According to Gallup, the decline in approval rating that Barack Obama has faced in 2010 has been driven primarily by Latino voters.  While the black vote and white vote remains static, Latinos are becoming increasingly frustrated with the President.

There is an opportunity here. Most Latinos are more pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, and entrepreneurial statistically than any other demographic.  It is no surprise then that Latinos are no longer putting their faith in the broken promises of the Obama Administration on immigration or on other issues important to them.

Our Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles is leading the way in reaching out to these Latinos, offering sensible solutions to securing the border as well as working for a better means to address those individuals who are already in the country illegally.

As Ronald Reagan once said, "Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet." It is our responsibility to help Latinos discover their appropriate political home today.

Liberal Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts switched his vote today and joined fellow liberal Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine to muscle through a Financial Regulatory Reform Bill through a 60 vote cloture hurdle against a tough GOP filibuster. Frequently referred to as a bill to reign in Wall Street by Barack Obama, the bill is in fact supported by the giants in the investment industry.  Financial experts claim that this is because the bill lends huge advantages to giant investment firms while making things very difficult for smaller firms with less assets.  The bill hands over to the executive branch the power to take over and liquidate any firm that deals in investment capital and lending.

The GOP has opposed the bill due to its takeover of the financial industry.  They oppose the idea of turning over to the Executive Branch permanent "bailout" of any firm that deals in investment (which is a huge array of firms).  In the future, however, unpopular bailouts will not need to be approved by the legislature.  The GOP has also criticized the bill for failing to do anything to reign in Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, widely considered the root cause of the disastrous housing bubble. Firms deemed to be mishandling their assets can be taken over and liquidated by the White House. Democrats counter that the government needs to have more power to make sure that a recession can be prevented by financial experts in the White House.

Scott Brown opposed the bill yesterday, but Harry Reid struck a deal with him.  The GOP failed to effectively convince the liberals of their caucus. This hands a huge victory to Barack Obama. To gain perspective, the Health Care Reform Bill dealt with one sixth of the economy. Investment of capital is the economy. Democrats Maria Cantwell of Washington and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, it should be noted, joined GOP opposition to the bill because it failed to deliver significant derivative reform.

There will be 30 more hours of debate and then a final vote for which Harry Reid will only need a basic majority of 51 votes.

At first, the United States got off easy as it only gave $6.5 billion through the International Monetary Fund to Greece. But with markets roiling and Spain, Portugal, and Ireland teetering on the edge of the financial cliff, the European Union has decided it needs an extra $1 trillion bailout fund for EU countries. Of course, the IMF generously offered to help. With the United States as the lead IMF funder, providing it 17% of its resources, it was merely a question of how high the bill would be. It turns out that the IMF will provide "at least" 250 Billion Euros ($321.5 billion).

And the United States, unless Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner unexpectedly objects, the U.S. will shell out $54.5 billion. Yes, that is $54,500,000,000.00. For a bailout fund, for Europe.

While the Obama Administration is in a bailout mood, why limit their generosity to only Americans?

In the wake of a Dow Jones nosedive yesterday, GOP House Republican Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana and Vice Chairwoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers of Washington have sent a letter to Tim Geithner arguing that the market nosedive illustrates that the market does not appreciate the United States bailout (via the IMF) of the Greek economy.

The United States gave about a $6.5 billion bailout to Greece through the International Monetary Fund.  The IMF is managed by a Board of Governors of the 20 wealthiest countries in the world.  Tim Geithner, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, is the only Governor of the IMF that can single-handedly block a bailout.  This is due to the fact that the United States fronts 17% of the IMF resources.

However, Spain is now teetering towards the need for a bailout as well.  They are not helped by their newfound responsibility of contributing $5 billion to the bailout of Greece.  With unemployment over 20% and an economy 4 times the size of Greece, Spain may need a much larger bailout than Greece.  Signs also indicate that Portugal is also falling apart monetarily.

Mike Pence and Cathy McMorris-Rodgers voiced GOP concern over the Greece bailout and voiced flat out opposition to any further bailouts.

"Should Spain request a bailout from the IMF, we urge you to make it clear that the U.S. will oppose such a bailout, and do all in its power as the IMF's leading contributor to reject putting American money further at risk," they wrote. "The U.S. did not implement the policies that have caused Spain's debt issue and the U.S. taxpayer should not be put at risk to bail them out."

The administration has been forewarned.  The GOP seems unwilling to wage full scale war against the Greece bailout. But they refuse to tolerate systematic bailing out of the other economically collapsing nations in the Eurozone.

The question is, if Tim Geitner continues to authorize IMF bailouts, can the GOP do anything to stop him?

The International Monetary Fund (which includes many international nations but relies heavily on the wealth of the United States) and the European Central Bank (which uses the assets of the nations using the Euro, but relies heavily on the big 3 of Germany, France, and Italy) has finalized a lending package of $146.67 billion to Greece over the next three years. In order to pay back the loan, Greece will need to comply with rigorous austerity measures written by the IMF.

However, Greek Unions, which are notoriously uncompromising, are vowing to oppose the austerity measures.

Economists agree that if Greece is non-compliant with the rigorous austerity measures promoted by the IMF, they will default on their loans.

What happens if they default?

In that case, the nations guaranteeing the assets of the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank will be responsible for the loans -- similar to a cosigner in typical business or personal transactions.

The responsibility for the loans has been divvied up among many nations, but seven nations bear two thirds of the burden of guaranteeing the loans.

Who is doing the heavy lifting?

The Greek Unions, by their aggressive advocacy of noncompliance, are clearly setting up the specter of the international welfare state, forcing Greece into the necessity of needing money but rendering it incapable of handling it.  If the Unions derail the enforcement of the austerity measures, then they will have rewarded the other nations who have given them aid by forcing them to stomach billions of dollars in losses.

And then they will be in a position to need aid all over again.

Is going through with the bailout in the face of self-defeating opposition saving the solvency of the Euro? 
Or is it simply enabling the Greek Unions to continue to use their unchallenged power to wring self-destructive spending out of the Greek Government?

The bipartisan Pro-Life Caucus has long been an effective body in the House of Representatives, which, since 1976, has turned back any legislation from the Senate that did not include the Hyde Amendment.  It had historically been the lynch pin holding together the pro-life majority in the House of Representatives that historically has repeatedly imposed its will on the pro-choice Senate.

In 1999, former staffers of the Pro-Life Caucus founded Democrats for Life of America (DFLA).  For the last 11 years, DFLA has coordinated whip efforts on the left side of the aisle, continually advocating for the Hyde Amendment to be adopted in every piece of legislation. With the collapse of the opposition of Bart Stupak in exchange for a symbolic gesture from President Barack Obama, it was unclear whether Democrats for Life of America would demand the resignation of Mr. Stupak and seek a new Democratic Co-Chair of the Pro-Life Caucus.

Instead, Kristen Day (pictured above), the Executive Director of Democrats for Life of America, released a statement, saying, "Democrats for Life of America applauds President Obama for his bold leadership in agreeing to an Executive Order that bans taxpayer funded abortions in the Health Care Reform Bill this evening." 
DFLA applauded the pro-choice health care reform bill and abandoned Marion Berry (who is retiring), the only pro-life holdout of the Stupak Coalition, and the 21 conservative pro-life Democrats who opposed both of the health care reform bills.

Democrats will continue to cast pro-life votes. But since Kristen Day would not even argue for standing up on behalf of life from a Democratic perspective, then the Democrats who had voted against the Senate Health Care Reform Bill had to use the rhetoric of the Republican Party.

With the lone organization that has defended vulnerable unborn life on the Democratic side of the aisle compromised by the Obama Administration, will pro-life voters no longer be able to choose which side of the ticket has their allegiance?

I would welcome your thoughts.

When Bart Stupak announced his support for the Senate Health Care Reform Bill, one reporter asked him if the deal between Barack Obama and the pro-life Democrats was made face-to-face with the President himself. Mr. Stupak said that he had made the deal working with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.
Who is this Robert Bauer - the man capable of selling Bart Stupak a bill of goods on the Executive Order?

Prior to his involvement with Mr. Obama, from 2005-2007 Mr. Bauer was a registered lobbyist for America Votes.  In this capacity, he sought to enact laws that would help the fund-raising prospects of left-leaning 527s.  After he finished the campaign of Mr. Obama, he served as the Counsel for the pro-choice election powerhouse EMILY's List.

America Votes (AV) is a coalition of liberal groups that has, according to their website "more than 20,000,000 Americans in every state in the country." AV is controlled by an Executive Board that consists of 9 members: 5 unions (AFL-CIO, AFSCME, NEA, SEIU, and UFCW), 2 global warming advocacy groups (The Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters), 1 general liberal advocacy network (Progressive Future), and, most importantly, the most influential pro-choice lobby - The Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

In other words, the man who sold Bart Stupak on this bill of goods was the lobbyist for Cecile Richards of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund through America Votes from 2005-2007.  The National Right to Life Committee has said in a statement, "The Executive Order issued by President Obama is for political effect.  It changes nothing.  It does not correct any of the serious pro-abortion provisions in the bill."

Therefore, when the pro-life Democrats entrusted the protection of the unborn to a former lobbyist for Planned Parenthood, can anyone really be surprised that the pro-lifers got swindled?

Bart Stupak claimed yesterday that the bill "would have passed anyway" and that he merely wanted to make sure that the inevitable bill had an Executive Order that prevented federal funding of abortions.  After careful review, legal analysts agree that the Executive Order does nothing to limit the pro-choice language of the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.

The truth is that, while Bart Stupak may have convinced himself that the bill would have passed anyway, he wielded the critical votes to defeat health care. When push came to shove, Nancy Pelosi was only able to win 8 and lose 4 converts to the Democratic Health Care Reform agenda.

5 Stupak Democrats would have been enough to bury the pro-choice Senate Health Care Reform Bill. Stupak had 8 solid pro-life votes. When he caved for the political opportunism offered by the Executive Order, he was able to deliver 7 of those votes to Nancy Pelosi. The only holdout was retiring Arkansas Democrat Marion Berry, who warned that the Executive Order would not prevent abortion funding. None of the others listened.

Many years ago, a young Democrat, Chris Smith (now Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey), approached a pro-life Democratic Representative named Jim Oberstar of Minnesota.  Chris Smith had been inspired by the pro-life work of Mr. Oberstar, who was at the time was the Democratic co-chair of the pro-life caucus.  Chris Smith explained to Mr. Oberstar that the battle for the unborn had drawn him towards the realm of politics.

Jim Oberstar encouraged Chris to run for office.  However, Democratic leaders in New Jersey refused to support Mr. Smith, who was fiscally liberal, because of his outspoken opposition to abortion. Mr. Oberstar then recommended he run as a Republican.  Chris Smith won the election and has been a Representative ever since.

Chris Smith and Bart Stupak are the co-chairs of the Pro-Life Caucus now.  Smith has been a relentless and militant fighter for life.  Jim Oberstar had already declared he would vote for the Senate Health Care Reform Bill without any pro-life fixes.  Chris Smith took the House floor a few minutes ago and delivered an impassioned plea to the remaining pro-life Democrats to reject the Executive Order.

He argued that the Executive Order, which contradicts the pro-choice elements of the Senate Bill, will be challenged and overturned because only Congress can enact laws.  He pleaded with pro-life Democrats to stand with him.  He urged them to reject the bill, "the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade."

Now, the former Democrat may be the only Democrat who the Obama Administration cannot bend to its will on the issue of abortion.

That says a lot of the state of the Right-to-Life Democrats.

The truth is clear.  The pro-life Democrats and the pro-choice Democrats both had the power to defeat the legislation.

Rick Boucher, the last person who voted against the House Health Care Reform Bill and who has not yet staked out a position, has told reporters that he has finally decided how he will vote.  However, he says he is keeping it a secret.  It seems doubtful this secret will keep very long.  His decision for the bill would give Nancy Pelosi the final convert count of 9 and would dictate exactly how many Stupak Democrats would be required to have full leverage over the bill.

Three Democrats who voted no on health care reform announce their positions.

Retiring Brian Baird of Washington announced he will support the health care reform bill.

However, Stupak support John Tanner announced he will oppose the health care reform bill.

Lincoln Davis, a pro-life Democrat with a 100% National Right to Life Committee Rating, announced he will also oppose the Senate bill.

Nancy Pelosi Vote Switches: 8 (out of a possible 9). Pro-Choice Vote Switches Against the Bill: 2. Stupak Coalition Members Opposed to the Abortion Language: 11 (out of possible 16).

MSNBC (citing anonymous sources) falsely misreported that Bart Stupak had caved, creating panic among opponents of the health care reform bill.  However, Bart Stupak told Dana Bash of CNN that the rumors were false.

Two cosponsors of the attempt to have a new vote on the Stupak Amendment caved today under heavy pressure from Nancy Pelosi.  Sanford Bishop, who had previously expressed support for the bill and subsequently worried about pro-life language, reaffirmed his support.  Marcy Kaptur, who has been wavering, announced she will support the bill, arguing that it does restrict abortion coverage after all.

Marcy Kaptur of Ohio

Sanford Bishop of Georgia.

Nancy Pelosi vote switches: 7 (out of a possible 11).

Much ink has already been spilled over whether Loretta Sanchez of California, who is off on a fundraising spree in her District, will make it back to Washington in time for the vote on Sunday.

Will she get back in time?  Will she vote with the Democrats?

What no one is actually admitting is that so far opposition to the bill has aggressively outpaced wins for the bill.  On the current trajectory, there will be no vote on Sunday.

For that matter, there will not likely be a vote until special elections in Florida, Hawaii, and Pennsylvania pan out.

I did not even write about Peter DeFazio, a liberal Democrat from Oregon who threatened to vote against the bill if he did not get what he wanted.  Once he got what he wanted, he quickly fell back into line.  The same will be true here.

The truth is that Loretta Sanchez will be there when the Democrats need her and will vote for the health care reform bill.

They just probably will not need her Sunday.

Here are the only four Democrats who voted no against the health care reform bill last time that have not yet announced their intentions:

Lincoln Davis of Tennessee, a strong backer of the Stupak Amendment.

Retiring John Tanner of Tennessee, another backer of the Stupak Amendment.

Rick Boucher of Virginia.

Retiring Brian Baird of Washington State.

Even if Nancy Pelosi can run the table with these four and make a dent in the Stupak coalition, the Stupak Democrats look like they would still be able to force Nancy Pelosi to admit defeat or accept a compromise.

Nancy Pelosi vote switches towards the bill: 7 (+ 4 possible undeclared additions)

Pro-choice vote switches against the bill: 2

Stupak Coalition: 13 (+ 5 possible undeclared additions)

Nancy Pelosi has a delicate balancing act.  She has announced that she will not use "deem and pass" (the Slaughter Rule).  This has allowed her to pick up Dennis Cardoza, who had announced that he will not support deem and pass (previous post).  However, it has made her job of selling the bill much harder.

Bart Stupak has consistently maintained that 12 or 13 Democrats who voted for the bill last time would vote against any bill that did not include the Stupak Amendment.

Three of the undecided Democrats had claimed that they demanded Stupak language.  It is clear based on the numbers that the reports that Dale Kildee was one of the Stupak Democrats were false.

However, he has also said that one or two members had been peeled away from his coalition but had been replaced by new members.

This was before Brad Ellsworth defected.

Here are the five  who have wavered:

Brad Ellsworth ran his campaign based on his pro-life credentials.  He had a 100% record with the National Right to Life Committee.  However, he is running for Senate in Indiana.  It is clear he thought that his fundraising could not survive opposition to the health care reform bill.  He has committed to voting for the bill.  He is the only Stupak Democrat to have irrevocably declared his support for the health care reform bill, even making the dubious claim that his decision was made "in consultation with nuns." This referred to the handful of liberal nuns who claimed to represent all the nuns in the U.S. and urged Congress to pass the Senate Health Care Reform Bill.

Jim Oberstar was the Co-chair of the Pro-Life Caucus before Bart Stupak or Alan Mollohan.  However, he became very high up in leadership and entrenched with the Democratic agenda.  He originally said, "I will vote against any bill that does not include the House abortion language in it."  He has indicated that he is leaning towards voting for the legislation but has waffled recently, opening the door to the possibility that he will still stand with Bart Stupak.

Sanford Bishop seems to be the one that Bart Stupak was not sure if the Democrats had peeled away from his coalition.  He has indicated that he will support the bill but has also thrown his weight behind forcing leadership to support the enrollment corrections bill that Bart Stupak proposed.  It is now unclear how he will end up voting.

John Boccieri was never part of the Stupak Coalition because he voted against the bill last time.  However, he ran on a pro-life platform and was an advocate for the Stupak Amendment but Boccieri, who is a freshman, folded when the President personally went to his District to campaign for health care reform.

Marcy Kaptur has wavered somewhat, once claiming that she was not going to let abortion be a "deal breaker."  Another time she said, she was "leaning" towards voting for the Senate bill.  Her rhetoric has since toughened and she has said she will not bend on abortion funding.  She threw her muscle behind Bart Stupak's attempts to deal with leadership.

It has been an incredibly tough pro-life coalition.  Under record-setting amounts of pressure, 35 Democrats (22 of whom were opponents of the bill and therefore not technically in the Stupak coalition), only 5 have waffled at all (and only 2 have cracked).

What more pressure can Pelosi bring to bear?  The answer is not clear.