Obviously, without a health care bill Congress can’t give voters a guarantee of coverage or nice things like that. The stimulus bill gave people a few bucks more a week in their paychecks, which is easily forgotten. It also led to a politically embarrassing method of calculating “jobs saved” by the stimulus (and really? Nobody thought this through before the numbers were crunched?); however, it did save jobs, and the Obama administration and Congress would do well to trot these police officers, teachers, and other people whose jobs were saved at every opportunity. They are really failing to take advantage of this. Reminding people of their extra four bucks every paycheck won’t cut it. Things like Cash for Clunkers and the home buyers’ credit helped a few people, but even more thought it was bad policy and bad politics, which I happen to agree with.

Financially, Congress did pass some big changes to credit card regulations; unfortunately for Congress, the credit card companies decided to screw over customers before the regulations went into effect. Again, it doesn’t seem like they thought that one through. Instead of giving people who are in danger of losing their homes bankruptcy cramdown, which would actually work, the HAMP program has been a dismal failure, even leading to increases in the amount of money homeowners owe. Not exactly something you can campaign on. TARP, while probably averting a major financial catastrophe, is not exactly seen by the majority of Americans as a good thing, especially since the banks are already going crazy again.

It’s not even all about money. Giving voters something to feel good about can do wonders. Obama voters voted for hope and change, but since the election there has been very little of it. Obama kicking “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” down the road is a bewildering political decision: most people support it, and it would make voters feel good to end a kind of discrimination that is becoming less and less acceptable (although CNN is reporting he will ask Congress to repeal DADT tonight). Obama and Congress have also dropped the ball on increased government transparency, like putting all bills online ahead of time. Again, simple to do, but makes people feel good.

With the relatively skimpy list of substantive accomplishments, it’s little wonder that Obama voters are feeling unmotivated. It’s not like legislation such as the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act are unimportant; they certainly are. But Obama voters didn’t vote for incremental change. They wanted significant changes in the way government works in their lives, and significant changes in their own financial situations. They gave a lot to Obama, and they understandably want something in return.

In a short while, Obama will give his State of the Union address. From the sound of things, he won’t be making any grand statements on health care. He probably won’t be doing a whole lot to make voters feel better about themselves. He’ll talk about increasing the child care tax credit (probably good politics, although as a tax policy purist I despise it), and accelerated business depreciation (now that’s an exciting topic!). It’s not exactly the transformational address that many people are looking for. Will it give voters a good reason to return Democrats to power?

• Current Mood: Worn out
• Currently Listening To: "Let It Rain", Eric Clapton

In poker, you are said to be pot-committed when you put the vast majority of your chips in the pot already, so that it is inevitable that you will need to eventually go all-in. If you’ve got $3,000, you bet $2,900, and your opponent raises, you are pot-committed: folding instead of putting in your last $100 is an idiotic move even if your cards absolutely suck. This is precisely the hand that Obama and Democrats have. They ran on a message of doing things differently in Washington, and passing health care reform. True, they have certainly made a giant mess of everything, and it is mainly the fault of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. However, giving up at this point is suicide. It’s folding your cards, and when you fold, you have a zero percent chance of winning. At least if you get all your money in, you have a shot. Maybe not a great shot, but a shot.

Democrats have two options now. The first is to pass a health-care reform bill (even the crappy Senate one), and a few other bills that tangibly benefit voters and tap into their anger. They can then say to the American people, “This is what we’ve done in two years. If you like it, vote for us, if you don’t, vote for them.” There’s a chance that voters won’t like it, but at the same time, it shows voters that Democrats can govern at least somewhat. The other option is to give up and pass nothing meaningful, and then say to the American people, “Vote for us despite having accomplished nothing in two years with the Democrats firmly in control of Congress and the White House.”

One of those options has a chance of working, the other one does not. Only a fool would choose to fold when all of his chips are on the line.

Later, I’ll talk about how terrible Congressional Democrats have been on messaging.

• Current Mood: Befuddled
• Currently Listening To: "Sheep", Pink Floyd
• Currently Reading: "What Americans Really Want...Really", Frank Luntz

First, a bit of disclosure: I like playing poker. I’ve played poker both in real live ring games and online. I take issue with online poker being lumped in with other forms of “gambling”. Gambling at a casino means making a bet against the house, which has an edge that varies from the very small to the outrageously huge. There is little, if any, skill involved, and over the long run you are going to lose your money. Poker, on the other hand, does not pit a person against the house and its daunting advantage. Instead, it pits player against player, and the money you win comes directly from other people when you outmaneuver them. It is certainly possible to make a living by playing poker; skill is all that counts, the cards you get evening out for everybody in the long run. Online or in real life, the provider of the poker arena (the online software or the chips, dealer, table, cards, etc. in real life) just get a slice of the action for providing the service.

So if there’s any such thing as a truly “victimless crime”, online poker, where participants willingly win and lose their own money amongst themselves, has to be it. Wasting resources going after this activity seems like a case of misplaced priorities. However, that’s hardly the sole reason this is a bad move. More frightening is the state attempting to get ISPs to block whatever they believe to be “objectionable content” without demonstrating a clear public need for such a block. This proposal came out of the blue with no public input; surely a measure as drastic as blocking access to a large category of websites deserves some debate among the people.

Barney Frank, the Democrat from Massachusetts is proposing that the ban on online gambling be modified to undo the draconian change that was passed into law in 2006 almost completely under the radar (under a Republican Congress, to boot); I think such a change is long overdue. Should online gambling be regulated? Absolutely. But outright bans and witch hunts don’t accomplish much.

With the national Republican party in complete disarray these days, they would be well-advised to take a look at people like Jack Kemp.

Edit: I just found (via Balloon Juice) this letter from Jack Kemp to his grandchildren after the election of Barack Obama. Can you imagine any other Republican in power writing this kind of letter?