Andrew Breitbart raised the roof at the National Tea Part Convention this morning in Nashville, Tennessee. Speaking to the dozens of reporters assembled in the back of the room, Andrew said this:
“It’s not your business model that sucks, it’s you that sucks.” 

Andrew finished his speech with this warning to the media:

“If you don’t start reporting the truth I will organize a protest in New York City on Sixth Avenue and you won’t be able to escape to the Hamptons for the weekend.”

Is Rep. Michele Bachmann a “lovable little fuzzball”? Those of us who know her on a more personal basis know that’s a pretty good description of Michele personally, but politically, she’s about as tough as they get. Breitbart TV’s B-cast interviews Bachmann, who brings listeners up to date on Barney Frank’s financial-reform legislation, which dropped on the House last week. It’s 1300 pages long, and the vote will be taken — today. It reorders the entire financial-services industry and vastly increases government control over it. Oh, and ACORN, too.

Frank bypassed the committee process, according to Bachmann, and she doesn’t see much hope for stopping it in the House. She wants to encourage people to put pressure on the Senate, where she thinks the bill can be stopped (via Powip):

Does calling Congress actually work? Bachmann says it absolutely does. She also encourages people to call their Representatives today to at least try to stop this bill, but like Bachmann, I think the chances of stopping it there are negligible, especially since Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank have a 75-seat majority and the bill has flown under the radar during the health-care debate in the Senate. It will be tough to stop in the upper chamber, but not impossible. We just need to get this on our radar screen quickly and start perusing its 1300 pages more than members of Congress did before having it crammed down their throats.

You wouldn't know it from reading much of the mainstream media's coverage of the legislative battles over health care reform, but Republicans and President Obama share a number of prominent goals. Republican lawmakers have tried address the same problems that the President highlights, but congressional Democrats won't allow GOP amendments to get past committee votes.

With the exception of the public option, President Obama and GOP lawmakers agree on most major provisions on health care reform: increasing competition in the health insurance market; keeping bureaucrats out of the doctor's office; passing a health care bill that helps, or at least does not hurt, the economy; keeping legislation deficit neutral; preventing increases in taxes for the vast majority of citizens; preserving Medicare benefits for seniors; and preventing taxpayer dollars from funding abortions.

If you get your news from the New York Times, however, you are most likely oblivious to the many areas in which congressional Republicans and President Obama agree. The Times declared in an editorial last week that the President has "waited in vain for a bipartisan compromise to emerge — a virtual impossibility from the start given the determination of top Republicans to kill his effort and cripple his administration." The Times also insisted that the President "has been far too passive — for the sake of an unrequited bipartisanship — as his opponents have twisted and distorted the health care debate."

The Washington Post has also portrayed bipartisanship in the health care debate as a lost cause, and complained about Republican stubbornness. "Few Republicans this side of Maine seem interested in voting for any Democratic version of the legislation," according to Post Columnist Howard Kurtz.

Many GOP amendments have aligned quite well with the President's rhetoric regarding health care reform legislation. But Republicans, especially in the House, have been shunned by committee chairs and Democratic leaders who simply refuse to accept GOP amendments to health care bills, even when those amendments align with the President's stated goals for health care reform. So I ask you, which party is killing bipartisanship?

The President purported his belief in markets during his Wednesday address to the Joint Session of Congress, saying that his "guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That's how the market works." Indeed. Republicans agree that competition could be a greater cost cutting measure than any proposal yet on the table.

But Arizona Republican Rep. John Shaddeg's bill (H.R. 3217) to allow Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines, and therefore to dramatically step up competitive forces in the insurance market, has idled in the Energy and Commerce Committee since July. Perhaps committee leaders should speed up consideration, given that the President's "guiding principle" includes relying on market forces and increased competition to mitigate problems in the health care sector.

On Wednesday, Obama assured the country that "I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need."

Republicans share the President's aversion to bureaucrats making personal health care decisions. But apparently congressional Democrats do not. Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce Committee that would explicitly prohibit federal officials from making those decisions. Led by Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., committee Democrats killed the amendment.

The President on Wednesday also expressed his distaste for conservatives who claim that, under the President's plan, the government would euthanize granny to save on costs. But an amendment proposed by Rep. Walley Herger, R-Calif., which would forbid the federal government from conducting comparative effectiveness research on health care treatments--the precursor to health care rationing--was killed in the Ways and Means committee at Chairman Rangel's behest.

President Obama's much-touted claim that he will not sign a health care bill that "adds one dime to the deficit" sounds good to the GOP. But, once again, congressional Democrats don't seem to share this distaste for deficits.

Democrats killed an amendment in committee that would ensure the President's no-deficit pledge actually happens. The amendment, offered by Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., would have prohibited any health care legislation from going into effect unless it were deficit neutral. The Dems didn't like that.

The GOP also tried to lend a hand to President Obama in helping him to keep his campaign pledge of not raising taxes for individuals making less than $200,000 per year. An amendment offered by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., would exempt all individuals making less than that from all taxes contained in the bill. It was killed in the Ways and Means Committee. A similar amendment, offered by Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers in the Education and Labor Committee, was shot down by panel Democrats, with Chairman Miller leading the charge.

Republicans agree with Obama that no health care plan should slash Medicare benefits for seniors. "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how [seniors' Medicare] benefits will be cut," he said in his address to the Joint Session. Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., tried to ensure the President's promise would be kept when she offered an amendment in the Ways and Means Committee that would strip the bill of language that cuts funding for Medicare Advantage. One quarter of seniors get their health care through the program, and according to independent fact-checkers slashing funding would not be able to prevent cuts in coverage, but Chairman Rangel and committee Democrats defeated the amendment.

President Obama has also touted the economic necessity of his health care proposals, indicating that reform would be a boon for the American economy. Republicans have tried to help the President form legislation that would improve its impact on the economy--and strip economically damaging provisions.

The employer mandate, according to some analyses, would, within five years of its enactment result in 1.6 million fewer jobs, a $200 billion contraction in GDP, 1.2 million fewer work hours per week, and an annual decline in wages of $71 billion.

Republican amendments offered in separate committees by Reps. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., and Wally Herger, R-Calif, would suspend the employer mandate if unemployment reaches 10 percent. Both amendments were killed in committee.

To address the objections of lawmakers who rejected that the employer mandate would be economically detrimental, Reps. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., and Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., offered amendments in two separate committees that would exempt from the employer mandate any business that claims (and whose claims are certified by the Secretary of the Treasury) that the mandate has imposed financial hardships that have forced those businesses to lay off workers or cut salaries, or prevented them from hiring additional workers. Both of these amendments were defeated by Democrats on the respective panels.

Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif, took an even more conciliatory approach, offering an amendment that would have created small business-specific plans that would minimize the financial burden on the employer mandate and allow them to band together with other businesses to buy health care coverage at a lower cost. This amendment was also defeated in Ways and Means.

The President also tried on Wednesday to put to rest conservative concerns that tax dollars could be used to fund abortions. "Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions," the President claimed. But congressional Democrats don't seem to share the President's aversion to taxpayer funded abortions.

Three Republican lawmakers, Reps. Sam Johnson, Tex., Eric Cantor, Va., and Mark Souder, Ind., offered separate amendments to remove this language from the legislation. All three amendments were killed in committee.

An amendment offered by Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., attempted to strike language from the legislation that would allow the federal government to withhold funding from states that refuse to use tax dollars to fund abortions. The amendment was defeated in committee on a party-line vote.

Contrary to the Times's and Post's claims, congressional Democrats have been the ones shunning bipartisanship. Republicans have offered numerous tweaks to the various health care bills that would help the President do exactly what he says he wants to do. It's the Dems that reject legislation by virtue of the party offering it.

That the Times, the Post, and numerous other outlets continue to deride Republicans for refusing to work with the President indicates that they, like many Democrats, will continue to portray the GOP as an obstructionist force that won't allow the President to fix our health care system, regardless of the facts.

Democrats have, from the start, opposed Republican amendments while shouting about the GOP's refusal to work with the majority party. For those Democrats, and the media outlets that blindly support them, considering proposals from the other side has nothing to do with compromise, and bipartisanship is simply code for agreeing with what the far left has to offer.

By BOBBY JINDAL

In Washington, it seems history always repeats itself. That’s what’s happening now with health-care reform. This is an unfortunate turn of events for Americans who are legitimately concerned about the skyrocketing cost of a basic human need. In 1993 and 1994, Hillary Clinton’s health-care reform proposal failed because it was concocted in secret without the guiding hand of public consensus-building, and because it was a philosophical over-reach. Today President Barack Obama is repeating these mistakes. The reason is plain: The left in Washington has concluded that honesty will not yield its desired policy result. So it resorts to a fundamentally dishonest approach to reform. I say this because the marketing of the Democrats’ plans as presented in the House of Representatives and endorsed heartily by President Obama rests on three falsehoods.

First, Mr. Obama doggedly promises that if you like your (private) health-care coverage now, you can keep it. That promise is hollow, because the Democrats’ reforms are designed to push an ever-increasing number of Americans into a government-run health-care plan. If a so-called public option is part of health-care reform, the Lewin Group study estimates over 100 million Americans may leave private plans for government-run health care. Any government plan will benefit from taxpayer subsidies and be able to operate at a financial loss—competing unfairly in the marketplace until private plans are driven out of business. The government plan will become so large that it will set, rather than negotiate, prices. This will inevitably lead to monopoly, with a resulting threat to the quality of our health care.

Second, the Democrats disingenuously argue their reforms will not diminish the quality of our health care even as government involvement in the delivery of that health care increases massively. For all of us who have seen the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s response to hurricanes, this contention is laughable on its face. When government bureaucracies drive the delivery of services—in this case inserting themselves between health-care providers and their patients—quality degradation will surely come. House Democrats seem willing to accept that problem to achieve their philosophical aim—the long-term removal of for-profit entities from the health-care landscape.

Third, Mr. Obama’s rhetoric paints a picture of a massive new benefit that will actually cost average Americans less than what they pay today. The Democrats want middle-class taxpayers to believe they won’t feel the pinch of this initiative, even as their employers are assessed massive new taxes. They might as well try to argue that up is down. The analysis of the Democrats’ proposal by the Congressional Budget Office shows that it will not reduce government spending on health care, and that it will substantially increase the federal deficit—and this despite all the tax increases.

I served in the U.S. House with a majority of the current 435 representatives, and I am confident that if given the proper amount of legislative review, they will not accept the flawed Pelosi plan that is currently stuck in committee. Yet there is general agreement among Republicans and Democrats that we need health-care reform to bring costs down. This agreement can be the basis of a genuine, bipartisan reform, once the current over-reach by Mr. Obama and Mrs. Pelosi fails. Leaders of both parties can then come together behind health-care reform that stresses these seven principles:

•Consumer choice guided by transparency. We need a system where individuals choose an integrated plan that adopts the best disease-management practices, as opposed to fragmented care. Pricing and outcomes data for all tests, treatments and procedures should be posted on the Internet. Portable electronic health-care records can reduce paperwork, duplication and errors, while also empowering consumers to seek the provider that best meets their needs.

•Aligned consumer interests. Consumers should be financially invested in better health decisions through health-savings accounts, lower premiums and reduced cost sharing. If they seek care in cost-effective settings, comply with medical regimens, preventative care, and lifestyles that reduce the likelihood of chronic disease, they should share in the savings.

•Medical lawsuit reform. The practice of defensive medicine costs an estimated $100 billion-plus each year, according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, which used a study by economists Daniel P. Kessler and Mark B. McClellan. No health reform is serious about reducing costs unless it reduces the costs of frivolous lawsuits.

•Insurance reform. Congress should establish simple guidelines to make policies more portable, with more coverage for pre-existing conditions. Reinsurance, high-risk pools, and other mechanisms can reduce the dangers of adverse risk selection and the incentive to avoid covering the sick. Individuals should also be able to keep insurance as they change jobs or states.

•Pay for performance, not activity. Roughly 75% of health-care spending is for the care of chronic conditions such as heart disease, cancer and diabetes—and there is little coordination of this care. We can save money and improve outcomes by using integrated networks of care with rigorous, transparent outcome measures emphasizing prevention and disease management.

•Refundable tax credits. Low-income working Americans without health insurance should get help in buying private coverage through a refundable tax credit. This is preferable to building a separate, government-run health-care plan.

These steps would bring down health-care costs. They would not bankrupt our nation or increase taxes in the midst of a recession. They are achievable reforms with bipartisan consensus and public support. All they require is a willingness by the president to slow down and have an honest discussion with Americans about the real downstream consequences of his ideas. Let’s start there.

Mr. Jindal is governor of Louisiana.

Jon Voight is a silver-screen conservative who considers the final speech of George Washington bedside reading. He is much moved by American mettle, military veterans, historical moments, Old Glory and youthful spirit.  And he's fierce about the state of his country. Very fierce. "Democracy is an extraordinary adventure. It's difficult, full of daring and risk and danger. But it's the greatest gift we have," the Academy Award-winning actor said Tuesday during a visit to The Washington Times newsroom.

"The people who voted for President Obama are just beginning to wake up to exactly what they brought in. The 'change' they envisioned is not the 'change' they have gotten." Mr. Voight said. He likens the Obama administration to a Hollywood script, rife with technique and craft, very compelling but not necessarily real.

"It is a very, very slick, relentless campaign to build Obama as the answer to all our needs. They know what people want and they give it in a package that can be read off a teleprompter. That's not what our country is based upon," Mr. Voight said. He offered a terse review of the principal player. "Obama is a very good actor. He knows how to play it. And he is very adept at creating this 'Obama' - this character who is there whenever the world needs something," he said.