Jacob Sullum has a must-read piece on the folly of the Democrats' argument that government subsidized health care is somehow a fundamental human right. Sullum says this oft-repeated statement "reveals a radical assault on the traditional American understanding of rights."

Along those same lines, in remarks announcing the health care deal on Saturday Chris Dodd cited FDR's famous Four Freedoms speech to produce the mind-bending argument that a massive government takeover of the health care system actually represents an expansion of liberty in that it frees us from "one of the great fears Americans have lived with for generations."

"So today we stand ready to pass a bill into law that finally makes access to quality health care a right for every American,  not a privilege for a fortunate few in our country.

This month sixty-nine years ago Franklin Delano Roosevelt outlined four freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from want, and the freedom from fear.

And one of the great fears that Americans have lived with for generations is the fear that their child, their spouse, a loved one, they themselves will be hit with an illness for which they cannot receive treatment because they can't afford it, they can't see a doctor because they can't afford it.

This bill does not guarantee you'll never get sick. It doesn't guarantee you're not going to die. All we're trying to do is to guarantee that if you are a fellow citizen of ours and you are struck with illness, or a loved one is, that you'll never again have that fear that you'll end up losing your home, your job, your retirement, your life savings, because you've been afflicted by an illness through no fault of your own that we are dealing with the freedom - that rational freedom that all Americans have that one day they will suffer the dignity- or indignity - of not being able to afford the care for their family and loved ones."

Dodd goes on to say that as "a nation founded on freedom and sustained by unimaginable prosperity, this bill is long overdue and critically important."

Where to start? Set aside the fact that Dodd shamelessly hijacks FDR's "freedom from fear" from its original context - the anxiety felt in January 1941 by the global war being waged by the totalitarian Axis powers - and grafts it onto a domestic policy issue concerning a relatively small percentage of the U.S. population.

Set aside also Dodd's use of the phrase "through no fault of your own," designed to evoke sympathy and cast individuals as victims. (If I develop lung cancer after 20 years of smoking, is my illnesses "no fault of my own" and therefore the costs of my treatment should be subsidized by my fellow taxpayers?)

It's troubling to watch Dodd celebrate a massive nanny-state solution to health care by suggesting it somehow expands the American public's freedoms and liberties when in fact many of the provisions of the legislation do just the opposite. What about freeing people from the fear that medical care will have to be rationed under this plan? Or freeing them from the fear that they may not be able to visit the doctor of their choice? Or freeing them from the fear the government will levy a fine against them and possibly throw them in jail if they do not go out and buy health insurance they may neither want nor need?

In so many demonstrable ways, this bill represents an assault on the freedoms of scores of millions of Americans.

Furthermore, Dodd's argument allows for the federal government to do virtually anything under the guise of "freeing the American people" from this fear or that. And despite Dodd's reference to country's founding as a point of support for universal health care (as a nation founded on freedom), the Founders envisioned a federal government of distinctly limited powers - which the First Congress underlined by ratifying the 10th Amendment.

Imagine what the Founders would think if they saw the size and breadth of the federal government today - and what they would think about expanding the scope of its power to include the health care system. I doubt they would call it a victory for freedom.

This is going to seem nitpicky, especially since these "not held by a Democrat since ____" (or a Republican in the case of parts of NY-23) posts are just a stand-in for what everyone already knows: The North and South are realigning, and have been for almost a century.  But I'm a political geography geek, so I feel compelled to point out that people seem to be misstating when Alabama's Fifth Congressional district was last won by a Republican.  In particular, bloggers seem to be relying upon this wikipedia entry showing a Republican holding the district in 1869.

In fact, the present Fifth as we know it has <i>never</i> been held by a Republican before.  Here's the history.  In 1869, Alabama's districts looked like this:

As you can see, nothing like the present Fifth even existed at the time.  The North was split up between two districts, and they were held by Democrats: Peter Dox and William Sherrod.

In 1872, Alabama added two Congressional districts, but made them at-large seats.  The state didn't redistrict until the 1876 elections.  At that time, it created a district bearing a strong resemblance to the present Fifth, numbered the Eighth.  Note how the less pro-Confederate northern portion of the state (Winston County actually seceded from the Confederacy) is divided up into three districts, and how the heavily African-American west-central portion of the state is sliced up between four districts.

It stayed the Eighth until 1972, when Alabama went down to seven seats.  It was then renumbered the Fifth.

A Greenbacker won the district in 1878 and 1880, and there was a close race in 1882 where the Republican got 48 percent of the vote.   Republicans typically won around 40 percent of the vote throughout the rest of the 1800s -- a very high portion for the South -- but between 1900 and 1986, a Republican never got above 25% of the vote.

The interesting thing about the Fifth was that it actually produced some of the more liberal Alabama politicians -- segregationists to be sure, but Democrats with a more populist streak like John Sparkman.

Both Republican candidates have an early advantage over the two Democrats in the Kentucky Senate race, according to a new Public Policy Polling (D) survey (1,199 RVs, 12/18-21, MoE +/- 2.8%).

General Election Matchups
Grayson 40 -- Conway 33 -- Und 27
Grayson 44 -- Mongiardo 35 -- Und 21

Paul 42 -- Conway 36 -- Und 22
Paul 42 -- Mongiardo 36 -- Und 22

A previous PPP survey found physician Rand Paul (R) and Attorney General Jack Conway (D) leading their respective primaries.

Sen. Jim Bunning's (R) decision to retire, under heavy pressure from fellow Republicans, proves especially helpful to the party, as his job approval rating is just 29 percent. Conway and Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo were both considered solid Democratic candidates, but the current political environment seems to especially troublesome for the party in Kentucky.

President Obama's job approval rating is just 35 percent, while 59 percent disapprove. Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear also has net-negative approval rating, with 36 percent approving and 39 percent disapproving. Mongiardo was elected jointly with Beshear in 2007, and that unpopularity seems to spill over as his favorable rating is the worst in the field.

Favorable Ratings
Conway 19 / 18
Mongiardo 25 / 37
Grayson 19 / 17
Paul 26 / 23

PPP:

Kentucky independents are overwhelmingly leaning toward the GOP, giving Grayson and Paul leads ranging from 25 to 34 points over the Democratic contenders. Republicans are also more unified, with their candidates taking anywhere from 69-75% of their party's votes in contrast to the Democrats who snag just 54-61% support from within their party.

If it weren't on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed page, Richard A. Epstein's piece on what he sees as the inevitable demise of the health-insurance industry under the Senate heath-care bill would be remarkable.

"Lost in the shuffle," the University of Chicago law professor writes, is the bill's "intensely coercive requirements on health insurance issuers..."  that they spend a minimum amount of revenues on actually delivering health care. That's if they plan to participate in the government program.  Epstein goes on: "Taken together, these restrictions are likely to drive them out of business..."

That is apparently news to the insurers. According to yesterday's WSJ, "a host of health-care companies including Aetna were lifted by a key Senate vote." Indeed, several insurance stocks have been hitting multi-month highs since the deal was made to require everyone to buy health coverage but ripped out the public option.

The insurance industry is no doubt touched by Mr. Epstein's concern for its survival and his claim that the restrictions contained in the legislation are unconstitutional.

Others who've observed the blow-by-blow in this fight, however, have developed an unshakable faith in the insurers' ability to look after their own interests.

www.fromaharrop.com

Pundits have taken a break from obsessing about health reform to talking about Rep. Parker Griffith's (D-AL05) switch from the Democratic to Republican Party.  Griffith's switch certainly is newsworthy.  He becomes the first Republican to hold the district, which stretches across northern Alabama, since it was created in 1876  (though a Greenbacker held it from 1878-1880).  Griffith's voting record puts him to the right of all but fourteen Democrats; the move should make Democratic leadership nervous about those Democrats' future plans.

But perhaps Griffith should have looked at the history of party-switchers at the federal level over the last thirty years, and how they have fared in subsequent elections.  By switching parties while in office, the member often does not have time to build a base of support in the new party, and is vulnerable to primary and general election challenges.

Switching away from the Republican Party is almost always a kiss of death; Senator Bob Smith of New Hampshire switched to the Constitution Party and then switched back before being defeated by John Sununu in the 2002 Republican primary.  Rep. Michael Forbes, elected in 1994, switched to the Democrats, and was defeated in the subsequent Democratic primary by a 71-year-old librarian, Regina Seltzer by 35 votes.  And of course, Arlen Specter's status as a future Senator is extremely tenuous.

On the Democratic side, party switching has been more common of late due to realignment in the South, but no more successful.  In 1989, Bill Grant of Florida (the Tallahassee-based Second District) and Tommy Robinson of Arkansas (Little Rock-based Second District) both switched parties mid-term.  Grant lost by 14 points in 1990 to Democrat Pete Peterson, while Robinson was unsuccessful in claiming the Republican nomination for Governor in 1990.

After the 1994 midterms, Reps Jimmy Hayes (LA-07), Greg Laughlin (TX-14), Billy Tauzin (LA-03), Nathan Deal (GA-09) and Mike Parker (MS-04) switched parties.  Hayes lost the GOP nomination for Senate in 1996, and Parker lost the 1997 election for Governor of Mississippi.  Laughlin lost the subsequent Republican primary election to Ron Paul; ironically enough, Laughlin was probably closer to typical Republican Party ideology than is Paul.

There are successful cases.  Tauzin and Deal successfully won re-election as Republicans, while Senate party switchers Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Richard Shelby easily won re-election (though they both had several years to ingratiate themselves to the Republican base in their states).  In 2004 Ralph Hall of Texas and Rodney Alexander of Louisiana switched parties, though Alexander caused a bit of a furor by being savvy/slimy enough to wait until just before the filing deadline, depriving Democrats of an opportunity to find a suitable challengers.

This is only noteworthy because Griffith already had a couple of credible general election challengers; in particular Madison County Commissioner and '06 Lieutenant Governor Candidate Mo Brooks.  They may or may not back down.  In addition, the district is still fairly Democratic at the base, which means that Democrats will have an opportunity to come up with a credible challenger as well (the filing deadline is April 2010).  And other Republicans may decide to join the race.  Republican activists are already calling for Griffith's defeat.

Perhaps the most troubling news for the Democrats is that Griffith probably knew all of this, but likely saw something in his polling that made the switch nevertheless worthwhile.  This is ominous news for the twenty or so Democrats in districts roughly comparable to Parker's.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Chris Van Hollen released the following statement today just as Alabama Rep. Parker Griffith was beginning his press conference in Huntsville to announce he is switching to the Republican Party:

"House Democratic Members and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee took Parker Griffith at his word and, as a result, invested a great deal in working with Alabamans to bring Mr. Griffith to Congress. We were committed to helping Mr. Griffith deliver for his constituents and successfully helped Mr. Griffith fend off the personal attacks against him from the far right.

"Mr. Griffith, failing to honor our commitment to him, has a duty and responsibility to return to Democratic Members and the DCCC the financial resources that were invested in him. His constituents will hold him accountable for failing to keep his commitments."

UPDATE: National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions has also released a statement on today's news:
(more...)

This downturn has been a blue collar recession above all else. From my story today on the Invisible Workingman, three key data points:

• Three-quarters of the recession's total job losses have fallen on blue collar workers.
• Two-thirds of all Americans who have lost jobs are blue collar men.
• More than 4-in-10 of the total job losses are blue collar white men.

The same grassroots energy that propelled Ron Paul from a little-known Congressman to a force in the presidential primaries now seems to be transferring to his son in his Senate run in Kentucky. Public Policy Polling's (D) latest survey shows him easily ahead of Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who was recruited by the national party after Sen. Jim Bunning (R) was pressured not to seek re-election.

Republican Primary Election Matchup
Paul 44
Grayson 25
Und 32

Some of Paul's advantage seems to come from a name-ID edge, somewhat surprising given that Grayson is a statewide officeholder and Paul is a political newcomer.

Favorable Ratings
Grayson 22 / 15
Paul 39 / 13

From the polling memo:

Paul is winning the votes of conservatives by a 47-20 margin, while Grayson holds a 36- 34 lead with moderates. Paul is having a particularly good amount of success with folks who think that the Republican Party in Washington has become too liberal- his lead with them is 54-18. Paul's support is universal across demographic lines, as he is up with men, women, voters in every region of the state, and every group of the GOP electorate broken down by age.

On the Democratic side, Attorney General Jack Conway holds a slight lead over Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo in what could be one of the toughest contests in the party nationwide.

Democratic Primary Election Matchup
Conway 37
Mongiardo 33
Und 30

Favorable Ratings
Conway 27 / 15
Mongiardo 40 / 27

Rep. Parker Griffith (D-Ala.) is expected to become the second member of Congress this year to switch parties, according to a report by Politico. Griffith, a freshman in a historically-Democratic yet vulnerable district, will announce his decision this afternoon in Alabama and denounce the health care reform bill as a main reason for the move.

From Politico:

Griffith's party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.

The switch represents a coup for House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls over the summer.

Although Alabama's 5th District has voted Republican in every presidential contest since 1980, it has never elected a Republican to Congress. It covers the entire northern border of the state and includes Huntsville. Griffith succeeded nine-term Rep. Bud Cramer (D) after just a 3-point victory last year, when John McCain won the district with 61% of the vote.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter switched from the Republican to Democratic Party earlier this year to avoid a tough GOP primary. However, Specter now faces an incredibly challenging Democratic primary, and -- should he win -- a difficult general election battle.

Griffith could face GOP primary opposition, as two Republicans had already announced they were running to challenge him -- Madison County Commissioner Mo Brooks and businessman Les Phillip, a Navy veteran.

A new Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion poll taken of the South Carolina governor's race finds close primary contests for both parties, as each hope to succeed Republican Gov. Mark Sanford -- whose extramarital affair became one of the most talked about national stories of the year.

Republicans tested include: SC Atty. Gen. Henry McMaster; Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer (who was endorsed yesterday by Mike Huckabee); State Rep. Nikki Haley (who was endorsed by First Lady Jenny Sanford); U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett; and State Sen. Larry Grooms.

McMaster 22
Bauer 22
Haley 13
Barrett 9
Grooms 6
No opinion 28

Democrats tested include: State Education Superintendent Jim Rex; Dwight Drake, an attorney and former top aide to governors John West and Dick Riley; state senators Vincent Sheheen and Robert Ford; and attorney Mullins McLeod.

Rex 21
Drake 15
Sheheen 8
Ford 6
McLeod 6
No opinion 44

The survey was taken Dec. 16 of 371 Republicans and 306 Democrats.