The mandate hangover

posted at 10:55 am on December 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

While Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, and the White House try the Chip Diller public relations strategy following the ruling yesterday finding the federal health-insurance mandate unconstitutional, other Democrats on Capitol Hill are preparing I-told-you-sos.  The Daily Beast says that Democrats bet it all on the federal mandate making it through the courts, structuring ObamaCare on its foundation to the extent that it cannot possibly survive without it, despite warnings at the time that such a strategy had a high chance of failure.  Now with the first state lawsuit resulting in a loss, these Democrats are regretting their inability to stop it.

And when the Daily Beast says Democrats, they mean …

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a health-care bill that included a mandate in committee, said that her decision to reject the overall legislation was heavily influenced by its inclusion in the final package.

“I personally thought it was a mistake to require Americans to purchase health-care plans when we could not prove that we were creating affordable health-care plans in that legislation,” she said in an interview. “We didn’t have to go that route on mandating. It was too ambitious, too driven towards this goal of having the government overreach.”

Well, okay, Benjamin Sarlin does note that a couple of Democrats have regrets as well, but not many:

Some Democrats, such as Paul Starr, a former health-care adviser to Bill Clinton, argued last year that the party should ditch mandates to put the bill on firmer ground, perhaps by adding an opt-out that let Americans elect to forgo insurance so long as they agree not to apply for subsidies to buy it if they get sick. President Obama himself originally shied away from endorsing a mandate during the 2008 campaign, in contrast with Hillary Clinton’s plan.

Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) said that Democrats weighed the dangers of the mandate, but ultimately decided it was sound after consulting with legal experts.

Said Conrad: “Is it conceivable a court could conclude differently? An individual court might, but as you go through the whole process I suspect it will be upheld.”

And it still might.  After all, it’s been almost 70 years since Wickard, and allowing Congressional power under the guise of “interstate commerce” has become a self-propelling habit by the courts, even though the federal government bars interstate health insurance sales (or allows states to bar them).  After Kelo followed a long line of decisions that allowed a city to seize private property for the purpose of handing it to other private owners, I’m not going to bet the house (pun intended) on any Supreme Court upholding the principles of limited government.

This particular court, however, might do it, and that’s a risk that Democrats knew when they wrote this bill. Perhaps they too just assumed that the Wickard ruling that made the Supreme Court more relevant along with Congress would continue to expand infinitely, but obviously not every judge on the federal bench believes that the federal government should have unlimited power.  Instead of structuring health reform around that possibility, they bet the House on the mandate, and lost it in the midterms.  They may well end up losing the bet, too.

If so … what then?  If the Supreme Court decides to expedite the appeal, the mandate could be fully dead before the 2012 elections, leaving Democrats in the Senate an opening to restructure the bill along the lines Starr suggested, while Republicans in the House push repeal.  That would set up the 2012 elections as a plebiscite on the federal mandate as well as the tax hikes postponed until the end of that year — which would make the next cycle look even more like these midterms.  Instead of the hair of the dog, Democrats could end up with a double-dip hangover.

Update: The first sentence in the final paragraph should have read “expedite the appeal,” not “repeal.”  My Freudian slip was showing.

Update II: I also misspelled “public” in a manner for which I’d like to avoid further Freudian references.  Sorry about that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Snowe’s nose broke the homepage

Kelligan on December 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM

They were gambling that Anthony Kennedy wouldn’t have the backbone to be the man who killed Obamacare.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:58 AM

Must be Ed posting bout Minnesota again… That’s a lot of Snowe!!!

Abby Adams on December 14, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Anyone have the odds of SCOTUS ruling the same way? Ed seems to have it pretty even, either way. In the world of 5-4 rulings, I gotta agree.

Jaibones on December 14, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Did the front page just have a negative reaction to getting a Snowe job?

44Magnum on December 14, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Snowe’s nose broke the homepage

Kelligan on December 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM

A little respect, please. That’s Justice Ruth Bader-Snowe to you…

Jaibones on December 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM

They were gambling that Anthony Kennedy wouldn’t have the backbone to be the man who killed Obamacare.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:58 AM

We know Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito have the backbone but do we know for sure about Kennedy?

fourdeucer on December 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM

OT but important: The page-top banner ads on the headlines stories cover the story headline and several lines of body copy. And I didn’t see any ‘X’ close window on any of the ads and reducing the text size doesn’t help. (Viewing in Firefox.)

andycanuck on December 14, 2010 at 11:06 AM

The interesting sub-issue is the Arizona’s Prop 106. They amended their constitution to add a right not to participate in any health care program.

Federal law can, and often does, preempt state law.

The US constitution preempts state law and state constitutions.

But does federal law preempt a state constitution?

State constitutions can add rights in addition to those in the US constitution. PA, for example, has an ERA.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:07 AM

What the court needs to do is overturn Wickard. It is the basis of much of what is wrong with Congress. Eliminate Wickard and the wretches in the Halls of Power lose one of their biggest tools to control us. They also lose one of the biggest plums for getting donations.

Dr. Dog on December 14, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Why not force everybody as a condition of US citizenship to buy the latest government Edsel, the Volt. Save GM’s unions and be green at the same time. Give any money leftover to Mexico to show we are charitable.

tarpon on December 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

That would set up the 2012 elections as a plebescite on the federal mandate as well as the tax hikes postponed until the end of that year — which would make the next cycle look even more like these midterms. Instead of the hair of the dog, Democrats could end up with a double-dip hangover.

plebescite? Really? WTH is that?

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

Wickard

If the law is challenged based upon this precedent it will always be upheld by the supreme court.
So there fore we all should expect the ultimate ruling to uphold Obamacare.
This is why we need to article V convention, to reassert what the Commerce clause defines, and to amend the states’ right to usupr any federal directive.
Are we a collection of states in a confedration/union or are we just one large federal protectorate?

paulsur on December 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

They were gambling that Anthony Kennedy wouldn’t have the backbone to be the man who killed Obamacare.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:58 AM

They should have known better than to piss him off, then, knowing how important he’d be to upholding their plans.

My understanding of the current Court is that Kennedy is REALLY not happy with the Obama Administration, meaning that there is likely to be a bunch of 5-4 decisions against them.

teke184 on December 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM

OT but important: The page-top banner ads on the headlines stories cover the story headline and several lines of body copy. And I didn’t see any ‘X’ close window on any of the ads and reducing the text size doesn’t help. (Viewing in Firefox.)

andycanuck on December 14, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Ditto in IE8.

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM

They should have known better than to piss him off, then, knowing how important he’d be to upholding their plans.

My understanding of the current Court is that Kennedy is REALLY not happy with the Obama Administration, meaning that there is likely to be a bunch of 5-4 decisions against them.

teke184 on December 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM

How did they piss him off?

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM

We know Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito have the backbone but do we know for sure about Kennedy?

fourdeucer on December 14, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Without Stevens, Souter or O’Connor to influence him, it’s uncertain. Apparently he’s not too impressed by Breyer’s or Ginsberg’s arguments.

There was a hilarious, now-leaked, letter from Harvard Law professor Larry Tribe to Obama on the first SCOTUS nomination. Tribe didn’t want Sotomayor because she would not be able to influence Kennedy. As Tribe put it, “she would not have purchase on Tony Kennedy’s mind” the way that Stevens had.

I doubt Kennedy liked the idea that liberals talk about how his opinions were influenced by certain liberal justices.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM

While Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, and the White House try the Chip Diller pubic relations strategy

Huh?

Gran on December 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Eric Cantor says, let’s go!

To ensure an expedited process moving forward, I call on President Obama and Attorney General Holder to join Attorney General Cuccinelli in requesting that this case be sent directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In this challenging environment, we must not burden our states, employers, and families with the costs and uncertainty created by this unconstitutional law, and we must take all steps to resolve this issue immediately.

kingsjester on December 14, 2010 at 11:11 AM

How did they piss him off?

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Obama’s dissing at the SOTU might have something to do with it. Kennedy is the type who experts certain civilities and respect for institutions, and that was just community organizer thuggery.

I don’t think he even came to that SOTU, but it’s nto the sort of thing that would go over well with him.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:12 AM

How did they piss him off?

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Obama’s bitching about Citizens United at the SOTU with the USSC in front-row seats, IIRC.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case.

teke184 on December 14, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Thanks.

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:14 AM

How did they piss him off?

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM

I’ll try again, to get past the filter…

Obama’s kvetching about the Citizens United decision at the SOTU address, with the USSC in attendance, seems to be the reason.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in that case.

teke184 on December 14, 2010 at 11:15 AM

I doubt Kennedy liked the idea that liberals talk about how his opinions were influenced by certain liberal justices.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM

Thanks, I had no idea about that leaked letter, good to know.

fourdeucer on December 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM

Wickard; when the Government can tell you the limit of your self-sufficiency.

Electrongod on December 14, 2010 at 11:18 AM

While Eric Holder, Kathleen Sebelius, and the White House try the Chip Diller pubic relations strategy…

That’s not the sort of strategy I want to see coming from ANY of those people.

miConsevative on December 14, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Anyone have the odds of SCOTUS ruling the same way?

Jaibones on December 14, 2010 at 11:02 AM

It’ll depend on what side of the bed Tony Kennedy gets out of that day.

I’m with Cantor on bypassing the Courts of Appeal and getting this thing to the Supremes pronto. If it takes another year or so to get there, there’s always a chance that Kennedy or one of the conservative justices could die, and then we’d be stuck with 5 uber-liberals, three of whom are Obama appointees.

AZCoyote on December 14, 2010 at 11:20 AM

HeHehe…Ed wrote PUBIC.

Elizabetty on December 14, 2010 at 11:21 AM

plebescite? Really? WTH is that?

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM

plebiscite : a vote by which the people of an entire country or district express an opinion for or against a proposal especially on a choice of government or ruler

No more bail-outs, no more federal take-over of our lives.

batterup on December 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM

You know who could help Obama out with this “mandate” problem?

Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney loves mandates – he totally endorses this kind of mandate and made it a requirement in RomneyCare.

What’s funny – is that JUST as this lawsuit approaches the SCOTUS we’ll be in the middle of a Presidential election. This will be a hotly debated topic between the two Presidential candidates – unless Mitt Romney is the GOP nominee. In that case – the point is moot – as his opinions on the madate are perfectly in harmony with Obama’s.

I would think, should Mitt be nominated that Obama will not believe his fortunate good luck!

HondaV65 on December 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM

Kennedy will cave to the libs on this one.

bernzright777 on December 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM

teke184 on December 14, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Thanks…I forgot about the diss at the SOTU, and I didn’t know Kennedy wrote that decision.

plebiscite : a vote by which the people of an entire country or district express an opinion for or against a proposal especially on a choice of government or ruler

No more bail-outs, no more federal take-over of our lives.

batterup on December 14, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Thanks :)

ornery_independent on December 14, 2010 at 11:26 AM

HondaV65 on December 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM

You can’t compare what a STATE does to what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT does.

That is the heart of what makes ObamaCare so offensive.

Elizabetty on December 14, 2010 at 11:27 AM

That would set up the 2012 elections as a plebiscite on the federal mandate as well as the tax hikes postponed until the end of that year — which would make the next cycle look even more like these midterms. Instead of the hair of the dog, Democrats could end up with a double-dip hangover.

-
At which point the ‘all your mandates are belong to us’ chorus begins in earnest building to a crescendo in the spring of 2013.
-

RalphyBoy on December 14, 2010 at 11:28 AM

Does Justice Kennedy want to go down in history as the guy who finally killed Federalism?

rebuzz on December 14, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Anyone have the odds of SCOTUS ruling the same way? Ed seems to have it pretty even, either way. In the world of 5-4 rulings, I gotta agree.
Jaibones on December 14, 2010 at 11:02 AM

Perhaps not. Don’t lose hope. I read somewhere that Elena Kagan would have to recuse herself, and the Supremes might end up at 4-4. In case of a tie, I also read, the lower court decision would stand. I also read this latest ruling doesn’t rely on Wickard being overturned and, in fact, bypasses Wickard.

I’m no lawyer, however, I just read a lot of blogposts and could easily be dead wrong.

marybel on December 14, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Here’s the Larry Tribe letter. Apparently it was Souter who could get Kennedy’s vote.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:25 AM

I wonder how Souter managed that. Perhaps by chanelling the spirit of James Madison, as he does on gun control issues.

iurockhead on December 14, 2010 at 11:38 AM

Paul Starr, a former health-care adviser to Bill Clinton, argued last year that the party should ditch mandates to put the bill on firmer ground, perhaps by adding an opt-out that let Americans elect to forgo insurance so long as they agree not to apply for subsidies to buy it if they get sick.

Non-starter. If you are in America and you become ill through accident or because of poor health, you will never be denied emergent care… period. If I recall, these issues were resolved back when… ummmm… Mr. Starr was advising Bill Clinton in the 90′s and when insurers doing business in the States had to establish indigent care funds.

Key West Reader on December 14, 2010 at 11:40 AM

marybel on December 14, 2010 at 11:35 AM

It does bypass Wickard by reading it only to require that, if one engages in a particular activity (cattle farming in Wickard), then one comes under certain economic regulation.

That’s the same application with car insurance. If you choose to own a car, you must have insurance, but you are not required to buy a car. (Ok….yet)

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM

marybel on December 14, 2010 at 11:35 AM

Unfortunately the 4th Circuit is now 8 Dem, 5 GOP appointees.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Snowe was for it before she was against it. Is there something in the water in the NE?

Kissmygrits on December 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM

I have my own theory about the mandate hangover.

- In 2009 and throughout the drafting of the ObamaCare, the Democrats thought they would have majorties in both houses for while. The numbers and trends supported their optimism.

- They could not get away with the single payer system they wanted and needed an assist from the business community.

- The mandate is the only way insurance companies can remain profitable under the new rules. Without the additional premiums, they cannot remain solvent. They make a deal with the devil to get the support they need.

- Liberals know insurance need the mandate to surive and do not care. They believe insurance companies will have to raise premiums and cut services anyway. Anything they do that expedites their demise is welcome. It creates a reason for more intervention and they can get their public option and then their single payer system sooner. Democrats want to support a repeal of the mandate too. They will look good, while insurance companies collapse.

- Conservatives make a stink about the mandate and file lawsuits. Again, they dont care. Rip it out and watch the insurance companies go into recievership. Good. Closer to single payer.

- BOOM. The GOP takes the House with a large conservative majority.

- Now, they have a clusterfark. Rising premiums and reduced services cannot be remedied with more government intervention. A repeal of the mandate with an implied severence will destroy the whole system. But they are stuck. They never planned on being this powerless this soon. They can either watch their plan fail miserably and be discredited and embarrassed. Or let a repeal happen before the world witnesses the catastrophe caused by ObamaCare.

swamp_yankee on December 14, 2010 at 11:49 AM

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:43 AM

In spite of the imbalance, I read that the 4th Circuit would have a very difficult time reversing Hudson.

Where’re my links when I need them?

marybel on December 14, 2010 at 11:52 AM

From Richard Epstein on how VA is looking at Wickard:

At this point, no District Court judge dare turn his back on the ignoble and unprincipled decision in Wickard. But Virginia did not ask for radical therapy. It rather insisted that “all” Wickard stands for is the proposition that if a farmer decides to grow wheat, he cannot feed it to his own cows if a law of Congress says otherwise. It does not say that the farmer must grow wheat in order that the federal government will have something to regulate.

Thus it is that personal freedom must be rescued, as it must be asserted that positive liberties cannot be dictated to people by government.

Wickard, itself, must go at some point and this SCOTUS may be faced with having to look at just what the original power actually SAYS in content and then how following Amendments, like II, IX, X and XIV both enhance and restrict governments, Federal and State, simultaneously. Of course that would mean having to dump Wickard -based rulings and those on Raiche and Kelo as well. Fun times brought by O-care may be in the offing once O-care is offed.

ajacksonian on December 14, 2010 at 11:53 AM

And when the Daily Beast says Democrats, they mean …
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine

I got that far and laughed so hard I had to tell you…. now back to the regularly scheduled article…

petunia on December 14, 2010 at 12:01 PM

swamp_yankee on December 14, 2010 at 11:49 AM

They didn’t anticipate that insurers would quickly raise rates for 2011, which is going to tick off a lot of people.

They didn’t realize how cutting HSA’s, and Medicare Advantage wouldn’t go over well.

They didn’t realize the burden the 1066 IRS reporting requirement would have (and the GOP has refused to join in repealing that.)

2011 could be an interesting year. “Blame it on Obamacare” should be a frequent rejoinder by the GOP.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM

marybel on December 14, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Good. I think Hudson wrote a carefully researched opinion.

And the Florida judge is to rule on the states’s case down in Florida soon, too. The mandates on the states are also budget busters.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 12:04 PM

Ed is in fine form today.

It is really odd that something this basic is still so in doubt.

Health is not commerce. Period. The commerce clause does not apply.

petunia on December 14, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM

I honestly dont think they cared about much of that. 1066 were a disaster though.

The plan all along was to make the system look bad in order to get a public option. The public option is the holy grail which will lead to single payer.

They never cared about premiums rising because they would just point the finger at the evil greedy and create support for a public option.

They thought they would have the House and Senate for a few election cycles and could control and intimidate the insurance companies into submission

swamp_yankee on December 14, 2010 at 12:10 PM

Someone should really point out the obvious…

Amendment II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Since firearm ownership is a Constitutional RIGHT (like liberals try to construe for healthcare), conservatives should stress that if the individual mandate is allowed, it would open the door for all sorts of mandates from a conservative legislature (2012!), such as passing a law REQUIRING the purchase of firearms and ammo of all able-bodied persons. After all, American citizens have the RIGHT to be protected against criminals and overzealous bureaucrats.

…and then ask liberals if they really believe the Federal Government should be able to mandate individual purchases. (You might want to duck when their little liberal heads explode!)

dominigan on December 14, 2010 at 12:14 PM

Here’s the Larry Tribe letter. Apparently it was Souter who could get Kennedy’s vote.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Apparently the respect for Sotomayer is shallow. If I were her I’d switch to the Conservative side just out of spite!

Wishful thinking.

I have some faith in Kennedy making his own decision. He must understand how stupidly this law was put together and how we will all have to live with it’s stupidity if the Supremes don’t do something!

petunia on December 14, 2010 at 12:17 PM

You know, if mandates are legal, constitutional, etc: Then why bother with deductions and so forth in the tax code? Those are there to “encourage the proper behavior.” For instance, solar cells get you a credit. Why not just cut to the chase and “mandate” everyone to install them? Boom: instant demand for the green companies, and it’s all constitutional. And then mandate buying “qualified lightbulbs” (that only GE makes….) and mandate this and mandate that, until we are in a command economy. Plus if Congress can mandate something, surely the regulatory alphabet soup can regulate a mandate too….

It’s a win win for lenin!

Vanceone on December 14, 2010 at 12:23 PM

Apparently you need lawyers to really twist the meaning 180 degrees…

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State (that is to say, of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” — Thomas Jefferson

…from the clear meaning of the Commerce Clause.

dominigan on December 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM

My understanding of the current Court is that Kennedy is REALLY not happy with the Obama Administration, meaning that there is likely to be a bunch of 5-4 decisions against them.

teke184 on December 14, 2010 at 11:09 AM

Respectfully, happiness should not enter into this decision process, only the law. The fact that congress has over-stepped their bounds and constitutional limitations SHOULD make this a 9-0 decision. That four liberal justices will consider social engineering rather than interpreting the law is a real travesty.

Rovin on December 14, 2010 at 12:32 PM

Ed’s the wit today, in so many ways.

Schadenfreude on December 14, 2010 at 12:50 PM

If this bill is ruled constitutional, it may be time to call for a Constitutional Convention. 227 years of judicial perversion have taken the constitution to places no one could have predicted, at the time it was written.

If that happens, there will certainly be some fights. LIberals will want to remove the 2nd Amendment and Conservatives will want to clarify the commerce clause. It’s pretty scary to many people, but something has to be done or we won’t have a freedom left that can’t be taken by the dreaded commerce clause.

bflat879 on December 14, 2010 at 1:04 PM

They were gambling that Anthony Kennedy wouldn’t have the backbone to be the man who killed Obamacare.

Wethal on December 14, 2010 at 10:58 AM

A safe bet, in my opinion.

If the mandate is upheld, this country — or the notion of this country as an experiment in human liberty — is finished.

rrpjr on December 14, 2010 at 1:18 PM

If the mandate is upheld, this country — or the notion of this country as an experiment in human liberty — is finished.

rrpjr on December 14, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Now we’re about to find out just exactly how much weight the will of the people carries with SCOTUS. I wish I could remember if it was Kagan or Sotomayor who said decisions should reflect the will of the people, ‘cuz currently the people say Obamacare is out.

BobMbx on December 14, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I read a quote from FDR that he wanted Social Security to provide universal benefits because he knew that way no one could ever repeal it. I think that’s the basic thinking behind Obamacare. We already have Medicaid to help the poor, but that wasn’t the grand Progressive dream, i.e. socialism.

The basic theory of socialism is that everybody will be happy with their lot because no one will have things any better than anyone else. Of course, that will only work when Christ returns and reigns over the earth, the wicked having been destroyed at his coming. It ignores the basic nature of mankind to want to improve his lot in life, to be inventive, and the random distribution of talents and abilities.

The left was counting on two things, the tax increases at the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the individual mandate to make Obamacare work. Of course they wouldn’t have made it work without further tax hikes and we can already see that employers will be perfectly happy to hand off this burden to the feds, but that’s how they thought it would work. Now the mandate is in legal trouble and the tax increases are being put off for a few years. Hoist on their own petard.

flataffect on December 14, 2010 at 2:05 PM

And when the Daily Beast says Democrats, they mean …

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine,

Classic.

tom on December 15, 2010 at 9:55 AM