For an off-year election the races of 2009 have stirred up a hornet's nest. Of special interest are the gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey and the special election in the 23rd District of New York. I addressed all three in last week’s column.

As usual, the winners, most likely the Republicans in at least two out of the three, will interpret the results in broad national terms. The losers will remind us that all politics is local. Both are correct. The trick for both parties is interpreting their relative significance and applying lessons learned to the races to come in 2010.

More immediately, what message will Tuesday's election results send to senators and representatives in Congress who will vote on healthcare-reform legislation? Republicans hope that victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York will send a powerful message to "vulnerable" House Democrats who all must face reelection in 2010. Why else were Democrats in such a hurry to pass reform legislation?

Tuesday's election results may sway some votes in the House, but it would be folly for Republicans and Americans opposed to current healthcare-reform legislation to invest too much hope here. Nancy Pelosi's leverage with House Democrats is considerable. I suspect the current bill before the house will pass. When that happens, the ball will be in the Senate's court where the dreaded "public option" has less support but likely will make to a floor vote.

Odds are that an amendment will remove the public option from the Senate bill. What emerges from the conference committee won't be everything Democrats wanted, but it may still be sweeping, radical reform. Herein is the key to 2010 and 2012. If Democrats force through healthcare-reform legislation that the majority of Americans abhor, they may have signed their own pink slips.

Read my weekly columns and my current sidebar at http://ewross.com

Read Previous EWRoss at http://ewross.com/Sidebar.htm

Read Previous EWRoss weekly columns at http://ewross.com/archive.htm

President Barak Obama has had a very bad August. Opposition to Democratic healthcare reform proposals erupted at townhall meetings across the country. A broad spectrum of Americans revealed their fear of and anger at government attempts to nationalize healthcare, out-of-control spending, and the state of the US economy.

The "green jobs czar" Van Jones controversy drew attention to the dozens of "czars" Obama has appointed and how they were vetted; and it revealed a level of radical activism in the White House staff that reminded Americans of Obama's associations with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres.

Obama's personal approval rating has dropped to below 50 percent faster than any modern president except Gerald Ford.

President Obama has an opportunity this week to turn things around and demonstrate whether he has what it takes to be a great president. He can resist the pull of the left wing of the Democratic Party, reject their efforts to radically transform America in ways the overwhelming majority of American people don't want it transformed, and work with moderates and conservatives to achieve a national consensus. Or, he can continue along the path he's on.

Many of Obama's opponents would like him to keep doing what he's been doing in the hope that he'll only further alienate moderates and Independents. But it's still a along way to the 2012 election, and America has many great challenges before then. We can't afford a political civil war, which is what is likely to occur if the Democratic majority attempts to impose its will. Far too much is at stake. I'm skeptical, but prepared for him to surprise me

Read my weekly columns and my current sidebar at http://ewross.com 

The Democrat’s second attempt to nationalize healthcare in the United States is on life support. The patient’s vital signs are weak, and the death panel is about to pull the plug.

As the debate about how we should reform the American healthcare system rages in Congress and across the country, just about everyone has an opinion. That opinion is largely shaped by personal experiences and by whether or not a person has adequate and affordable healthcare insurance. Beyond that, it’s shaped by ideology. My views have been shaped by the fact that if it weren’t for the miracles of modern medicine and my access to them, I would have died in 1984. I rely on that access to stay alive, and I don’t want big government to get in the way.

In January 1985, I received a kidney transplant at Walter Reed. The kidney came from an 11-year-old boy killed in an automobile accident in Florida. That was nearly 25 years ago. The kidney is now 36 and I’m 65. The side effects and higher risk of disease the immunosuppressants all transplant recipients must take for the rest of their lives have kept me in and out of doctor’s offices and hospitals.

The question currently before us, with Democrats pushing major healthcare legislation in Congress, is will it result in positive, affordable reform, or will it bankrupt the country and produce a system worse than what we currently have? Given my personal situation and past experiences, I want to know if I’m going to continue to have access to the healthcare that’s kept me alive for 25 years or, as I get older, if the government will place restrictions on it.

Read my column at http://ewross.com/Healthcare_Reform.htm