According to the FBI’s annual arrest data, 700,993 arrests were made for marijuana offenses in 2014. Roughly 88 percent of the arrests were for possession, meaning someone was arrested for having weed on them every 51 seconds. Less than 8 percent of the arrests involved selling or manufacturing it.

Between 2009 and 2013, the total number of marijuana arrests declined steadily. Last year was the first time the number spiked, up by 7,511. More than 10,000 arrests were made for possession in 2014 than in 2013.

Four states — Oregon, Colorado, Alaska, and Washington — have legalized recreational use, as well as Washington D.C. At least seven states have legalization on the table for 2016. And 20 states across the country have implemented laws that decriminalize possession by treating offenses like traffic violations instead of grounds for arrest.

“It’s unacceptable that police still put this many people in handcuffs for something that a growing majority of Americans think should be legal. A record number of states are expected to vote on legalizing marijuana next year, so we hope and expect to see these numbers significantly dropping soon,” Tom Angell, chairman of the advocacy group Marijuana Majority, explained to ThinkProgress. “There’s just no good reason that so much police time and taxpayer money is spent punishing people for marijuana when so many murders, rapes and robberies go unsolved.”

“While law enforcement was busy making nearly three quarters of a million marijuana arrests, more than 35% of murders went unsolved, the clearance rate for rape was less than 40%, and for robbery and property crimes, it was below 30%,” Director of Communications Mason Tvert of the Marijuana Policy Project said in a press release.

The FBI’s latest findings are particularly noteworthy because public support for marijuana legalization is at an all-time high. Earlier this year, Pew Research Center concluded that 53 percent of Americans favor it, and nearly 70 percent believe alcohol is a more dangerous substance.

Although the FBI report does not break down the number of arrests by ethnicity, previous studies show that black people are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for pot possession than their white counterparts, even though they use marijuana at the same rate. That means they bear the brunt of draconian sentencing laws that enforce mandatory minimums for low level offenses. Many nonviolent offenders have received life sentences for possession. As a result, decrimina-lization has profound racial implications.

The post Marijuana Arrests Suddenly Rose Last Year Even As States Legalized Pot appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Though the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest court for criminal law matters, briefly stayed Glossip’s execution a little less than two weeks ago, a majority of the court held on Monday that Glossip’s execution may move forward. “We find that the law favors the legal principle of finality of judgement,” Judge David Lewis wrote in an opinion emphasizing several legal rules that erect barriers to people seeking post-conviction relief. In a separate concurring opinion, Judge Robert Hudson notes that a statement from another inmates revealing that Sneed bragged about framing Glossip is hearsay, and therefore has very limited value in court.

These are not frivolous arguments, at least for judges applying existing law. Once a criminal defendant is convicted of a crime, the law’s presumptions shift to make it very difficult to challenge that conviction.

Nevertheless, in a dissent, Presiding Judge Clancy Smith argued that her court should have treated this case differently. “While finality of judgment is important,” she wrote, “the State has no interest in executing an actually innocent man.”

The post Court Says A Potentially Innocent Man May Be Executed Because ‘Law Favors… Finality Of Judgment’ appeared first on ThinkProgress.

Universal pre-kindergarten has been receiving a lot of attention lately. Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton announced a universal pre-K plan in June. Governors across the political spectrum have been acknowledging the importance of early childhood education, and Democratic senators pushed hard to include an amendment that would provide funding for five years of universal pre-K in the bipartisan rewrite of No Child Left Behind — the Every Child Achieves Act. But there are still policymakers who don’t take preschool as seriously as they do K-12 education, early childhood education experts say.

There is a perception that preschool teachers are really just “babysitters,” said Conor Williams, senior researcher in the Early Education Initiative at New America.

“If you really want to understand how policy folks are misunderstanding pre-K, say ‘Look, would you say this about a second grade teacher? Would you say this about a 6th grade teacher? Would you say this about a teacher at other ages?’ No, of course not,” Williams said. “The question is whether you want to treat early education as something that is actually part of education or ‘Oh, it’s a nice thing for kids.’”

Early childhood experts took several issues with the way the paper ignored the quality of preschool programs. Not all programs are alike, and many issues can alter their affectiveness: whether the preschool is aligned with a specific kindergarten, how the schools are serving dual language learners, and whether half-day programs are the best option for children and working families.

“[The Brookings paper] was based off a framework that you don’t really hear about K-12 schools,” said Sara Mead, a partner with Bellwether Education Partners in the Policy and Thought Leadership practice. “There was just no sense of, ‘Does it matter if the programs that kids are in are good or not?’ And a huge motivation for expanding access is a recognition that a lot of programs are not good and they’re not providing kids the learning experiences they need.”

Mead pointed out that concerns about the quality of pre-K programs is what led the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in reforms of Head Start in 2007, such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, which provides some measurement of quality of teaching, as well as requiring low-performing grantees to compete for grants. Bellwether Education Partners would like to see additional reforms, such as more transparency in the monitoring process and better analysis of Head Start data.

Why people question the data on universal preschool

The authors of the Brookings paper, Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst and Ellie Klein, point out the ways in which the Census questions fail to provide an accurate overview of how many children are attending preschool. Some of their criticisms are that children whose relatives care for them for a certain period of time in addition to a preschool program aren’t counted as attending a formal program or that questions about enrollment aren’t specific enough.
They write:

For example, a child who attends a typical preschool program, i.e., half-day for five days a week for nine months a year, and also receives out-of-home care by her grandmother during the rest of the parents’ work week would be indicated under this variable as having received relative care in another home rather than having received center-based care …

The authors also mention the fact that grouping 3 and 4 year olds into one estimate is not a good idea because enrollment of 3 year olds is so much lower compared to 4 year olds. And even if parents aren’t enrolling their 3 year olds, they say it’s not an issue of access but that some parents may decide they would rather not enroll their child in preschool at that age.

Early childhood education advocates agree that putting the two groups together doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but they disagree on the idea that many parents don’t enroll 3 year olds because they simply prefer not to.

“By combining 3 year olds and 4 year olds, you do lose some important information. If you really want to know what percentage of kids have any pre-K experience before they get to kindergarten, it’s good to look at 4 year olds on their own,” Mead said.

Mead said that it’s very important for low-income kids to have access to pre-K earlier, to try to mitigate achievement gaps.

“The place where we have the best evidence to close gaps for low-income kids are programs to serve kids when they’re 3 or 4 years old. So if you care about closing gaps, you might be interested in that,’ Mead said. “To assume that parents aren’t sending kids when they’re 3 years old because they don’t want to … Another completely plausible explanation is that they have limited financial resources and preschool is expensive.”

Children play with Legos in a pre-K class at the Community Day Center for Children in Seattle.

CREDIT: Ted S. Warren, AP

Lisa Guernsey, director of the Learning Technologies Project and director of the Early Education Initiative at New America, said that the skills of pre-K teachers are often underestimated in comparison to teachers at other grade levels, and that family care can’t make up for an actual preschool education.

“I’m not saying at all that a grandmother and a parent isn’t a wonderful teacher for young children in terms of modeling how to get along in the world,” Guernsey said. “But it’s not the same as having some time with a person who knows the science of child development, who knows the building blocks of early math, and uses new materials and groups of children to help them see how to learn together and cooperate. There are skills that require some preparation and training.”

Although the report claims that almost 70 percent of the U.S. population of 4 year olds regularly attend a pre-K program, instead of around 50 percent participation as other reports show, Guernsey took issue with that claim, since it doesn’t account for the differences in pre-K settings.

“That is just incorrect if you recognize that that 70 percent is including all sorts of different settings, and some are not even learning settings, and we have no idea how many of them are truly pre-K and have even less of an understanding of how many are quality pre-K,” Guernsey said.

One of the things the account doesn’t consider is the importance of going to a pre-K program that is connected to a larger school system, Williams pointed out.

“Capturing the difference in that 70 percent, even just that basic question, like ‘Are they in a pre-K setting that leads them to dedicated single kindergarten?’ That matters a lot. We have good research that shows if you align them into a single kindergarten through third grade system that matters, and that’s why we see bigger effects.”

There is growing evidence that a preschool through third grade approach shows positive results for students. A consistency in teaching methods can also allow for a better transition from pre-K to kindergarten. In terms of why there is a focus on pre-k through third grade, a 2010 New America report explains that students whose math and reading skills aren’t proficient by the end of third grade are more likely to have poor academic outcomes and drop out of school.

What low-income and dual-language kids need from preschool

The issue of cost is mentioned frequently in the Brookings paper, which seems to accept half-day preschool attendance as sufficient to and writes about how the cost of pre-k programs is overestimated since pre-K teacher salaries are lower compared to K-12 teachers, neglecting the issue of whether the savings are worth the low prestige that comes with such salaries. There are problems with half-day programs and low salaries, however, that affect the learning environment for children. A half-day program is less accessible to working parents and provides less time for low-income children and dual language learners, who are already disadvantaged, to catch up to middle class and upper class children before kindergarten.

Williams said that the advantage of full-day programs is that they allow more women to participate in the workforce, given the fact that gender biases among employers and within households mean that women become the default caregivers. When considering the fiscal realities of having a longer preschool day, Williams said the authors should consider the increased tax revenue from increased labor force participation.

“If you have a six, seven, or eight-hour investment then you actually see considerable increases in maternal labor participation, which is to say you see increases in paternal and maternal income,” Williams said. “And here is the really great part … lo and behold, you get more tax revenue. Because then they can go work and pay more taxes and help to offset the cost of the program … A half day, where labor force participation is concerned, is actually deeply inadequate.”

In addition to more labor force participation, a full-day pre-K program is better for kindergarten-readiness for low-income kids. A 2014 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that low-income students did better on four out of six measures of school readiness, as well as attendance, when they attended a full-day program.
‘A half day, where labor force participation is concerned, is actually deeply inadequate.’

In addition to helping low-income students, a high quality full-day preschool program is beneficial for dual language learners, Williams said. Dual language learners don’t get very much exposure to English outside of the classroom, a structured, so an English-exposed environment such as preschool compensates for that.

“Being bilingual is a good thing and if you start early in life, you get cognitive benefits in the long run,” Williams said. “However, the stronger evidence even still for having dual language learners in pre-K is that they have robust English language skills earlier, which is really important and means higher potential for these kids in the long run. If you start them learning English at age 3 or age 4 it speeds things up for them to get on grade level for English language learning by third grade.”

Mead said the lower cost of pre-K teacher salaries means that preschool programs are going to be a lot less stable than other education levels. Pre-K teachers made a median salary of $27,570 in 2013 compared to the median high school teacher’s salary of median annual salary of $55,360, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

“Is it a good thing that teachers make so much less than K-12 schools? Or is it not a good thing because it means there are higher rates of turnover?” Mead asked.

In a book published last week, Too Many Children Left Behind, the authors — a combination of social scientists and economists — detail how low-income children are far behind their middle class peers in their educational development before they enter school and emphasize the importance of pre-K access. As family backgrounds become lower income, proficiency in math fades, the authors write, and gaps in academic performance don’t change very much over time:

“Children from families with low-educated parents begin school with a massive disadvantage in terms of their basic academic capabilities, and they are not able to close even a portion of that gap by the start of high school. Disadvantage from the preschool period appears to persist unchallenged throughout the school years,” they write.

Williams agrees. “Public investment here done well could raise quality and it could raise the professional standards of the education force of the United States. Right now, there are tiers in the system where we have the very cheapest care but usually the lowest quality going to the children who often need the best and highest quality,” he said.

The post What’s Wrong With The Brookings Paper On Universal Preschool? appeared first on ThinkProgress.

In the Pew Research Center polling that made everyone's news this week, government fared poorly. But the only part of government to be at its historic low point was Congress. Only one American in five professed faith in Congress' ability to do the right thing all or most of the time.

Yet in the same poll, Pew found more than three in five wanted Congress to do something to rein in Wall Street and the excesses that led to the mortgage meltdown and the recession of 2008-2009.

Americans have an instinctive distaste for elites and power concentrations. Always have. Yes, most of us go on abiding by the laws Congress makes and relying on the financial machinery the big banks dominate. But we tend to be wary of both, even in the best of times. And right now, with unemployment just below double digits, we are all in a less-forgiving mood.

To see what's different about our current disillusionment, let's break it into three parts. First, you have the conventional revulsion at classic scandals and their perpetrators. This is the category for financiers such as Bernie Madoff, the Ponzi scheme billionaire, and powerful members of Congress such as Duke Cunningham, the subcommittee chairman who wrote out a price list for bribes. Both men are now in jail.

Second, you have disillusioning effect of procedural maneuvers and strategies that smack of deceit. It is off-putting to many Americans to see House members vote both for and against a big bill on the same afternoon, or to see one senator hold up bills or nominations for utterly unrelated reasons. The average American does not understand how Goldman Sachs can sell one investment that bets on home mortgage loans and another that bets against them (especially if the portfolio of assets is amassed by someone who wants them to crash so he can make a billion dollars).

Much of this is usually masked to the world by insider terminology, abbreviations and acronyms. Capitol Hill speaks of the "secret hold" and "deem and pass" while Wall Street speaks of credit default swaps (CDS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) and naked short selling.

Actually, the denizens of these worlds know perfectly well their lingo leaves people behind. That is largely the idea. There may be nothing wrong with some of these practices and procedures, or there may be very little about them that could stand the light of day. The point is that the rest of us can't tell one way or the other. And right now, after the bailouts and the fallout, we're less inclined to sit still for that.

But there is a third category of disconnect in the current atmosphere, and it may be the most important.

What really disturbs Americans right now is a growing sense that what goes on -- on the Hill or on the Street -- is not about the general citizenry or the general economy. Both institutions increasingly appear to be consumed with "trading on their own account."

Too much of what goes on in Congress is about posturing for the next election (or committee chair or leadership post). The parties each weigh their moves with an eye on the next election, not just in the final months before November in an even-numbered year but all the time. The campaign never stops, and neither does the fundraising to fuel it.

Similarly, too much of what goes on in the stock and bond markets is about constructing "plays" and "trades" to make money without regard to underlying economic values or real-world effects. Billions are invested not to build or buy things but to play the dynamics of the market, buying and selling contracts to buy and sell in the future or to hedge against bets yet to be taken. Think of a poker player who's less interested in his cards than he is in the other players' plays. The language and psychology of the casino has always been part of the financial world. Lately, it seems to be the part that matters most. And that is troubling for public at large.

Sure, there's always been a huge element of self-dealing, both in politics and high finance. It's in the nature of the beast, and has been in earlier eras, not to mention in other countries and different systems. But even if you know that and accept it, the suspicion remains. And the questions arise. Have we passed the tipping point? Have these elements finally supplanted the original intent of the institutions in question? And aren't we supposed to be better than that?

No wonder our trust in both the national legislature and the biggest investment firms is at such an ebb.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

Distrust of Washington is especially rampant, with four of out five Americans expressing discontent with the federal government.

Is anyone surprised by this? Of course not. The first question you want to ask is, who is that fifth American?

It's been years since we've seen a positive balance on the pollster's favorite question: Are things in this country going in the right direction or are we on the wrong track? It's been as bad as 20 percent right and 75 percent wrong in 2008, and now it's a barely better 35 percent right and 65 percent wrong.

And when that ratio is bad, the government is always held responsible.

The Pew data also found a general sense of disaffection with national institutions other than the government. Banks and financial institutions got a 22 percent positive ( 69 percent negative), while large corporations did only slightly better at 25 percent positive (64 percent negative).

But no one expects banks and Big Business to be popular or reflect the will of the people. And their leaders don't have to face the voters, whose mood is likely to stay ugly for months to come.

And why not? Even if the economy is out of so-called Great Recession, the jobless numbers are not. So neither is consumer sentiment. The stimulus, meant to be a psychological boost as much as a material one, has had meager yields on both counts.

Reflecting distress from the economic meltdown of 2008, an increasing proportion of the populace believes it was ill-used in the bank rescue -- even it did keep the credit system working. That is why, with all the distrust in government, a clear majority stills wants Washington to do more to rein in Wall Street.

Beyond that, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- both the works of Washington -- drag on. Tensions around the world remain uncomfortably high, achievement scores in the schools uncomfortably low.

It seems that any time you hear about a federal agency, be it the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Mining Safety and Health Administration, they have somehow failed to prevent something. They may have their eye on Wall Street and the mining companies, yet Goldman Sachs and Massey Energy seem to let them do whatever they want.

And Congress? The lawmakers who are in some sense responsible for the rest of the government are the least trusted of all. They are the ones who repealed the old restraints on the banks and the financial system, the ones who allow mines to operate despite stacks of citations for unsafe conditions and the ones who vote to wage war around the world without taxes to pay for it.

A Sea Change

On top of all this, the nation is sensitized to its relationship with Washington because it is still absorbing a shock. That would be the shock of having President Barack Obama replace President George W. Bush. The shock applies in different ways to those who voted for it or against it.

The most fervent Obama backers may have had two shocks: Amazed that he won, they are now disappointed that Washington and the world did not change overnight. Those least supportive of the new president now say their worst fears are being confirmed.

But all sides are right to feel the ground shifting beneath them. The coming of Obama was not just a course correction, it was a sea change. The previous three decades had been dominated by a public philosophy embodied by President Ronald Reagan, who liked to say government wasn't the solution but the problem.

Reaganism rose in the late 1970s and conservatives went on the march. They won every presidential election except the Bill Clinton elections of 1992 and 1996 (both three-way contests won with a plurality). And if Clinton would never be confused with Reagan or the two Presidents Bush, his presidency often echoed their rhetoric of smaller government (as when he told the nation "the era of big government is over") and accomplished such goals as welfare cutbacks and a balanced federal budget.

Still, if the IDEA of government was more or less in retreat for 30 years, the REALITY of government was growing all along. And at times, it sought to expand its power and use it aggressively. Think of Clinton's early efforts to overhaul the health care system or restrict guns. Think of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, secret detention systems and surveillance of citizens within the U.S.

The 2008 election was felt on the left as the eruption of pent-up demand for government action and change. But a large number of other Americans arrived at Election Day feeling angry because the restraint of government promised by Reaganism had not been fulfilled.

Their unhappiness then was the mirror opposite of that expressed by Democrats. And now, eighteen months later, their distress at the stimulus plan and the health care bill are the mirror opposite of Obama backers' disappointment with the pace of change.

Whichever side of that mirror you may be on, it doesn't look good. Mix enough outrage on the right with enough disaffection on the left and you have one big unhappy country.

So again you wonder, who is that fifth American?

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

The several thousand faithful attending probably won't want to talk too much about 2008, the year that cost them the White House, or 2006, the year they lost control of Congress and the last time the SRLC convened.

(Time out for a quick question: At the 2006 SRLC meeting, who won the straw poll for president? Answer in a moment.)

This year, everything seems different. To be sure, the power centers in Washington remain in Democratic hands and the hated health care bill is now law, but Republicans see each of these facts as eminently changeable.

Sky-high Republican hopes for 2010 are nowhere higher than in the South. Polls show Republicans leading in seven of the eight Southern states electing governors this fall. Republicans are also favored to hold all but two of their Southern Senate seats (and those two, Kentucky and Louisiana, could well wind up in GOP hands as well). Beyond that, Republicans expect to gain House seats in most Southern states and expand their holdings in state legislative chambers as well.

Next stop? Ousting President Obama in 2012 and repealing the health care law, of course. And if all that seems a hurdle or two premature at this point, it all looks downright inevitable from the standpoint of Southern Republicans. They know all about coming from nowhere to take over.

In fact, if there is a year from the past that people will be talking about at the SRLC event, it's 1994 -- the best year Republicans have had in the South since Reconstruction. In an unbroken line stretching back to the 1800s, Democrats held the majority of Senate seats, House seats and governorships in the Southern states. Usually by wide margins. Until 1994.

On one November day that year, Republicans captured the majority in all three categories. And they have remained on top ever since. Even the reversals of 2006 and 2008 did not dislodge their dominance in Dixie.

That regional surge was the single largest factor in tilting control of the House and Senate from the Democrats to the Republicans. In the case of the House, it was the first Republican majority in 40 years.

The leader of that House takeover was Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who then served four years as speaker and since has toured the country and airwaves as a freelance guru of the right. Gingrich was a featured speaker on the first night of this year's SRLC and told the crowd 2010 had all the earmarks of another 1994. It was a big hit.

But the ultimate goal for attendees here this weekend is to seize back the White House. The South actually began voting Republican for president well before it did so for statewide offices or seats in Congress. Herbert Hoover carried the region in 1928 (against Catholic Al Smith) and Dwight Eisenhower did it in the 1950s. The habit really set in with Barry Goldwater in 1964, and the pattern held for Richard Nixon in 1972, Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and both Presidents Bush. As it has become the richest source of Electoral College votes for the GOP, the region has also become accustomed to deciding the party's nomination.

That explains why the SRLC, begun in the 1980s, can now call itself the most significant party gathering taking place between the quadrennial nominating conventions. And it also explains why presidential hopefuls come to SRLC, or, in some cases, think better of it. A good showing here is great, but failing to meet someone's expectations can hurt.

Among those testing their national appeal this week are host Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and neighboring Govs. Haley Barbour (Mississippi) and Rick Perry (Texas). But just as notable are those who are giving the expectations game a wide berth. Three men presumed interested in the 2012 nomination will not be on hand.

Mitt Romney spoke to the Conservative Political Action Conference in January and got clobbered in the subsequent straw poll, so he may have been wary of offering his chin in this particular ring. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, another also-ran at CPAC, is greeting troops returning from Iraq this weekend. He sent a videotaped address. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, now a Fox News commentator, has also sent his regrets.

The man who won that CPAC straw poll, Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, is in New Orleans for SRLC. But his contingent may have a harder time shining through at a meeting of party regulars, especially given the competition from the weekend's headliner, Sarah Palin. Does it strike anyone as odd that the candidate getting most of the attention at this Southern confab comes from the northernmost state in the Union?

Back in the 2008 primaries, Romney wound up among the finalists, along with Huckabee and eventual nominee John McCain. But none of these men won the straw poll the last time the SRLC got together in 2006.

That honor went to Bill Frist, who was then the Senate majority leader. Meeting in Frist's home state of Tennessee, the SRLC gave him 56 percent to Romney's 14 percent. But Frist retired from the Senate that same year and cut short his presidential foray.

Finishing third back in 2006 day was another GOP senator, George Allen of Virginia, who lost his re-election campaign for the Senate that fall and left politics. Allen's star fell with record speed, in part, because he referred to an Indian-American man at a public event as "macaca," stirring a racial controversy that never entirely went away.

Race remains a sensitive issue for Republicans, particularly in the South, and its cloud was visible again this week. Republicans arriving in New Orleans had to answer questions about their national party chairman, Michael Steele, and the scandal over staffers and donors spending big bucks at a sex club. The latest Steele scrape makes people uneasy in part because he is the party's first African-American chairman, a fact he alludes to regularly.

The discomfort surrounding the Steele question was not relieved when, on the eve of the SRLC, Virginia's GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell had to walk back a "Confederate History Month" proclamation that lacked the usual denunciation of slavery. He called it "an omission."

For generations, Democrats had to deal with the implications of their reliance on white "Dixiecrats" -- the cornerstone of their congressional majorities. Now, the white "Dixicans" who have taken their place are the base from which the contemporary GOP hopes to build national majorities in the future.

Just another reminder, as if one were necessary, that the issue of race cannot be ignored in current politics any more than it can be omitted from history.

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us

The verb "rejected" is often amplified with words such as "overwhelmingly" or "resoundingly" or "again and again."

How can President Obama and his Democratic Congress possibly move a piece of social change legislation comparable to Social Security or Medicare without the support of the American people?

You can almost hear the deafening roar of response, even as you ask the rhetorical question.

As the GOP has featured this line over recent weeks, Democrats have been thrown back on defensive arguments. They say the bill's components are popular, even if the bill itself is not. They say the popular judgment is mostly negative because the news has been dominated by the process in recent months, not by the substance of the bill -- which remains largely mysterious to the average voter.

This recalls the judgment of some historians and political scientists that the Clinton administration's push to change health care in 1993-1994 ended badly not so much on substance as on image. The "optics," as political operatives would say, were awful. So the bill failed.

Lately, the optics have been pretty awful again. The moves made in December to nail down 60 votes in the Senate (and forestall a Republican filibuster) looked sleazy and cheapened the underlying bill. And when Democrats talked for a time about using a "deem and pass" procedure in the House that would enact health care "without a vote," the optics got even worse.

But with all that bad publicity and all the doubt generated by a year of debate and opponents' vituperation, the latest Gallup Poll showed 48 percent against the bill and 45 percent in favor.

That does not look like overwhelming rejection. In fact, it's within the margin of polling error.

Moreover, the 45 percent level of approval was achieved despite the same poll's finding that the respondents believed the bill would only improve health insurance and health care for two groups: those currently uninsured and those with low incomes. Clear majorities of respondents thought everyone else, including doctors and other health professionals and the middle class, would suffer.

Yet even given that impression, more than 4 out of 10 were willing to approve the idea of an overhaul along the lines President Obama has proposed.

What would happen if the bill's image were to improve, even slightly, in the days and weeks ahead? What if the passage, and the proliferation of positive details about the actual bill, were to lift its approval in the Gallup above 50 percent? What would be the primary Republican argument in that case?

Would they say the bill was only popular at 60 percent or 70 percent or more?

One thing is clear. Without the Democrats' narrow win in the House this past weekend, the Republicans would have won the health care argument in two ways. First, they would have blocked legislation they opposed. But beyond that, the snuffing out of the bill would mean all their arguments against it would be deemed true -- or successful, and therefore unchallenged.

Was the bill a governmental takeover of health care? We would never really know, but the argument would be remembered in these terms.

Would the bill have been a body blow to the economy? Would it have killed jobs, destroyed small businesses and undermined Medicare? Would it have bankrupted America?

Without a bill in place, all these arguments would remain unproven and impossible to disprove. We would know only that these arguments prevailed, and that the bill, in defeat, would stand guilty as charged.

Perhaps the bill in implementation will grow even less popular, as problems arise and receive extensive airing. But what would happen if, as consumers learn they will benefit, in many cases, from provisions of the bill, they start to feel better about it?

Is it possible the bill has been a more potent political weapon in prospect than it will turn out to be in reality?

» E-Mail This     » Add to Del.icio.us