Last week, former Congressman and current Senate candidate John Hostettler tweaked Evan Bayh by sarcastically predicting that Bayh wouldn’t vote for ObamaCare because it would endanger his wife’s access to lucrative stock options as a member of the board of directors of health insurance giant WellPoint.

Well, Hostettler was wrong and he was right. He was wrong in that Bayh did very much vote for the ObamaCare legislation. But Hostettler was correct in that Bayh was not going to let his family’s finances suffer from the passage of ObamaCare.

What Hostettler didn’t count on was that the legislation itself–damaging as it might be to Indiana’s state finances, as much as it might expand government, as much as it allows Federal tax dollars to fund abortions, and for all of its other myriad faults–still contained benefits for WellPoint and thus for the Bayh family.

Evan Bayh didn’t need to worry about voting against his family when he voted for the bill. Bayh didn’t get anything for Hoosiers in the sell-out-a-thon that came in the mad rush to get this abomination passed, but some things ended up in the bill that benefit WellPoint and thus the Bayh family’s finances.

Evan Bayh has his priorities, after all, and it’s pretty clear that big insurers like WellPoint (and his family’s bank account) are way up there on that priority list. Ordinary Hoosiers, not so much.

As lefty blog FiveThirtyEight notes, the greatest benefit to health insurance companies comes from the insurance mandate contained within the legislation. Everybody must now buy insurance, and the legislation provides $400 billion in subsidies to private insurers to help make that happen. It also expands the customer base for companies like Wellpoint by almost ten percent.

Over the course of the next ten years, the Senate’s bill directs about $447 billion in public subsidies to people for the purchase of private health insurance. (This is in addition to another $400 billion or so in subsidies for the expansion of Medicaid).

Another way to look at this is that the Senate’s bill will add about 17 million nonelderly members to the private insurance companies’ enrollment relative to the baseline case, according to the CBO. As about 177 million nonelderly Americans currently have private insurance, this represents a 9.6 percent increase in their customer base.

WellPoint, as one of the largest insurers in America, is going to get a big slice of that $400 billion pie. It’s also going to see its customer base swell by around ten percent as many people who don’t currently have insurance (for whatever reason) are forced to buy it from companies like WellPoint.

Read more after the leap.

It’s true. Ben Nelson sold out the pro-life movement with his decision to vote for cloture on ObamaCare.

But Nelson, inarguably, got something for his state in exchange.

From the Washington Post:

Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax, and was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.

A dirty secret of Harry Reid’s latest legislative Frankenstein is that it will push the costs of increases in Medicaid off onto the states.

Ben Nelson, at least, sold his vote in exchange for making the other 49 states pay for the cost increases in Nebraska, instead of Nebraska’s state budget having to pay for it.

What did Evan Bayh sell his vote for? Do Hoosiers, facing a huge budget shortfall as we do, get a similar exemption?

And if we don’t, why isn’t Evan Bayh threatening to kill ObamaCare to get similar special treatment for Indiana?

Why would Evan Bayh vote for legislation that will crush Indiana’s budget but give a free pass to Nebraska (and, in fact, make Hoosiers pay for Nebraska’s free pass)?

Why not be as ornery and contrary as Nelson and, at least, get a free pass for Hoosiers, too?

Why does Evan Bayh value Nebraskans over Hoosiers?

So insane that you couldn’t make something like this up if you tried.

From the Washington Post:

Anita Dunn, one of Barack Obama’s closest political advisers, is returning to her media consulting practice — bypassing the chance to serve in the first Democratic White House in nearly a decade.

She will return to her firm — Squier Knapp Dunn — and begin the process of readjusting to the soap-operatic world of political consulting. Dunn’s biggest client heading in the 2010 election is Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh who some Republicans believe can be beaten — we’re skeptical — with the right candidate.

That was posted back in November of 2008. Dunn did end up working at the White House, and she quit after she got in trouble for making a series of comments saying she was a fan of Mao Tse-Tung.

The website for Squier Knapp Dunn lists Anita Dunn as a partner who is currently on leave from the firm. The firm’s website lists Evan Bayh’s Senatorial campaign as one of their clients. Bayh’s hire of Dunn made news last year, but Dunn wasn’t in hot water over her Maoist comments back then.

And just how much money has Evan Bayh given to Anita Dunn and her company? The short answer is that we don’t know. The Senate, interestingly, exempted itself from having to report campaign expenditures.

But do Hoosiers want a Senator who relies on a Maoist for political messaging?

He’s voting no on Sotomayor.

Power Line notes:

(Read more after the leap)

It’s not even my title.

It’s the title used by Jake Tapper, a reporter for ABC News. The irony, of course, is delicious.

From his story:

President Obama’s expressed hope today in his weekly address “that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past” runs against another historical first for the 44th president: his unique role in history as the first US President to have ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

So while there is little indication Republicans intend to filibuster President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP will likely invoke the President’s unique history whenever he calls their tactics into question.

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.

On January 29, 2006, Mr. Obama told George Stephanopulos on “This Week” that he would “be supporting the filibuster because I think Judge Alito, in fact, is somebody who is contrary to core American values, not just liberal values, you know. When you look at his decisions in particular during times of war, we need a court that is independent and is going to provide some check on the executive branch, and he has not shown himself willing to do that repeatedly.”

Mr. Obama did seem to express some reserve about using the filibuster process, which in common parlance refers to a procedural Senate maneuver requiring 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote.

“I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues,” then-Sen. Obama said. “These last-minute efforts using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it, and we need to recognize because Judge Alito will be confirmed that if we’re going to oppose a nominee that we’ve got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake and frankly I’m not sure that we’ve successfully done that.”

He added that “there is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers and mechanisms to block the president instead of proactively going out to the American people and talking about the values that we care about. And, you know, there’s one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that’s to win elections.”

It does not appear that a filibuster will be attempted against Sotomayor.

The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., was among 28 Republicans who voted against Sotomayor’s ascension to the Court of Appeals in 1998.

But he told CNN this week, “I don’t sense a filibuster in the works.”

“The nominee has serious problems,” Sessions said. “But I would think that we would all have a good hearing, take our time, and do it right. And then the senators cast their vote up or down based on whether or not they think this is the kind of judge that should be on the court.”

Tapper also accompanies his story with a nice discussion of the history of the filibuster (and defeat or blocking) of Supreme Court nominees in the past, which is well worth reading though I won’t quote it in full here.

Posted this before, but it’s worth repeating.

The full quote from Ace of Spades, with commentary at the end:

“All of the legal defense funds out there– they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…y’know.”

Check out that hand wave at the end. She walks it back, sure, but there’s no question what she believes. She thinks she gets to make policy and she knows that she’s not supposed to say that out loud. This is what Obama is looking for on the bench.

Yessir, it’s going to be very interesting to see when the time comes where Evan Bayh stands on all of this.

For the last few years, the argument in the GOP (and from the left) has been been that social conservatives should be abandoned.  The moderate to liberal talking points have been that the views of SoCons are outdated and are losing issues if the GOP ever wants to get back to prominence.  But a recent Gallup Poll shows some of that logic to be flawed, especially when it comes to the issue of Abortion.

Via Powerline:

In a survey published today, Gallup finds that more Americans now consider themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice,” by a 51 percent-42 percent margin:

Gallup says this trend has been documented in multiple surveys. Interestingly, the shift is all among Republicans and Republican-leaners. Democrats and Democrat-leaners continue to be “pro-choice” in the same numbers.

Every time Republicans lose an election, would-be sophisticates in the party write op-eds to the effect that the party needs to dump social conservatism. Whatever your views on the social issues of the day–they have never been a significant focus of this site or of my own political involvement–Gallup’s survey supplies more evidence that this approach is wrong-headed.

While I take a different approach to certain social issues than some of my fellow SoCons do, I maintain that it is foolish to castigate an entire voting block.  Centrist Republicans finally got their candidate of choice last year and the GOP suffered its worst defeats since the post Watergate Era of the 1970’s.  That said, I think the momentum of the Obama campaign would have lambasted any GOP candidate last year, be they fiscal, social or both kinds of conservative.

All that said, I believe that the party, should it return to it’s winning ways needs to read the tea leaves better.  And at this time, to quote the Clinton Campaign circa 1992, “It’s the economy stupid!”  Republicans need to rally around sound fiscal policy at a time when fiscal policy is on most voters minds.  Does this mean abandoning SoCons and what they believe and stand for?  Absolutely not!  But it does mean that some issues need to take a back seat.

But as this poll shows, abortion is not an issue that should be expunged from Republican victory strategies.  Should other social issues, at the very least, be set aside?  At this time, I would say that should be up for debate.

Several Presidents of the United States have given commencement addresses at Notre Dame. In recent years, all of them have been pro-life (Bush and Reagan). Until now.

But the question I would like to see answered is a simple one.

How many protesters were arrested when Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush came to speak?

We’ve already seen twenty-one individuals arrested at Notre Dame before Obama’s visit:

Former Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes, a Roman Catholic priest and 19 others were arrested yesterday after they marched onto the University of Notre Dame campus to protest President Barack Obama’s commencement speech tomorrow.

“Notre Dame is arresting a priest,” the Rev. Norman Weslin, founder of the Lambs of Christ abortion-protest group, said as Notre Dame security personnel put plastic restraints on his wrists. “Why are you arresting a priest for trying to stop the killing of a baby? You’ve got it all backward.”

Weslin, 78, who has been arrested dozens of times at abortion-clinic blockades, was carried off on a stretcher. He and two others were charged with resisting law enforcement.

All 21 arrested were charged with trespassing. Keyes and five others were ordered held in the St. Joseph County Jail until Monday because it was their second time being arrested on a charge of trespassing at Notre Dame, said Sgt. Bill Redman, St. Joseph County Police Department spokesman. Bond was set at $250 for the others.

None of those arrested were students.

The arrests marked the third consecutive Friday that people were arrested as they protested the school’s decision to give Obama, who supports abortion rights and embryonic stem-cell research, an honorary degree and have him address graduates.

St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Michael Scopelitis issued an order Thursday changing how bond is set for a person charged with a crime while already out on bond on a pending charge.

Previously, such a person could have been released under a presumptive bond schedule. Now they must await a probable cause hearing, Scopelitis said.

The judge said county judges already were considering the change because of people being arrested multiple times and being released without appearing before a judge.

The fact there could be numerous arrests this weekend surrounding Notre Dame’s commencement brought the issue “into focus,” Scopelitis said.

Brought the issue into focus my rear end.

I somehow think that folks that protested Bush and Reagan weren’t given the same sort of treatment that folks that are protesting Obama are getting. Certainly not from the Democrat-dominated power structure in St. Joseph County and South Bend.

(Read more after the leap)

By: Brian Sikma

A few weeks ago the United States House of Representatives passed H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement and Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It is expected that the United States Senate Judiciary Committee will consider this proposed hate crimes legislation later this week. This is not the first time that the House has passed a hate crimes bill, and this is not the first time the Senate has considered legislation designed to establish an unequal system of justice. What is happening for the first time is the consideration of this legislation with a liberal Democrat majority in the House and Senate and a liberal President in the White House.

Although the political circumstances surrounding this latest attempt to classify thoughts as a crime are not favorable to those who believe in freedom, this does not mean that we should fail to take action. If we establish a national hate crimes law it will be a direct assault not only on the principle of federalism and the traditional boundaries of criminal law, but it will also be an all-out charge against religious liberty.

Those who commit violent crimes should be punished regardless of their motive and regardless of the identity of their victim. Contrary to what many advocates of hate crimes legislation wish you to perceive, not a single criminal is escaping the consequences of his crime because of the lack of a hate crimes statute. Those who oppose hate crimes legislation do so on the grounds that everyone deserves to be equally protected from violent criminals. When government seeks to use the criminal justice system to right supposed social wrongs, the outcome is far from what real justice should be. You cannot have appropriate justice in the unequal application of justice.

(Read More Below the Fold)

The full quote from Ace of Spades, with commentary at the end:

“All of the legal defense funds out there– they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I’m…y’know.”

Check out that hand wave at the end. She walks it back, sure, but there’s no question what she believes. She thinks she gets to make policy and she knows that she’s not supposed to say that out loud. This is what Obama is looking for on the bench.

Yessir, it’s going to be very interesting to see when the time comes where Evan Bayh stands on all of this.

With the announcement of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter yesterday, Evan Bayh will have to find whole new ways to contort himself into a human pretzel to preserve his precious approval ratings. Fortunately, his lack of a spine should come in quite handy in this task.

Never one to spend political capital, Birch’s Boy now finds himself in an unenviable position. The switching of Arlen Specter means that Obama should be able to appoint whatever lefty judicial activist retread he wants from the hallowed lecture halls of the law school temples of American liberalism.

And, when the time comes to stand and be counted on all manner of judicial activism, Bayh will have to vote. And his vote, should the GOP choose to fight the nomination, will matter more than ever before thanks to the convenient switching of Arlen Specter.

Republicans can no longer stop the most liberal aspects of Obama’s agenda, nor can they curb the radical appointees he might find for positions like the Supreme Court. That task falls to supposed moderates like Evan Bayh.

And folks like Dan Dumezich and other Hoosier conservatives seeking to give Indiana a second senator instead of someone that wants to grow up to become vice president will be watching. Indeed, all of Indiana will be watching.

Will Birch’s boy stand up for Hoosier values, or will he kowtow to those of the far left wing and the radical special interest groups of the national Democratic Party?

From the Journal Gazette:

Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said Tuesday he will support the nomination of an Indiana University law professor to head the Obama administration’s internal law office.

He is the first Republican to publicly declare his backing for Dawn Johnsen, whose selection to head the Office of Legal Counsel has grown into a fight about abortion rights and counterterrorism practices.

Some Republicans have promised to try to block Johnsen’s confirmation either because of her support for abortion rights or because she criticized the legal justification used by the Bush administration for the torture of detainees.

Lugar’s support does not guarantee the Senate will confirm Johnsen. Sixty votes are needed to stave off a filibuster, and vote-counters say they are aware of close to 60 “yes” votes for Johnsen, but they are not declaring victory. One Democrat – Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson – has said he will vote against Johnsen.

Advocacy groups have turned Johnsen’s nomination into a high-profile tussle in Washington. On Tuesday morning, a group of 75 Hoosier law professors signed a letter asking Lugar to support Johnsen.

Lugar has said that, barring something extraordinary, a president should be able to choose top aides even if they support policies the opposition party opposes. He has also said Congress should not require as many posts be reviewed and voted on; about 500 positions require Senate confirmation.

I’m so glad that Dick Lugar is rushing so quickly to replace Arlen Specter as the most annoying member of the Senate Republican caucus.

Specter expected a filibuster of Johnsen last week, but since he’s switched it’s probably no longer an operative consideration.

There is at least one conservative Democrat that opposes Johnsen’s nomination, which would have given the Republicans at least the 41 votes to filibuster the radical Obama nominee. With Lugar’s rather spineless decision, that becomes more difficult.

For review, let’s look at some of Johnsen’s statements about abortion:

(Read more after the leap)