Writing in the New York Times, columnist David Brooks (“The Dime Standard”) lauds President Obama’s speech before the joint session of Congress as the best of his presidency.  Mr. Brooks believes that the President signaled willingness to compromise across the board, including accepting a significantly scaled down program to avoid increasing the deficit.

I regard the President’s speech as mostly a rehash of prior talks and his New York Times op-ed last month.  It struck me as simplistic, highly partisan, and sometimes un-presidential in substance and tone.  (To be sure, I may have felt the same way about some of FDR’s speeches bashing bankers and the rich — had I been around.)

I felt that the President signaled a decision to push his health care agenda without any Republican support, including using the budget reconciliation mechanism to circumvent a filibuster.  While the President may recognize that he cannot get a “public option,” he made it crystal clear that a government insurer would be his strong preference.  He again went out of his way to demonize private health insurers.

Charles Krauthammer, columnist for the Washington Post, regular analyst on the nightly Special Report with Brett Baier on Fox News, and an amazingly astute observer of the nation’s affairs, stated this evening that he also believes that President Obama made clear his intention to push his health care agenda without any Republican support.  In addition, Senator Baucus announced today that he will push legislation through the Senate Finance Committee without any Republican support, on a timeline which, if met, will allow use of the budget reconciliation mechanism.

If the Democrats pass legislation with no Republican support, they may be able to claim  some form of victory.  If they fail to pass a bill, they will blame Republican recalcitrance and scaremongering.  Ultimately, the nature and scope of health care reform may depend more on what happens in November, 2010, than on Congressional deliberations in the next few weeks.