In the end, it may all come down to abortion. So what else is new? The Senate rejected an attempt Tuesday to ban any insurance plan that receives taxpayer dollars from offering abortion coverage, even if it is paid for with private money. The Senate’s position is reasonable: No abortion coverage could be paid for with public money, but women or their employers would be able to pay for the coverage with their own money — just as they can now. But senators eventually could face the same choice that House members did: Is the abortion issue worth derailing the entire health care reform effort?
In endorsing President Obama’s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley McChrystal and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry (in photo) raised a key concern: Success depends on the Afghan and Pakistani governments. “In spite of everything we do,” Eikenberry told the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday, the Afghan government “may struggle to take over the essential tasks of governance and security on a timely basis.” In fact, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Tuesday that it would be at least five years before Afghanistan can secure itself, and it would be at least 15 to 20 years before it could fully bankroll its security forces. Eikenberry also warned that U.S. efforts in Pakistan would likely fall short unless Pakistan makes more progress in eliminating sanctuaries of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Washington Examiner columnist Michael Barone sees the retirement of Rep. Dennis Moore, D-Lenexa, as “an ominous sign for congressional Democrats.” He suggests that Moore might have had trouble winning re-election in 2010 with Barack Obama off the ballot and Moore’s votes for health reform and cap-and-trade on the record. Barone wrote: “If other Democratic incumbents in marginal districts — and, remember, the 3rd District voted for Obama — choose to follow Moore’s course, that could make it much harder to Democrats to maintain a big majority in the House and could make it easier for Republicans to gain most or all of the 41 seats they need to win a majority there.” Last week’s decision of Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., furthered the story line, prompting a Democratic strategist to tell Politico: “It’s the beginning of an avalanche on our side.”
Meanwhile, political analyst Stuart Rothenberg is newly calling Kansas’ 3rd Congressional District a “juicy GOP target,” having counted it among the “dozen most vulnerable seats in the House.”
