An excerpt, below, from this Wednesday morning’s Jolt. As usual, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe . . .

He’s a Skinny Guy, But All of Obama’s Bites Are More Than He Can Chew

The fallout from our sudden head-banging with Israel continues. I relish the writing of Walter Russell Mead, particularly his works on modern-day Jacksonianism, and he ties that mentality to views of Israel: “Many of the arguments and perceptions that have weakened support for Israel on the left cut no ice with the populist right.  The argument that just war theory forbids the ‘disproportionate’ use of force has absolutely no weight in much of American opinion.  When somebody attacks you, especially in an underhanded terrorist way, you have a natural right to defend yourself using every weapon and every tactic that comes to hand.  This is the way most Americans think about war; American public opinion on the whole does not regret the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.  Two-thirds of American respondents tell Pew pollsters that they favor the use of “torture” under some circumstances. Such people are not necessarily indifferent to Palestinian rights, and they may not feel that every Israeli action is well judged, but they strongly believe that as long as Palestinians engage in terrorism, Israel has an unlimited and absolute right of self defense.  It can and should do anything and everything it can to stop the attacks and many Americans consider international laws against such practices as pious hopes with no binding legal or even moral force. If the terrorists shield themselves behind civilians, that only shows how evil they are – and is an extra reason why you have both the right and the duty to eliminate them no matter what it takes.”

Sarah Palin wants to hit the “reset” button. Hey, we’ve done it with every other country . . .

At Contentions, Noah Pollak reads a Jeffrey Goldberg report and wonders if everything is even worse than we initially feared: “Here we have on record the Obama administration saying 1) that it is trying to topple the government of a democratic ally (if only we could try this in Tehran!) 2) that it believes it has such mastery of Israeli politics that publicly bludgeoning Bibi will result in such a shakeup, and that 3) even if the hoped-for new government is formed, the White House thinks it’s a good idea to go on record stating that the Prime Minister they will have to deal with is stupid. This is pretty amazing. And it’s more evidence that not only is Obama ignorant of how Israel and the Middle East work, but that he refuses to do any on-the-job learning. He is pushing forward with his failed strategy of a year ago, only this time with a bigger hammer.”

I was thinking about that – the angry words from David Axelrod and the gang are supposed to get the Israeli public to give up on Bibi? The Israeli public has withstood attempted invasions, suicide bombers in pizzerias, and forecasts like, “this afternoon will be cloudy with a chance of incoming rockets from the north.” They’re going to buckle and fold because Hillary Clinton was angry on the phone?

I am informed this morning that Virginia’s state attorney general, Ken Cuccinelli, will mount a legal challenge to the federal health-care legislation if it passes, contending the legislation is unconstitutional.

The Virginia state legislature passed legislation to exempt the state’s citizens from any federal requirement that they purchase health insurance against their will.

Rep. Greg Walden (R., Ore.), deputy chairman of the NRCC, held a conference call with bloggers a few minutes ago.

The Oregon Republican said that the most recent count at Code Red is 189 yes votes, 205 no votes, with “37 still hanging out there.”

Discussing some wavering Pennsylvania Democrats like Jason Altmire, Kathy Dahlkemper, and Chris Carney, Walden noted,“There are still overwhelming numbers of Americans in a Democrat-held seat saying ‘uh-uh.’ In my home district, people are just beside themselves
. . . The process is overtaking the bad policy as a worse talking point. You try going back to your district and explaining, ‘I never did vote for the Senate bill, I deemed it passed.’ You go explain that.”

He added, “There are two ways in which the conventional wisdom is changed. I think the idea of if you voted yes, you have to stay yes — ‘Boy, you’d better stick with it’ – is revealed as a flawed strategy. I think ‘I have gotten the message’ is easier to tell your constituents than ‘I didn’t really vote for the Senate bill, but I voted for the rule.’ The second is that process matters. This notion that it doesn’t matter, than nobody at home gets it — there has been a paradigm shift in America because of the blogosphere, the Internet, C-SPAN.”

I asked Walden about how certain he can be that those who are listed as no will stay that way. He admitted that some flipping is possible, but unwise: “This arm-twisting is about as hard-core a process as I have seen. Your arm gets twisted around backwards, almost in a torture move. Maybe if you get out, you think you can get away from where you were, but I think if you’re locked in, you better stay. If you’re a Democrat, the worst place to be is undecided, because you’re just getting pummeled from both sides.”

The Susan B. Anthony List, an organization of pro-life women, conducts a poll, and offers seven members of the House of Representatives some food for thought:

IN-02 Joe Donnelly

60% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Donnelly if he votes for health care legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (47% would be much less likely)

MI-05 Dale Kildee

56% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Kildee if he votes for health care legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (37% would be much less likely)

MN-08 Jim Oberstar

56% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Oberstar if he votes for health care legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (36% would be much less likely)
 
FL-02 Allen Boyd

60% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Boyd if he votes for health care legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (44% would be much less likely)

ND-At Large Earl Pomeroy

57% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Pomeroy if he votes for health care legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (42% would be much less likely)

MA-02 Richard Neal

47% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Neal if he votes for health care legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (31% would be much less likely)

GA-12 John Barrow

53% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Barrow if he votes for health care legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (38% would be much less likely)

Oberstar and Kildee have said they’ll vote yes. Donnelly is supposedly loyal to the Stupak language. Neal and Pomeroy are undecided. Barrow is considered a likely no. Boyd voted no in the Budget Committee markup.

Oh, this is reassuring.

Fox News Jon Scott: Pardon my skepticism, but you’re talking about a trillion-dollar bill, you’re talking about rearranging maybe a sixth of the American economy, it would seem to be unusual to enact this into law without a vote in the House of Representatives.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn: Well, let’s get away from the trillion-dollar bill. Remember, we’re still talking about the bill that was passed by the Senate. And last time I checked the score on the Senate bill was, like, $850 billion. We did a trillion dollars on the House side, and that’s not what we voted on. We will deem passed the Senate bill which was much less than that.

Oh. So we’re only enacting a $850 billion bill without a vote in the House.

I think for a bill this huge and with such enormous ramifications, the speaker shouldn’t be allowed to use any maneuvers that the little guy below didn’t sing about:

Yesterday, Obama kept emphasizing that “courage” was required on the health-care issue, along with an up-or-down vote.

How perfect that on the exact same day, Pelosi agrees to a rule that would skip an up-or-down vote, because too many House Democrats are afraid to vote on the Senate bill directly.

A note on some of these pro-life, or “conservative,” or “centrist” Democrats in the House . . .

Periodically I’ll discuss with Cam the value of just how unconservative a Republican you can stand, compared to a relatively conservative Democrat. The NRA, for example, endorses plenty of Democrats, because they emphasize that they’re a single-issue organization. They focus on gun rights; you could be a raving socialist on all other issues, but they’ll still back you. Howard Dean, for example, got an “A” rating from the NRA.

I understand the logic of that position. For a nonpartisan organization, it makes perfect sense.

But there’s a catch. For even the best, most pro–Second Amendment House Democrat, the first vote they cast in the House is to make Nancy Pelosi the Speaker of the House, ensuring the floor schedule is controlled by a woman who is scored an “F” by the organization. And her speakership ensures that F-rated John Conyers of Michigan chairs the Judiciary Committee, and that liberals, often but not always anti-gun, control the important committees.

Meanwhile, if that A-rated House Democrat were beaten by some squishy C-or B-rated Republican, his first vote be would make A-rated John Boehner (or perhaps some other Republican) the speaker.

This goes well beyond the gun issue, obviously. Heath Shuler, John Barrow, Dan Boren, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, and their ilk may completely disagree with the way Pelosi shaped the health-care bill and this insane plan to use the Slaughter Rule. But all of them were key to putting Pelosi in position to do this.

UPDATE: Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell offers his thoughts on this dynamic.

This is why I’m wary of some of these vote counts floating around:

Last Week: Rep. Dan Maffei (D-NY): “The Senate bill, in my view, burns the village in order to save it.”  (The Post-Standard, 3/8/10)

Today: Rep. Dan Maffei Says He Will Vote for Health Care Reform

I guess he was pro-village-burning all along.

I was wondering if anyone was going to poll on Pennsylvania’s special House election. The answer: Yes!

We Ask America found Democrat Mark Critz with a slight lead, 38.8 percent to Republican Tim Burns’s 34.7 percent. Another 26.4 percent are undecided. Among independents, Burns is doing extremely well, leading 72.9 percent to 10.3 percent. The sample size is a healthy 1,365.

More about Mark Critz, and other Democrats’ worries about his ethics problems, here.

UPDATE: Interesting. As mentioned earlier, May 18 will be the date of both the special election and the primary election in this district; voters will choose between Burns and Critz to represent the district for the remainder of the year, and select who will represent each party on the ballot in November. On the GOP side, that will put Burns against William Russell; on the Democrat side, Critz will take on Ryan Bucchianeri.

My partisan preferences are clear, but you could do a lot worse than electing a Democrat like Bucchianeri:

He is a 1997 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, where he received his commission as a naval officer. At Annapolis, he earned a degree in political science and lettered in NCAA Division I football. His career as an athlete and midshipman was featured in various national media including Sports Illustrated, The Washington Post Magazine, ABC Sports, Readers’ Digest, and A Civil War: Army vs. Navy, a national best-seller. Ryan served on active duty at sea on the USS Fife and USS Curtis Wilbur, and on land in the Middle East in support of Operations Southern Watch and Enduring Freedom. In the Middle East, he was part of the U.S. military’s first response task force against Al-Qaeda in the immediate wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

This is the actual headline on the front page of the Washington Post today:

“Procedural sleight of hand.” Our transition to a banana republic continues on schedule.

Over on the home page, a look at the Democratic candidate who seeks to win the seat in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district: former Jack Murtha aide Mark Critz. He brings to the race a close connection to the most malodorous deals of his old boss, but without the Bronze Star and Purple Hearts that made his boss comparably likable.

Someone compared this race to one in West Virginia last cycle, where longtime Robert Byrd aide Anne Barth took on Rep. Shelley Moore Capito. While Byrd is a legend in the state, his appeal didn’t transfer to his former employee; Capito won 57 percent to 43 percent, the same percentage as in 2006 and 2004.

This morning’s Jolt has more on health care — because we know that story is never going away – but another big story is heating up:

We’re Playing Hardball with the Wrong Middle Eastern Country Starting With ‘I.’

Haaretz: “Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has told the country’s diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their worst crisis in 35 years.” Apparently, we’ve given the Israelis a bunch of demands.

Hey, I have a tough time believing the Israelis just happened to announce a bunch of new settlements the moment the Vice President stepped away from the luggage carousel. But it’s not like their diplomatic high-inside fastball wasn’t predictable when our government started crowding the plate with an official stance that the Palestinians would be normal, happy, well-adjusted pacifists if it weren’t for a couple of new condo projects. We’ve got beleaguered descendents of Holocaust survivors who have been hearing “we will push you to the sea” for 50 years on one side, and on the other, a culture that adopted making mentally challenged children wear suicide belts their national pastime. Yet every  president – okay, not all of them, just the Democratic ones – seem to think that sending enough retired senators and special envoys over there will garner them a treaty ceremony on the White House lawn and a couple [more] Nobels. Why is everyone reacting as if this diplomatic train wreck wasn’t predictable? Obama and Netanyahu don’t see eye-to-eye on almost anything; that’ll strain the strongest alliance.

Why are we supposed to be the honest brokers in one of the world’s most intractable and long running disputes, anyhow? What have the Palestinians ever done for us?

As usual, subscribe, subscribe, subscribe . . .

Jen Rubin: “If they’re honest, those who vouched for Obama’s superior temperament and his pro-Israel bona fides must be embarrassed. For those of us who suspected that this president lacked a fundamental attachment to Israel, critical national-security experience, and a full appreciation for why we don’t have ‘peace’ in the Middle East (it’s not housing sites, especially ones clearly within the Jewish state in any future two-state deal), there’s little comfort in saying, ‘We told you so.’”

The conclusion of a lengthy, thought-provoking post from Bruce McQuain, at QandO: “Much like the people of the US, Arab leaders are not going to be impressed by only talk – something the administration is long on.  It is going to demand action – something which puts the administration in a very awkward position given what they’re now demanding vs. what Israel may be willing to do.  And even if Israel capitulates, it will simply mean more demands – all to the detriment of our strongest ally in the region. A very interesting situation brought on by perceived weakness and a diplomatic style akin to a pit bull at a cat show. It will be interesting to monitor the situation and see what comes of it, but, as one Israeli envoy noted, US/Israel relations are at their lowest ebb in 35 years. And I doubt this has substantially increased our image among the Arabs.”

These days we’re no better friend to our enemies and no tougher foe to our allies.

Gabby Giffords, Arizona Democrat, is one yes who appears to be remaining “yes.”

A recent poll found 52 percent of the voters in her district oppose the bill; 35 percent support it. Even more voters hate reconciliation.

Statewide, health care is polling at 38 percent support to 59 percent opposition.

Some folks are seeking the opportunity to remedy this incongruency between the voters and their representative: Jesse Kelly, Jonathan Paton, Andy Goss, and Brian Miller.

McCain carried this district by 6 percent; Bush by 7 percent in 2004.

UPDATE: An entire five days ago:

U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords sent a letter Tuesday to President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reiterating her opposition to the Senate health care reform bill.

Giffords, who voted for the House reform bill, said the Senate plan would inflict a massive new spending requirement on the state at a time when state revenues are plummeting and the budget is in dire shape.

“I urge you to give Arizonans your word to ensure that any final health insurance reform legislation treats all states equally and does not result in unfunded mandates on states like Arizona,” she wrote.

Wednesday morning on Twitter, meanwhile, said wrote, “Tucson and Sierra Vista are very different, yet papers in both towns are supportive of health insurance reform. Tells us something.”

With Giffords considered a swing vote on the issue, calls have been steady into her office from all over the country. And on Tuesday night,  about 120 opponents to the health care plan stood in a cold, steady rain in front of the congressional office, holding signs that read, “Honk if You’re Paying Attention” or “Gabby, show some spine.”

In 1993, as Pennsylvania Democrat Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky marched down the aisle to cast the deciding vote on Pres. Bill Clinton’s tax increases, House Republicans sang, “Bye-bye, Margie.” On Election Night 1994, she lost her seat.

Sixteen years later, the congresswoman’s son became engaged to Chelsea Clinton.

“You’re not losing a House seat, you’re gaining a daughter.”

Today, there’s another massive piece of legislation that could come down to one vote. I think President Obama needs some more children to marry off.

It’s a frequently made point, but Third Base Politics jazzes it up with Benny Hill music:

About eleven days ago, one of my readers wrote in:

Jim Oberstar is a committed pro-lifer and probably would have been a senator if it wasn’t for the fact that his principled pro-life position put him out of the mainstream of the average Democratic primary voter in his state . . . Anything can happen and there is going to be a lot of arm twisting between now and a House vote on Obamacare, but I’ll be very surprised if Jim Oberstar votes for a bill without the Stupak language.

Jim Oberstar is a committed pro-lifer . . . until now, apparently.

Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., who supported strict abortion limits when the bill cleared the first time, said he was prepared to vote for the revised measure even though the same limitations will not be included.

Let me guess, the funding from the DCCC comes in silver pieces.

The NRSC contends Brad Ellsworth, aspiring senator from Indiana, is a rubber stamp:

It’s not a bad attack ad, but I kept waiting for him to inflate and float away. (Carly Fiorina’s really raised the bar for campaign ad CGI. It’s like the Avatar of campaign web videos.)

Bottom line on Ellsworth: He says he wants to be a senator; we’re about to learn just how much, with 60 percent of voters in his state opposing the health-care bill. To paraphrase a line from my March Madness video, “Hoosier Senator? Not this guy if he votes yes!”

I have a piece in the pipeline on the race between Republican Tim Burns and Democrat Mark Critz for the House seat in western Pennsylvania once occupied by John Murtha.

I notice Murtha voted for health care and cap-and-trade; his district, as described by Michael Barone’s Almanac of American Politics:

This has been tough, hard-working country ever since the Scots-Irish farmers settled here in the 1790s. Their first big product was whiskey – this was the site of the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 – but historically the most important product was bituminous coal. Discovered in the 19th century, it was the basic energy source for the production of iron and steel. The offspring of the original settlers were joined by immigrants from Italy, Poland and Czechoslovakia, living in little frame houses packed into the towns on interstices between hills and rivers, within walking distance of steel factories, foundries and coal mine shafts . . . The 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, with highly irregular boundaries, contains much of this coal and steel country.

Other coal-country Democrats like Kathy Dahlkemper and Jason Altmire voted no on cap-and-trade. I wonder if Mark Critz, Murtha’s district director, stands by his old boss’s vote? 

A short while back, a surprising Quinnipiac poll came out, showing Arlen Specter (D-Why, Are You Offering More?) ahead of Republican Pat Toomey, 49 percent to 42 percent. Toomey had led several in a row, and about two weeks earlier, Franklin and Marshall had Toomey up 10.

Today, a new poll from Susquehanna Research puts Toomey up, 42 percent to 36 percent.

I’m a little wary of some of these “likely nos” we’re hearing a lot about lately. If some of these endangered Democrats are going to flip to Pelosi’s side after voting “no” last fall, the last thing they want to do is hint that they’re flipping and make themselves targets for attack ads, tsunamis of calls from constituents, etc.

In other words, if Obamacare passes, it’s going to pass because a bunch of Democrats who went on and on about how deep their concerns are and how troubled they are suddenly make their peace with the bill.

Among those whose “no” vote I wonder about:

Dennis Kucinich, Ohio: He’s getting the full Obama treatment in Strongsville this afternoon.

Steve Driehaus, Ohio: Yes, he sounds pretty solid, but he’s already taken one near-suicidal vote on cap and trade.

Any Democrat from Illinois.

Any retiree, obviously.

Baron Hill, because anyone who’s that much of a jerk to his constituents at a town-hall meeting can’t be that worried about ignoring them.

A reader adds:

It’s in members’ best interests to stay undecided as long as possible. They don’t want angry voters with pitchforks at their office doors, but they also don’t want Rahm tracking them down in the shower. That’s why so many are now “waiting for the final language.” When the final language comes out, they will undoubtedly “need time to read and review it.” Then they will go into hiding until the actual vote.
 
With the rigid timetable that Pelosi has put in place, I think she will likely have to open the vote without knowing the outcome. The pressures on these Democrats will be tremendous from all sides, but I think Pelosi is likely to either win by a single vote or lose by 20.