Rep. Walt Minnick may well have alienated some of his Democratic allies by opposing the health care reform bill that passed the House on Nov. 7.

Yet the 1st District congressman still drew heat from Republicans. Minnick opposed an amendment that would restrict federal funding of abortions.

Passed largely with the backing of Republicans - including 2nd District Rep. Mike Simpson - the amendment passed 240-194.

In a statement, Minnick said abortion should be "safe, legal and rare," and a decision that should be made by a woman, her family, her doctor and her pastor. And he made an interesting argument: the amendment, like the overall bill, threatens to take health care decisions out of patients' hands. "I do not want a government bureaucrat denying a medical procedure ordered by a woman's physician. I do not want this Congress to give an anonymous insurance executive an excuse to gut coverage for women's health."

National Republican Congressional Committee spokeswoman Joanna Burgos called Minnick's vote "a sneaky move."

"Walt Minnick, little by little, is showing his conservative district his true colors. Now his constituents have yet another reason to vote him out of office next November."

The overall health care bill passed 220-215, which both Minnick and Simpson opposed. Ultimately, I think this is a much riskier vote for Minnick. The first-term congressman - who has already voted against the Obama administration on economic stimulus and cap-and-trade - will now have one high-profile vote to explain to his Democratic base. His vote on the anti-abortion amendment could prove sensitive in a socially conservative district.

THREADING THE ELECTORAL NEEDLE

As former chief of staff to Gov. Cecil Andrus, Marc Johnson knows a thing or two about how Democrats can win in Idaho.

And that makes his take on Minnick worth a read.

The president of Gallatin Public Affairs in Boise, Johnson does a nice job of placing Minnick's 2008 victory into context.

"Minnick won the way Democrats have often won in Idaho, by defeating a weak Republican - Bill Sali - who had his own problems keeping the GOP base together. (Former Sen. Frank) Church got his start this way and so did Cecil Andrus, and each found a way to keep winning with a consistent appeal to the base and a winning message to the middle.

"A year ago, Minnick was able to knit together a coalition that included an energized Democratic base that came to like Obama, salted with just enough moderate R's who couldn't fancy more Bill Sali, and complemented by independents who typically vote for Republicans unless they find them, as they did Sali, just too far out of the mainstream. This is the very political definition of fragile territory."

Johnson describes it as an ability to "thread the electoral needle," an apt description.

The pseudonymous Sisyphus, blogging at the Democratic site 43rd State Blues, is more direct: "As one of the most endangered Democrats in a conservative district, (Minnick) is making his loss in next year's election a self-fulfilling prophecy by failing to dance with the people that brought him to the party."

Johnson's takeaway point pretty well defines the election to come. Has Minnick secured his base? Or, with votes on issues such as health care reform, is he alienating his party backers, such as they are, in a conservative district?

That's what makes elections such fun to watch.

THE UNFORTUNATE HEADLINE OF THE WEEK

Recently, former Sen. Larry Craig joined a diverse, bipartisan group of co-signers on a petition calling for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison - and for the prosecution of terrorism suspects in federal courts.

The petition caught the notice of the Wall Street Journal. "Hours after the petition's release, the Senate rejected an amendment that would have barred prosecuting Guantanamo inmates in federal court," wrote blogger Jess Bravin.

The other thing that caught my eye was the headline: "Larry Craig Takes a Stance Against Gitmo."

Unfortunately coincidental word choice? Or a coy reference to Craig's infamous "wide stance" defense? I sent repeated e-mails to the Journal's Washington Wire blog editor seeking a clarification, but got no response.

Some word choices, it appears, never die.

Kevin Richert: 377-6437