Semper Fi and Oo-rah!! Happy Birthday USMC; 234 years young!

Happy Birthday to the United States Marine Corps. Today marks the 234th anniversary of the formation of the Marines. The ages-old adage for the Marines "no greater friend, no worse an enemy" has served the Marines well. They have a rich and storied history that most are unaware of. Below is a brief history of the men and women who have served the Marines honorably for 234 years. If you know of a Marine, or meet one today, buy them a drink in honor of their sacrifice and service. Thank God for the US Marines. They are called on when we need them most, and perform spectacularly when that call comes in.

On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia passed a resolution stating that "two Battalions of Marines be raised" for service as landing forces with the fleet. This resolution, established the Continental Marines and marked the birth date of the United States Marine Corps. Serving on land and at sea, these first Marines distinguished themselves in a number of important operations, including their first amphibious raid into the Bahamas in March 1776, under the command of Captain (later Major) Samuel Nicholas. Nicholas, the first commissioned officer in the Continental Marines, remained the senior Marine officer throughout the American Revolution and is considered to be the first Marine Commandant. The Treaty of Parris in April 1783 brought an end to the Revolutionary War and as the last of the Navy's ships were sold, the Continental Navy and Marines went out of existence.

Following the Revolutionary War and the formal re-establishment of the Marine Corps on 11 July 1798, Marines saw action in the quasi-war with France, landed in Santo Domingo, and took part in many operations against the Barbary pirates along the "Shores of Tripoli". Marines participated in numerous naval operations during the War of 1812, as well as participating in the defense of Washington at Bladensburg, Maryland, and fought alongside Andrew Jackson in the defeat of the British at New Orleans. The decades following the War of 1812 saw the Marines protecting American interests around the world, in the Caribbean, at the Falkland Islands, Sumatra and off the coast of West Africa, and also close to home in the operations against the Seminole Indians in Florida.

During the Mexican War (1846-1848), Marines seized enemy seaports on both the Gulf and Pacific coasts. A battalion of Marines joined General Scott's army at Pueblo and fought all the way to the "Halls of Montezuma," Mexico City. Marines also served ashore and afloat in the Civil War (1861-1865). Although most service was with the Navy, a battalion fought at Bull Run and other units saw action with the blockading squadrons and at Cape Hatteras, New Orleans, Charleston, and Fort Fisher. The last third of the 19th century saw Marines making numerous landings throughout the world, especially in the Orient and in the Caribbean area.

Following the Spanish-American War (1898), in which Marines performed with valor in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines, the Corps entered an era of expansion and professional development. It saw active service in the Philippine Insurrection (1899-1902), the Boxer Rebellion in China (1900). and in numerous other nations, including Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Mexico, and Haiti.

In World War I the Marine Corps distinguished itself on the battlefields of France as the 4th Marine Brigade earned the title of "Devil Dogs" for heroic action during 1918 at Belleau Wood, Soissons, St. Michiel, Blanc Mont, and in the final Meuse-Argonne offensive. Marine aviation, which dates from 1912, also played a part in the war effort, as Marine pilots flew day bomber missions over France and Belgium. More than 30,000 Marines had served in France and more than a third were killed or wounded in six months of intense fighting.

During the two decades before World War II, the Marine Corps began to develop in earnest the doctrine, equipment, and organization needed for amphibious warfare. The success of this effort was proven first on Guadalcanal, then on Bougainville, Tarawa, New Britain, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Saipan, Guam, Tinian, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. By the end of the war in 1945, the Marine Corps had grown to include six divisions, five air wings, and supporting troops. Its strength in World War II peaked at 485,113. The war cost the Marines nearly 87,000 dead and wounded and 82 Marines had earned the Medal of Honor.

While Marine units took part in the post-war occupation of Japan and North China, studies were undertaken at Quantico, Virginia, which concentrated on attaining a "vertical envelopment" capability for the Corps through the use of helicopters. Landing at Inchon, Korea in September 1950, Marines proved that the doctrine of amphibious assault was still viable and necessary. After the recapture of Seoul, the Marines advanced to the Chosin Reservoir only to see the Chinese Communists enter the war. After years of offensives, counter-offensives, seemingly endless trench warfare, and occupation duty, the last Marine ground troops were withdrawn in March 1955. More than 25,000 Marines were killed or wounded during the Korean War.

In July 1958, a brigade-size force landed in Lebanon to restore order. During the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, a large amphibious force was marshaled but not landed. In April 1965, a brigade of Marines landed in the Dominican Republic to protect Americans and evacuate those who wished to leave.

The landing of the 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade at Da Nang in 1965 marked the beginning of large-scale Marine involvement in Vietnam. By summer 1968, after the enemy's Tet Offensive, Marine Corps strength in Vietnam rose to a peak of approximately 85,000. The Marine withdrawal began in 1969 as the South Vietnamese began to assume a larger role in the fighting; the last ground forces were out of Vietnam by June 1971. The Vietnam War, longest in the history of the Marine Corps, exacted a high cost as well with over 13,000 Marines killed and more than 88,000 wounded. In the spring of 1975, Marines evacuated embassy staffs, American citizens, and refugees in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, and Saigon, Republic of Vietnam. Later, in May 1975, Marines played an integral role in the rescue of the crew of the SS Mayaguez captured off the coast of Cambodia.

The mid-1970s saw the Marine Corps assume an increasingly significant role in defending NATO's northern flank as amphibious units of the 2d Marine Division participated in exercises throughout northern Europe. The Marine Corps also played a key role in the development of the Rapid Deployment Force, a multi-service organization created to insure a flexible, timely military response around the world when needed. The Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) concept was developed to enhance this capability by prestaging equipment needed for combat in the vicinity of the designated area of operations, and reduce response time as Marines travel by air to link up with MPS assets.

The 1980s brought an increasing number of terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies around the world. Marine Security Guards, under the direction of the State Department, continued to serve with distinction in the face of this challenge. In August 1982, Marine units landed at Beirut, Lebanon, as part of the multi-national peace-keeping force. For the next 19 months these units faced the hazards of their mission with courage and professionalism. In October 1983, Marines took part in the highly successful, short-notice intervention in Grenada. As the decade of the 1980s came to a close, Marines were summoned to respond to instability in Central America. Operation Just Cause was launched in Panama in December 1989 to protect American lives and restore the democratic process in that nation.

Less than a year later, in August 1990, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait set in motion events that would lead to the largest movement of Marine Corps forces since World War II. Between August 1990 and January 1991, some 24 infantry battalions, 40 squadrons, and more than 92,000 Marines deployed to the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Desert Shield. Operation Desert Storm was launched 16 January 1991, the day the air campaign began. The main attack came overland beginning 24 February when the 1st and 2d Marine Divisions breached the Iraqi defense lines and stormed into occupied Kuwait. By the morning of February 28, 100 hours after the ground war began, almost the entire Iraqi Army in the Kuwaiti theater of operations had been encircled with 4,000 tanks destroyed and 42 divisions destroyed or rendered ineffective.

Overshadowed by the events in the Persian Gulf during 1990-91, were a number of other significant Marine deployments demonstrating the Corps' flexible and rapid response. Included among these were non-combatant evacuation operations in Liberia and Somalia and humanitarian lifesaving operations in Bangladesh, the Philippines, and northern Iraq. In December 1992, Marines landed in Somalia marking the beginning of a two-year humanitarian relief operation in that famine-stricken and strife-torn nation. In another part of the world, Marine Corps aircraft supported Operation Deny Flight in the no-fly zone over Bosnia-Herzegovina. During April 1994, Marines once again demonstrated their ability to protect American citizens in remote parts of the world when a Marine task force evacuated U.S. citizens from Rwanda in response to civil unrest in that country. Closer to home, Marines went ashore in September 1994 in Haiti as part of the U.S. force participating in the restoration of democracy in that country. During this same period Marines were actively engaged in providing assistance to the Nation's counter-drug effort, assisting in battling wild fires in the western United States, and aiding in flood and hurricane relief operations.

During the late 1990's, Marine Corps units deployed to several African nations, including Liberia, the Central African Republic, Zaire, and Eritrea, in order to provide security and assist in the evacuation of American citizens, during periods of political and civil instability in those nations. Humanitarian and disaster relief operations were also conducted by Marines during 1998 on Kenya, and in the Central American nations of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala. In 1999, Marine units deployed to Kosovo in support of Operation Allied Force. Soon after the September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., Marine units deployed to the Arabian Sea and in November set up a forward operating base in southern Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Marine Corps has continued its tradition of innovation to meet the challenges of a new century. The Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory was created in 1995 to evaluate change, assess the impact of new technologies on warfighting, and expedite the introduction of new capabilities into the operating forces of the Marine Corps. Exercises such as "Hunter Warrior," and "Urban Warrior" were designed to explore future tactical concepts, and to examine facets of military operations in urban environments.

Today's Marine Corps stands ready to continue in the proud tradition of those who so valiantly fought and died at Belleau Wood, Iwo Jima, the Chosin Reservoir, and Khe Sanh. Combining a long and proud heritage of faithful service to the nation, with the resolve to face tomorrow's challenges will continue to keep the Marine Corps the "best of the best."

Ladies and gentlemen of the Marine Coprs, thank you so very much for your proud and honorable service to the United States of America. We, the people, are forever indebted to you for your sacrifice. May each and every one of you enjoy this day, and may each of you continue the traditions laid out by those who came before you. Your service is a debt we will never be able to repay fully. Thank you very much.

Publius II

Remember Kelo v. New London?

In 2005, the US Supreme Court ruled on the eminent domain case, Kelo v. New London, Connecticut, and its ruling was more than incorrect. It was unconstitutional in many aspects, but the SCOTUS screwed up the decision by misreading/misinterpreting the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The Fifth Amendment reads (and the key clause is bolded):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In Kelo, the high court misinterpreted the Takings Clause. In their view "public use" equated to "public good." In this case, it was a referral to the taxes the state of Connecticut would reap from Pfizer building a plant on the site in question. It's now being reported that Pfizer isn't interested in that site any longer, and they're not going to build that plant, after all:

The private homes New London, Conn., took through eminent domain from Suzette Kelo and others, are torn down now, but Pfizer has just announced that it closing up shop at the research facility that led to the condemnation.

Leading drugmakers Pfizer and Wyeth have merged, and as a result, are trimming some jobs. That includes axing the 1,400 jobs at their sparkling new research & development facility in New London, and moving some across the river to Groton.

To lure those jobs to New London a decade ago, the local government promised to demolish the older residential neighborhood adjacent to the land Pfizer was buying for next-to-nothing. Suzette Kelo fought the taking to the Supreme Court, and lost, as five justices said this redvelopment met the constitutional hurdle of “public use.”

Ms. Kelo and many others lost their home, but the land is still undeveloped. Now Pfizer is abandoning the city altogether.

The court acted, to quote the president, "stupidly," in finding in favor of New London, CT. They believed the town's assertion that the land these homes sat on was more valuable to a developer moving in that would create jobs and increase the state's tax coffers. Now Pfizer is saying "no thanks" for their efforts. The people are displaced, and the land is undeveloped. Let this be a further lesson in the overreach of government.

They could have let the people stay in their homes, and have a steady stream of revenues coming in from those people paying property taxes on homes that had been there for decades. Instead, they got greedy, and saw only dollar signs when Pfizer expressed an interest in moving into the state. This is a further example of the redistribution theory that liberals love to embrace. Take from the people to give to big business or special interests in the hopes the tax money will enrich them even more.

Well, Pfizer didn't bite, and won't now. They're not interested.

So who has egg on their face in this matter? Well, Connecticut does for taking this all the way to the Supreme Court, but the high court certainly has egg on its face for its gross misconduct in handing down this farcical decision. Two issues drove the Founders to create this nation that they were essentially denied in England -- the freedom to practice their religion and the freedom to own property. This is a salient fact that can't be denied, and, indeed, history has a concurrent record of these desires.

The Supreme Court has waged a war on both issues. They consistently attack religion in America on asinine arguments (are you reading this, Michael Newdow?) and in Kelo they assaulted our right to own private property. In fact, the backlash from this decision caused 42 states to enact legislation prohibiting the very seizure the Supreme Court ruled as constitutional.

We can pat ourselves on the back that the states in question moved quickly to quash the Supreme Court's misguided decision, but it doesn't change the fact the high court was dead wrong in its decision. The Constitution is explicit in many areas of the law, and no so much in others. In this case, it was clear and five justices -- Stevens, Ginsberg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Souter (the USUAL suspects, we call them) -- screwed the pooch on this decision. Now they're the ones who have to suck up this decision by Pfizer.

Hopefully in the coming years, the Roberts Court will reverse this disgusting decision, and preserve our rights to own property, and that property won't be taken without the requisite preconditions enumerated in the Constitution.

Publius II

Health Care passes the House

IDIOTS!!! F*cking idiots! Thank you very much for screwing the American populace. Yes, I understand this has to go through the Senate,and things still have to be amended/changed/what have you, but we expected the House to hold the line. No, we get one idiot to vote along with this insanity!!!

What part of "unconstitutional" do you rubes not get? You don't have the authority to mandate this. You don't have the jurisdiction to force the American people into this plan.

Screw you and the horse you stole to ride in on.

I'll be among the first to tell you where you can pound sand.

You have a long way to go before this is said and done, and you have a long way before you see 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. And woe be to Harry Reid if he violates the rules to get Barry's seizure of the health care industry under the federal government's wing.

You @$$hats want a war? Well, like it or not, you got one. Push this on the American public, and I don't give you a plugged nickel for your worthless hides. 2010 will be fun throwing you out of office, be you Republican or Democrat, and have voted to strip this nation of its freedom and sovereignty.

I'll make it my personal goal in life.

Publius II

Thoughts on the special elections

Here's some quickie thoughts about yesterday's special elections:

NY-23 -- This one hurt, badly. Not because Doug Hoffman didn't win, but because the NY GOP screwed it up from the start trying to run a DIABLO instead of a real Republican. (Folks, that woman wasn't even a moderate. Mark Steyn nailed it -- Democrat In All But Label Only.) Now, that said, Hoffman didn't not screw up. He focused far too much attention on national issues as opposed to local issues. This was a special election, not a regular election like the one coming up next year.

NJ governor's race -- Bye Johnny. Don't let the door hit you where the good Lord split you! NJ voters focused on one, primary issue -- the economy. Overwhelmingly, 90% of voters polled after they voted said that the economy was the number one issue on their mind, and John Corzine has run NJ into the ground. Chris Christie represents a new change to the state, and unlike Corzine, he's not the sort to have corrupt and criminal ties. His cronies won't be getting the tax money from hard-working New Jersey residents. (And we don't give a rip what the pundits say, this loss was felt in the White House.)

VA governor's race -- This one was also felt by the White House, considering it's proximity to DC. And just like Jersey, the economy weighed heavily on the minds of voters. But this race was a foregone conclusion. At the start of the day yesterday, Bob McDonnell was sitting with a comfortable, double-digit lead over Creigh Deeds. Barry was still campaigning for Corzine in Jersey, but he had already thrown Deeds under the bus; no doubt at the behest of Axelrod who probably told him there was no way to save the Deeds campaign.

CA-10 -- John Garamendi beat David Harmer handily here. It's the only bright spot for Democrats in the special elections. This was another foregone conclusion as I did predict Garamendi's win. (He won by ten points; I predicted a win by twelve points.) This is A-typical of California, folks. The people of California seem content to keep liberals in power, which is the number one reason WHY California is in dire straits.

Maine gay marriage proposition -- Politico summed it up best: Maine voters on Tuesday repealed a state law granting same-sex couples the right to marry, defeating an effort by gay activists who hoped the state would become the first to approve gay marriage at the polls.

Let me be clear on this. We have no problem with gays being given the same rights as married couples have. But we don't want it called marriage. We have this opinion based on religious beliefs. Marriage should be a union of one man and one woman. Legally speaking, gays can file the proper legal contracts to enact what equates to a civil union which gives them the same rights that a married couple has. It's a a few signatures on a few papers, and voila, they're virtually married. (The better part of this option is that there's no messy divorce for them.) Gay activists need to get over this idea that gay marriage is popular right now, and a majority of people are in favor of it. That's not true. It was proven in California's Proposition 8 fight last year, and it's been proven again in Maine. When the people are asked to approve this idea via ballot propositions, it fails every time. Marriage isn't a right, folks, and those who keep arguing that it is need to get a clue or an education, or both.

All in all, the night wasn't bad. Two gubernatorial races turned a blue state (NJ) into at least a purple one, and turned a purple state (VA) back to red. These two races sent an earthquake not only to the White House, but to DC, as well. People are clearly irritated with the dithering and dawdling, the contrite tinkering by Congress that has caused much of this economic mess. Those voters voted with their wallets (which has little more than change left in it). They want real change, not only in their states, but at the national level.

How can we say that the White House was rocked by an earthquake? Take a look at the exit polls breaking down the demographics. As Mike Allen observed at The Playbook, the earthquake came in the defection of Independents. Independents overwhelmingly came out for Barry last year, and this year they broke for McDonnell (63%) and Christie (58%). Independents have been running away from Barry for the past five months (when pollsters started noticing the drop in support amongst Independents. Jim Geraghty noted this last week on Hugh's show that Independent support of Barry was down 15%. This means he's losing the bulk of his support in a swing group that he really can't afford. (I know it's too early to look at 2012, but if he can't ratchet up more Independent support, he's done like dinner for a reelection bid; he'll be a one term president.)

These special elections yesterday are the precursor of the 2010 midterms. We're sure Blue Dogs were watching the returns last night, and paying close attention to the ire of the populace. They know that the writing is on the wall. People are fed up with the overreach of the federal government, and they're really fed up with their individual states and the inability of those elected representatives to stabilize the recession affecting their states. This set of special elections don't bode well for Democrats, and they better have been paying attention last night.

Publius II

Health care, mandates, and the constitutionality of them

The health care debate has heated up to the point where some, like ourselves, are examining whether or not the Congress has the authority to mandate that every citizen has health insurance. Both Patrick Leahy and Nancy Pelosi have displayed near-imperialistic hubris over questions regarding their constitutional authority on this issue. (Leahy basically told a reporter to not question Congress, and Pelosi scoffed at the idea that the constitutionality question was a serious question.)

Democrats have greatly overreached since the new session of Congress was convened back in January, and since Barry was inaugurated. They have behaved like petulant children in serious need of a good spanking. They are making a case for their mandates based on the general welfare clause within the Constitution, and they're poorly misinterpreting it. If the general welfare clause granted the sweeping powers that both Pelosi and Leahy believe exist, then the constitutional safeguards and checks and balances are meaningless. If that's the way the Framers had intended it, then what is the point of a system of checks and balances to avoid a tyrannical government?


The powers that Democrat leaders in Congress believe they have are more broad and sweeping than that of King George III. They're dead wrong on this. They don't have this authority, nor do they have the authority to mandate that every man, woman, and child in the country must have health insurance. States have that power under the Tenth Amendment. They can put together a plan to insure their citizens. Massachusetts did this under then-Governor Mitt Romney (and it's a disaster), and so has Maine (another disaster). Both are very close to the sort of plan wanted by congressional Democrats and Barry. But as is evidenced by the results, both the Massachusetts plan and the Maine plans didn't solve the problem. Both forced citizens to take on additional coverage for things that don't affect them, but yet they're on the dole for it for others. The same will happen with the health insurance "fix" the Democrats in Congress are working on.


Senator Orrin Hatch sat down with CNS News Service to discuss the constitutionality of the mandates Pelosi, Barry, and Company want to enact, and foist on the public. He doesn't see where the Democrats could possibly squeeze that idea out of the Constitution, even if they try to use mental gymnastics, and invoke the commerce clause. Furthermore, two former Justice Department lawyers -- Lee Casey and David Rivkin -- can't seem to find the power the Democrats claim they have:

Although the Supreme Court has interpreted Congress’s commerce power expansively, this type of mandate would not pass muster even under the most aggressive commerce clause cases. In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the court upheld a federal law regulating the national wheat markets. The law was drawn so broadly that wheat grown for consumption on individual farms also was regulated. Even though this rule reached purely local (rather than interstate) activity, the court reasoned that the consumption of homegrown wheat by individual farms would, in the aggregate, have a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and so was within Congress’s reach.

The court reaffirmed this rationale in 2005 in Gonzales v. Raich, when it validated Congress’s authority to regulate the home cultivation of marijuana for personal use. In doing so, however, the justices emphasized that — as in the wheat case — “the activities regulated by the [Controlled Substances Act] are quintessentially economic.” That simply would not be true with regard to an individual health insurance mandate.

The otherwise uninsured would be required to buy coverage, not because they were even tangentially engaged in the “production, distribution or consumption of commodities,” but for no other reason than that people without health insurance exist. The federal government does not have the power to regulate Americans simply because they are there. Significantly, in two key cases, United States v. Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison (2000), the Supreme Court specifically rejected the proposition that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate noneconomic activities merely because, through a chain of causal effects, they might have an economic impact. These decisions reflect judicial recognition that the commerce clause is not infinitely elastic and that, by enumerating its powers, the framers denied Congress the type of general police power that is freely exercised by the states.

The Democrats are more than happy to institute a tax to force people into the government mandate, using the IRS as a bludgeon over the populace to achieve this. Mr. Casey and Mr. Rivkin also see that move as inherently unconstitutional:

Like the commerce power, the power to tax gives the federal government vast authority over the public, and it is well settled that Congress can impose a tax for regulatory rather than purely revenue-raising purposes. Yet Congress cannot use its power to tax solely as a means of controlling conduct that it could not otherwise reach through the commerce clause or any other constitutional provision. In the 1922 case Bailey v. Drexel Furniture, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not impose a “tax” to penalize conduct (the utilization of child labor) it could not also regulate under the commerce clause. Although the court’s interpretation of the commerce power’s breadth has changed since that time, it has not repudiated the fundamental principle that Congress cannot use a tax to regulate conduct that is otherwise indisputably beyond its regulatory power.

It's simple, folks. The Democrats, in crafting this legislation, have not only overreached in their power, but they have basically said that the constitutional limits don't exist. They do exist, and they are what keeps this nation from becoming a despotic tyranny, run by a handful of elites with high opinions of themselves.

(A HT to Captain Ed for the links that made this post possible, and apologies to readers for the tardiness of this post. The computer and I didn't see eye to eye this morning.)

Publius II

New Issue Up!!!

It's the first of November which means the new issue of Common Conservative is up for all of you to enjoy.

The Chief looks back on 40 fun-filled glorious years of his life.

Larry Simoneux,/li> discusses change, and what drives his wife nuts.

Marcie and I focus on the one war the White House seems willing to fight -- the one against FOX News and conservative commentators.

I kick off the guest columns with a defense of Rush Limbaugh against the scurrilous attacks he faced from pundits dissatisfied with his desire to become a minority owner in the Rams, and I point out that these attacks are an attack against all of us.

J.J. Jackson takes a look at the brilliance liberals put on display for us daily, and wonders where the smarts are.

John Lillpop addresses Dick Cheney's recent criticism of the president's "dithering" on Afghanistan, and his disastrous foreign policy to date.

Robert Rohlfing examines the game of cups being played in DC right now to the nation's detriment.

George Damroth focuses on the president's vision of America which, according to Mr. Damroth, is a sort of "hybrid socialism."

Peter Stern,/li> puts thing in focus on the issue of our veterans. It's not just honoring their service and sacrifice, but meeting their needs as well.

Enjoy reading!!

Publius II

House whip count -- the votes just aren't there

Nancy Pelosi can't be happy about this. Greg Sargent has obtained a whip count of the House votes on the health care reform and that count shows the Democrats lack the votes in the House to pass the bill with a public option:

The House Dem leadership has conducted its preliminary whip count and has tallied up less than 200 likely Yes votes in support of a health care reform bill with a robust public option, well short of the 218 needed for passage, according to an internal whip count document I’ve obtained.

The document — compiled by the office of House leader James Clyburn — was distributed privately at a meeting between Clyburn and House progressives today where the fate of the public option was the subject of some contentious debate, with liberals demanding that House leaders push harder to win over votes.

Clyburn spokesperson Kristie Greco would only say: “We currently do not have the votes for a robust public option.”

Health care reformers are eagerly awaiting the House vote count numbers on the robust public option — which would reimburse providers at Medicare rates plus five percent — because a House bill with a strong public option would increase the of leverage House leaders in upcoming conference negotiations with Senate leaders over the final bill. The exact count has been hotly debated in political circles since last week.

Clyburn told the assembled members at the meeting that the leadership does not have the votes to pass the robust public option, according to a House progressive familiar with the meeting. That sparked aggressive pushback from liberals, who argued that leadership — and the White House — should be working harder to win over the remaining votes the bill needs.

The document shows that 47 House Dems are committed No votes, and eight are Leaning No, for a total of 55. That means of 256 House Dems, just under 200 remain, and a dozen of those are listed as undecided. The bill needs 218 votes for passage.

House progressives argue that the document should light a fire under Dem leaders. One House progressive tells me he’s convinced that most of the undecideds, and a number of the No votes, can be won over with the right mix of pressure and incentives — which only the House leadership and the White House can provide.

Naturally we expect some serious arm-twisting in the background. And yes, we're sure there will be the incentive talk to those who are too squishy for Pelosi, Hoyer, et al. It appears that the majority of these Democrats that are either opposed to the public option, or those that are undecided, are part of the Blue Dogs who got an earful from constituents over the August recess. The likely reason why they're afraid to jump on board is that they firmly believe their constituents would hold true to their word to make these Democrats join the unemployment rolls. That being, they'll lose their seat.

This is good news for the majority of the nation. The latest from Rasmussen shows that only 45% of people polled want to see this get passed. The other 55% thinks it's a bad idea. As this debate has dragged on the Democrats have slowly lost not only the momentum, but they're losing support for this.

They bungled it from the get-go by not making this open and transparent to the public, and by voting on bills that don't technically exist. NONE of these bills are on paper, so to speak. The debate has been raging over what has been proposed to be in the final legislation. The recently passed idea from the Senate Finance Committee is just now starting to take shape, and Harry Reid is trying to rush it to the floor before it's finished. And Reid has his own headaches in the Senate with Lieberman vowing to side with a filibuster if the Senate version has the public option and pressure mounting on Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, and Mary Landrieu to join the GOP in opposing the bill, denying Reid his cloture vote. (And despite what Evan Bayh has said a cloture vote and a floor vote are inherently different votes.

It looks like we are finally seeing light at the end of the tunnel, and that this will again fail to make it through the Congress. If that happens, we expect Barry will dispatch Rahm Emanuel to twist arms and break knees, figuratively speaking of course, to jumpstart the process all over again. So while we can breathe a sigh of relief for the moment, this fight is far from over. Call the Congress, ask for your reps and senators, and tell them you're opposed to this naked power grab over the health care industry -- 202-224-3121. (Hugh Hewitt has a list of those that are vulnerable in the Senate. Call them.)

Publius II