ObamaKennedycare

As expected, the Left is using the name of Ted Kennedy to force nationalized health care down America's unwilling throat:

Democrats are hoping that the memory of Sen. Ted Kennedy will revive the Democratic Party's flagging push for health care reform.

"You've heard of 'win one for the Gipper'? There is going to be an atmosphere of 'win one for Teddy,'" Ralph G. Neas, the CEO of the liberal National Coalition on Health Care, told ABC News.

Democrats are hoping that Kennedy's influence in death may be even stronger than it was when he was alive as they push for President Obama's top domestic priority. Democratic officials hope that invoking Kennedy's passion for the issue will counter slippage in support for heatlh care reform.

Just one problem with that: outside of elite circles, most Americans don't much care about Ted Kennedy and his passions. Case in point:

Fox News maintained its top ranking among the cable news channels Wednesday as its competitors turned most of their coverage over to the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy. The event didn't prove to be a major draw for viewers, however. Fox, which covered the story in a more limited fashion, drew an average of 1.37 million viewers throughout the entire day and 2.67 million viewers during prime time, according to Nielsen Media Research.

CNN, which usually dominates during major breaking news events, averaged 711,000 viewers overall and 1.19 million viewers in prime time. MSNBC pulled in 506,000 viewers throughout the day and 984,000 in prime time.

In the key 25- to 54-year-old advertising demographic, Fox had double the audience of its competitors in prime time.

Legal Insurrection hits the salient point:

So, if people are not particularly interested in watching the Kennedy-death television coverage, what does that say about the likelihood liberal Democrats can exploit Kennedy's death to rally the nation around a Kennedy-care bill?

Common sense would say no, but I'm sure we'll find out soon enough.

Still, what else is going on around the country? How about some more town hall updates? Those are always informative...

Colorado Dem Rep. Markey isn't helping the cause any:

Some people, including Medicare recipients, will have to give up some current benefits to truly reform the nation's health-care system, Rep. Betsy Markey told a gathering of constituents in Fort Collins on Wednesday.

Markey has repeatedly said during the August congressional recess that Medicare spending needs to be reined in to help pay for reforming the broader health-care system.

"There's going to be some people who are going to have to give up some things, honestly, for all of this to work," Markey said at a Congress on Your Corner event at CSU. "But we have to do this because we're Americans."

Yeah, that would be why ObamaKennedycare is shedding senior support like a Husky in summertime.

Speaking of which, Karl Rove suggests that if Medicare gets whacked as part of Obamakennedycare (which it will), there will be severe electoral consequences:

There are roughly 23,400 seniors on average in a congressional district who have Medicare Advantage, but who face losing it if Mr. Obama has his way. That's enough votes to tip most competitive House and Senate races.

Meanwhile, the ever-tolerant left is now issuing death threats against Republicans who oppose ObamaKennedycare. I suppose that's forgivable, given that all opponents of ObamaKennedycare are Nazis, right?

Claire-bear McCaskill of Missouri keeps having epiphanies in front of crowds. First she figured out that her constituents don't trust her, and now she's hit upon what will likely be a very important factoid in a few months:

Hey, congratulations, Senator! You've won the prize for reading the Constitution. Now, if you could persuade some of your co-workers to do the same, we'd be in business.

Once again, though, I have to give her props for holding meetings with her constituents, and for gamely trying to answer real, unprompted questions from those constituents. She's head and shoulders above most of her Democrat friends in that, at least. And, if you listen to the whole audio file, you'll actually find a few good answers...but whether or not she follows through is another story. For example, she promises that if a bill were to pass a public option, she would take it. We'll see.

Rep. Ron Kind, however, won't even say the words:

Howard Dean spills the beans on another dirty little secret of ObamaKennedycare. Excessive litigation is pretty much universally recognized as one of the primary drivers of rising health care costs, so tort reform would be extremely beneficial, would it not? Here's why it's not included in ObamaKennedycare:

"The people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers...that is the plain and simple truth."

Guess they're more important to the Democrats than the American people, huh?

Once again, this all boils down to just how politically suicidal the Democrats are feeling when they come back from the August recess. Will they force this disaster onto the country in the face of zero Republican support and very little public support, knowing they will likely be voted home in short order? Those are the stakes, as indicated by a recent Rasmussen poll:

If Democrats agree on a health care reform bill that is opposed by all Republicans in Congress, 24% of voters nationwide say the Democrats should pass that bill.

But a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 58% believe the Democrats should change the bill to win support from “a reasonable number of Republicans.” Nineteen percent (19%) are not sure what congressional Democrats should do.

Republican voters overwhelmingly think the bill should be changed, and so do 62% of those not affiliated with either major political party.

However, Democrats are more conflicted. Forty-one percent (41%) of those in the president’s party believe their legislators should pass the bill without any GOP votes, while 34% disagree and think the legislation should be changed to attract Republican support.

And what about the reconciliation option they're considering, which would only require 51 votes rather than the normal 60? Politically lethal consequences await there:

All age demographics oppose it, most by majorities, and by more than 3-1 among 30-39 and 40-49 voters. Majorities of men and women oppose it. All income demographics oppose it, in all but the lowest income earners by a wide majority. Only the “political class” gives it strong support, which should tell Democrats that they’re really barking up a wrong tree.

What this all boils down to is who these Democrats fear more: Barack Obama and the leadership, or the American people? It's a clear distinction, and there is essentially no middle ground. We'll find out very soon how they fall.

You might want to pick up the phone and offer your thoughts on the matter while you still can.

There's my two cents.