By Dave Andrusko

Please send your much-appreciated comments on Parts One and Two to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you'd like, follow me on www.twitter.com/daveha.

No doubt the bevy of journalists (busy pulling double-duty carrying water for their beleaguered pro-abortion President Barack Obama) would counsel pro-lifers to be grateful. It could have been worse.

On a roll last night, Obama was hammering opponents of his health care reform, who "instead of honest debate" employ "scare tactics." And because this unnamed mob is content to "score short-term political points" ("even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge") "confusion has reigned."

Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman, Pro-Life Caucus, speaking at a press conference today.

By comparison, those of us, led by National Right to Life, who have documented in immense detail how abortion promotion is woven into the warp and woof of the various House and Senate plans, were let off easy. It's just "one more misunderstanding" Obama wanted to "clear up--under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

Of course, in "clear[ing] up" the "misunderstanding," Obama muddied the discussion by reiterating an untruth for the umpteenth time. As NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson pointed out last night, "Barack Obama needs to learn that the mere repetition of a verbal formula does not change reality. The reality is that the Obama-backed House bill would explicitly authorize the federal government insurance plan to pay for elective abortions and would explicitly authorize subsidies for private abortion insurance--and all with federal dollars, which are the only kind of dollars that the federal government can spend." (See Part Two.)

Let me mention three additional considerations, because they will be crucially important over the next few months.

First, because the Obama Administration is deeply invested in health care "reform"--and support for it is dropping like a rock--it requires in-the-tank reporters and sympathetic columnists to portray the results of last night's address to a joint session of Congress as a potential turning point. Who knows, it might be, but I strongly suspect that would only be if critics with legitimate concerns choose to allow their voices to be stifled.

Second, there is occasionally an admission that there might be more than just a teeny weeny few problems with what Obama is now calling "his" health care reform. I was impressed this morning reading the Associated Press's "fact check" on last night's performance.

In a nutshell, I think it'd be fair to say that the AP believes the numbers do not add up ("iffy math"); that a lot of what Obama said is "correct, as far as it goes"--but that a closer look reveals that many of his statements read like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma; and that some statements are, frankly, unsupportable.

Why is that important to us? Because none of his numbers bear any relationship to the known economic universe, which throws the door open to rationing. There is a reflex explanation that almost all of the new spending will be offset either by "eliminating waste"--which would be laughable, if not so dangerously implausible--or by reducing Medicare funding for older people--which is clearly dangerous.

Third, and finally, much of the mainstream press loves Obama when he treats his opponents like adolescents who have the audacity to try his patience. "Well the time for bickering is over," he intoned in his best schoolmarmish manner. "The time for games has passed."

That's partly why no matter how questionable a proposal may be, because it is Obama's, by definition it must be good for us, if for no other reason than it grows us right up!

Health care reform, then, can best be understood as Obama, the "grown-up" teacher, boxing the ears of the recalcitrant miscreants who do not understand that "we are not a brash young nation any more," as Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite lectures in the Washington Post today. "We need to realize we're citizens of the world and we need to start to act like it. We need to lead by example, not by acting out or acting up. The childish bickering at the 'Town Halls' is broadcast around the world and it diminishes respect for us as a nation."

That "childish bickering," of course, was an honest expression of deeply felt concern and fierce resistance by adults who will have to live with this mess. But, no matter. What matters is that Obama always, always knows best.

Which is why columnists really loved it when Obama sternly warned last night, "But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out."

Something I almost forgot. Tom Shales, the vituperative critic for the Post, added an unforgettable touch. Obama, he wrote, "came across like Jimmy Stewart in [the film] Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: a bright-eyed young idealist up against entrenched power, old ideas and obstructionism." Obama, Shales adds, "was like a presidential version of Jefferson Smith attempting to survive the slings and arrows of crass politicians acting on orders from big business." And by slaying the "special interests" dragon, Obama controls the "high moral ground," Thistlethwaite tells us.

Is it too unkind to point out that this performance has the added benefit of taking attention away from the reality of Obama's proposals, which would fund abortion and threaten rationing?

Stay tuned, it's going to be a battle for the ages.

Part Two