Scott Spiegel

In their quest to pass health care reform legislation, Democrats have been cheating death, robbing Peter to pay Paul, taking candy from babies, lying through their teeth, moving the goalposts, and burning the candle at both ends.  It is all about to catch up with them.

If I were an editorial cartoonist, I’d depict Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as Tarzan and Jane, swinging through the forest, dangling a ragtag bundle of Congressional Democrats in a net trap, eking their way from one tree to the next as each vine snaps behind them, nearly sending them to their death in the jaws of lions below.

Here are a few of the nine lives Congressional Democrats have used up in recent months:

(1)    The House version of the health care bill passed in a squeaker of a vote, 220-215, three weeks ago.  Two Democrats voting the other way would have killed the bill (not 3, since Republican Representative Joseph Cao cast his vote for the bill only once he was sure it would pass without him).

(2)    The Senate agreed to begin debate on its version of the bill in another squeaker of a vote this weekend, which was preceded by a $300,000,000 payoff to Senator Landrieu for her state of Louisiana (thanks for the revised figure, Mary!).  As Dana Milbank noted, this sum is 20 times the price of the original Louisiana Purchase, which bought us 14 states.  As The New York Post observed, based on Louisiana Representative William Jefferson’s recent 13-year sentence for accepting a $100,000 bribe, Landrieu should spend the next 39,000 years in jail.

(3)    Pelosi violated her pledge to post the final version of any legislation online for 72 hours.  Instead, she and Reid have been finishing their handiwork on Friday night and ramming through their votes on Saturday night.  Defeating these bills would be hard enough if the public had time to digest them and hold politicians accountable for supporting them, but now congressmen can claim that they were unaware of ornery provisions slipped in at the last minute, because they were unable to speed-read 300 pages of legalese an hour.

(4)    Leaders of both houses have been inserting, modifying, watering down, or removing passages to get approval for the bill or beginning debate, when they know full well that crucial blocs of defectors will never vote for current legislation in the final vote.  These holdouts will demand that all changes be unmade, which will cause even larger chunks of the Democrats’ fragile majorities to drift away.  For example, Pelosi banned federal funding of abortion in the House bill, a restriction that a dozen representatives will never accept in the final bill.  Reid reinserted in the Senate bill a public option, which had been absent from all committee versions, when he knows that every Republican and at least four Democrats would filibuster a vote on such a bill.

(5)    Reid bought holdout votes from centrist Democrats by making minor concessions tailored to their districts’ concerns.  To support the final bill, these and other Democrats are demanding much bigger concessions, which conflict with each other and with demands made by those in the House.  It is not physically possible to satisfy all of these lawmakers’ requirements at once, which is why Reid and Pelosi have barely been able to do it with 12 different versions of the bill over a period of several months.

(6)    Democrats are willing to slash funding for Medicare, which Jay Cost calls “the most significant fiscal policy ‘achievement’ of the Democratic Party in the last seventy years” [scare quotes mine].  Doing so has cost them the support of seniors, who oppose the bill even more comprehensively than the general public.

(7)    Rasmussen reported on Monday that support for the bill has fallen to a new low of 38%.  Some Senators have been jeopardizing their reelection in 2010 by their support for their bill, and at least one—junior Senator Michael Bennet—has been bragging about it.

(8)    Senator Chuck Schumer is now resorting to bald-faced threats, which should go over wonderfully with the public; recently he declared on behalf of all of Congress, “We’re not going to not pass a bill.”

All of this is already starting to take its toll on Democrats: witness the retreat of Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, who voted not to allow debate on Reid’s bill to proceed, when formerly she had been trumpeted as giving the bill a bipartisan veneer by supporting the Senate Finance Committee’s version.  Democrats think they can pass a bill by tossing concessions left and right to keep the ball rolling through each stage, but their momentum is eventually going to grind to a halt.

On a more general note, anyone trying to do something impossible—in this case, have government take over a sixth of the economy and provide better, more widespread care at lower costs than the private sector, with no sacrifices required from anyone—necessarily fights a harder battle than his opponents, because reality is not on his side.  Republicans, as ineffective and mealy-mouthed as some of them have been in making the case against Congress’s bill, possess the inherent advantage of the truth.  The American people and a vigilant alternative media can discover the truth if no one else will.

Congressional Democrats up for reelection next year for one of 535 seats are about to experience a whole new type of rationing.

Perhaps it’s not surprising that President Obama would think nothing of subjecting Manhattan to the spectacle of a civilian court trial against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.  This is the administration that thought having an F-16 trail Air Force One around Ground Zero on a workday morning was a good idea.

On the other hand, perhaps we should view KSM as Obama’s consolation prize for failing to secure the 2016 Olympics on U.S. soil.  (How much tourism revenue will KSM’s trial bring to lower Manhattan?)

To try KSM and his four co-conspirators in federal court, New York will have to create a de facto Guantanamo Bay—one that is smaller than but as secure as the real thing.  The city will need to spend millions of dollars ensuring extra protection for the courthouse, the densely populated neighborhood—indeed all of downtown Manhattan—including shipping in hundreds of U.S. marshals from other jurisdictions.  They will have to make special efforts to protect the judge, prosecutors, jury, federal agents, and witnesses, all of whom will receive death threats and will need armed protection.

As Rudy Guiliani noted, trying those who planned 9/11 in a civilian court in lower Manhattan is like trying those who planned Pearl Harbor in a civilian court in Hawaii.

The trial will drag on for years and New York will face extra, unnecessary risk during every day of the circus.  Manhattan will be placed in the international spotlight and will become a prominent stage for jihadists to stage a suicide or car bombing.  Would-be attackers won’t have to do it right in front of the courthouse—anyplace in Manhattan would capture headlines and give encouragement to the Islamist cause worldwide.

Defenders of Obama’s decision claim that isolated individuals are unlikely to engage in a spectacular attack in Manhattan without long-term planning and financial support from an embedded terrorist cell.  Tell that to soldiers lining up for eye exams who survived Nidal Hasan’s shooting spree at Fort Hood last week.

Mayor Mike Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, and other city officials all assure us that New York’s Police Department can handle any potential disruption.

Let’s see: in 2000, in the same court in which KSM et al. are to be tried, bin Laden aide Mamdouh Salim, awaiting trial for his role in the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa, blinded a prison guard by squirting hot sauce in his face, then plunged a comb sharpened into a dagger deep into the guard’s eye, nearly killing him and causing permanent brain and sight damage.  Salim’s plan, later discovered in notes stored in his prison cell, involved taking hostages and helping co-defendants escape.

Another al-Qaida suspect, Wadih El-Hage, pounced on the judge during the middle of a pre-trial hearing and had to be wrestled to the ground by federal marshals.  El-Hage got within several feet of the judge, who had shielded himself with his chair.

Zacarias Moussaoui’s hearing in lower Manhattan was enough of an exhibition, and that was just a six-week sentencing trial.  His initial prosecution in Virginia took four years, mostly due to wrangling over rules of evidence, and ended only because he finally confessed his role in the 9/11 hijackings.  In addition to being verbally abusive to those involved in the proceedings, shouting curses at the jury, and gloating aloud when he didn’t get the death penalty, Moussaoui had demanded that captured al-Qaeda members appear as witnesses in his trial, a request prosecutors could not deny according to the rules of the game they had agreed to play.

Even if the terrorist suspects bring no physical attack to fruition, a trial in civilian court in Manhattan would be, as Charles Krauthammer labeled it, “the second half of the terror attack,” in which the perpetrators loudly justify their ideology and actions to the world and delight in the suffering of their victims.

If the prospect of welcoming KSM and company to the Big Apple isn’t enticing enough, there’s also the little matter that these terrorists have no right to a trial in civilian court—in fact, they have no rights at all.  Only U.S. citizens and resident aliens have constitutional rights, such as the writ of habeas corpus, because only they have sworn to uphold the ideals of the Constitution and abide by its rules.  Not only do radical foreign Islamists not support the Constitution, they actively use it against us to shield themselves from the consequences of atrocities they commit.  As Tim Sumner and Debra Burlingame noted in a letter to the president, “It is incomprehensible… that the same men who today refer to the murder of our loved ones as a ‘blessed day’… should be the beneficiaries of a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy: the United States Constitution.”  As Neil Cavuto noted, the 9/11 terrorists used our planes as weapons against us; now they plan to use our justice system for the same purpose.

The ridiculous thing about all of this is that the only reason Obama wants to try KSM in New York is to further the goal of shutting down Guantanamo Bay.  Had he not made such a promise and signed an executive order to enforce it on the first day of his presidency, even Obama might have been sane enough not to bring these terrorists to a courthouse four blocks from Ground Zero.  As noted by Michael Mukasey, George W. Bush’s Attorney General, “What’s followed [from Obama’s campaign promises] has seemed in many instances to be a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.”

Champions of the president’s decision counter: “Of course New York can handle these trials—New Yorkers are tough!  New York courts handle all kinds of dangerous defendants.”  The question isn’t whether New York can put up with this, but why New York should have to put up with this.

The problem with hate crime legislation is that it creates special classes of minorities who receive greater protection from harassment via harsher penalties for their would-be assailants.  One upshot is that groups perceived as chronically threatened because of their identity are given greater benefit of the doubt in bias-motivated crimes they commit against other groups.

If there were ever a group that U.S. law should consider shielding through hate crime legislation, it would be: Americans.  The U.S. should be uniquely interested in protecting its citizens against attacks for being residents of this country, in the same way it protects its citizens against foreign attacks and its soldiers against enemies on the battleground.

If there were ever a setting in which pro-American hate crime protections should be enforced, it is in the military.  American soldiers, more than any other group, actively display dedication to pro-American ideals.

If there were ever a cultural group in modern times that has demonstrated persistent, widespread hostility toward and willingness to engage in violent attacks against Americans, especially Americans in the military, it is radical Islamists.

Naturally, army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan, who adhered to extremist Islamist ideology, sought connections with Al Qaeda, and shouted “Allahu Akbar!” as he massacred 13 soldiers and wounded dozens at Fort Hood last week, is being portrayed by the mainstream media and the present administration as a guy who needs OSHA counseling.

Muslim apologists have been telling us to not jump to conclusions (except that the killings were caused by stress), that the murders weren’t related to Islam, that it’s “speculation” that the military ignored warning signs regarding Hasan.  We get clueless gems like this from the New York Times on Monday: “It is unclear what might have motivated Major Hasan.”  Wusses like Lindsey Graham don’t help by claiming that the murders were “not about his religion—the fact that this man was a Muslim.”  (Wait—isn’t that a conclusion?)  It takes a hawk like Joe Lieberman to initiate hearings into Hasan’s conduct and the military’s failure to eject him for anti-American actions in which he engaged for years.

In the interest of preventing future attacks, I propose that we learn from the following warning signs:

•    Hasan identified as an Islamic fundamentalist, advocated for Muslims to “rise up and attack Americans” in retaliation for war against Muslims abroad, and espoused anti-Semitic views.

•    Hasan rejoiced over the murder of an army recruiter in Arkansas in June by an American convert to Islam.  According to Colonel Terry Lee, who worked with Hasan at Fort Hood, after the attack Hasan helpfully suggested, “Maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Times Square.”

•    In 2003 Sergeant Hasan Karim Akbar—another American convert—slaughtered two U.S. soldiers and wounded 14 more in a grenade and rifle attack on a base in Kuwait in retaliation for the war in Iraq.

•    Classmates in Hasan’s master’s program complained of his anti-American views and his insistence that sharia outweighs U.S. constitutional law.

•    Fellow psychiatrists reported that, at a Grand Rounds talk during his residency, Hasan lectured his audience on Koranic justice, including the proscription to behead nonbelievers or pour hot oil down their throats and set them on fire.  Hasan defended suicide bombers, a position he has taken in postings on jihad-themed websites.

•    Hassan called the war on terror a war on Islam and said that military service for the U.S. is incompatible with Muslim beliefs.  (He may be on to something!  About 0.6% of the country identifies as Muslim, compared to only 0.25% of the military.)  Hasan argued that Muslim soldiers should be exempted from combat as conscientious objectors.

•    At Fort Hood, Hasan received warnings from supervisors for attempting to convert his patients to Islam, though he maintains it was entirely their choice whether to receive castor oil or hot oil for their remedies.

•    The FBI had been investigating Hasan since 2008 and was aware that he had sent dozens of e-mails to Al Qaeda spiritual leader Anwar al-Awlaki.  Hasan and his family attended the mosque in Falls Church, Virginia where al-Awlaki served as imam in the months leading up to September 11 and where two of the 9/11 hijackers worshiped.

Even if Hasan’s admonitions to slaughter infidels were not evidence enough to convict him of some kind of crime, he should have been ruled unfit for his position by military officials.

Hate crime legislation has been justified as necessary due to specious defenses offered for crimes against minority groups, such as the claim by lawyers for Harvey Milk’s assassin that junk food contributed to his inability to control his actions, or the “homosexual panic defense” that some who feel threatened by advances from a gay person enter a state of irrationality that prompts them to murderously strike out.  Hate crime laws have also been offered to cover minority groups whom police might not adequately protect due to racial bias.  The solution to specious legal defenses and lapses in police enforcement is to treat members of all groups equally, not some groups better than others.

As a consequence of this inverted mentality, we are warned by our political leaders to ignore the cause of obviously jihad-motivated killing of U.S. soldiers and accept spurious explanations for the massacre such as stress over anticipated deployment in Afghanistan or the inability of a trained psychiatrist to listen to stories from combat veterans.

The latest enlightened word, from Fort Hood base commander Lieutenant General Robert Cone, regarding the military’s plan to prevent future violence: “What we’re looking for is people with personal problems, not at all related to their religion—not at all.”

I hear the sugar rush from the Halloween candy civilians sent in care packages can lead soldiers to do some crazy things.

The surest sign that Obama’s presidency is going to turn out to like Bill Clinton’s is that he is already becoming a drag on the Democratic ticket, a state of affairs Clinton took a full six years to realize.

Obama followed around Democratic candidates Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Creigh Deeds of Virginia like a puppy for months during their gubernatorial campaigns.  The President made two visits to Virginia to stump for Deeds and three to New Jersey to rally for Corzine, including stops in Newark and Camden two days before the election.  On Sunday, Obama exhorted New Jersey crowds, “I want everybody in this auditorium to make a pledge that in these next 48 hours, you will work just as hard for Jon as you worked for me.”

In yesterday’s off-year elections, both candidates were soundly defeated.

In New Jersey, Obama beat McCain by a 16% margin in 2008; this year, the Republican beat the Democrat by 5%, a 21-point reversal.  This, despite the presence of a third-party candidate who took votes away from the Republican and a five-to-one Corzine-to-Christie spending advantage.

In Virginia, Obama beat McCain by 6% in 2008; this year, the Republican beat the Democrat by 18%, a 24-point reversal.  In both Virginia and New Jersey, independents—who voted heavily for Obama and other Democratic candidates in 2008—voted 2-to-1 for the Republican candidate in 2009.

Meanwhile, Obama never showed his face in upstate New York’s 23rd congressional district, where Democratic candidate Bill Owens squeaked past Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman with a victory in Tuesday’s special election.  Obama didn’t directly endorse liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava, but she received heavily publicized support from ACORN, Obama’s pet community organization, which helped solidify her lack of popularity and set in motion events that led to her withdrawal the weekend before the election.

In New York 23, 52% of the electorate voted for Obama in 2008; 49% voted for the Democrat in 2009.  It is miraculous that Hoffman did as well as he did, given the presence of a Republican on the ballot and the fact that Hoffman doesn’t live there, wasn’t familiar with local issues, and joined the race at the eleventh hour.

Bill Clinton’s pariah status in Al Gore’s presidential run and other Democratic congressional and gubernatorial campaigns in 2000 was based, of course, not on drooping support for his policies, but on his drooping boxers.

George W. Bush became a hindrance in 2008 only partly because he didn’t consistently govern as a conservative, but partly because Republican candidate John McCain ran from conservative positions every chance he got.

It was not Obama’s mere presence that flipped New Jersey and Virginia, or his absence that gave New York 23 to the Democrat.  The elections in New Jersey and Virginia—the former with its link to the New York City metro area, the latter with its proximity to D.C. and increasingly industrialized northern suburbs—were more ideologically focused on Obama’s agenda of taxing, spending, and increasing the size of government than the election in rural, upstate New York.

Hoffman lost, and Christie and McDonnell won, because New York 23 was not a referendum on Obama’s legislative priorities, whereas New Jersey and Virginia were.  The election in New York 23, a district that probably has more cows than people and more soldiers (from Fort Drum) than policemen, was about local issues.  In contrast, exit polling revealed that 62% of Virginia voters cited taxes or the economy as their most important issue.  In New Jersey, which has some of the highest income, sales, and property taxes in the country, and was rated last of all 50 states by the Tax Foundation for its business tax climate, 58% of voters mentioned property taxes or the economy as their most pressing concern.

According to Jay Cost of Real Clear Politics, “I do not think that a special election – any special election – is a particularly good barometer of the political climate of any place outside the district in question.”  He is correct—about New York 23, whose results say almost nothing about the country’s concern with the current administration’s goals.  New Jersey and Virginia—whose populations are 12 to 13 times larger than New York 23’s—are far more attuned to and potentially affected by Obama’s agenda.

As former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers noted, Democrats’ battle in New Jersey “can’t be completely attributed to a bad economy and to an unpopular incumbent in New Jersey.  There is something afoot in the land that people are uncomfortable about and one of the issues is spending.  And that is probably the biggest issue.”

Similarly, John Judis of The New Republic notes, “[I]n early August, the margin between Deeds and McDonnell jumped, and remained high for the rest of the election.  At the very same time, Obama’s approval numbers in Virginia plummeted.”  Even Deeds admitted on the campaign trail that Obama’s policies in conjunction with his support were hurting Deeds.

Obama’s blessing is turning into the kiss of death—as witnessed during the health care debate this summer, when the population turned against Congress’s legislation in precise proportion to Obama’s attempts to “explain” it in his press conferences and Sunday talk show appearances.  Beyond widespread mistrust of his agenda, there is growing distaste for Obama as a political figure as a result of his incessant, narcissistic TV and radio appearances and thin-skinned bullying of critics.

The question is when Obama the politician will start to become synonymous with Obama the purveyor of a hated agenda.