As I was watching the Super Bowl and saw the opening coin toss, I was reminded that conservatives had better be careful about the White House’s offensive game. This administration is constantly on the attack. It’s very good at manipulating events to its advantage and changing the rules mid-game.

For example, President Obama talked about healthcare reform during a pre-game interview with CBS’s Katie Couric. He said, “I want to … have a large meeting — Republicans and Democrats — to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward.” Yesterday, the White House announced plans for a “healthcare summit” on February 25th. According to various reports, the president has promised that this summit will be televised live, presumably on C-Span.

Last week I wrote that the administration and congressional Democrats had totally ignored any ideas conservatives put forward during last year’s healthcare debate. In his statement to Couric, Obama essentially admitted as much. If they had been receptive to conservative ideas and input all along, then they never would have attempted a Big Government takeover of the healthcare industry and this summit would not be necessary.

But when conservatives said they were willing to work with the president, they weren’t talking about TV shows. As we saw from last week’s televised Q&A between the president and House conservatives, the entire event was staged for Obama’s benefit. Conservative members of Congress were faceless, off-camera voices, while the president stood behind the podium like a smug college professor lecturing his pupils. He wasn’t there to negotiate in good faith; he was there to score points with his leftwing base and convince the public that he was “reaching out.”

When conservatives said they wanted discussions to be televised, they didn’t mean choreographed Obama campaign rallies. They meant, as Candidate Obama promised, all key meetings in which substantive decisions were being made.

Call me skeptical, but I expect this summit is just another sham attempt to give Obama the appearance of bi-partisanship. The media will sing his praises and give him as much cover as possible. But the differences between the two parties are tremendous and can’t be glossed over in one made-for-TV “summit.” I suspect the president knows that, and all this is just for show – a play fake that allows Obama to say “I tried” and sets the stage for liberals to “go nuclear,” ramming ObamaCare through using budget reconciliation rules.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell isn’t falling for it. In a statement this weekend, Sen. McConnell responded to the summit suggestion by saying, “If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill, and with it their goal of slashing a half trillion dollars from Medicare and raising a half trillion in new taxes. The American people want lower costs, not Medicare cuts and tax increases. Setting these proposals aside would be a sign that the administration and Democrats in Congress are listening to the country and are truly interested in a bipartisan approach.” Stay tuned.

President Obama will deliver his State of the Union address tomorrow night. He may or may not talk about dubious global warming, but a centerpiece of his address will likely be a dubious spending freeze. Many Americans were upset by the spending of the previous administration, but they have been shocked by the out-of-control spending of the Obama Administration. Last year, the Associated Press noted that Barack Obama’s budget “would produce $9.3 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than four times the deficits of Republican George W. Bush’s presidency.” (If you are a visual learner, click here.)

Not surprisingly, a number of recent surveys have found that deficit reduction and reduced federal spending are more important to voters than healthcare reform. Obama seems to have gotten that message – sort of. It’s being reported that the president will propose a three-year freeze on some discretionary spending, which will save about $25 billion a year. It’s a start, but let’s put that into perspective.

To begin with, the whole concept of a spending freeze is yet another flip-flop for Obama. As a candidate, Barack Obama repeatedlyopposed the idea of a spending freeze during the presidential debates, saying it was “using a hatchet when you need a scalpel.”

This spending freeze is coming from a president who just racked up a record $1.4 trillion deficit with a failed stimulus spending bill, numerous bailouts and a budget that “increased non-defense spending by 12 percent.” One congressional aide remarked that Obama’s spending freeze is like “going on a diet after winning the pie eating contest.”

Obama’s proposed $25 billion in savings amounts to less than two percent of last year’s record deficit. And it comes just as his liberal allies in Congress are trying to pass a trillion-dollar socialized medicine scheme and yet another $100 billion stimulus plan. Clearly we need to take a hatchet to the federal budget, but Obama is only reluctantly reaching for his scalpel.

Last week, Gallup released the results of a post-Massachusetts election poll on the direction the American people thought Congress should take regarding healthcare “reform.” Two-thirds of Americans want Congress to be doing something other than healthcare “reform,” and 55% believe that the current “reform” legislation should be scrapped completely. Only 32% felt that healthcare reform should be the top priority at this time.

Politically, the administration has three strikes against it in recent weeks, having lost gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia, and the special election in Massachusetts for the Senate seat held by the Kennedy family for over 50 years. One would think the message of these three races was unavoidable: Less partisanship and more common-sense solutions.

But the administration is evidently living in a state of denial. As the president prepares to deliver his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation, the tone reportedly will be combative. Far from learning the lesson of past weeks, all indications suggest that the White House is refusing to moderate its liberal agenda and is digging in for a fight.

In fact, that’s exactly what top Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett said this weekend on “Meet the Press.” Responding to questions about how Obama will react to Scott Brown’s “stunning victory,” Jarrett replied, “He is going to fight for what he’s always been fighting for… We’re not hitting a reset button at all.” If we needed additional confirmation of this strategy, we got it in the news that Obama has brought David Plouffe into the White House. Plouffe was Obama’s 2008 campaign manager, and in spite of his cool demeanor, he is a committed ideologue.

In yesterday’s Washington Post, Plouffe outlined the lessons he’s learned from the Massachusetts election. Plouffe calls for passing healthcare reform legislation “without delay” even though “the short-term politics are bad,” doubling down on the failed stimulus spending bill with “more incentives for green jobs” and appealing to the far Left fringe. He concludes by writing, “Instead of fearing what may happen, let’s prove that … we have the guts to govern. Let’s fight like hell.”

Plouffe and the president want a fight for the heart and soul of America. I’m ready to “fight the good fight” for our values in public policy. Are you ready to rumble?

As the nation approaches the one year anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration, administration officials are crowing about all their “accomplishments.” On the White House website, you can read about the myriad ways in which President Obama has saved the global economy, tackled climate change and made us safe.

Some of you may be dubious, but you can participate in a series of live online chats and blogs with key White House aides as they detail “what the Obama Administration has done over the past year, and where the Administration is heading on pivotal issues.” The White House may be trying to put on a happy face, but the American people clearly aren’t happy with hope and change.

Virtually every major polling outfit and news organization now finds that the president’s approval rating has tanked. Yesterday, CBS News reported that Obama’s approval rating hit a new low in its polling at 46%. Today, it’s Gallup, which reports that only 40% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the economy and just 37% approve of his performance on healthcare reform.

CNN and Quinnipiac University asked voters whether Obama’s first year in office had been a success or a failure. Quinnipiac found that voters were evenly divided at 45% each. CNN found 48% of voters saying Obama’s first year was a failure, while 47% said it was successful. And, after a year of Obama’s leadership, Quinnipiac found voters statistically tied when asked whether the nation would have been better off or worse off if John McCain had become president instead of Barack Obama.

What Are They Hiding?

While Barack Obama is talking terrorism today, Democrat congressional leaders are huddling in secluded suites on Capitol Hill. Why? They are hammering out their differences on a socialized medicine scheme in secret, rather than in the usual conference committee process, which is held in public. Reports broke late yesterday that the liberals would try to bypass the normal legislative process and shut down further debate. Democrats said they didn’t want to give Republicans any more opportunities to slow down or stop the process.

Here’s the truth: Republicans voted unanimously in opposition to this bill, but Democrats control 60 votes – enough to shut down GOP filibusters, which is exactly what the Democrats did. This is entirely their bill. Every significant Republican amendment was defeated. Every GOP attempt to block the bill was shut down. The problem is not conservative opposition, but division within the Left.

So they are once again going behind closed doors as they attempt to socialize nearly 20% of our economy, pass massive new tax hikes, dramatically expand the government (including the IRS) and take away more of our freedom. It is disgusting and outrageous.

It’s also a blatant violation of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s 2006 pledge that her party would “lead the most honest, most open and most ethical congress in history.” And it also breaks candidate Obama’s promise that the legislation would not be negotiated behind closed doors but broadcast on C-SPAN. To its credit, C-SPAN is demanding that President Obama and congressional Democrats keep their word and “allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.”

It does make one wonder: If passing this bill would be such a success, why all the secrecy? What are they hiding?

The healthcare “reform” debate in the Senate may well be in its final stages. Yesterday, President Obama rushed to Capitol Hill to give Senate Democrats a pep talk. The president reminded them of the historic significance of their work and urged them to stick together. According to various reports, he avoided discussing contentious policy issues and attempted to “stay above the fray.”

Friday, Senate Democrat Whip Dick Durbin told reporters that only two issues remain unresolved. Durbin said, “Abortion and [the] public option are really the major obstacles at this point.” One may be dealt with today. Sunday, Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid announced that the Senate will take up abortion funding today. Senators Hatch (R-UT) and Nelson (D-NE) will offer an amendment similar to one that passed the House guaranteeing that no federal money will be used to pay for abortions. Few expect the amendment to pass since only three Democrats are likely to support it.

That said, I found Durbin’s statement very profound. This “reform” plan sets the stage for socialized medicine in America, and liberals are okay with that. It raises taxes by half a trillion dollars, and liberals are okay with that. It cuts Medicare by half a trillion dollars, and liberals are evidently okay with that. For the first time in our history, the federal government is going to mandate that citizens purchase a product or risk going to jail, and liberals are okay with that.

There is no enforcement mechanism to guarantee that illegal aliens would not be subsidized in this plan, and liberals seem to be okay with that. The bill creates a new trillion-dollar entitlement program when we are running record deficits, and liberals are okay with that. It purports to cover tens of millions of individuals without providing one additional nurse or doctor to care for them. The obvious result will be long lines leading to rationed care, and liberals are okay with that too.

Liberal politicians may be oblivious to reality, but the American people are very worried about what government-run healthcare would mean for them. For example, voters in Harry Reid’s home state of Nevada are growing more skeptical of this socialized medicine scheme. Just 39% of Nevada voters support Obama’s takeover of our healthcare system, while 53% oppose it.

What’s interesting about this poll is that Harry Reid is up for reelection next year, and the percentage of voters who say they would reelect him isn’t much higher than those supporting this socialized healthcare scheme. This poll and others suggest that politicians pushing ObamaCare this year may find their careers in critical condition next year.

At 11:16 PM Saturday night, the House of Representatives passed Nancy Pelosi’s 2,000-page, $1.2 trillion socialized medicine scheme by just two votes. Republicans were virtually unanimous in their opposition (only one Republican – Anh Cao, who represents a liberal majority-black district in New Orleans – voted for the bill), while 219 Democrats voted for it. More than three dozen Democrats voted against it, proving yet again that on major liberal initiatives the most bi-partisan aspect of these bills is the opposition to them.

The House version of the healthcare bill has been declared “dead on arrival” in the Senate, and Democrats remain divided over some big issues, including taxpayer-subsidies for abortion. During the House debate, 64 Democrats broke ranks to back the Stupak (D-MI)/Pitts (R-PA) amendment preventing taxpayer funding of abortion. After that vote, Planned Parenthood issued a statement noting, “Planned Parenthood Federation of America has no choice but to oppose HR 3962 [the entire healthcare ‘reform’ bill].” That’s the good news.

Here’s the bad news. Today House liberals are demanding that the Stupak/Pitts amendment be stripped from the bill in the House/Senate conference committee. The Hill quotes Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) as saying, “I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won’t be there.”

This battle will continue, and there is a chance the Senate won’t be able to act at all until next year. We will keep on defending our values, and you need to do so also.

On Monday, Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid announced a grand compromise on healthcare “reform” legislation. To please the leftwing base of his party, Reid’s bill would include a government-run public option – the first step toward socialized medicine in America. That’s not my opinion, but Barney Franks’. To attract the votes of moderate Democrats, Reid announced that his plan would allow states to opt-out of the public option.

The state legislature would have to vote on legislation to opt-out, and the governor would have to sign the opt-out bill. But here’s the catch: There is no opting-out of the taxes to pay for this new $1 trillion entitlement program. All the taxes and penalties would remain in effect, so citizens of states that opt-out would still end up paying for a program they can’t access. As Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said, “the big [liberal] states will [opt-in] and the rest of us will end up paying for their excesses.” Remember what happened to the conservative governors who tried to “opt-out” of the stimulus money?

Last night on MSNBC, leftwing radical Ed Schultz was effusive with praise for Harry Reid’s “opt-out” deception. Schultz stated flatly what drives liberal politics: get constituents hooked on government programs and you have a guaranteed voting base. Schultz said of the public option:

“This is a great move by the Democrats. …Once you give it [the public option] to them, they don’t want to give it up. That’s the way it’s gonna be. I think this is a great move by Harry Reid. The public option is a public option. And it is – it is – the first step toward single payer [socialized medicine]. That’s what we progressives want. This is just the road to get there.”

It couldn’t be clearer than that. Liberal politicians and leftwing progressives are taking us down the road toward socialism, toward confiscatory tax rates, even bigger government, greater spending and more debt.

Your freedom is at stake. The standard of living you have enjoyed will be denied to your children and grandchildren if this new trillion-dollar entitlement program passes. And the quality of healthcare that is available today will be destroyed if government gets involved.

From time to time, we share polling data with you that it is relevant to a hot topic and comes from a source we trust. We trust pollster Scott Rasmussen the most because he is the one of the most accurate pollsters in the business.

I mention this because the Washington Post released a poll yesterday that has been widely cited on Capitol Hill and gotten a lot of attention in other media outlets. The poll reportedly showed a major boost in public support for Barack Obama and healthcare reform. Here are the key findings:

• 57% of respondents approved of the president’s job performance.
• 57% support the government-run “public option” being part of the healthcare “reform” plan.
• Looking to the future, 51% of respondents plan to vote for Democrat candidates in the 2010 elections, while just 39% would back GOP candidates – a 12-point margin for the Democrats.

Well, there’s no polite way to put this, but the poll is garbage. The Post surveyed adults, one of the most inexact standards for polling. The problem with polling adults is that many of them aren’t registered to vote. They’re entitled to their opinions, but they don’t matter on Election Day. Polls of registered voters produce more conservative results than polls of adults, and polls of likely voters produce more conservative results than polls of registered voters.

Now, here’s the most absurd part of the Post poll: Just 20% of respondents were self-identified Republicans. Does anyone seriously believe that there is going to be a national election in which just one-fifth of the electorate are Republicans? Of course not. The Postwasn’t attempting to measure public opinion, it was attempting to manipulate it.

Scott Rasmussen polls likely voters (the folks who decide elections). Consider the difference:

• According to Rasmussen’s daily tracking poll, Obama’s approval rating stands at 47% favorable and 53% unfavorable among likely voters.
• On healthcare reform, just 42% of likely voters support the plan currently before Congress, while 54% oppose it.
• Looking ahead to the 2010 elections, Rasmussen finds that among likely voters, 42% support Republican candidates, while 37% support Democrats.

This afternoon, the Senate Finance Committee voted 14-to-9 in favor of a massive healthcare “reform” plan sponsored by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). Let me make a few observations. Every Democrat, along with Republican Olympia Snowe, voted for it. All the other Republicans voted against it.

In analyzing the Baucus bill, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) suggested that the plan would probably cost $830 billion and save the government about $80 billion over ten years. But the CBO looked at “conceptual language,” not the actual legislative language. In other words, the CBO didn’t see the real bill, and it admits that “those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty.” Evidently “substantial uncertainty” was good enough for 14 Senate liberals.

Now the real heavy lifting begins. The Baucus bill is just one of several plans approved by various committees. Neither the House nor the Senate has actually passed anything. This battle is not over. Democrats have a super majority, but there are deep divisions among them.