A group of Obama supporters stormed today’s Tax Day Tea Party in downtown Washington, D.C., creating a brief and nonviolent ruckus among the tea partiers gathered to listen to Grover Norquist and Dick Armey on Freedom Plaza.

The pro-Obama group, known as “The Other 95%,” held a counter-rally earlier in the day to thank Democrats for what they say are the tax cuts the party has given to 95% of Americans since Obama took power.

I happened to be standing right next to the Freedom Party steps when TO95 organizer Alex Lawson walked up with several other members carrying a massive banner reading “Thanks For Our Tax Cuts, Obama!”

D.C. cops quickly tossed the group off the plaza, but not before they got into a couple of shouting matches with tea partiers present. Check out my video of how it all went down — and how one tea partier from Phoenix, AZ felt about it — after the jump.

Here’s the video, featuring Lawson and tea partier Sherri Stockard:

A volunteer with with TO95 me told the police tossed the group from the plaza because they didn’t have a permit to protest there. TO95 captured its own video of the day, available here.

Lawson told me the group wasn’t associated with the Democratic party, a union or the Obama administration.

“We are not sponsored by anyone,” he said. “We’re a group of concerned citizens. We put this together ourselves, and we paid for this banner…We’re just out here on our lunch hours making sure our message gets heard by everyday Americans.”

While President Obama mingled with Florida Democrats at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser in Miami Thursday night, thousands of Tea Partiers stood across from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to protest “Tax Day.” Mr. Obama admitted to his supporters that the anti-tax rallies “amused” him.

The president went over the laundry list of tax cuts instituted in Washington over the past year.

“In all, we passed 25 different tax cuts last year. And one thing we haven’t done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year — another promise that we kept,” he told supporters at the Arsht Center for the Performing Arts. “So I’ve been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying thank you.”

The president argued that America is on the road to recovery and headed in the right direction — something an overwhelming number of Tea Partiers disagree with.

However, Mr. Obama submitted that “the true measure of our progress is the progress that the American people feel in their lives — and there’s still a lot of hurt out here.”

He said that while he is doing everything he can to accelerate private-sector job creation in the short term, he is also trying to create a new foundation for the middle class. While some are warning that anger over administration policies will endanger some Democrats in the midterm elections, Mr. Obama said, “elections will take care of themselves” if politicians stay true to their principles and do what’s right for the American people.

“One of the great things about running for president,” Mr. Obama said, “is it gives you a little perspective because you realize that these things go in cycles, the mood of the media and how things get portrayed. And so you’re like a genius for about a month and then you’re an idiot for about six months. Then, you know, you’re smart again for — you’re not as smart as you were, but you’re a little smarter than they thought you were, then you’re an idiot again.”

People shouldn’t focus on the day-to-day politics and polls, he said.

“What you’ve got to focus on is that true North, that lodestar, which is, are the things we’re doing over the long term going to help not just this generation but the next generation? Is this going to make America stronger?,” he said.

Mitch McConnell has rounded up the necessary votes to block Democrats from bringing Wall Street reform to the Senate floor, a spokesman for the Senate Minority Leader said on Friday afternoon.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Thursday he planned to bring the bill to the floor next week where it would be debated and amendments added. McConnell has now persuaded 41 Republicans to vote against debating reform.

‘We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to continue to subsidize this ‘too big to fail’ policy. We must ensure that Wall Street no longer believes or relies on Main Street to bail them out. Inaction is not an option,” McConnell writes in a letter to Reid that was provided to HuffPost.

Democrats have been battering McConnell all week for his firm opposition to the Democratic reform effort.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley told HuffPost that Reid will be moving ahead regardless.

“Congratulations. I hope they feel good,” said Manley. “They’ve got 41 signatures on a weak, watered-down letter that simply calls for more negotiations. If they are at all serious, they will simply let us go to the bill next week and let the amendment process begin.”

Manley said the bill will be brought up for a vote on a motion to proceed to debate later this coming week.

Read the full letter:

Dear Leader Reid:We encourage you to take a bipartisan and inclusive approach, rather than the partisan path you chose on health care.

A bipartisan bill should address the damaging financial practices of big Wall Street firms and government-sponsored entities that led to unprecedented taxpayer bailouts and caused our government to take on enormous amounts of debt. We simply cannot ask the American taxpayer to continue to subsidize this “too big to fail” policy. We must ensure that Wall Street no longer believes or relies on Main Street to bail them out. Inaction is not an option. However, it is imperative that what we do does not worsen the current economic climate or codify the circumstances that led to the last financial crisis.

We are united in our opposition to the partisan legislation reported by the Senate Banking Committee. As currently constructed, this bill allows for endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street and establishes new and unlimited regulatory powers that will stifle small businesses and community banks.

This is a complex issue that could have unintended consequences on job growth, the ability of Americans and business owners to access credit, and the United States’ role as a worldwide leader in innovation and capital formation. The consequences of this bill will reverberate across our economy for years to come.

We urge you to support the bipartisan negotiations by the Banking and Agriculture Committees. We are confident that the Senate can overcome political tensions and provide a bipartisan approach to financial reform this year.

UPDATE: McConnell’s office sends along a statement from Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who had been the holdout, that she will indeed vote to filibuster a motion to proceed: “If the Majority Leader brings the partisan Senate Banking Committee bill to the floor next week, Senator Collins will vote against a motion to proceed.”

UPDATE II: Reid spokesman Manley says that Democrats aren’t backing down. “Bring it on,” he says of the GOP filibuster threat.

President Obama mandated Thursday that nearly all hospitals extend visitation rights to the partners of gay men and lesbians and respect patients’ choices about who may make critical health-care decisions for them, perhaps the most significant step so far in his efforts to expand the rights of gay Americans.

The president directed the Department of Health and Human Services to prohibit discrimination in hospital visitation in a memo that was e-mailed to reporters Thursday night while he was at a fundraiser in Miami.

Administration officials and gay activists, who have been quietly working together on the issue, said the new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid funding, a move that covers the vast majority of the nation’s health-care institutions. Obama’s order will start a rule-making process at HHS that could take several months, officials said.

Hospitals often bar visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage, and gay rights activists say many do not respect same-sex couples’ efforts to designate a partner to make medical decisions for them if they are seriously ill or injured.

“Discrimination touches every facet of the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people, including at times of crisis and illness, when we need our loved ones with us more than ever,” Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said in a statement praising the president’s decision.

Obama’s mandate is the latest attempt by his administration to advance the agenda of a constituency that strongly supported his presidential campaign.

In his first 15 months in office, he has hailed the passage of hate crime legislation and held the first Gay Pride Day celebration at the White House. Last month, Obama’s top military and defense officials testified before Congress in favor of repealing of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays in the armed forces.

But the moves have been too slow for some gay rights activists, who have urged the president to be more vocal and active in championing their causes. John Aravosis, a prominent gay blogger, wrote last October that Obama’s “track record on keeping his gay promises has been fairly abominable.”

Other gay rights activists have defended the administration, while at the same time pushing Congress to act on broader issues such as passage of an employment non-discrimination act and an end to the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

“We see this as part of our ongoing effort to encourage the administration to take action where it has the authority to act,” said David Smith, a Human Rights Campaign spokesman. “We’ve been working and pressing the administration on our legislative agenda. That work continues.”

Gay activists have argued for years that recognizing same-sex marriage would ease the stress associated with not being able to visit hospitalized partners.

But opponents of same-sex marriage have called the visitation issue a red herring, arguing that advocates want to provide special rights for gays that other Americans do not have. A spokesman for one group said the president’s move was part of a broader effort to appease gays and to undermine the institution of marriage.

“In its current political context, President Obama’s memorandum clearly constitutes pandering to a radical special interest group,” said Peter S. Sprigg, a senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council. He said that his organization does not object to gays giving their partners power of attorney but that it questions Obama’s motives.

“The memorandum undermines the definition of marriage,” he said.

Obama’s memo to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius orders the development of new rules to ensure that hospitals “respect the rights of patients to designate visitors” and to choose the people who will make medical decisions on their behalf.

The action has the potential to increase conflicts between family members, same-sex partners and hospital staff over end-of-life decisions.

A spokesman for the American Hospital Association did not return calls and e-mails. Efforts to reach a spokesman for the Catholic Health Association of the United States were unsuccessful.

In the memo, Obama said hospitals should not be able to deny visitation privileges on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

“Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindnesses and caring of a loved one at their sides whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay,” he wrote.

Affected, he said, are “gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partners with whom they may have spent decades of their lives — unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated.”

Officials said Obama had been moved by the story of a lesbian couple in Florida, Janice Langbehn and Lisa Pond, who were kept apart when Pond collapsed of a cerebral aneurysm in February 2007, dying hours later at a hospital without her partner and children by her side.

Obama called Langbehn on Thursday evening from Air Force One as he flew to Miami, White House officials said. In an interview, Langbehn praised the president for his actions.

“I kept saying it’s not a gay right to hold someone’s hand when they die, its a human right,” she said, noting that she and Pond had been partners for almost 18 years. “Now to have the president call up and say he agrees with me, it’s pretty amazing, and very humbling.”

The new rules will not apply only to gays. They also will affect widows and widowers who have been unable to receive visits from a friend or companion. And they would allow members of some religious orders to designate someone other than a family member to make medical decisions.

But it is clear that the document focuses on gays. A number of areas remain in which federal law requires proof of marriage, including receiving Social Security benefits and in taxes.

“The General Accounting Office has identified 1,138 instances in federal law where marriage is important,” said one gay rights activist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before the White House formally announced the directive. “We’ve knocked off one of them.”

Bipartisanship died at the Health Care Summit. The president can continue to reach out—that’s good politics at a time when Gallup reports that 54 percent of Americans don’t expect the GOP to make a “sincere” effort to achieve compromise on health reform. But as he reaches out, the president also has to draw clear dividing lines. He did that at the summit. After listening to the other side obfuscate, deceive, and spurn common ground, he said, “I don’t know if we can bridge” the differences. He knew that it was crystal clear where the fault lies.

Speaking of lies, Obama called them out in that unflappable way that carried him through storm and smear to the presidency in the first place.

No, it wasn’t true that Republicans had been excluded from the process; a whole range of their proposals—at least the ones that aren’t cockamamie or counterproductive—are included in the Senate and House bills and in Obama’s plan. Competition among insurance companies across state lines, small business pools to negotiate lower rates—there are literally pages of amendments that the Party of No was for before it was against the bill.

Unctuous Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander threw out the canard, concocted to frighten seniors, that the president’s plan would “cut” Medicare by $500 billion. (This from a party whose sole effort at serious reform—by Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking member on the House Budget Committee—calls for replacing Medicare with vouchers.) Alexander was wrong, and plainly, intentionally so. The bill, as the president and Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded, would not cut Medicare benefits for seniors but reform wasteful and sometimes fraudulent payments to providers.

The president deftly stuffed Alexander on another deception as well —that the reform would raise premiums for families. The Tennessee senator had read his talking points, but not the Congressional Budget Office report. According to CBO, premiums would be lower for 92 percent of Americans, in some cases by as much as 20 percent.

On and on it went. The Republicans trotted out their tired hobbyhorses—Health Savings Accounts for the wealthy and healthy and, of course, tort reform, which CBO says would address one-fifth of 1 percent of total health spending. CBO adds that the Republican version of tort reform is so ingeniously crafted that it would also reduce the pressure to avoid medical errors, resulting in 4,800 additional deaths annually. All told, the GOP’s token and total contribution to the debate is a plan to cover all of 3 million uninsured Americans while leaving the insurance companies to gouge their policyholders until the system collapses in a “death spiral” to the bottom.

To paraphrase Justice Brandeis, the television lights were the best disinfectant for Republican claims. With these televised, face-to-face exchanges, Obama has invented a new form of presidential leadership; he exercises it masterfully. The GOP knew what was happening—you only had to look at their sour faces.

Because they had so little to say that was positive or truthful, the summit was a debate the Republicans were bound to lose. But the decisive moment wasn’t the summit, it’s what happens now. Having won the debate, Democrats must now win the battle—not by conciliation but in a straight-out partisan confrontation. They hold the cards if only they will play them. House Democrats can put aside their injured sense of prerogative and pass the Senate bill—and then both chambers can improve it in the filibuster-free process of reconciliation. (Democrats should pay no attention to the crocodile tears of a GOP that used reconciliation to enact the entire Reagan economic plan and the massive Bush tax cut of 2001.)

Republicans will stop at nothing to stop health reform because they know it would reduce the Obama presidency to an authority-depleted, time-serving interval of insignificant change. Obama would be Carter rather than Reagan-in-Reverse. The president plainly understands this—which is why he has rejected counsels of caution and retreat from some of his own advisors.

Victory in the health fight—and now more than ever, it’s a fight, not a courtship—has to be a beginning, not an end. The president has to be more ambitious, not less. Early in the summit, Nancy Pelosi quoted from the letter a dying Ted Kennedy left behind for Barack Obama. The outcome on health care, Kennedy wrote, was fundamentally a test of “the character of our country.”

That outcome will also define the character of the Obama presidency—and that in turn will determine not merely his and his party’s political prospects, but the possibility, perhaps for generations to come, of a progressive America.

We saw the alternative, too, at the summit, where the character of today’s Republicans was on display. If they won’t join in, then they have to be beaten—beginning with health reform. As someone in the White House told me, when the crunch comes—and it has—“I wouldn’t bet against Obama.”.

A legislator from Virginia cites a passage from the Bible that says if a woman has a child with some kind of disability, then she must have aborted her first pregnancy based on “dramatic evidence.” Now, if the Bible is true as this lawmaker claims, then Sarah Palin had an abortion the first time she was pregnant because her baby has Down syndrome.

Everyone knows this is true because the words of the Bible are the words of God, and Palin lives by the scriptures, so simple logic dictates that: Palin aborted her first child, and has not attacked this man’s remarks as false because he speaks God’s word, or, she did not have an abortion and doesn’t lash out because the man speaks God’s word.

As absurd as this seems, it is a troubling indicator of politicians quoting scriptures as if they are Constitutional law that applies to everyone. The Virginia delegate (Bob Marshall R, Manassas) who made the comment went on to cite Exodus 13:2 as his authority, and passed this information on to Governor McDonnell as a reason to stop support of Planned Parenthood. Governor McDonnell says he will revoke support for Planned Parenthood in Virginia, but he did not say whether Marshall’s rendering of the facts swayed his decision.

Earlier this month, Governor McDonnell changed the employment discrimination laws in Virginia to exclude gays from employment discrimination protection based on an edict from God that claims gays are an abomination. As an aside, how is it that God creates an abomination, and hates the abomination he created? Just wondering how that works.

Another instance of using the Bible’s archaic laws to discriminate and demonize gays is a beauty pageant contestant spouting her belief that God said to kill homosexuals, it is the law and therefore acceptable.

Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, is vying to become Miss California, and like former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, she feels that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, and worthy of execution, taking things a step further than Ms. Prejean did (in public).

The problem is not just these hate mongering nut jobs citing scripture and verse as if they are the law of the land, the problem is when politicians start governing using scripture as their guide, the country will slide into theocratic rule. Before dismissing this prospect, bear in mind that in 2008, Mike Huckabee sought the Republican Presidential nomination with a recurring motto of “the Ten Commandments should be the Constitution, and that’s all we need.” Mr. Huckabee would make owning a graven image a breech of Constitutional law, although he did not mention whether or not, a wooden cross is a graven image.

The Republicans who embrace this archaic bunch of laws are sick on one hand and contradictory on the other. They pick laws from the Bible’s verses that reinforce their hate, greed and selfishness, but they never mention that adulterers were stoned in the Bible, and not the good kind of stoned either. They also never mention that their repeated lies would make them candidates for horrific punishment, because they are hypocrites.

If individuals choose to follow the Bible, then that is their choice and if it’s good for them, that’s great. However, when they use archaic Bible rules to discriminate and endanger other people, they are guilty of a crime against humanity. When a politician uses his fairy tale beliefs as a guide for governance, and causes discrimination and harm to members of the public, he is a theocrat.

The other problem with a theocracy is that anyone who displeases the leader becomes the next target. George Bush and Dick Cheney were close to running the country as a theocracy, and nearly broke America in the process. It is true with any religious rule, that at some point, the scriptures get distorted to fit one man or one group’s agenda, as is the case with radical Islam.

The Inquisition, Crusades, and witch-hunts were religiously incited campaigns that tortured or killed innocents for disagreeing or not complying with the theocracy. It is happening in Iran and other Islamic countries, and if Republicans and Conservatives have their way, it will happen here.

Are Republicans ready to accept theocratic rule like the Islamic Republic of Iran? Because if they are, they should beware of who runs the theocracy since the GOP doesn’t stand a chance against GOD. Besides, who knows which man-god will run the theocracy, or what scripture or Stone Age law is the basis for his decisions.

The only absolute is that the theocratic leader will be a man, because Christianity and the Bible discriminates against women as much as gays, and if you don’t believe it; why isn’t Sarah Palin attacking the man with the Bible for outing her abortion?

Either she had an abortion, or she did not, and is complying with the Bible’s edict for a woman to subject herself to a man; in this case she is subjecting herself to the man with the Bible who said she had an abortion, according to Exodus 13:2.

When inviting participants to the White House health care summit, President Obama urged Republicans to “put forward their own comprehensive bill … and make it available online,” just as Democrats have done.

We’ve known for a while that GOP leaders would ignore the request and not offer a comprehensive bill. The big hint came last week when a spokesperson for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, “We will not be offering a comprehensive bill.” Another senior GOP aide added today that Republicans “fundamentally disagree” with the very idea of putting together a comprehensive bill.

But this only encourages the White House to keep talking about it. Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer wrote an item today emphasizing the importance of giving the public an opportunity to evaluate competing approaches to the problem.

That’s why yesterday the White House posted online the President’s proposal for bridging the differences between the Senate- and House-passed health insurance reform bills. The proposal puts American families and small business owners in control of their own health care. It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle-class tax cuts for health care in history, it ends discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, holds insurance companies accountable, and reduces our deficit by $100 billion over the next 10 years.

But you don’t have to take our word for it: the proposal is posted right here at WhiteHouse.gov for everyone to examine. You can read through the plan’s bipartisan ideas section by section, or you can select your health care status and find out what the proposal would mean for you. You can even submit a question for our policy staff to answer.

What you can’t do just yet is read about the Republicans’ consensus plan — because so far they haven’t announced what proposal they’ll be bringing to the table.

In an interesting little twist, the administration has even offered to publish a Republican alternative proposal on the White House website, posting them side by side for Americans to review and evaluate.

The Republicans offered a response yesterday. It wasn’t very good.

House Republican Leader John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) office urged Gibbs instead to “talk with his boss,” who only last month discussed healthcare reform with the chamber’s GOP members at their annual retreat.

“Our health care alternative — the full text of the legislation — has been available at healthcare.gop.gov for months, which President Obama knows, since he discussed it with us in Baltimore a few weeks ago,” spokesman Michael Steel said.

There are three problems with this. First, the GOP alternative is made up of four key areas — all of which have already been incorporated into the Democratic proposals.

Second, this is the House GOP bill. The goal is to see a Republican proposal embraced by both chambers’ caucuses — an official GOP proposal for the party.

And third, House Republicans posted this months ago. Is it still their plan? Has it evolved or adapted at all? Democrats don’t know unless the GOP says so. If this is the Republican plan on health care policy, GOP leaders can present it as such. They haven’t.

This is a real area of vulnerability for Republicans, and they know it. Democrats have presented (and passed) a solid piece of legislation that addresses a serious national crisis. It’s paid for and it’ll work. Republicans have presented … not a whole lot.

There’s a leadership gap between the parties and it’s showing.

As the nation, states, and communities struggle during trying economic times, revoking the tax-exempt status for religious organizations must be considered and is long overdue. This is especially true when groups like Mormons, Catholics, and evangelical Christians contribute to political campaigns that promote their hateful religious agendas, or worse yet, when they preach political issues from the pulpit.

There is separation of Church and State in the United States, and that means religious organizations do not involve themselves in politics to set policy or influence politicians. However, there are instances where the Catholic Church pours money into campaigns against healthcare reform, and the LDS (Mormons) church poured huge amounts of money to defeat gay marriage in California. The campaign in California is most interesting because most of the funds came from Utah.

Around the country, and in the Modesto area, churches put up signs in front of their magnificent buildings urging defeat of gay marriage initiatives, and mobilized their congregations to campaign for discrimination. There were sermons devoted to the evils of gay marriage, and the theme of the sermons was saving traditional marriage and children from the horrors of homosexuality. The twisted reasoning is that allowing gays to marry would destroy conventional marriage, and is an abomination according to the Biblical edict from God.

But God’s laws and injunctions have no place in politics or policy decisions, and candidates have no morals if they take money, endorsements, or support from religious organizations that push for laws that are over 2,000 years old and come from a fairy tale. As with all lobbying groups, there is a price to pay for their support during election time.

Groups like the Tea Party Palinites, and Fox News’ Glenn Beck (Mormon) use God to influence and frighten religious people about the dangers of Obama, Socialism, and the evil gay agenda. Because they use God and money to influence political decisions, all religious organizations have to lose the tax-exempt status.

If the Mormon, Catholic, or evangelical Churches want to run the government, or at least influence decisions made by our representatives, they must lose their tax-exempt status at every level, including the property tax exemption and become lobbyists or a separate political party.

The property tax alone on mega-churches would help communities that struggle for funds. It is especially egregious that most of these buildings sit on prime commercial real estate, and their expansion takes up valuable farmland and public safety resources at a time when cities like Modesto lays off police officers, firemen, and teachers. The property tax alone would fund many positions that the church uses such as police and fire protection.

The scare tactics and fear of damnation for contradicting God usually works on the faithful regardless of the Constitution or their own rule book’s (Bible) exhortation to separate themselves from the government.

Using fear to control the congregation is wrong, but it is their club and they have the freedom to use any obscene tactic to control their adherents. However, when they use their tax-free money and the pulpit to influence policy, they are no better than a lobbyist. Even if they do not try to influence policy, they are no better than a charitable, tax-paying citizen, and must pay their fair share, like Jesus told them to.

On Friday night’s Countdown, Keith Olbermann responded to Jon Stewart’s mockery of the MNSBC host on the previous night’s Daily Show, admitting, “I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.”

On Thursday’s Daily Show Stewart impersonated Olbermann in his own “Special Comment” and ridiculed Olbermann’s over-the-top criticism of Massachusetts senator-elect Scott Brown. “Now you are just calling people names,” Stewart said.

After playing The Daily Show segment in full, Olbermann initially struck back at Stewart: “This from a guy who reached his professional apex when he was the host of Short Attention Span Theater, 1991?” But he then relented: “Nah, you know what, you’re right. I have been a little over the top lately. Point taken. Sorry.”

Here’s the video:

About 16 years ago, William Kristol crafted a lengthy strategy memo for congressional Republicans, advising them on how best to deal with then-President Clinton’s health care reform initiative. At the time, a variety of Republican offices had every intention of presenting alternative reform plans — in part to help shape the debate, and in part to demonstrate the GOP’s interest in addressing a chronic national problem.

Kristol, however, noticed that his party lacked direction, and offered his vision as a way forward. His memo offered a simple and clear response: the GOP had to kill the Clinton reform plan at all costs. The merit of the reform proposal and its ability to improve the lives of Americans was deemed largely irrelevant — Kristol argued that a successful reform effort would position Democrats as the “protector of middle-class interests,” a fate the GOP could not allow. The Republicans’ principal goal, Kristol added, should be to focus on handing the White House a “monumental setback.” (He declined to use the word “Waterloo,” but the sentiment was hardly vague.)

The memo became the basis for the GOP strategy in 1994 — it remains the guiding principle of the Republican Party today — and was integral in killing what was thought to be the best chance at passing meaningful reform since the days of Truman. Clinton’s approval ratings suffered dramatically; Democrats developed a reputation for being unable to deliver on their own agenda; and less than a year later, Democrats lost their congressional majority. Republicans, far from being punished for their obstructionism, reaped the rewards of health care reform’s demise. (Indeed, the public blamed the White House and the Democrats for overreaching, grinding on for months, and having little to show for it — a task made easier when Democrats blamed each other in ways that played into the Republican narrative.)

As the health care system worsened, the issue of comprehensive reform became toxic for Democrats, and it would be nearly two decades before a president with an impressive electoral mandate, working alongside huge Democratic congressional majorities, chose to take on the domestic policy challenge that has burdened the United States for generations.

After grueling, often thankless work, and overcoming seemingly-insurmountable hurdles, the task of fulfilling the promise of reform was all but complete less than two weeks ago. The door that appeared locked forever was finally open, with Democrats poised to make history by crossing the threshold.

As is now well known, there have been recent setbacks that make taking the next step difficult. Some may see the value in leaving the door ajar, or perhaps coming back to it at a later time. Opponents would have lawmakers believe we’d all be better off if they just closed the door and walked away.

It is imperative for the country, the economy, the party, and the Obama presidency that Democrats resist the temptation to let this rare opportunity slip by. The most effective path forward is also the most obvious: the House should approve the legislation that has already passed the Senate, and the Senate should extend assurances to the House on pursuing improvements through the budget reconciliation process.

I. The need for reform is overwhelming — and growing more intense every day.

The reasons that made health care reform an absolute necessity two weeks ago were not changed by a narrow majority of special-election voters in Massachusetts — many of whose Republican and independent voters support their own state’s version of what congressional Democrats seek to do.

For all the media interest in political strategies, polls, and attack ads, the health care system remains badly broken. The reform package approved in December by the Senate would not only be the most important domestic policy breakthrough in decades, it would quite literally save American lives.

As anyone even passively familiar with the debate surely knows, the tens of millions of Americans with no coverage are struggling with a burden unseen in other major democracies. Thousands more join the ranks of the uninsured every day. Tens of thousands of Americans die every year because they have no insurance. Hundreds of thousands of others fall into medical bankruptcy — and most of these medical bankruptcies involve people who have insurance, but whose coverage proves inadequate.

To come up short now, or to pass a half-measure intended to respond to shifting political winds, would be more than just a political fiasco. It would be genuinely cruel.

The circumstances are incontrovertible. We pay too much and get too little. The system is bankrupting families, undermining businesses, hurting wages, and placing crushing burdens on government at every level. If reform falters right now, every easily-identified problem will get considerably worse. The current course is simply unsustainable for a country that hopes to have a fiscally responsible, competitive, and healthy future.

II. The political climate is inhospitable, but can be improved.

Any fair observer of the current political landscape recognizes that public support for reform waned as the legislative process unfolded. Some critics are on the left, hoping for an even more ambitious remedy, though most of the proposal’s detractors have come to accept as true the often-false attacks waged by the insurance industry, the Republican Party, and right-wing activist/lobbying organizations.

To believe, however, that the attacks have done irreparable harm, and that far-right distortions are already too pervasive, is a mistake.

Public opinion on health care reform has been shaped in large part by right-wing advertising, public anxiety, and confusion. Last week, however, the Kaiser Family Foundation published its latest research, noting that while Americans are evenly divided in their feelings about the reform proposal, support for the plan grows when Americans learn what’s actually in it.

Of particular interest, survey respondents were impressed after being told about tax credits for small businesses that want to offer coverage to their employees, health insurance exchanges, the elimination of insurance denials based on pre-existing conditions, help in closing the Medicare “donut hole,” and the extent to which reform would reduce the deficit.

The silly caricature — “death panels” and the threat of a “government takeover” — is obviously wrong to those who are fully engaged in the details, but has nevertheless gained a foothold among much of the public. What’s important to remember, though, is that there’s ample evidence that public perceptions can change fairly quickly.

Democratic policymakers must give success a chance. The polls are far more likely to recover if Democrats follow through on their campaign promises, pass the Senate bill, reap the rewards of a breakthrough victory, and then get out there and sell their handiwork — making clear to the country that the scare tactics were wrong.

What’s more, once the bill is signed, the media won’t just have a historic signing ceremony to cover. There will also be plenty of reports about what the new law does and does not do — “How the new health care law affects you” — which would further help improve the policy’s public standing. (The alternative is a year’s worth of news coverage about how hapless Democrats passed a monumental reform bill, but failed anyway.) There will also be “comeback kid” coverage, with Dems snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, rather than the other way around.

The Democratic drive to improve the party’s standing in the polls is obviously common sense. But no party’s public standing has ever improved after it deliberately failed to deliver on its promises.

III. The political risk of failure is far greater than the alternative.

One need not rely on a crystal ball to know that opponents of health care reform will invest heavily in attack ads this year. Passing the strongest possible bill at least gives Democrats a fighting chance to win the argument.

Indeed, Democrats can expect one of two scenarios: (1) an ad that tells voters, “Democrats voted to pass a liberal health care reform bill”; or (2) an ad that tells voters, “Democrats voted to pass a liberal health care reform bill — and then failed anyway when things got tough.” If the ads are inevitable — and they are — Dems will be in a stronger position to defend themselves on the heels of success, not failure.

There is no realistic scenario in which the electorate is impressed by policymakers who spend a year doing the hard work of tackling a seemingly-impossible challenge, pass the landmark legislation, and then somehow manage to come up short anyway.

Such an approach, in short, is electoral suicide. The party has already paid a steep political price for proposing a solution; now it’s time to reap the political reward that comes with completing the task.

It can also not be overstated the extent to which the Democratic base is counting on a comprehensive bill. There can be little doubt that Republicans’ far-right base and “Tea Party” activists will be energized in advance of the 2010 (and 2012) elections. To withstand the onslaught and close the “enthusiasm gap,” the success of health care reform couldn’t be more critical.

Failure to pass a comprehensive bill, or support for a scaled-back plan, would leave Democrats feeling demoralized — especially when a single roll-call vote in the House on the Senate bill would deliver such an important victory. The Washington Post‘s Ezra Klein, a left-leaning expert on health care policy, has developed a reputation as a mainstream progressive observer, willing to accept policy compromise. And yet, this week, addressing congressional reluctance to approve the Senate bill, Klein raised the specter of “betrayal” and irreparable harm to the relationship between the party and its supporters.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn’t like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That’s why those voters believe in them. That’s why they’re Democrats.

But the party looks ready to abandon them because Brown won a special election in Massachusetts — even though Democrats can pass the bill after Brown is seated…. If Democrats let go of health care, there is no doubt that a demoralized Democratic base will stay home in November. And that’s as it should be. If the Democratic Party won’t uphold its end of the bargain, there’s no reason its base should pretend the deal is still on.

If center-left policy wonks are expressing this level of disappointment, it’s very safe to assume the activist base will be hopelessly deflated by the failure of health care reform, and Democratic donors will have no reason to invest in a party that cannot follow through on its top domestic policy priority.

IV. Why not turn the tables and put Republicans on the defensive?

It often goes unstated, but it’s worth remembering that the success of comprehensive health care reform puts Republicans on the defensive in ways they don’t like to talk about. When GOP members urge Democrats to abandon their commitment to this issue, it’s not because Republicans have Democrats’ best interest at heart.

The GOP realizes that they are poorly positioned to argue in support of insurance industry excesses and against consumer protections. There is also little upside for Republicans fighting tooth and nail against a package that cuts spending and reduces the deficit. And if given a choice, the GOP would certainly prefer to run against the failure of health care reform than a majority party that delivers on the promise of a historic victory.

Also note, the Republican base has already begun demanding that GOP candidates run on a “repeal” platform — vowing to scrap reform if Republicans claim congressional majorities. This creates the potential for what I call a “repeal trap.” Because some of the most popular measures of reform would kick in almost immediately, giving consumers all kinds of new protections.

It puts Republican candidates in a box. Democrats can ask GOP candidates, “Are you really going to fight to repeal protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions?” If Republicans say “no,” they alienate the GOP activists who will settle for nothing but a full repeal. If Republicans say “yes,” they alienate the mainstream electorate.

But the only way to set the trap is to pass the bill.

V. This is why Democrats exist.

In advance of the midterm elections, there’s a spirited debate in Democratic circles about the direction of the party. Reasonable people with good intentions can make compelling arguments about the party’s relationship to its base, reaching out to moderates and independents, and keeping the coalitions from 2008 intact going forward.

But comprehensive health care reform exists largely outside that debate, in large part because the issue is at the core of the party’s platform, and has been the Democrats’ raison d’etre for decades. It is, to a very real extent, precisely why the party exists.

Democrats’ commitment to making comprehensive reform a reality need not be dependent on the result of one special election. Indeed, it can’t be — if the party backs off its most important issue, on the eve of a transformative victory, its entire agenda is suspect.

The entrepreneur who wants to start a business but can’t because the premiums are unaffordable, the family facing bankruptcy because their insurer dropped them when they needed help most, the small business that can’t afford coverage for its employees, the industrious worker whose wages have been stuck while health care costs rise, the single mom waiting tables who can’t afford health care and can’t buy coverage on the individual market — these Americans need a champion. The Democratic Party has always presented itself as that champion. To come up short now would be to undermine the integrity, the core mission, and the character of what this party really is.

Or put another way, a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate have already passed comprehensive health care reform bills. If they’re not willing to fight to finish the job, what on earth will the party fight for?

VI. Time is of the essence.

There’s been ample talk in the last week about the possible value in delaying further consideration of the issue. By most measures, this approach has it backwards.

In the short term, there are two overarching reasons not to allow additional delays. First, the debate that began in earnest 10 months ago has run its course, and the public is clearly ready to see Democrats pivot to other issues. Months of negotiations and machinations will only breed additional frustrations — especially when a victory for the ages is one vote away.

Second, giving opponents of reform more time to undermine public support and trash necessary legislation hasn’t worked up until now; it’s unlikely to be effective while policymakers push the process into the spring (or later).

In the long term, the clock is ticking even louder. If reform fails again — if Democrats fumble at the one-yard line — no one will want to touch this issue again for at least another 20 years. In the meantime, more Americans will lose their insurance; costs will continue to soar; and the dysfunctional system will keep getting worse.

VII. If scare tactics win, Americans lose.

The current health care proposal has much in common with some of the landmark bills of the 20th century, and like its predecessors, it has been subjected to withering attacks, nearly all of them false. But Democratic policymakers have stood firm in the face of professional liars and misinformation campaigns before, and have always been vindicated by history.

In 1935, Republican opponents of Social Security insisted that Roosevelt’s “socialistic” plan would, among other things, force all Americans to wear dog tags. Not quite a half-century ago, conservative critics of Medicare seriously argued, in public, that the law would empower bureaucrats to dictate where physicians could practice medicine, and open the door to government control over where all Americans were allowed to live. Around the same time, many opponents of the Civil Rights Act believed the fabric of America was being torn apart by the legislation.

Those who peddle “death panel” and “government takeover” nonsense today are but branches on a large and ridiculous tree.

The question now is whether Democrats will do as their predecessors did — overcome the lies and scare tactics, stick to their principles, and pass their agenda anyway.

Major change is always scary and controversial initially, until it becomes law and Americans realize the fears were unfounded. The cries against Social Security and Medicare look laughable in retrospect, as both programs became bedrocks of American society. There’s every reason to believe the same will be true with the current reform proposal.

If Democrats allow scare tactics to prevail now, we can only expect hysteria to become a template response every time anyone tries to address difficult national challenges. All Americans interested in constructive policymaking have a huge stake in preventing this outcome.

VIII. There are competing options — Democrats must choose wisely.

It’s understandable that policymakers took a little time to evaluate their choices last week. Nearly all Democrats still want a health care reform bill to pass, but are considering a variety of alternatives.

The loudest voices urging Democrats to quit or aim lower are congressional Republicans. For the majority party to follow their advice is folly.

A “scaled-back” bill would have the unique ability of annoying every possible contingent in the debate. It would help far fewer Americans who desperately need assistance, and who would be far better served by the Senate bill. If given a choice between a watered-down approach and a more ambitious and historic victory, the choice should be easy.

For that matter, consideration of the weaker plan would likely add months to a debate that has dragged on long enough, and probably fail in the face of Republican obstructionism anyway.

Politically, Democrats who vote for two reform bills — one strong, one weak — are not doing themselves any electoral favors, either. The “voted for it before voting against it” ads write themselves, and the support for a scaled-back, less-effective version of reform would further frustrate the party’s base in an election year.

Meanwhile, still others are pondering the “piecemeal” approach, breaking reform up into parts. This, of course, has some of the same flaws as the half-measure, but more importantly, it also is burdened by major policy problems. The component parts of reform are interdependent — and fail unless they’re working together.

The Senate bill, however, delivers real reform. It’s precisely why so many reform proponents have been so vocal in urging lawmakers to complete the deal. Just in the past few days, proponents of reform who have routinely disagreed over policy specifics have all rallied behind the same idea — the House should quickly approve the Senate bill, the Senate should extend assurances to the House about proposed changes, and the White House should provide the leadership that brings the contingents together. Proponents include leading reform advocacy groups like Health Care for America Now, leading labor leaders like the Service Employees International Union’s Andy Stern, and a variety of pundits, from progressives like Paul Krugman to centrists like William Galston.

Also note, this approach was touted last week in a joint letter signed by several dozen leading policy experts, including Paul Starr, Theda Skocpol, Judith Feder, and Jacob Hacker, widely credited for crafting the idea of a public option.

IX. Appealing to independents, while meeting Democratic obligations.

There appears to be a fine line for Democrats to walk — satisfying the expectations of Democratic voters who worked so hard to deliver a Democratic majority, while also proving to centrists, independents, and moderate Republicans that Democrats are wise, responsible stewards of government power.

But walking that line may not be as difficult as it seems. House passage of the Senate bill offers Democrats a chance to impress a wide variety of Americans with divergent priorities.

For the Democratic base, the breakthrough would be fairly obvious — policymakers were elected to pass comprehensive reform, and after a century of failed attempts, Democrats can, at long last, get the job done, doing what the party’s rank-and-file sent them to Washington to do.

For centrists, independents, and moderate Republicans, the message opportunities are just as compelling. Indeed, it’s fairly easy to characterize the Senate bill as a sensible, middle-of-the-road approach to problem-solving.

Independents are worried about fiscal irresponsibility? The Senate bill lowers the deficit and “bends the curve” on health care spending. Independents fear a “government takeover”? The Senate bill features no public option, and includes many measures long-favored by Republicans and policy wonks of both parties. Independents have grown to resent powerful insurance companies that put their profits ahead of patients? The Senate bill forces insurers to accept all comers, regardless of pre-existing conditions; fully covers regular checkups and preventative care; eliminates annual and lifetime caps; and gives folks the ability to go to emergency rooms without prior approval.

After a spirited debate, this is precisely the kind of initiative that has the kind of broad appeal needed to impress Americans across the partisan and ideological spectrum.

X. This is the Democrats’ chance to cultivate a stronger reputation and tougher image.

There are widespread doubts about the Democratic Party right now, with familiar questions awaiting answers. What will Democrats really fight for? How committed are they to the change agenda they promised to pursue? Can they get things done? Do they hang tough when the heat is on, or do they back down? Can Democrats lead rather than follow?

Voters want to see progress. They want to see the change they voted for. They want proof that policymakers can identify a problem, work on a solution, and then pass legislation. They want some reassurance the political process and leaders in Washington are still capable of doing what they said they’d do. Voters are more impressed with results than excuses.

For Democratic policymakers to work so hard for so long, only to embrace some watered-down alternative — or worse, drop reform altogether — reinforces the worst fears about the party at the worst time. The adjectives aren’t hard to guess: weak, incompetent, and ineffective.

Even voters skeptical about the Democratic agenda nevertheless respect strength, follow-through, and policymakers who stand tall when the pressure’s on. Bill Clinton advised the party in 2002, “When people feel uncertain, they’d rather have somebody who’s strong and wrong than somebody who’s weak and right.”

A year from now, Democrats may take comfort in knowing that their health care reform bill was a good, effective plan, even after it failed, but “weak and right” on health care will nevertheless be deemed a fiasco, especially when the deal can be sealed by House approval of the Senate bill.

If the 111th Congress can describe this as the time it rescued the United States from a depression and at long last passed health care reform, this will become a legendary term. There will be no doubts about the Democratic majorities’ fortitude and resilience in the face of historic challenges. The same is clearly true of President Obama, whose success will help dictate the fortunes of Democratic candidates at every level.

As David Plouffe argued to Democrats yesterday, “[L]et’s prove that we have more than just the brains to govern — that we have the guts to govern.”

Conclusion

Elected leaders rarely get an opportunity to make a difference on such a grand scale. Indeed, in many ways, Democrats aren’t just considering a solution to a chronic national problem, they’re facing a test of their character. Democrats can either deliver or break their promise. They can either prove their ability to govern or appear inept. They can either satisfy the expectations of those who elected them or demoralize those who are counting on them. They can either watch the media cover their once-in-a-generation breakthrough or watch the media scrutinize a debacle for the ages.

Democrats, in other words, can either succeed or fail.

Looking back, the effort to reach this open door began last spring, but those with an eye for history know that America was actually carried to this point by giants with names like Roosevelt, Truman, Dingell, and Kennedy. With this once-in-a-generation opportunity, this Congress and this president can honor their legacy, and at long last, finish the task they began.

With a little courage and compassion, this generation of leaders can make comprehensive health care reform a reality, proving to the nation that they are worthy of the public’s trust. House approval of the Senate bill — with additional improvements to be made through reconciliation — is the most efficient and effective way to deliver on the promise.

It simply requires one more step through an open door.