Obama’s trip to Indonesia, Guam, and Australia is postponed.

Somewhere, in a Jakarta park, a poor lonely statue of young Barack Obama stands and waits for its subject to arrive and inspect it. And waits, and waits, and waits . . .

The NRCC’s “Code Red” site tries to explain the health-care bill passage procedure in 90 seconds.

I’m pretty sure Rep. Heath Shuler, North Carolina Democrat, makes an unflattering cameo.

Michael Arcuri, Democrat of New York, is telling colleagues he’s a “no” on the health-care bill. He was a “yes” last fall.

I can’t help but suspect that entrepreneur and philanthropist Richard Hanna had something to do with it. Arcuri beat Hanna by 4 percentage points – about 10,000 votes. (Obama won this district by about 6,500 votes; four years earlier, Bush won it by about 17,000 votes.) Hanna is running again this year.

Hanna talks a bit about why he’s running below:

Organizing for America – now under the auspices of the DNC – just called my cell phone, and asked if I could attend Obama’s rally at George Mason University.

Larry Sabato currently predicts that voters will replace a Democratic governor with a Republican one in the states of Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

He predicts that voters will replace a Republican governor with a Democratic one in the states of California and Hawaii.

A lot of races are still rated toss-ups: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Vermont.

A lot of folks are scratching their heads over a comment President Obama made to Bret Baier about the infamous “Louisiana Purchase”:

That provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help. Louisiana, obviously, went through Katrina, and they’re still trying to deal with the enormous challenges that were faced because of that. . . . It also affects Hawaii, which went through an earthquake.

A lot of bloggers are asking, “What earthquake?”

The folks at Media Matters for America think it’s an open-and-shut case: “In fact, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, a magnitude 6.7 earthquake hit Hawaii on October 15, 2006.”

But there’s a catch. Yes, that was a pretty powerful earthquake, but judging from press accounts, thankfully injuries were pretty minor. USA Today: “No deaths or serious injuries were reported.” The FEMA report from two days afterward makes no mention of injuries or problems at medical facilities. When Bush declared the event a federal disaster, Fox News reported, “No deaths or serious injuries were reported, and the damage appeared to be scattered, allowing most tourists and residents to resume life as normal.”

Katrina’s impact on Louisiana’s health-care system and the health problems of its residents is pretty clear and straightforward; by no stretch of the imagination did the quake overwhelm Hawaiian health-care facilities. Comparing this earthquake to Katrina seems rather absurd; life returned to normal in most of Hawaii within a few days, compared to the years of rebuilding necessary in certain parts of Louisiana.

President Obama, during his interview with Fox News anchor Bret Baier: “What I’m saying is whatever they end up voting on — and I hope it’s going to be sometime this week — that it is going to be a vote for or against my health-care proposal. That’s what matters.” Moments later:

BAIER: OK, the Florida deal, in or out?

OBAMA: The Florida deal —

BAIER: Paying for Medicare Advantage, exempting 800,000 Floridians from —

OBAMA: My understanding is that whatever is going to be done on Medicare is going to apply across the board to all states.

So the president hopes for a vote within the next three days, even though he’s really not sure whether the special deals are in or out.

Remember when we were told how much Obama focused on the details?

Campaign Spot reader Vin notes that our professor who we’re endlessly told was a lecturer on constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School just declared, “I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.”

Here’s a surprise, and a disappointment: Diggs Brown is dropping his bid for the House of Representatives in Colorado.

Colorado’s 4th congressional district was a spot where the GOP had more good candidates than slots on the ballot. Diggs Brown appealed to me as a veteran of the war on terror; as his campaign noted, “While serving in Afghanistan, the Taliban had a $10,000 bounty on Diggs Brown’s life.” How many other House candidates can say that?

There are still two good candidates in this race; state legislator Cory Gardner of Yuma, one of the rising stars of the GOP in state government, and Tom Lucero, a member of the Colorado Board of Regents, who led the charge on that looney-tunes professor Ward Churchill.

The winner of the GOP primary takes on Democrat Betsy Markey of Fort Collins, in a district McCain narrowly carried and that Bush won, 58 percent to 41 percent.

I don’t think people were counting on this flip:

Rep. Stephen Lynch, says a proposed parliamentary move to pass health-care reform would be “disingenuous” and harm the credibility of Congress.

In a sign of how tough it’s been for Pelosi to round up votes for the massive bill, Lynch – a South Boston Democrat who supported a House reform package last year – said he’ll probably vote against a key Senate version of the legislation, unless unexpected major changes are made soon.

A Massachusetts Democrat is backing away from the health-care bill. Thank you, Sen. Scott Brown.

As usual, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe . . . There’s much more, including health care, but I figure you’re tired of that. From this morning’s Jolt:

Obama’s Israeli Policy Follows the Success of Our Iran, India, Russia, Czech, Poland, Japan and Great Britain Policies

The Economist: “Friends have spats, but this seems to be more than that. America has not simply accepted Mr Netanyahu’s prompt apology. Opinion in the administration is said to be divided. Mr Biden himself and many State Department officials, together with George Mitchell, who was to have supervised the now-stalled proximity talks, advised cooling things down. But, whether out of rage or calculation, Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton preferred to escalate.”

Boy, there’s a reassuring calculation about what drives our policy choices, huh? 50/50 shot this is deliberate or we’re just lashing out at blind rage at the one ally in the region we would trust in a back-alley knife fight. And how utterly screwed are we when Joe Biden has become the voice of reason on Middle East policy?

The headline in Haaretz is “Netanyahu’s brother-in-law: Obama is an anti-Semite” but the story actually quotes him as saying Obama is “anti-Israel.” I don’t think the terms are quite the same, although the middle portion of that venn diagram is pretty big.  Is Obama an anti-Semite? Well, the chief of staff being former IDF and the indispensability of Axelrod would appear to dispel that notion. But whether Obama is anti-Israel is a fairer question, and I think it’s increasingly safe to say that Obama is no particular friend of Israel and is no longer all that worried about being seen as neutral or worse on Israel.

Jen Rubin: “The answer is that Obama seeks to ingratiate himself with the thug-ocracies and put the screws on Israel. The answer is that Obama views Israeli actions not in the best possible light, as one would expect a valued friend to do, but in the worst possible light. And the answer is that neither Obama nor his administration can think through the implications of their actions (Will acquiescence work with Syria? Will bullying win over the Israelis?) or appreciate the moral distinction between a democratic friend and a rogue state. They are both morally obtuse and politically (domestically and internationally) tone-deaf.”

Bingo. Obama sees himself as this grand peacemaker, who stands above the petty conflicts of others and bridges the warring sides. Of course, if you stand above disputes, you don’t take sides, and thus you see the functioning democracy and western values of Israel as morally indistinguishable from the vast underage suicide bomber academy that is Palestinian society. I hit the roof when my little guy throws a Thomas the Tank engine; halfway around the world, some Palestianan Papa is offering his son tips on how to throw the rock most powerfully when he runs in front of an Israeli tank.

The subtext of the Kagan column from yesterday was pretty clear: all around the world, we’re spitting on our allies and groveling before our enemies and the most hostile states. For two years, we argued that the world didn’t work the way Obama said it did; now we’re getting to see the results.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal offers this intriguing tidbit, via the WSJ Political Diary e-mail:

A Congressional Budget Office estimate on the cost of certain proposed House changes to the Senate bill is late. Sources tell me that the original scoring of the bill tripped the psychological barrier of $1 trillion in costs for the program’s first years, forcing a last-minute scramble for even more tax increases to pay for it. One option — accelerating imposition of a tax on high-cost “Cadillac” health care plans — will anger labor unions whose members often enjoy such plans.

Rounding up the votes for health care has also proven difficult. House Democratic Whip Jim Clyburn told McClatchy Newspapers that final consideration of the bill may not occur until Easter (April 4) or later. He is dealing with dozens of members who refuse to commit to a firm position in hopes their silence will force the leadership to pull the bill and move on to other issues. “Just say nothing,” is how one Democratic staffer explained the strategy being taken by many members. “Maybe it will just go away, and we can avoid a tough vote this close to the election.”

On the one hand, if this mentality is widespread, it might explain why we have so many undecided (or at least claiming to be undecided) folks — 77 by one count! — with the final vote coming up in two days and change. And it’s not that hard to imagine a nervous House Democrat thinking they can escape a tough spot by refusing to take a position.

But is it really conceivable that Pelosi would scrap the president’s signature legislative agenda item without a vote? If these folks wanted the bill to go away, wouldn’t they be better off privately indicating to Pelosi that if it comes to a vote, they’ll have to be a “no”?

And what happens when “just say nothing” is no longer viable? “Just vote present”?

Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli fires a warning shot across Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bow. A letter just sent:

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives
Office of the Speaker
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C.

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under a so-called “deem and pass” rule because such a course of action would raise grave constitutional questions.

Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill.  This is an improper purpose under the bicameralism requirements of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, one of the purposes of which is to make our representatives fully accountable for their votes. 

 Furthermore, to be validly enacted, the Senate bill would have to be accepted by the House in a form that is word-for-word identical (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)). 

 Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge. 

A bill of this magnitude should not be passed using this maneuver.  As the President noted last week, the American people are entitled to an up or down vote.

Sincerely,
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia

According to a poll commissioned by the RNC, 58 percent of those who are undecided on the generic ballot [do you want to elect a Republican or a Democrat to Congress] oppose “the president’s health care reform measure”; 27 percent support it.

When asked if they support “the health care legislation,” 60 percent of those who are undecided on the generic ballot oppose it, 30 percent support it.

When asked whether the current bill should be passed as soon as possible or scrapped, 66 percent of those undecided on the generic ballot say “scrap it”; 20 percent say pass it as soon as possible.

Only 25 percent say they’re more likely to vote for a candidate who voted for the health-care bill; 51 percent say they’re less likely.

Needless to say, the cuts to Medicare Advantage are supremely unpopular; 10 percent say they’re more likely to vote for a candidate who voted to cut the program, and 69 percent say they’re less likely.

Then these voters were asked, “Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?  I would consider voting for a Republican for Congress to send a message to President Obama and the Democrats and make them listen to the concerns of voters like me.” Among those who said they were undecided on the generic ballot, 53 percent said agree, 31 percent said disagree.

Yet the Democrats tell themselves that passing this legislative smorgasbord of grief will help them in November.

An Illinois Democrat switches from yes to no, is lobbied by the White House, and remains a “no.”

And oh, by the way, this Democrat, Jerry Costello, represents a district that Obama won, 56 percent to 43 percent; Costello hasn’t had less than 60 percent of the vote since 1998.

I’m starting to think Pelosi isn’t going to get her 216. For starters, Obamacare backers seemed awfully excited about Kucinich’s support, which I suspect a lot of us thought would eventually fall into place. Second, he’s actually the least useful new supporter in terms of persuading the other waverers; “Approved by Dennis Kucinich” isn’t a slogan that flies in the district of Baron Hill in Indiana or John Barrow in Georgia or Glenn Nye in Virginia.

We’re still counting about two dozen holdouts and waverers and undecideds; this is after several weeks of all-out pressure from Obama, Pelosi, Hoyer and the others.

I’m not willing to say that Pelosi can’t get the votes. But it sure is taking a long while to get retirees like Brian Baird, Bart Gordon, and John Tanner officially on board, isn’t it? I thought they were supposed to be a slam dunk, comparably . . .

Over in the Corner, Kathryn writes:

[Margorie Margolies Mezvinsky] also writes “I voted my conscience and it cost me.” I’m not sure Minnesota Rep. James Oberstar will be able to say that first part, after announcing he will vote for the bill. Anyone out there ready to challenge him and make at least half that sentence relevant to him?

If she means electoral challenge, a trio of Republicans seek to send the 75-year-old, 18-term incumbent into involuntary retirement. Chip Cravaak is a retired naval officer; Justin Eichorn is a small business owner and national bowling champion (!); and Darrel Trulson is a businessman and former local official in Arlington Heights, Illinois.

Oberstar is obviously a local legend, but it’s not a terribly Democratic district, rated D+3 in the Cook Partisan Voting Index. Duluth and the Iron Range are the traditional Democratic strongholds, while the southern counties are trending more Republican, according to Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics.

A poll commissioned by the pro-life women’s group the Susan B. Anthony List revealed the powerful political impact of Oberstar’s “yes” vote:

73% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (61% strongly oppose)
74% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (60% strongly oppose)
68% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (54% strongly agree)
56% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Oberstar if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (36% would be much less likely)

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

The Journal/NBC survey shows that majorities of African-Americans and liberal Democrats, as well as a plurality of Latinos, would be less likely to vote for their representative in Congress if he or she voted against the health-care plan.

That’s swell for Obamacare supporters. That’s also not the demographics in the districts of the wavering Democrats; most of them come from overwhelmingly white and distinctly not liberal districts.

(Keep in mind that the overall results showed 31 percent saying they were more likely to vote for a representative if they voted against the plan, and 34 percent less likely. On another question, 28 percent say they’ll be more likely to vote for their representative if they vote to pass the plan, 36 percent say less likely.)

The Journal/NBC poll doesn’t offer a breakdown by race, but if African Americans, liberals, and Latinos voted “less likely,” then it seems safe to presume a healthy number of whites made up the “more likely” category. PPP has the health-care plan split among whites at 36 percent support, 59 percent opposition.)

You might think that Gabby Giffords of Arizona has a lot of Latinos in her district. Compared to many other districts, she does, but they still only make up 20.3 percent; whites make 71 percent. She’s scored as an R+4 district in the Cook Partisan Voting Index.

Jason Altmire’s district in Pennsylvania? 93 percent white. Same figure for Kathy Dahlkemper’s district in that state. Patrick Murphy? 89 percent white, 3.7 percent black. Chris Carney? 94 percent white, 2.5 percent black. Paul Kanjorski? 88.6 percent white, 4.2 percent black. These districts range from D+4 to R+8.

In Ohio, Steve Driehaus’s district is 28 percent black, 66 percent white; even then it only scores a D+1. Charlie Wilson’s district is 94.6 percent white, 2.6 percent black. John Boccieri’s district is 92 percent white, 4.7 percent black. Zach Space’s district is 95.5 percent white, and under 2 percent black. These districts range from R+2 to R+7.

In North Dakota, Earl Pomeroy’s district – a.k.a. the state – is 90.2 percent white and 1.6 percent Latino, and scores an R+10.

In Florida, Allen Boyd has a relatively high number of blacks in his district, at 22 percent; his district is 70.5 percent white and scores a R+6. Suzanne Kosmas has a district that is 74 percent white, 7 percent black, and almost 14 percent Latino, and still scores a R+4.

In Virginia, Glenn Nye’s district is 65 percent white, 22 percent black, and 5.7 percent Latino, and his district is scored as R+5. Tom Perriello’s district is 72 percent white and 23 percent black, scoring at R+5. Rick Boucher’s district is 92.4 percent white and 4.1 percent black, and scores at R+11.

In Indiana, Baron Hill represents a district that is 92.6 percent white and 2.5 percent black, and 2 percent Latino, and scores at R+6. Brad Ellsworth is running for the Senate, but he represents a district that is almost 93 percent white and scores at R+8.

It’s nice to know that Democrats who represent heavily black or heavily liberal districts like Maxine Waters and Pete Stark will be able to keep their seats after voting for health care. But for all those nervous Democrats in swing districts, the strongest supporters live in the wrong places.

As a congressman, John Conyers of Michigan makes $170,000 per year. So why has a federal judge just determined that his wife Monica Conyers, who is appealing her conviction on bribery charges, is indigent and will require a taxpayer-funded public defender?

Then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008:

We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws.

The news, today:

The Obama administration will halt new work on a “virtual fence” on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.

As I, and many others, have said for several years now: All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them.

Is it just me, or does this ad for Michael Bennet, appointed senator from Colorado seeking a full term, reek of trying too hard?

For starters, his lead-off agenda item is freezing congressional pay “until we get our economy back on track.”  (Apparently that’s four consecutive quarters of job growth, which could be as soon as the end of the next quarter.) You have a better chance of getting the Family Research Council to give an award to Tiger Woods.

Then he wants to take away congressional health care until “they can stop insurance company abuses.” This actually makes the congressional pay freeze look realistic in comparison; on that idea, you have a better chance of getting Woods an award from FRC and NOW on the same day.

Then he wants to ban lawmakers from ever becoming lobbyists. Is that even constitutional? I understand the bans on lobbying for a certain number of years after they leave office; it’s designed to impede influence-peddling.

It’s not even enough for Bennet to offer the standard closing line; he has to emphasize, “I approved this message because I’m listening to Colorado.”

Translation: I know you’re angry, I’m terrified, and I’ll spout unrealistic expressions of your anger if that’s what it takes to keep this job!