Join the Highway to Health Care tour by adding your sign to the map. With each sign, this message goes to Congress to pass real health care reform:

TO The White House
CC Democratic National Committee

This is a piece of strategy/messaging advice regarding the opposition to health care reform.

The radical right is fond of invoking the mythical and unassailable opinions of the "founding fathers". Since no one can possibly know what our late founding fathers would actually think of the current state of affairs in the United States of America, there is little hope of a reasoned debate. At a recent town hall gathering, an Arkansan cried, "I want my America back". Another held a copy of the Constitution, and stated, "It doesn't say anything in here about health care!". Shockingly, one of our elected officials himself, Sen Grassley, recently said at his own Iowa town hall gathering, "I see nowhere in the Constitution where health care is a right. ... I want to hear it from Obama, I want to hear it from Pelosi, about how this is about 'We the people.'"

Assuming that some segment of these disrupters at our elected leaders' recent local town hall gatherings is merely poorly-informed, as opposed to something more subversive and sinister which I will refrain from naming, I suggest the Democratic leadership remind the public (and Sen Grassley) of the following fact. This is the Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America. There is no doubt that this statement was reviewed and signed by our founding fathers.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The current health care reform proposal is in line with the fundamental founding objectives stated above. This is especially true when the proposed legislation is compared to the alternative, the status quo a decade from now. Here are some suggestions for how to make the connection apparent.

1. "Provide for the Common Defense"
What does it mean, in terms of the common defense, aka national security, that by 2019 we will have 54 million uninsured non-elderly Americans? The common defense is a matter of preparing for the unexpected. What if we suffer another sneak attack such as Pearl Harbor, and need to quickly mobilize a fighting force to defend ourselves? It is against the interest of the common defense for our pool of working-age citizens to be largely unable to afford basic, preventative care on the eve of a mobilization. Furthermore, with a large number of Americans absolutely unable to afford to stay home from work and see a doctor when they feel sick, an otherwise containable microbe could get out of our control and weaken the general population, to a greater extent than other nations. In terms of the common defense, the weakened American population will be less industrially productive and more vulnerable to other forms of attack. In short, a healthier America is a stronger, sturdier America.

2. "Promote the General Welfare"
Under the current system, only a fortunate segment of the public enjoys the benefits of health coverage. Many are denied benefits through no fault of their own. For example, some may lose their job, or a providing family member may lose his or her job. Most absurdly, some Americans are denied benefits other Americans enjoy simply because they are declared by insurance company bureaucrats to be too costly to insure. Worse yet, sometimes Americans lose their jobs when insurance corporations apply pressure to employers. Many share the blame, but mostly this unfair and unhealthy treatment of our fellow Americans is a consequence of inextricably linking health care to employment. The current system does not promote the interest of the general welfare. It promotes the interest of the fortunate few at fortunate times in their lives. It's not just about fairness, either. It's about the overall health of the country, and the associated costs. Strikingly, the proposed health care reform will elevate the health of the general population at a lower cost than the status quo. In other words, this proposal does a great deal to promote the general welfare.

3. "Secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and Our Posterity"
With the proposed health care reform enacted, we and our posterity will be free to migrate to more attractive jobs or careers, and will be free to engage in entrepreneurial pursuits, without the fear of innovation-crippling health care costs. On the other hand, under the current system, every American young person who is denied health care due to their parents lack of health coverage suffers a horrible denial of liberty before they even have a chance to claim it. Lastly, access to health care is often a matter of life and death. In 2006, 22,000 Americans died due to lack of insurance. A more profound denial of liberty, I cannot imagine.

Good luck. Please, never let up on the fight.

Adam Wolenc
Age 30
Albany NY, CD21

But then the White House seemed to go on vacation. "On the other stuff moving through the Congress" such as the patients bill of rights, energy measures, and key appropriations bills, "there has not been the day-to-day event planning and messaging," complains a senior House GOP aide. "They haven't been as good as in the past."

WASHINGTON — Although the first checks from the Bush tax cuts are due in taxpayers' pockets by summer's end, the president has seen other parts of his agenda trimmed or changed by a closely divided Congress.
From health care to energy to education, Bush either has acquiesced to or been forced to confront significant changes in his policies. In some cases, the changes have been dramatic enough to send him back to his bully pulpit with a new message. And in others, the changes have elicited threats of a presidential veto.
The latter is the case with the patients' bill of rights health care debate that has rumbled through the Senate this past week. Bush's desire to limit damage awards in lawsuits against health care providers has run up against a solid Democratic wall in the Senate and provoked hints of a veto.
Other examples of Bush's agenda being trimmed or changed:
• On energy, a series of votes in Congress over the past two weeks have made it clear that Bush's push to drill domestically for more oil and natural gas has serious opposition in Congress.
In successive weeks, the House voted to delay offshore drilling leases off Florida in the Gulf of Mexico and prohibit drilling on federal monument lands and in the Great Lakes.
In the Gulf of Mexico vote, 70 Republicans joined 167 Democrats and one independent to vote for the ban.
The White House argued that Bush did not propose drilling in the Great Lakes, so it was not a rebuff of his energy policy.
"There is nothing in the president's energy plan that deals with the Great Lakes," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. "That is a state matter."
• Also on energy, the White House rewrote its message to focus more on conservation measures after criticism that Bush appeared eager to drill while ignoring conservation. The president went to the Department of Energy on Thursday to announce $108 million for new research to develop fuel cells, advanced engines and hydrogen power designed to save energy.
But after being criticized initially for not responding rapidly enough to California's energy crisis, Bush is now facing the prospect that the crisis itself may be easing, thus taking away the impetus for his energy initiatives.
Fleischer told reporters that falling gas prices and reports of adequate worldwide supplies of energy should not deter the United States from forming a comprehensive energy policy to reduce foreign energy dependence.
"This nation still has fundamental energy imbalances that can only be addressed, in the president's opinion, through greater conservation and through increased exploration and through fixing America's infrastructure," he said.
• In an Energy and Water Appropriations bill passed by the House, Bush's proposal to keep a lid on federal spending for beach projects was rejected. Under the bill, which still must pass the Senate, $150 million would be spent on beach improvements next year, $62 million more than Bush wanted. The House rejected Bush's request to reverse the current 65 percent federal, 35 percent local cost-sharing formula with state and local governments.
• Bush is expected to win final congressional approval of a bipartisan education plan that demands greater accountability from educators and requires new reading and math tests for millions of students. But the White House made concessions on key Bush proposals to appease both conservatives and liberals.
To win Democratic backing, Bush relented on a campaign pledge to allow use of taxpayer funds for private-school tuition, and he trimmed a plan to allow states to spend school subsidies free from Washington interference. The concession enraged some conservatives in his own party.
But conservatives have left their mark on Bush's plan, too. Bowing to concerns about local control of education, the bills no longer require uniform statewide exams in reading and math. A conference committee to work out differences between House and Senate versions of the education reforms has yet to be named.
• While Bush got high marks from economic conservatives for his $1.35 trillion tax cut over 10 years, social conservatives have become increasingly vocal about fears that Bush is trimming his social agenda.
Gary Bauer, a social conservative who opposed Bush in the 2000 Republican primaries, chided the president Thursday for not deciding whether to fund medical research using human embryos. Bauer and other social conservatives oppose such research.
The White House reportedly is divided between those who believe that such research could help find cures for deadly diseases and those who see it as an extension of the abortion debate. Bush opposed human embryo research in the 2000 presidential campaign.
"We are just hearing a lot of agonizing going on, and there should not be, because the campaign promise was so clear," Bauer told GNS.
Bauer said there was increased concern among conservatives about the ground Bush has yielded.
"There are a lot of things that are beginning to trouble the folks that gave him the narrow win," Bauer said. "I think that one thing that every White House has to learn, and it is particularly true of Republican White Houses, is that it is better sometimes to lose on an issue, but in losing remind the public of your philosophy and the philosophy of your opponents."

Neither side released details. Reached after nearly 34 months of talks, the proposed pact headed off any action by President Bush. He had said he would prevent a strike at any major airline during the summer travel season.

EXCEEDING expectations: That was the first story line for the Bush administration. You remember -- this was an administration of adults. Competent, accomplished, leak-free and disciplined, they were political craftsmen, or maybe above politics altogether. But that was months ago. Now the polls are slipping and the story line has changed: Through arrogance and ineptitude, the Bush people have lost control of the Senate and the agenda. They're enduring bipartisan spankings on oil drilling in Florida and the Great Lakes. From here to 2004 will be one slow slide.

WASHINGTON _ The top White House attorney said Friday that presidential adviser Karl Rove did not breach ethics rules when he met with Intel executives at a time he owned more than $100,000 in company stock.
In a letter to a Democratic congressman, White House counsel Al Gonzales also said that Rove's past ownership of Enron stocks did not create a conflict of interest with the Bush administration's energy policy.
"Mr. Rove either had passing, inconsequential contacts or participated in broad policy discussions, neither of which presents an ethical...

The White House Friday signaled President Bush's frustration with Surgeon General David Satcher, a day after the Clinton appointee issued a frank and controversial report on sex education.

Sen. Jim Jeffords broke down in tears when he told Sens. Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and other mournful moderate Republicans last month that he was leaving the GOP. But he says he got a chillier send-off from President Bush.
Jeffords recalls in the new issue of Rolling Stone how Vice President Dick Cheney sent him to the Oval Office in the hope that the President could persuade him not to desert the party. Jeffords says he told Bush "he really has to pay more attention to the moderates. Then I said, 'If you don't get the resources out there , you'll be a one-term President.' "
Jeffords tells Rolling Stone's Paul Alexander that Bush "just nodded and said, 'I don't agree with you. I think we've got a good plan.' " Hearing no hint of compromise, Jeffords says, he told Bush he'd made up his mind - to which Bush replied: "Nice talking to you."

"In another day or so there will be a story where Daschle gets blamed for thunderstorms in Kansas," said Anita Dunn, Daschle's spokeswoman. The Republicans are settling into their minority status in the Senate after losing the right to determine the legislative schedule three weeks ago when Sen. Jim Jeffords left the party and became an independent.

"Ours is the first administration that has laid out a broad strategy, a comprehensive strategy, a strategy that goes beyond the stale debates of whether or not we ought to drill for natural gas in Alaska or not," Mr. Bush said. "We're talking way beyond just one single issue that seems to dominate the landscape here in Washington, D.C."

The House was moving to prohibit oil or gas drilling under the Great Lakes, erecting another barrier to President Bush's plans to expand domestic energy production.
``There is no amount of oil under the Great Lakes that is worth putting one-fifth of the world's fresh water at risk,'' said Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich.

In January, only a few days after his inauguration, Bush announced that he would require that his staff be more formally attired. Specifically, jeans were banished from the Oval Office. It was a curious mandate coming from a new commander in chief who, on the campaign trail, was known for his dungarees, cowboy boots and down-home, plain-talking rhetoric. But as the new president, he announced his belief in the power of the business suit.

''I made clear that when violence and terror are over, we will insist on 10 days of absolute quiet, and if there are 10 days, we will gladly move to a cooling-off period,'' Mr. Sharon told reporters after meeting Mr. Bush.
*snip*
Given the initial reluctance of the White House to become involved in the Middle East, the meeting today between Mr. Bush and Mr. Sharon and the departure of Secretary Powell to the region showed the stark reversal from a hands-off to hands-on position over a period of less than five months.

For a sixth time this year, the Federal Reserve chairman on Wednesday engineered an interest rate cut to try to revive the sagging U.S. economy, sending rates to their lowest level in more than seven years. But after five half-point interest rate cuts since January, the smaller slice signaled to many observers that the Federal Reserve is running out of room to operate.

The House action fills the gap left by Mr. Bush's original proposal, but does not significantly increase federal allocations for renewables. The $377 million funding level is $1 million more than Congress allocated last year.

The action by Bush marks the second time he has stepped in to a conflict between an airline and a union. Bush blocked a strike this spring between Northwest Airlines and its union of mechanics.

The role of ideology in judicial selections, the focus of the hearing, has been a running theme since Bush took office.

''I made it clear to the White House and to the White House counsel that we are not going to be a rubber stamp,'' Mr. Leahy said recently.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is considering buying 40 more of them, this time for $735 million each.

President Bush on Monday renewed pressure on lawmakers, arguing that religious groups are needed to augment though not replace the government's social safety net.