sufficient numbers to overcome GOP filibusters of key agenda items, if they could only agree to stay united. But even if they did muscle their agenda through the procedural labyrinth of the Senate, they still wouldn't be able to stop the foot-dragging.

Republicans have threatened to filibuster 58 times this year. Thirty times, they've actually forced cloture votes -- and when cloture is invoked, the Senate must usually wait hours before the underlying issue can pass. More crucially, they've also blocked nominations and legislation and delayed proceedings in other ways, all of which waste precious legislating hours in a body that spends almost as much time out of session as it does in session.

The fight over extending unemployment benefits was especially ridiculous -- Republicans delayed the bill for five weeks and launched three separate filibusters on a measure that would eventually pass unanimously -- but the tactics have been nothing short of madness all year.

We're talking about an unprecedented number of filibuster threats, an unprecedented number of cloture votes, an unprecedented number of blocked judicial nominees, and an unprecedented number of secret and not-so-secret holds.

The American system of government was not designed to function this way, and it's an unsustainable approach.

Chris Hayes this week described these tactics as "a cancer growing inside the world's greatest deliberative body..... [T]he filibuster confers such power on an obstinate minority that it distorts the relationship between elections and governance in a way that dangerously attenuates democracy itself."

The more the Senate Majority Leader registers his outrage, the better.

A REMINDER ON WHY BIPARTISANSHIP HASN'T WORKED.... In general, it's wise not to pay too much attention to every little press release issued by House Republicans about health care, but this one, from the leading GOP member of the House Ways and Means Committee, was illustrative of a larger truth.

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" and who choose not to pay the bill's new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: "This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing -- buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately."

Now, as a factual matter, if Americans ignore the mandate, fail to get coverage, and refuse to pay the penalty, they would be subject to criminal penalties. It's just how the system tends to work -- if you make taxes voluntary, people probably won't pay them. Camp's rhetoric is overdramatic, but the notion that taxes are compulsory is not exactly scandalous.

But more to the point, neither is an individual mandate.

I'm reminded of something Lamar Alexander was complaining about the other day. As he sees it, there was no possibility of a bipartisan health bill because the president and his team didn't do enough GOP outreach. "White House officials don't want one or don't know how to do one," Alexander said.

In reality, the White House went to great lengths to seek a bipartisan bill, but officials "don't know how to do one" because GOP leaders ended up opposing ideas they support -- such as the individual mandate.

Earlier this year, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said he recognized the need for the mandate. Mitt Romney and Bill Frist said the same thing. Six current Republican Senators - Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Bob Bennett (Utah), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) -- are all on record co-sponsoring a reform measure that includes an individual mandate.

Over the summer, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced on Fox News, "I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates."

And yet, now the exact same idea is part of Nancy Pelosi's "outrageous" agenda to send Americans to jail.

Remind me again, Lamar Alexander, about how the White House wasn't interested in a bipartisan deal.

CANTOR'S SUBTLE CRITICISM OF LEADER LIMBAUGH.... Congressional Republican leaders are generally reluctant to criticize right-wing tactics and efforts, so I suppose Eric Cantor deserves some credit for yesterday's mild and indirect rebuke. I'm just not sure if he'll stick to it.

The second-ranking Republican in the U.S. House, Eric Cantor, criticized some comments by talk-show host Rush Limbaugh as inappropriate and said his party needs to be inclusive.

"The Republican Party in its roots is a party of inclusion and we ought to be promoting that and making sure that voices are heard," Cantor, of Virginia, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," airing this weekend.

Cantor, when asked about Limbaugh's comments that "Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate," and his comparison of the administration's health-care logo to a swastika, said the comparisons were wrong.

"Do I condone the mention of Hitler in any discussion about politics?" Cantor said. "No, I don't, because obviously that is something that conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful."

Now, this is obviously far from a stinging rebuke. Cantor didn't mention Limbaugh or anyone else by name; he made his assessment as general as possible; and he could only bring himself to describe disgusting rhetoric as "not ... very helpful" and something he doesn't "condone."

Cantor, in other words, didn't exactly go out on a limb, taking a firm stand in support of decency.

As for the conservative activists Cantor addressed on Thursday, some of whom carried signs featuring photos of Jews murdered by Nazis at Dachau, a spokesperson for the House Minority Whip called the imagery "inappropriate."

Given the larger context, Cantor deserves at least some credit for his willingness to distance himself at least a little from some of the madness from the Republican base. But let's not forget that Limbaugh's Hitler comparison was made in August. When Jewish groups urged Cantor to repudiate the host's on-air remarks, Cantor ignored their appeals.

For that matter, in March, when Limbaugh led the charge in rooting for failure in the midst of a domestic crisis and foreign wars, Cantor indirectly distanced himself from the remarks -- only to subtly walk back 48 hours later.

As a rule, prominent GOP officials who dare to offer discouraging words of Leader Limbaugh reverse course soon after. It'll be interesting to see if Cantor feels compelled to do the same now.

THE EFFECTS OF THE ABORTION 'COMPROMISE'.... As of late yesterday, House Democratic leaders were still short of the 218 votes needed to pass health care reform. Odd as it may seem, after six months of debate, hearings, meetings, and negotiations, the biggest hurdle was the wording on a measure dealing with the fungibility of public funds as it relates to abortion services.

Pro-choice Democrats said the bill already restricted direct public funding of abortion. Democrats who oppose abortion rights said it wasn't enough, and without a prohibition on indirect funding, they would kill the entire health care reform initiative.

Late last night, the House leadership agreed to let opponents of abortion rights bring an amendment to the floor.

Anti-abortion Democrats will be allowed to offer an amendment during the House health-care debate Saturday that would ban most abortion coverage from the public option and other insurance providers in the new so-called "exchange" the legislation would create, three Democratic sources told CNN.

The prohibition would exclude cases of rape, incest or if the mother's life is in danger, known as "Hyde" language. [...]

Several anti-abortion Democrats will offer the amendment, including Rep. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Michigan, who are scoring a major victory in convincing Democratic leaders to allow this vote.

It is also a big win for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which used its power, especially with conservative Democrats in swing congressional districts, to help force Democratic leaders to permit a vote that most of them oppose.

The House Democratic leadership didn't want to go this route, but was out of options -- they just couldn't get to 218.

The idea, at this point, is to allow a vote on the amendment. Pro-choice Dems can register their opposition, but the amendment is expected to have the votes pass.

And that's when this might get a little trickier. If the Stupak/Ellsworth amendment is approved, Democrats who've withheld their support over this issue will throw their support to the larger reform bill. The angle to keep an eye on, however, is what happens to the strong, pro-choice leaders in the caucus -- will they switch sides and vote to kill the bill?

Most of the vote counts I've seen put the number of hard "no" votes in the Democratic caucus at 25. The majority can lose no more than 40. The vote is still expected for tonight, with top White House officials and cabinet sectaries working the phones and walking the halls of Congress, keeping the heat on wavering members.

Stay tuned.

FRIDAY'S MINI-REPORT.... Today's edition of quick hits:

* More details emerge in the Fort Hood massacre.

* Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who took down Nidal Malik Hasan, is being hailed as a hero.

* The gunman in Orlando was apprehended this afternoon.

* Afghanistan: "More than 25 international and Afghan troops were wounded Friday in western Afghanistan -- possibly by friendly fire -- during a search operation for two U.S. Army paratroopers who had gone missing, according to the military."

* The White House issued an SAP (statement of administration policy) in support of the House health care reform bill.

* Despite earlier assurances, the House will not vote on a single-payer amendment as part of the health care reform debate. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), who championed the measure, said today, "I didn't want the legacy of single-payer to be that it jeopardized passage of healthcare reform this year."

* To help make passage more likely this year, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said today that senators should expect to work Saturdays in December.

* Several House Republicans blew off important votes on national security policy to tell some right-wing activists yesterday how much they hate health care reform. Priorities, people.

* On a related note, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) had so much fun yesterday, he wants another right-wing rally in opposition to health care reform tomorrow.

* You may not be aware of this, but 4 gajillion people attended the right-wing rally yesterday. The media wants you to think it was only 3 gajillion, but that's not true at all.

* Media Matters has a good-but-scary video with some of the highlights from yesterday. It makes one thing perfectly clear: a lot of those folks are stark raving mad.

* Interesting fight at UC Berkeley over subsidizing of college sports.

* Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) refuses to let the Senate vote on a major veterans' benefits bill. So much for supporting the troops.

* Speaking of Republican obstructionism, the White House made some concessions and convinced Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) to let the Senate vote on a pair of key State Department nominees.

* Also, Coburn's effort to remove political science funding from the National Science Foundation's budget failed. Good.

* House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) mildly criticized Rush Limbaugh's Nazi rhetoric today. Start the countdown for the apology.

* And if you saw President Obama talk about the tragedy at Fort Wood yesterday, and it made you long for George W. Bush's presidency, there's something horribly wrong.

Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.

DON'T FOLLOW TEXAS' LEAD.... The Washington Post ran an op-ed today on health care policy co-written by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas). That, in and of itself, is a little odd -- when I think of conservatives with credibility on health care, Gingrich (a disgraced former Speaker who shut down the government 14 years ago, in part over cutting Medicare) and Perry (a Glenn-Beck-loving right-winger who recently raised the prospect of secession) aren't the first names that come to mind.

Nevertheless, they have a case to make.

Congress seems intent on forcing a one-size-fits-all mandate on states, some of which actually have solutions to repair their health-care systems that Washington is preventing them from trying.

Texas, for example, has adopted approaches to controlling health-care costs while improving choice, advancing quality of care and expanding coverage. Consider the successful 2003 tort reform. Fewer frivolous lawsuits have attracted record numbers of doctors to the state as medical malpractice insurance premiums dropped by half. Christus Health, a large Catholic nonprofit system with a significant presence in Texas, spent about $100 million on liability defense payments in 2003. Last year, Christus spent $2.3 million on such payments. Much of that savings has gone into expanding health-care services in low-income neighborhoods.

What Gingrich and Perry neglected to mention is that Texas is a disaster for the uninsured: "Texas currently leads the nation in the rate of uninsured, with more than 25 percent of the state's residents lacking health-care coverage. If you limit the analysis to residents under age 65, which takes seniors covered by the national Medicare program out of the data, 28 percent of Texans are uninsured.... Letting Perry serve as the spokesman for a federalist solution to the health-care system is a bit like letting Dick Fuld testify on the adequacy of self-regulation on Wall Street, or Donald Rumsfeld explain that occupations are easy."

For that matter, the vaunted "tort reform" measure in Texas, passed six years ago, has screwed over a few too many Texans.

As for Texas investing "savings" in "health-care services in low-income neighborhoods," I can think of several thousand Texans who'd love to hear all about it.

It's these pesky details that get Gingrich and Perry every time.

GERSON'S SENSE OF THE 'CENTER'.... Michael Gerson, reflecting on this week's elections, believes "it was a center-right victory in a center-right country." He was referring, of course, to Republican gubernatorial victories in New Jersey and Virginia. Gerson largely overlooked the Democratic congressional victories in California and New York. It is odd when the center-right country gives Democrats the biggest congressional majority in decades, and then adds more, isn't it?

More to the point, Gerson believes Republicans going two-for-four in these closely-watched elections is evidence of President Obama "ceding the center" to the GOP.

Politicians who have run for governor -- say, Bill Clinton -- had a good feel for the politics of the center. Obama has yet to demonstrate it. According to the White House, on election night he was "not watching returns" -- displaying a French monarch's indifference to America's shifting middle.

Now comes Obama's largest test, which will determine the ideological atmosphere for the 2010 election. If the president -- opposed by a majority of Americans, with almost no support from the other party -- imposes an ideologically divisive health reform, it will smack of radicalism, reinforce polarization and may cede the ideological center to Republicans for years to come.

A couple of thoughts here. First, according to the Bush White House, George W. Bush was also not watching election returns in November 2006. Does Gerson believe his Christian de Neuvillette also demonstrated a French monarch's indifference to America's shifting middle?

Second, Gerson is convinced that the electorally smart thing for Democrats to do is to fail at reforming the health care system. I might suggest the governing majority ignore the advice.

But most importantly, Gerson believes President Obama's efforts to rescue the country from the fiasco left by Gerson's former boss are somehow beyond the pale of the American mainstream. Gerson writes of "radicalism," "polarization," and Republicans seizing the center.

My questions for Gerson are straightforward enough: has he seen the Republican Party lately? Is he aware of the Tea Partiers, Birthers, Deathers, "Freedom Fighters" and assorted revolutionaries who dominate the Republican Party in 2009? Has Gerson noticed that the GOP is led, in large part, by a ridiculous combination of confused ideologues (Palin, Bachmann, Pence) and deranged media personalities (Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity)?

Gerson believes Republicans are poised to represent the center a day after the chairman of the Republican National Committee publicly declared to GOP moderates, "We'll come after you."

Republicans may or may not do well in next year's elections; time will tell. But the notion that it's the White House engaging in "radicalism" suggests Michael Gerson is still part of a team creating its own reality.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR SOUTHERN WHITE MALES.... Curt Levey of the far-right Committee for Justice doesn't approve of President Obama's judicial nominees. Sure, there are the usual conservative reasons -- the president, for some reason, refuses to nominate right-wing jurists for lifetime positions on the federal bench -- but Levey is especially incensed that there's a lack of southern white guys among Obama's selections.

[O]nce again we have to wonder whether a Democratic bias against southern white men serving on the federal appeals courts is at work. [...]

Does President Obama or his advisors believe that southern white men are likely to be bigoted, making them unfit to serve on the second most powerful court in the land? We hope not and readily concede that it is difficult to know if any such stereotype lurks in the White House. The absence of southern white male circuit nominees could, instead, be an innocent coincidence or the not-so-innocent byproduct of a judicial selection process dominated by racial and gender preferences.

But regardless of the reason for the pattern we noted in 2007 and again now, even the appearance that Democrats are biased against southern white men is a potential problem for the party generally, and for President Obama's goal of transcending old racial divisions. At the very least, the pattern merits further thought and discussion, both outside and inside the White House.

Levey specifically points to the southern circuits -- the Fourth, Fifth, and Eleventh -- where President Obama has neglected to nominate southern white guys.

Kyle at Right Wing Watch reminds us of some of the relevant numbers here. Of the 37 seats in these circuits, 20 are already filled by white guys. Of the 157 circuit court seats nationwide, 95 are filled by white guys. It's awfully difficult to make the case that the president is neglecting an unrepresented "minority" -- white guys -- when they already represent a majority.

Adam Serwer added, "Just to put this in perspective, a whopping 18 percent of judges on the federal bench are people of color. But in the eyes of this conservative group, assigning more white men to the federal bench 'transcends racial divisions,' and that doing otherwise reflects a selection process 'dominated by racial and gender preferences.' Conservatives regularly try to cast affirmative action as racially discriminatory, but rarely does someone openly admit that their only issue with the process is simply who is being discriminated against."