The American Spectator

The Corrupt Process of Health Care Reform

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.25.09 @ 10:15AM

Obama-style health care reform would be bad enough if it was pure. But it is impossible to simultaneously expand coverage and cut costs without changing incentives facing patients. Health savings accounts and consumer-directed health care attempt to so. But a government takeover of the medical system would substitute bureaucratic diktat for individual choice. That means costs would be cut by limiting access to medical care. Yet most Americans assume that health care "reform" is supposed to increase their treatment options. Surprise!

Unfortunately, Obama-style health care reform is not pure. My Cato Institute colleague Michael Cannon points out how the process has become as corrupt as any other in Washington. Wal-Mart isn't the only company which is attempting to use government to its own advantage. He writes:

In May, President Barack Obama announced that industry lobbyists had agreed to reduce the growth of health care spending by 1.5 percentage points each year, which would yield just enough savings to cover the uninsured. The lobbyists quickly denied that was the agreement, prompting an administration official to backtrack ("the president misspoke"), before un-backtracking ("I don't think the president misspoke").

Since then, the administration has announced similar deals with industry groups who have supposedly put self-interest aside to make a contribution to health care reform.

If only that were true. Far from being "game-changers," those agreements are the same old Washington game of bribes, backroom deals, profiteering and protectionism -- and a harbinger of what health care will look like if the president's reforms succeed.

The next time you hear the president calling for health care reform, ask reform for whom? The public? Or the interest groups which typically dominate the legislative process?

Don Lear

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.24.09 @ 6:03PM

Recently, I was able to attend a showing of King Lear, starring Stacy Keach, at Washington, DC’s Shakespeare Theatre Company. Like most modern productions of Shakespeare’s plays, it wasn’t set in the original time period. The references to England and France aside, Washington Post critic Peter Marks described the place as a “modern-day Eastern Europe… a country not unlike Marshal Tito's ethnically straitjacketed Yugoslavia.” But l thought the culture depicted borrowed a lot from the modern mob movie genre (a bit ironic since the more artsy mob movies have often exploited Shakespearean themes).

Early in the play, for instance, when Lear divides up his kingdom, it’s visualized by him cutting slices from a cake, which echoed the scene in the Godfather Part II, in which an aging Hyman Roth allocates his empire among other crime families as his birthday cake gets sliced up. There’s also the ostentatiousness – characters wearing chains, fur coats, and Cornwall being driven around in a Mercedes. The violence, inherent in Shakespeare’s original work, is played up to the maximum possible degree in a way that recalls Martin Scorsese. The scene in which Gloucester’s eyes get gouged out is set in a kitchen, as Cornwall prepares the food. Even some of the music choices reminded me of Scorsese, particularly the use of the Rolling Stones song “Gimme Shelter,” which has been used in three of his films. Here, it’s deployed as Lear runs onto the stage during a storm, losing his mind, and yelling toward the sky. The song's lyrics are actually quite fitting: “Oh, a storm is threatening/My very life today/If I don’t get some shelter/Oh yeah, I’m gonna fade away/War, children, its just a shot away.”

The production, directed by Robert Falls and originally conceived for the Chicago stage in 2006, at times goes overboard as it toys with standard Shakespearean conventions. For instance, in the opening scene, a DJ, decked out in an Adidas sweat suit, hat worn backwards, spins records in a festive upscale club environment. Oswald, meanwhile, uses a skateboard as his means of transport. While I’m not a total purist, at times this sort of thing can get distracting and make a production too self-conscious. But overall, the bawdy, adulterous, and sinful environment complemented the chaotic nature of the play’s events quite well. As Gloucester summarizes early on, “Love cools, friendship falls off, brothers divide. In cities, mutinies; in countries, discord; in palaces, treason; and the bond cracked ‘twixt son and father.”

The production also benefits from a forceful performance by Keach, who skillfully navigates Lear’s transition from an arrogant, nominally powerful, yet insecure king, to a madman wondering aimlessly around the country, and ultimately to somebody who gains a clearer understanding of the world. In some renditions of the play Cordelia (Lear’s daughter who gets disowned because she refuses to make a public show of her love for her father) can come across as shy and saccharine. That isn’t the case here. Instead, played by actress Laura Odeh, Cordelia comes off as a tough and independent woman who is embarrassed by her father’s blindness and doesn’t want to encourage his childish need for flattery. Goneril (Kim Martin-Cotten) and Regan (Kate Arrington), the evil daughters who are awarded for their phony declarations of love, are played as warring femme fatales, using their sexuality as much as deceit to get what they want.

For those in the DC area, the production is playing through the rest of this weekend. Details here.

Pence Amendment Defeated

Posted by Hope Hodge on 7.24.09 @ 5:57PM

When an amendment by Rep. Mike Pence that would de-fund Planned Parenthood made it out of committee on Thursday, congressmen were forced to take a stand on the issue in a roll call vote. And though the amendment was neatly defeated today 247-183, with nine Republicans joining with the Democrats in voting the amendment down, the vote represents two opportunities for pro-life advocates: a chance to put Planned Parenthood's Federal Funding ($350 million, or 34 percent of its total revenue) back on the table for public discussion, and a reminder that public funding of abortions is unpopular with some, and an outrage to others.

Recently, undercover private investigations such as this this have raised questions about widespread illegal "rule-bending" and serious offenses including failure to report statutory rape at Planned Parenthood branches in a number of states. Considering that the organization performs an estimated 25 percent of all abortions, these allegations merit much more serious consideration than they have been given.

On a broader level, 51 percent of Americans now identify as pro-life according to a May Gallup Poll, the first time in nearly 15 years that the country has seen a pro-life majority. President Obama's decision to lift a ban on overseas funding of abortions was broadly unpopular, and Blue Dog Democrats in the House last week informed Speaker Pelosi that no healthcare bill including federal funding of abortions would receive their vote.

Research from earlier this week shows that public funding dramatically increased the number of abortions performed. As Rep. Pence wrote eloquently in a Townhall.com editorial yesterday, "Budgets are moral documents. Federal funding should reflect the priorities and the values of the majority of the American people."

And in a time when, according to the president, we have run out of money, de-funding an organization like Planned Parenthood ought to be a no-brainer for legislators.

No Obama Apology

Posted by Asher Embry on 7.24.09 @ 5:07PM

Not apologizing for his crystal clear charge that Sergeant James Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department "acted stupidly,” Obama today said: “In my choice of words, I unfortunately gave the impression that I was maligning” them.

No Obama Apology
By Asher Embry

As O has gone around the world
Apologies he’s often hurled.
Ashamed of things he thinks we’ve done;
Expressed regrets to everyone.

But when the guilty one is him
No “pardon” goes to Sergeant Jim.
Says Cambridge cops act "stupidly”
A word not meant “maligning”-ly.

And what of Skip’s false charge of race
Does O think Gates behaved off base?
Perhaps it should have tipped Obama
That Gates made taunts at Crowley’s mama.

A “teaching moment” this might be;
Which O could use much more than we.

(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)

14 Comments | Add a Comment

Babysitter Politics

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 7.24.09 @ 5:06PM

When Barack Obama addressed Gates-gate during his health care presser and said that the Cambridge police and Sgt. James Crowley had "acted stupidly" immediately after admitting he didn't know the facts of the matter, he was out of line, and off-message. He had crossed the line between responsible executive and hectoring, race-conscious bully, and in doing so he drew attention away from his reform message.

So give him credit for walking back those comments today in an unexpected appearance at a White House briefing. The AP quoted him saying "[t]his has been ratcheting up, and I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up." He mentioned his belief that Sgt. Crowley was an outstanding officer, and offered this reflection:

The fact that it has garnered so much attention, I think, is a testimony to the fact that these are issues that are still very sensitive here in America, and -- you know, so to the extent that my choice of words didn't illuminate but rather contributed to more media frenzy, I think that was unfortunate. What I would like to do, then, is to make sure that everybody steps back for a moment, recognizes that these are two decent people.

That seems like a judicious take on the situation: from what we can tell, it was at root an unfortunate misunderstanding between Sgt. Crowley and Gates that just happened to flare up. Perhaps Gates could have played it cooler, but both sides acted at least legally and more or less appropriately. It's a matter of a cultural rift more than personal misconduct. So give Obama credit for admitting that he was responsible for exacerbating a situation that wouldn't have arisen without the exact kind of public suspicion that he helped fuel with his comments.

But, take credit away for his proposed solution:

Obama suggested the whole incident could be worked out over a drink. "There was discussion about he [Sgt. Crowley] and I and Professor Gates having a beer here in the White House. We don't know if that is scheduled yet, but we may put that together."

Much as the Hallmark Channel would love to see the screenplay for the story of the white cop and the black professor hugging it out in the White House, this is a bad idea on two levels.

First, didn't Obama just get through saying that it was just the kind of prejudiced reaction that he expressed that made a small incident in Cambridge, Massachusetts, into a full-blown national culture war showdown? The only way we'll overcome these "sensitive issues" if people become less sensitive about them. If they're always being thrust onto the biggest stage possible, it's hard to see how that process of dialing down the overwrought sensitivities will come about.

Second, there comes a point when the president has to extricate himself from the situation. Does he really want to be the mediator in this conflict? It's a little ridiculous to think that two grown men in Cambridge are too pouty to resolve their own issues, and so they have to fly down to Washington, D.C. to meet with the babysitter-in-chief, who tells them to shake hands and play nice. As good as that would look politically (and for sure it would improve on the image of Obama baiting a cop on national television), wouldn't it be nicer for the situation to be resolved the way it should be, on the lowest level possible?

Video: Obama Tax Promise Timeline

Posted by John Kartch on 7.24.09 @ 3:41PM

Americans for Tax Reform has put together a two and a half minute video of Obama's promise not to raise "any form" of taxes on those making less than $250,000 per year -- and the bizarre evolution the promise has undergone.

Dog Day Afternoon

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.24.09 @ 3:12PM

The Politico reports:

The negotiations between House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and seven conservative Democrats on his panel fell apart Friday afternoon after the chairman told reporters he could move the bill to the floor without a committee vote.

Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, the top negotiator for conservative Democrats in the Blue Dog Coalition, told reporters Friday that the negotiations "pretty much fell apart this afternoon."

In a meeting with Blue Dogs Friday, Waxman rescinded two previous concessions to help cut health care costs over time and ensure the government-sponsored health care won't impede on the private market.

Asked how this leaves the negotiations, Ross said it "leaves the chairman with not enough votes to get it out of committee."

For more on the Blue Dogs, check out Jim's earlier post.

Orrin Hatch

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.24.09 @ 2:22PM

Has announced he will "reluctantly" be voting against Sonia Sotomayor. Besides Graham, he and Charles Grassley were considered the most likely "yes" votes from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Lindsey Graham's Weak Constitution

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.24.09 @ 12:35PM

Let's take just one line from the Politico story on Lindsey Graham Quin links to below:

"Most of all, he [Graham] said, he wanted to return to the days where ideology was not part of the equation when choosing judicial nominees - citing the 98-0 confirmation of Antonin Scalia in 1986 and the 96-3 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993."

The writer obviously means "confirming judicial nominees," because Ronald Reagan surely chose Scalia to fortify the conservative bloc on the Supreme Court and Bill Clinton chose Ginsburg to join the liberal bloc. But it's true: Ideally, presidents of both parties would see their qualified judicial nominees confirmed by bipartisan majorities. Unfortunately, something happened between Scalia's confirmation and Ginsburg's: the savaging of Robert Bork.

And in truth, liberals were starting to impose litmus tests on Supreme Court nominees before Bork. Ideology played a role in blocking Richard Nixon's nominations of George Carswell and Clement Haynesworth. Scalia got a pass in part because of a simultaneous liberal campaign against promoting William Rehnquist. After Bork, liberals borked Douglas Ginsburg and tried to bork Clarence Thomas. They even attempted a mini-borking of Sam Alito.

For Republicans to continue to vote almost unanimously for liberal judicial nominees under these circumstances, when roughly half of Senate Democrats vote against even John Roberts, is an act of unilateral disarmament. It is precisely the strategy that has resulted in Republican presidents nominating a mix of conservative, moderate, and liberal justices while Democratic presidents haven't nominated anyone to the right of Stephen Breyer since JFK tapped Byron White. (It is, of course, a strategy favored by some Republicans because it keeps the Supreme Court forever one vote short of overturning Roe v. Wade, leaving the pro-life base hungry.)

Secondly, now that the Supreme Court has (unconstitutionally) emerged as the national policymaking body on issues like abortion, affirmative action, the treatment of terror detainees, and to some extent gun control and capital punishment, the confirmation process is the only check on our would-be masters. It simply makes no sense to refuse to ask specific questions on how justices will use their awesome power or to vote to confirm justices who will use that power in ways in which we disapprove.

Finally, since even the mainstream of judicial liberalism routinely produces rulings that violate the Constitution, no votes are not just an option -- they are part of a conservative senator's duty to uphold the Constitution per the oath of office.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

IG-Gate: Why the Matsui Question Matters

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.24.09 @ 12:20PM

Following up on yesterday's item about Rep. Doris Matsui's possible role in the firing of AmeriCorps IG Gerald Walpin, Jimmie Bise Jr. of Sundries Shack explains:

Here’s why this matters. The prohibition against Johnson was lifted over (at the time) Inspector General Walpin’s express objection. Thanks to negotiations between the board that runs the AmeriCorps program and the US Attorney in Sacramento which specifically excluded Walpin, Johnson’s punishment was changed so that Sacramento could get a big truckload of your tax money.
Remember that Walpin had found that Johnson had misused several hundred thousand dollars of our money already, so it’s not like Walpin was being unreasonable. However, someone apparently thought he was. Less than a month after he dug in his heels, he got a call from the White House that he had 24 hours to resign or he’d be fired.
Did Representative Matsui have something to do with that call? The interview certainly puts her in the picture but we won’t know for sure until there is a full investigation. Unfortunately, the Democrats don’t seem to be very interested in looking into the matter.

Again, remember that it was a blogger, Eric Hogue, who raised this question about Matsui. And people on Capitol Hill are starting to pay attention.

Begging Bush's Pardon

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 7.24.09 @ 12:13PM

Time has a lengthy article out that details the argument that Bush and Cheney had over whether to pardon Scooter Libby. It makes for an interesting read, as we learn that just how far Cheney went to try to persuade Bush to pardon Libby. Even though Cheney argued for months and months for Libby's pardon, the decision still went down to the wire.

Worst Republican Senator

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.24.09 @ 11:37AM

Lindsey Graham. Bar none.

17 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama vs. Police, Doctors and Firefighters

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.24.09 @ 11:23AM

Not by way of endorsement of the particular candidate featured (although he certainly has seemed impressive!), I share this commercial because the first three-quarters of it creates a VERY powerful theme: Obama does NOT respect our police, firefighters and doctors. This is a powerful ad, and one that is absolutely on target.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Every Dog Has Its Day

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.24.09 @ 11:02AM

RealClearPolitics has a story up on how the Blue Dogs are finally getting respect from President Obama and the Democratic congressional leadership -- now that they hold the keys to whether health care reform passes. This kind of attention irritates liberals to no end, much like the Republican leadership's solicitude toward moderates bothers conservatives. Why, liberals ask, pay so much attention to the Blue Dogs when the Congressional Progressive Caucus is larger?

Short answer: Because most members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus hail from safe districts while the Blue Dogs are disproportionately vulnerable to Republican challengers. Their fear of handing such challengers votes in favor of higher taxes, ballooning deficits, and mandatory abortion coverage as cudgels with which to beat them in 2010 is what makes them reluctant to go along with the party.

Of course, the Blue Dogs frequently put up a fight at first only to roll over. So we'll see.

Barbara Boxer in Trouble?

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.24.09 @ 10:46AM

A new Rasmussen poll shows Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) only leading possible Republican challenger Carly Fiorina by four points, 45 percent to 41 percent. In addition to the closeness of the race this early out, Boxer is below 50 percent, which is dangerous for an incumbent.

That said, Boxer has looked vulnerable before and cruised to reelection. (Though often the Republicans have failed to get top-tier challengers for her.) An earlier Rasmussen poll that showed her leading by nine roughly coincided with a Field poll that her crushing Fiorina by 30 points. So we'll have to see more.

Anti-Obamacare Tea Party Swamps MoveOn Rally

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.24.09 @ 10:45AM

The Dallas Observer reports:

Local MoveOn.org members had penciled in on today's schedule a protest in front of Senator John Cornyn's Spring Valley Road office, during which they had hoped to pressure the senator to support President Barack Obama's public health care legislation. But when Paula Anderson, a MoveOn.org member and spokeswoman, showed up at 11:30 a.m., she found another contingent had beat her to the proverbial punch: A large number of Dallas Tea Party members were already set up, voicing their opposition to the proposal.

Anderson was stunned: "We really did not expect them to show up." She estimated the crowd at about 130. "From our perspective we took names of everyone there, and we had about 30 people," she told Unfair Park. "And I would assume they maybe had 100." As it turned out, according to Jessica Sandlin, Cornyn's Texas press secretary, Tea Party-hearties also showed up to health-care legislation rallies in Austin and in San Antonio...

More here.

Last week, I speculated on whether tea parties could help stop a government takeover of health care by presenting a counterweight to liberal activists.

Missing Daschle

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.24.09 @ 10:32AM

In the Washington Post today, Dana Milbank captures the funeral-like atmosphere in the Senate office building yesterday as Harry Reid annouced they would not meet President Obama's deadline of passing a health care bill before the August recess. This is a good time to pose a question that I've been thinking about for the last few weeks: would things have gone differently if Tom Daschle weren't forced to withdraw in February because of his tax issues?

If you remember, Daschle was supposed to have the dual role of being Secretary of Health and Human Services and the White House point person on health care. But the key thing that he brought to the table was that he had a unique level of clout, contacts, and experience on Capitol Hill. Right now, the health care effort is being bogged down by the typical difficulties of moving anything big through Congress. But that was Daschle's strong suit. He had the trust of his former Senate collegues, and understood the delicate nature of negotiations, of how to win over moderates wthout losing liberals. And while some have criticized Obama for not being more involved at the drafting stage of legislation, in Daschle he would have had a dedicated point person on the issue. Furthermore, just looking at the timeline, Daschle started laying the groundwork for health care reform immediately after last November's election and had put in three months of work before he was forced to withdraw. When that happened, I called it a "major setback," and not just because they lost Daschle, but that they squandered several months of work on the health care issue, and then took another month to replace him. Perhaps the problems health care is running into now would have been inevitable with or without Daschle, but my sense is that the White House is really missing his legislative talents right now.

Ben Stein: Morning Addition

Posted by Wlady Pleszczynski on 7.24.09 @ 10:13AM

Why is President Obama in such a hurry to pass socialized health-care? Ben Stein answers his own question in a piece just posted on our main page this morning.

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.24.09 @ 10:08AM

Obama eats his words on Cambridge Cops (Politico)

$320,000 of stimulus money to be used to decorate California library (Visalia Times-Delta)

French upset at Sarkozy, don't want to work on Sundays (Wall Street Journal)

$124k of stimulus funds wasted on booze in North Dakota (San Jose Mercury News)

Obama's approval rating below 50% (Drudge)

Obama Digs Black Hole

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.23.09 @ 10:27PM

So Barack Obama won't back down from his asinine comments about the Cambridge police. Doesn't he know he is digging a hole out of which he cannot escape? As Investors Business Daily notes today, the president's comments are anything BUT post-racial. Indeed, by further emphasizing the racial aspects of the situation, Mr. Obama exacerbated racial tensions rather than lessened them. And it's worth noting that when one inserts race into a situation that is not necessarily racial, some would describe the insertion itself as racist.

Nicklaus and Watson in 1991

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.23.09 @ 10:27PM

It was, I am almost certain, the very last time Jack Nicklaus and Tom Watson were ever paired together as the two leaders of a PGA Tour tournament. After two rounds of the USF&G Classic in New Orleans in 1991, I think it was that Jack led at -7 and Tom was in second place at -5.

I had wanted to wait to write this until I could dig up the actual column I wrote about it for Gambit New Orleans Weekly, but my files from numerous moves are now too jumbled in the attic and I couldn't lay my hands on it, although I know it is up there. Anyway, this account is thus from memory rather than from print, so the quotes won't be exact -- but I WILL find the real quotes and precise details at some point -- soon, I hope.

But before Watson's near-triumph at the Open Championship fades too far into the past, and thus while interest in him is high, here's what I remember.

I was still a fairly young reporter, just 27. The tourney was held at my home course, English Turn, designed by Nicklaus himself. The ground rules for press were that players in the men's grill area of the locker room were available to be approached for interviews. I probably should have avoided the grill, because the year before I had been greeted by a somewhat grumpy Hubert Green and Fuzzy Zoeller in the same place before both of them eased up and gave me a reasonably cordial interview, with Zoeller throwing in some biting wisecracks, as was his wont.

Anyway, a half hour earlier than the episode I recount here, the grill had been absolutely full of players. And now this was still nearly an hour before the two leaders were scheduled to tee off, and when I took one last look into the grill before heading outside to get a first-hand feel for the early action, lo and behold, there were Watson and Nicklaus sitting together at the table nearest the door. Nicklaus was and is my favorite athlete, ever, so I was a little nervous about approaching them. So I sort of sidled up, wondering if I should bother them. I started to say "Excuse me" when, suddenly, I realized that the three of us were utterly alone in the room. I guess what happened was that all the other pros cleared out in order to give Nicklaus and Watson their privacy on the occasion of this now-rare eventuality of the two fierce competitors but great friends, both past their prime -- Nicklaus at 51, Watson at 41 and with only one win of any kind in his past seven years or so -- finding themselves in the lead again as in olden days. But as I realized that I, too, ought to grant tem their pre-round private confab, it was too late: The word "Excuse..." was already out of my mouth, only to be left hanging in the air.

Now Watson was never known for great personal warmth -- decency and honor, yes, but warmth, no. He looked a bit annoyed, and Nicklaus too looked, just for an instant, just slightly put out. But then Nicklaus, seeing that I looked a bit stricken and that I felt awkward, very quickly and relaxedly said, pointing to another chair at their table: "Well, sit down. What can we do for you?" I looked at Watson and, following Nicklaus' lead, he sort of smiled and said something quick to put me more at ease.

So I asked a few very quick questions, probably utterly obvious ones, about what it felt like ahead of time to be preparing to revisit what had once been such a common occurrence. And what I remember to this day was the attention each of them gave to my questions and their short answers. They didn't just give me boilerplate; they both gave me very matter-of-fact but well-thought-through answers, albeit brief ones. In short, they both treated me with plenty of respect, even though I had unwittingly interrupted a nice personal visit the two apparently had been having. I think it was Watson who said something like, "Look, we're both going out there to beat each other. That's what we do. We're not out there thinking about the past."

When the short interview was over, I thanked them both profusely. What I remember was that by that time they both had become so gracious that they either said, or implied, something along the lines of thanking ME for my interest.

These were good, decent men.

Unfortunately, their round wasn't very good. I followed them shot for shot and step for step around all 18 holes. Both of them kept striking their full shots wonderfully, but they missed putt after putt after putt. They both fell from the lead rather quickly. And that was just the third round, by the end of the four-round tournament, Watson had fallen to a tie for 8th, five strokes back (the scores, thank goodness, are searchable on the 'Net), while Nicklaus was yet another two strokes behind that, in a tie for 14th.

They would play other rounds together, of course, but never by earning their way into the final pairing as tournament leaders. And I've always wondered if it had been somehow my fault that they didn't stay as leaders -- if somehow it had been I who had thrown them off their rhythms. Of course, that's nonsense. A cub reporter doesn't have such influence on two hardened pros, especially not an hour before their rounds. But I still felt somehow guilty.

Anyway, here's the thing that stuck with me: there was such a bond between these two competitors. There was such an mutuality of appreciation for each other's company. Here we are, 18 years later, and every day of the Open Championship featured another story of Jack or Barbara Nicklaus sending text messages or making phone calls to Watson from across the Atlantic.

And here is what is truly remarkable. Eighteen years ago, Watson already seemed to be more "yesterday's news" than not. Yet, through grit and determination and skill and smarts, he still was able to turn back the clock, so many years later that children in the meantime had been born and grown and completely finished high school. This is astonishing.

"We're not out there thinking about the past." No, not at all. Not when the present offers such wonders.

Our Secretary of State on North Korea:

Congressional Report: ACORN Involved in Organized Crime

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.23.09 @ 5:01PM

A new congressional report accuses the radical activist group ACORN of organized criminal activities. I will have a full article here on the American Spectator website in the morning about it.

The report, called "Is ACORN Intentionally Structured As a Criminal Enterprise?" comes from minority staff on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The ranking member on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California), is appearing on the "Glenn Beck Program" on Fox News today to discuss the report.

The report, available here, contains information about the ACORN network's interlocking directorates, various unethical and possibly unlawful activities, and the shocking fact that despite its mounting legal problems, ACORN remains eligible for $8.5 billion in federal funds this year.

Here's an excerpt from the congressional report:

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has repeatedly and deliberately engaged in systemic fraud. Both structurally and operationally, ACORN hides behind a paper wall of nonprofit corporate protections to conceal a criminal conspiracy on the part of its directors, to launder federal money in order to pursue a partisan political agenda and to manipulate the American electorate.

Emerging accounts of widespread deceit and corruption raise the need for a criminal investigation of ACORN. By intentionally blurring the legal distinctions between 361 tax-exempt and non-exempt entities, ACORN diverts taxpayer and tax-exempt monies into partisan political activities. Since 1994, more than $53 million in federal funds have been pumped into ACORN, and under the Obama administration, ACORN stands to receive a whopping $8.5 billion in available stimulus funds.

Operationally, ACORN is a shell game played in 120 cities, 43 states and the District of Columbia through a complex structure designed to conceal illegal activities, to use taxpayer and tax-exempt dollars for partisan political purposes, and to distract investigators. Structurally, ACORN is a chess game in which senior management is shielded from accountability by multiple layers of volunteers and compensated employees who serve as pawns to take the fall for every bad act. [...]

Congressional Democrats have shown little interest in probing ACORN. After initially expressing interest in an investigation, House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-Michigan), a longtime ACORN ally, backed off saying "the powers that be decided against it."

The website of "Lou Dobbs Live" indicates Issa will also be on that show at 7 p.m. (Eastern) tonight to talk about the report.

12 Comments | Add a Comment

See You in September

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.23.09 @ 1:35PM

In a major blow to President Obama's push for health care legislation, Harry Reid has told reporters that the Senate would not attempt to pass a bill before the August recess.

“It’s better to get a product that’s based on quality and thoughtfulness than on trying to just get something through,” Reid said today, according to the Politico.

While Reid tried to play down the news as "no surprise to anyone" it actually is a pretty big deal. For months, Obama was pressuring Democratic leaders to pass bills in both chambers of Congress before the recess, leaving the fall for merely reconciling the two bills. Now opponents of the legislation will have the entire month of August to educate the American public about the perils of the legislation. It means more time for bad economic news to come out that undermines Obama's credibility, and more time for Obama's approval ratings, trending south, to fall further. It also means health care will have to compete with lots of other Congressional priorities. The health care fight is by no means over, and it still remains quite possible that Obama will sign some sort of health care bill toward the end of the year. But the missed deadline is unmistakably a massive set back, and the first time in Obama's young presidency that he hasn't gotten something from Congress that he has really wanted.

18 Comments | Add a Comment

Hillary Clinton's Strength: Forged In the Flames of Chelsea's Adolescence?

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 7.23.09 @ 1:32PM

"What we've seen is this constant demand for attention," Clinton said. "And maybe it's the mother in me or the experience that I've had with small children and unruly teenagers and people who are demanding attention--don't give it to them, they don't deserve it, they are acting out."

I suppose this is the part where we thank our lucky stars Chelsea never got ahold of a nuclear weapon?

Obama Spoke Stupidly

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.23.09 @ 12:51PM

President Obama should be ashamed of himself. The way that he excoriated the police who arrested Louis Gates was appalling. The way that he went on and on, after saying the police acted "stupidly," about the supposed racial aspects of the Gates arrest was even worse. No, this was NOT a racial incident -- not until Gates made it one. And no, they did not arrest Gates for the breaking-and-entering charge, which is what Obama seemed to indicate. They arrested him for disorderly conduct. And his conduct, according to multiple witnesses, WAS disorderly.

Barack Obama had an opportunity for a teachable moment last night. Instead, it was left to Bill Cosby to be measured, and thoughtful, while the president all but accused some honest cops of racism. Obama's corrupt attorney general, Eric Holder, is infamous for saying Americans are "cowards" on the subject of race. Well, no. The real coward is a president who does not have the guts to stand up against blacks who falsely yell racism at the drop of a hat -- a president who will not explain to the whole American public that sometimes what might appear to be racially motivated actions can actually have nothing to do with race, and that the "racism" charge should be leveled only with better proof, and only after the benefit of the doubt has been profferred and after it has been determined that other explanations of the actions in question were more plausible.

Oh... wait.... am I allowed to say that the Obamessiah has been cowardly? Will Holder arrest me -- and, unlike what he did with the Black Panthers, not let me go?

To be clear, of course I acknowledge that racism still exists. I've written columns about it, putting myself on the line against white racists in Alabama, on several occasions. And I have fought against racists and Nazis in Louisiana, sometimes in some less-than-friendly environments. But I've also seen false charges of racism poison way too many a situation that need not have been poisoned. And it makes me sick to see a president spreading the poison.

49 Comments | Add a Comment

"Quickie" Union Elections

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.23.09 @ 12:27PM

Last week, I wrote about how Democrats were ditching a provision in their pro-union bill that would have denied workers a secret ballot on unionization, but maintaining a measure that would force companies into binding arbitration if they did not reach an agreement with a union representing their employees. But another alarming "compromise" provision, reported by the New York Times, would require that union elections be held within as little as five days if just 30 percent of workers signed cards supporting unionization. Right now, the election period lasts two months. The Workforce Fairness Institute (WFI), which has been defending worker rights in the face of an all out assault by coercive unions and their Democratic allies, has pointed out that so-called "quickie" elections would achieve the same rapid unionization aims as denying workers a secret ballot. There simply wouldn't be enough time for employers to explain the costs of unionization to workers, making it easier for unions to intimidate employees. WFI notes that in contrast, it took 295 days to elect the Teamsters president, and 153 days to elect the head of the AFL-CIO.

Individual Insurance In the Age of Obama

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.23.09 @ 11:27AM

Last week, Investor's Business Daily published an editorial reporting that individual private insurance would be outlawed once the House Democratic health care bill went into effect. Legislative language is quite opaque, to say the least, and after reading through the relevant sections, I wasn't completely convinced that this was the case. IBD followed up with a bit more nuanced editorial explaining that private insurers would still be able to offer individual insurance, but only through a new government-run exchange that would impose heavy regulations on participating insurers. At the prompting of our dilligent intern Molly O'Connor, I looked a bit further into the issue. This morning, I was able to independently confirm the IBD editorial with several staffers on the Ways and Means committee (both Republican and Democrat). And if that doesn't convince you, especially telling is a video clip (see below), in which Rep. Paul Ryan poses the question of individual private insurance to Cybele Bjorklund, who is the Democrats' staff director on the Health Subcommittee that helped author the bill. While existing plans would be grandfathered in, Bjorklund responds that insurers "cannot create new policies outside of that window, outside of the exchange, but they can choose to operate in the exchange."

To put it in less wonky terms, under the House bill, starting in 2013, individuals would only be allowed to purchase insurance policies from a government-run store. And if private insurers want to sell individual insurance, they will only be able to do so through the government. So, there would still be nominally private insurers, but not a private marketplace for individual insurance. Kudos to IBD for unearthing this.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTM1NDUwMDkwODUzYzVlOGEyZjFlNjNjYWIxZTFiNjU

Memo for the Movement

7.23.09 @ 11:20AM

RE: The Obama-Pelosi-Reid healthcare reform bill, if passed, would have catastrophic effects on the economy due to its squeeze on employers and its addition to the already alarming federal deficit.

ACTION: It is imperative that rationally-minded Republicans and center-right Democrats join together to bring sanity to this debate. Don't allow the government to bankrupt the country and exacerbate unemployment during these difficult economic times while at the same time burdening our children and grandchildren with extra debt. Call your Congressmen and Senators and let them know that we cannot afford to kill jobs with another expensive and reckless bill.

ISSUE IN BRIEF: Out of all the projects from Obama's spending spree, the healthcare bill would be the most massive spending bill yet. Moreover, it would be the largest tax increase in American history, while still adding to our nation’s record debt. By adding the cost of this irresponsible health care bill to the mix, we will have created a deficit of at least $1.8 trillion, which will bury our children and grandchildren in red ink for decades to come. The bill basically does two things to the nation’s health care system:

A. Increases the cost of care to consumers, and

B. Reduces the quality of care for patients

The bill would be a job killer and put America on the brink of economic meltdown.

1. The bill would add a 1% income tax to all individuals earning over $280,000, 1.5% for individuals over $400,000. For those making over $800,000, the bill would increase taxes by a startling 5.4%.

2. When combined with state, local, and Medicare taxes, in 39 out of the 50 states there would be income taxes of over 50% for top earners.

3. This bill creates a pay-or-play tax, whereby those without acceptable healthcare coverage would pay a tax of 2.5% of their income.

4. Government would tax employers 8% of the average wages for employees for all time when the employer was not offering health insurance coverage, with an exception for companies with a payroll under $250,000. This tax gives direct incentives for employers not to hire workers in a time when unemployment has risen to nearly 10%. This tax would destroy jobs.

5. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that healthcare reform would add over $1 trillion in additional spending over 10 years. In this era of record deficits, we cannot afford to burden future generations with even more debt.

6. CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf stated on July 16^th that the future costs of healthcare will increase over time if the bill is passed in spite of the Administration contending that the plan would cut costs.

7. Congress is already interfering with business and raising taxes at an alarming rate: the House's recently passed cap and trade bill will have the effect of taxing businesses and adding to unemployment, while penalizing American families over $175 per year in higher energy prices.

8. Previous legislation, such as the American Recovery and Re-Investment Act (The Stimulus Package) has not yielded the results as promised as unemployment has risen by 2% in the months since its passage.

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE HEALTH CARE REFORM ISSUE VISIT THESE WEBSITES:

http://healthcare.cato.org/

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/24863.html

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32726

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/103xx/doc10310/06-15-HealthChoicesAct.pdf

http://www.fixhealthcarepolicy.com

http://www.healthcarefreedomcoalition.org

http://www.conservativesforpatientsrights.com

http://www.galen.org

Cap and Trade Costs

http://www.Obamacaretruth.org

James C. Miller III, former Reagan Budget Director
Duane Parde, President, National Taxpayers Union
Tom Winter, Editor in Chief, Human Events
Tom Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform
David McIntosh, former U.S. Representative, Indiana
Kenneth Blackwell, former Treasurer, State of Ohio
Alfred Regnery, Publisher, American Spectator
Brent Bozell, President, Media Research Center
Richard Viguerie, Chairman, ConservativeHQ.com
Jim Martin, President, 60 Plus Association
Marion Edwyn Harrison, President, Free Congress Foundation

Walpin-gate, Updated

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.23.09 @ 11:00AM

The Washington Times has it, again. Why is it that the left never cares about its own anti-discrimination laws when its own ox would be gored by them?

IG-Gate Update: Did Dem Congresswoman Intervene With Obama in Walpin Case?

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.23.09 @ 10:34AM

As the Examiner's Byron York has reported, the sense of urgency that led to the June 10 quit-or-be-fired ultimatum to AmeriCorp IG Gerald Walpin was related to concerns that Walpin's whistleblowing about Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson -- whose St. HOPE Academy misused hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars -- would jeopardize Sacramento's ability to get its share of $787 billion in stimulus spending.

California blogger Eric Hogue calls attention to a KRCA radio interview in March with Rep. Doris Mastui, the Democrat who represents Sacramento in Congress:

Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson has asked U.S. Rep. Doris Matsui to help keep the flow of federal funds coming into the city.
Johnson is not allowed to receive federal funds because of allegations his St. Hope-Hood Corps Foundation misused federal money.
Matsui, D-District 5, who appeared on the KCRA 3 Morning News on Saturday morning, said she believes Sacramento will get money, but she can't guarantee it.
"Under any scenario, we are going to get the money. We are going to get the money," she said. "I understand that process has to unfold. The mayor is dealing with that. We are dealing with the situation at the federal level. The city is taking the right steps. They have to disclose this, and we are moving forward."
Matsui added that she has been in contact with White House officials and other members of the federal government.

If Matsui contacted the White House before Walpin was fired . . . Well, this interview is certainly raising questions on Capitol Hill.

Also on Capitol Hill, the lawsuit Walpin filed last week, seeking reinstatement to his IG job, has provided Democrats with a perfect excuse to stop investigating the AmeriCorps case. The Washington Post's Ed O'Keeke reports:

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) said his Oversight and Government Reform Committee would suspend its investigation into the firing of Gerald Walpin, the former inspector general at the Corporation for National and Community Service, since the former watchdog filed suit against the agency last Friday in federal court. "We have met with White House staff and interviewed staff at the Corporation for National and Community Service, and Democratic and Republican board members, and have reviewed hundreds of pages of documents," Towns said in a statement. "This evidence shows that the Corporation board’s report expressing concerns about Mr. Walpin’s performance was fact-based, unanimous, and nonpartisan." Towns said President Obama had "legitimate reasons for removing Mr. Walpin."

Translation: "Nothing to see here. Move along." This was perhaps to be expected, and probably won't make much of a difference. One Republican source on the Hill described Democratic investigative staff on the House Oversight Committee as "useless." Meanwhile, the congressional patron saint of watchdogs and whistleblowers, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, published a column in Politico:

The IGs, in particular, are the government's first line of defense against fraud. Obama needs them to both deter and stamp out waste. Let's hope he doesn't close the door on them. . . .
I've been a strong advocate for government watchdogs and spent a lot of time on congressional oversight and investigation, so I have high hopes for what Obama has said about making the federal government more transparent and accountable.
At the same time, there are recent allegations of the administration undermining IG independence. Whether the claim that the IG for AmeriCorps — the federal program that sponsors volunteerism — was fired for reporting waste at a pet project is true or not, the decision to get rid of the IG sends a signal from the White House that could have a chilling effect on IG work. It could turn other IGs into lap dogs afraid to ask tough questions and expose problems. . . .
With the money spigot wide open, taxpayers deserve an IG in chief. The FBI director testified in March that the surge in stimulus-related funding will cause fraud to "skyrocket." . . .

Read the whole thing. Despite every effort of Democrats to ignore it, "The Little Scandal That Could" just keeps chugging up that hill.

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.23.09 @ 9:42AM

Hillary compares North Koreans to "small children" seeking attention (CNN)

Obama sticks with plan to raise taxes (Wall Street Journal)

Health care reform costs could be as high as $4.5 trillion (Washington Times)

Two New Jersey mayors, several rabbis arrested in international money laundering scandal (Associated Press)

Fact-Checking Obama’s News Conference

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.23.09 @ 7:29AM

As promised last night, I want to correct the record on a few of President Obama’s misleading statements -- and yes -- outright lies from last night’s news conference. (Full transcript here.) I will update it as I gather more information throughout the day.

Obama Statement #1:

First of all, let's understand that when I came in, we had a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, that we had already inherited. We had to immediately more forward with a stimulus package because the American economy had lost trillions of dollars of wealth.…

Then we had to pass a budget, by law, and our budget had a 10- year projection -- and I just want everybody to be clear about this. If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in your budget, you'd have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we've made, it's going to be 7.1 trillion (dollars).

Now, that's not good, but it's $2.2 trillion less than it would have been if we had the same policies in place when we came in.

But here is what the Congressional Budget Office had to say about Obama’s budget:

The cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 under the President’s proposals would total $9.3 trillion, compared with a cumulative deficit of $4.4 trillion projected under the current-law assumptions embodied in CBO’s baseline.

So in other words, Obama said his cumulative deficit is “$2.2 trillion less than it would have been,” but the CBO says the deficit is actually $4.9 trillion more than it otherwise would have been.

Obama Statement #2:

And we know that we're spending, on average -- we here in the United States -- are spending about $6,000 more than other advanced countries where they're just as healthy. And I've -- I've said this before. If you found out that your neighbor had gotten the same car for $6,000 less, you'd want to figure out how to get that deal. And that's what reform's all about, how can we make sure that we are getting the best bang for our health-care dollar.

I'm guessing that when he said “we're spending, on average...about $6,000 more than other advanced countries” he was referring to the gap between the the per person cost of health care in the United States and in other nations. While it’s true that Americans pay more than any other country, the actual health care costs per person in the U.S. were about $6,000 in 2007, according to a CBO report. So for Obama’s claim to be true -- that is, that other countries are spending $6,000 less, on average -- you’d have to believe that it costs every other advanced country zero dollars to provide all of their citizens with health care.

For further study, here's how we compare to other OECD nations.

UPDATE: My $6,000 figure is from this CBO report. The OECD pegs the number at $7,290, but Obama's number still doesn't add up. See more here.

Obama Statement #3:

I am very appreciative that people like Chuck Grassley on the Finance Committee, in the Senate, people like Mike Enzi, people like Olympia Snowe have been serious in engaging Democrats in trying to figure out, how do we actually get a system that works? And even in those committees where you didn't see Republican votes, we've seen Republican ideas.

So, for example, in the HELP committee in the Senate, 160 Republican amendments were adopted into that bill, because they've got good ideas to contribute. So the politics may dictate that they don't vote for health-care reform because they think, you know, it'll make Obama more vulnerable. But if they've got a good idea, we'll still take it.

But Enzi, who Obama favorably cites, said last week: "In 12 days of mark-up, we had 45 roll call votes on Republican-sponsored amendments, and only 2 prevailed."

Why is there such a discrepancy? I posed that question to Enzi spokesman Craig Orfield, who explained in an email:

The 160 refers to what we call technicals - these are amendments drafted to either correct technical errors in the bill language - and that can be anything from an amendment which cites the wrong section and paragraph of existing law (ex: Section 302 when we meant section 304) to errors in punctuation or transposed words.

Moreover, the vast majority of these were so non-controversial that the majority didn't even demand a vote - they were simply adopted by unanimous consent.

As you note from Sen. Enzi's remarks only 45 GOP amendments, which we consider to have made substantive changes or improvements, were allowed a vote. 2 of those were agreed to.

POTUS is echoing the same nonsensical line on this as Axelrod and Emanuel last week.

Agreement on technical amendments is no pedigree of bipartisanship.

10 Comments | Add a Comment

ACLU, ACORN, Sue to Overturn Penn. Law Against Voter Fraud

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.23.09 @ 6:15AM

ACORN canvassers are facing convictions for voter registration fraud in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, so what does ACORN do?

Sue to change the statute that outlaws the fraud, of course.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and ACORN's get-out-the-dead-people-to-vote affiliate Project Vote filed a federal lawsuit today in an effort to snuff out the Keystone State's anti-election fraud law.

According to the ACLU the law has been misapplied by Allegheny County's Democratic District Attorney Stephen Zappala Jr., who filed seven charges against former ACORN workers for falsifying voter registration forms. After preliminary hearings, all seven have been ordered to stand trial.

In a press release, the ACLU said the law has been misapplied "to prohibit an organization from using flexible productivity standards and goals to manage paid canvassers."

Translation: efforts to crack down on election fraud are bad because, well, they crack down on election fraud.

"They already charged the employees, and they've hinted they might go after ACORN next," the New York Times dutifully quoted Witold Walczak of the ACLU saying. "It's the ACLU's reading of this, that these kind of laws that restrict an organization's ability to hire and pay canvassers impacts on voter registration activities, which are constitutionally protected actions."

The New York Times, of course, is a business partner with one of ACORN's business partners, and it covered up a potential scandal involving ACORN and the Obama campaign.

Obama's Lost Night

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.22.09 @ 9:32PM

With polls showing that a majority of Americans now disapprove of his handling of health care, Democrats in Congress fighting among themselves, the CBO rejecting the idea that any current plans reduce health care costs, and the August deadline for passing health care legislation looking more like a pipe dream with each passing hour, President Obama had a chance tonight to reset the debate. Instead, he rambled on, rehashing a series of wonky talking points, and he wasted so much time dodging questions that he only had time for 10 of them in a press conference that spanned nearly one hour.

When I get a hold of the transcript, I plan on pointing out numerous factual errors and -- there's no polite way of saying this -- lies that Obama made in his remarks, but there's one comment that really stood out for me. At one point, Obama made the insulting suggestion that when children go to doctors with sore throats, doctors consult payment charts, and unneccesarily remove kids' tonsils just to earn extra money. Aside from being a cynical remark, it isn't smart politically, as polling shows that Americans trust doctors far more than politicians when it comes to health care.

Also worth noting, at one point Obama said he wouldn't support health care legislation that was "primarily" funded by raising taxes on the middle class. But does that mean he'd be open to a bill that was partially funded that way?

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Shame on Rush

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.22.09 @ 6:28PM

Up until now, I have never posted about President Obama's birth certificate, because I don't want to give those who claim he is not a U.S. citizen the attention they so desperately seek. I don't even want to describe the matter as a "controversy," because to do so suggests that there is a serious dispute over Obama's place of birth. To any sane human being, there is no controversy. Obama has produced an authentic certificate of live birth from the state of Hawaii that clearly shows he was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii at 7:24 p.m. State officials have confirmed the document as legitimate and have stated that such facts would have to be verified by the state before they appear on the document. And if that isn't enough, the fact is corroborated by a contemporaneous newspaper birth announcement.

While I'd like to continue to ignore this story entirely, it's hard to do when a figure like Rush Limbaugh is giving it credence, declaring this week that, "Barack Obama has yet to have to prove that he's a citizen. All he has to do is show a birth certificate. He has yet to have to prove he's a citizen." If he addresses the issue at all, Limbaugh should be using his perch to explain why this story is complete nonsense. Doing so would help to keep these citizenship conspiracy theorists in the fringe, where they belong. Instead, he's just encouraging them. I've lost a ton of respect for Limbaugh this week.

Meanwhile, Florida Rep. Bill Posey has also added cover to the lunatic conspiracy mongers by offering a House bill aimed at having future presidential candidates produce birth certificates. It has 9 Republican co-sponsors so far, and all of them should be embarrassed: Marsha Blackburn, Dan Burton, John Campbell, John Carter, John Abney Culberson, Bob Goodlatte, Kenny Merchant, Rander Neugebauer, and Ted Poe.

Some who attempt to take neutral ground on this issue ask, why doesn't Obama just release his original birth certificate and put this matter to rest? There are two reasons. The first is that it would obviously not put the issue to rest, because the conspiracy theorists have demonstrated that they do not care about facts. At this point, anybody who questions whether Obama is a citizen will not be convinced otherwise because of a document released by the White House. But beyond that, there's absolutely no reason for Obama to cave into these people. Doing so would set a standard in the future so that people can start whatever insane rumors they want about an elected official, and then the burden is on the official to dispute them. It's no different than those calling for an investigation of whether 9/11 was an inside job.

This is the last thing that I intend to write on the issue, because I'd prefer to concentrate my energy on laying out why Obama's ideas and actual policy proposals will have disastrous consequences for the nation, just one American criticizing another.

82 Comments | Add a Comment

It Depends on What the Meaning of the Word "Use" Is

Posted by John Tabin on 7.22.09 @ 6:00PM

Erick Erickson at RedState reads Sonia Sotomayor's written response to the judiciary committee's questions about the use of foreign law as amending her oral testimony to the point of reversing its meaning. I actually don't think it reverses her position so much as drains it of any meaningful content.

Sotomayor's statement that "[r]eading the decisions of foreign courts for ideas, however, does not constitute 'using' those decisions to decide cases" reminds me of the debate Justices Scalia and Breyer had on this topic a few years ago. "I'm not preventing you from reading [foreign] cases," Scalia quipped. "I mean, just indulge your curiosity! Just don't put it in your opinions!" Would Sotomayor cite foreign caselaw in her opinions? I suspect so, but her written and oral testimony, taken together, don't really answer the question one way or the other.

Graham Cracker

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.22.09 @ 4:24PM

More evidence that Lindsey/Cindy Graham is the single worst Republican senator: He will vote to approve Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. He says the president's choice merits "deference." Oh, really?!? Then why did he show so much less deference to the choice of a president of his own party, Jim Haynes, even though the complaints against Haynes were utterly bogus and that even if they had been true, which they weren't, they still would have amounted to far less disqualifying behavior than some of the things that Sotomayor, by Graham's own admission, said and did?!?!?!?

Did somebody "get" to Graham? And why did he deliberately undermine the testimony of firefighter Frank Ricci?

What sort of weird game is Sen. Graham playing? And why?

14 Comments | Add a Comment

Chicago-Style

Posted by Asher Embry on 7.22.09 @ 4:12PM

Four days after CBO Chief Doug Elmendorf’s cost analysis torpedoed the central argument supporting Democrats’ health care plans, he was invited for a casual (and highly unusual) “discussion” with Obama at the White House.

Chicago-Style
By Asher Embry

Obama Monday chose to throw
A party for the CBO.
A casual affair was that
A few close friends to “chew the fat.”
(There’s surely nothing wrong with that.)

Doug Elmendorf could not refuse
The chance to sit with O and schmooze
And talk of kids and “Honest Teas”
And other mundane pleasantries.
(And not a word ‘bout broken knees.)

And, yes, the talk soon got around
To health care and the costs Doug found.
Obama asked to hear his views
Perhaps he’d missed them in the news.
(Hey, wait; could this have been a ruse?)

We know O’s plan is looking grim;
But summon Doug to lean on him?
Un-Presidential, crude, and vile
To still behave Chicago-style.

(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)

Ever Heard of Moon Bugs?

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.22.09 @ 3:33PM

That's what a lot of people feared the Apollo 11 astronauts would bring back with them from the lunar surface: contaminants. While Monday marked 40 years since man's first steps on the moon, Friday is the anniversary of the splashdown in the Pacific Ocean. My uncle, Wes Chesser, was one of the Navy swimmers that helped recover the astronauts (he also did so in Apollo 6 and led the team on Apollo 10):

The return of Apollo 10 in May 1969 had been "picture perfect," recalled Chesser, who was seated in a chopper when he spotted that capsule burning through the earth's atmosphere "like a comet" before splashing into the Pacific.

After dropping into the ocean and attaching a sea anchor and a floatation collar to the capsule, he and the other divers helped pull astronauts Thomas Stafford, John Young and Eugene Cernan out of the spacecraft and into a raft.

But the water was much rougher when Apollo 11 splashed down two months later, Chesser recalled. And NASA's fear of "moon germs" meant that only one diver was allowed near the astronauts--and only after they'd all donned "Biological Isolation Garments."

So Chesser and two others waited patiently in a raft upwind of the capsule while Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins were scrubbed down. As the astronauts were hauled into a helicopter for the short flight to the Hornet, Chesser swam nearby in case anyone fell into the water.

The diver who did the astronaut scrubbing was Clancy Hatleberg, who in turn was scrubbed down by the astronauts, before they were lifted by helicopter to the U.S.S. Hornet, where they began their 65-hour quarantine. The Navy divers were left behind with the capsule for 90 minutes while President Nixon congratulated the astronauts on the Hornet. They found a way to pass the time, as Wes explains.

Wes is on the capsule on the left, with the red radio on his belt.

I can still remember bragging about it during show-and-tell in my kindergarten class in La Mesa, California.

topics: Apollo 11

"You Have Failed Your Test"

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.22.09 @ 2:14PM

Congressman Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) gave a moving speech on the Iranian crackdown, which has recently gotten lost in the Beltway shuffle. (Hat tip: The Corner.)

Even Boxers Tap Gloves Before the Fight

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.22.09 @ 2:00PM

Matt Collins has written a defense of his refusal to shake Congressman Zach Wamp's hand, which I blogged about the other day. It's more a response to A.C. Kleinheider than to me, but there are still a few points worth making.

Libertarians and serious small-government conservatives face a dilemma: The Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party are both principled (despite some differences in their principles) but almost entirely ineffective at getting candidates elected and policies implemented. The Republican Party is much more effective at getting candidates elected and policies put in place, but is frequently unprincipled. The end result is a failure to shrink the federal government. Ron Paul Republicans are trying to break this cycle -- to both be more principled than the standard-issue GOP while being more effective than the Libertarians and Constitutionalists.

If a strategy of working within the Republican Party is to be successful, it will require two things: 1.) taking over where possible, by electing like-minded folks such as Matt Collins to political offices and party leadership positions and 2.) working with the other members of the party where taking over is not possible, trying to bring your fellow Republicans closer to your point of view. Refusing to extend common courtesy to Republicans you disagree with makes #2 very difficult and may ultimately complicate #1.

Take a look at Ron Paul's audit the Fed bill. It has 271 cosponsors in the House. Those cosponsors include Republicans like Wamp who voted for the bailout. It includes Democrats who are basically socialists. The bill's leading champion in the Senate is Jim DeMint, who voted for the Iraq war while he was in the House. Some of these supporters are sincere converts. Some have long been good economic conservatives. Some are political opportunists. Very few of them are consistent constitutionalists.

Should we shun these legislators or should we pass the bill?

The Campaign for Liberty is a fine organization doing important work. I'm a contributing editor to the magazine published by Young Americans for Liberty. I'm obviously sympathetic to what the Ron Paul Republicans are trying to do. But for all the excitement that surrounded Ron Paul, we still ended up with a choice of John McCain versus Barack Obama in the presidential election. We still live in a country where most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional and completely alien to the Founding Fathers. If a president who tried to follow the Constitution actually got elected, millions of Americans would want him impeached!

Changing all that will require persuading large numbers of people, not comparing them to home invaders. Being co-opted by an establishment hungry for the money Ron Paul raised is something to guard against. I'm again reminded of the Ron Paul Republicans who worked hard to get delegate slots at the national convention only to vote for John McCain when they got there. But self-marginalization is also something to guard against, and a constant temptation among true believers.

Hey, it's a (somewhat) free country. Matt Collins doesn't have to shake the hand of anyone he doesn't want to. But shunning is a better tool for reinforcing existing norms than changing them.

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.22.09 @ 1:22PM

Murtha earmark recipient pleads guilty to corruption charges (The Hill)

Hillary's Honduras settlement talks fail (New York Times)

Senate downs F-22s (Los Angeles Times)

California budget to free 27,000 prisoners (Los Angeles Times)

Further Note on Keene

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.22.09 @ 12:46PM

On David Keene asserting that Politico got the original story wrong, consider the publication's record.

Keene Analysis

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.22.09 @ 12:34PM

For those who have missed it, there has been quite a brouhaha in conservative circles over an alleged pay-for-play arrangement involving American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene. I won't get into all the details; see here for a recap. I will thank John Hawkins for the nice words in his recap; indeed, I did ask a question designed to elicit real information from Keene. And here's the thing: He answered it. And he answered it well. Keene reiterated that he has not changed his position that FedEx Express deserves support against a bad provision designed by rival UPS and its Teamsters overlords. And he explained why he signed a letter that could be read to suggest the opposite.

I myself think that either Keene and/or the ACU come away from this looking careless. But to listen to his conference call with conservative bloggers was to listen to somebody who sounded like he was being very open, very straightforward, and very honest. Not only that, but this is a man with more than three decades of fighting the good conservative fight. This is somebody who has earned the benefit of the doubt. This is one of the people without whom today's younger conservatives would not have a "conservative movement" on which to build in the first place. Methinks this is an occasion to mark up as a lesson in managing public perception and appearances, not as an example of perfidy. David Keene still merits conservative support.

$3.7 Million to Move 60 Miles

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.22.09 @ 11:30AM

"North Carolina has never met a targeted tax break it didn't like," as my Heartland Institute colleague Steve Stanek said today, but this one has to take the cake. From The Charlotte Observer:

Continental Automotive announced Monday that it will expand its plant in Fletcher – just south of Asheville – with 338 jobs averaging $36,179 in wages per year. The facility makes brake calipers, which squeeze the wheel to slow vehicles.

Continental will receive up to $2.2 million in state grants for bringing the positions. Henderson County offered up to $1 million over seven years in tax rebates, and Fletcher added up to $500,000 in the same period.

In May, the company told the state it laid off 90 people at its Morganton anti-lock brake plant after Chrysler filed for bankruptcy.

For a company to move 90 jobs just 60 miles within a state and get $3.7 million for its trouble is beyond absurd. Meanwhile the NC legislature (and the governor) are prepared to pass $1 billion in new taxes for the next state budget. Add in the rampant corruption in recent history, how can the Democrats continue to hold power? They keep winning elections, so they will probably find a way.

topics: Taxes

Add to the File

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 7.22.09 @ 10:36AM

Barack Obama's closing statement from the third presidential debate, October 15, 2008 [emphasis added]:

I'm absolutely convinced we can do it. I would ask for your vote, and I promise you that if you give me the extraordinary honor of serving as your president, I will work every single day, tirelessly, on your behalf and on the behalf of the future of our children.

And today, from USA Today, the headline: "It's official: Obamas to vacation on Martha's Vineyard next month."

As a single-issue (work ethic) voter who was swayed by Obama's promise that debate night, I feel horribly betrayed.

Toomey Closes Gap on Specter; Christie Widens Gap on Corzine

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.22.09 @ 8:37AM

Republicans received some good news this morning. In Pennsylvania, a new Quinnipiac poll finds that Arlen Specter's lead over Pat Toomey has all but disappeared, with Specter now ahead by a statstically insignificant 45 percent to 44 percent. Back in May, Specter had a 20-point lead. In further bad news for Specter, the poll also found that voters by a 49 percent to 40 percent margin say he does not deserve reelection. If this polling continues, it could hurt him in the primary, because the main argument for Democrats to nominate him instead of the more liberal Joe Sestak is that Specter is more electable. That may no longer be so obvious, though in a hypothetical matchup Toomey edges out Sestak 39 percent to 35 percent.

Meanwhile Teagan Goddard reports:

Political Wire got an early look at a new Strategic Vision poll in New Jersey that shows Chris Christie (R) leading Gov. Jon Corzine (D) in the state's gubernatorial race, 53% to 38%.

Corzine has been unable to move the needle and appears stuck at between 37% to 39%. He is losing badly among Independents."

SIGTARP Barofsky Shows Why Watchdogs Are Important

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.22.09 @ 7:48AM

Neil Barofsky -- SIGTARP, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout -- yesterday testified on Capitol Hill:

The Treasury Department took a bipartisan beating on Tuesday from lawmakers who claim the agency has failed to live up to its promises of transparency in handling the federal rescue of the financial system.
"The taxpayers now have a $700 billion spending program that's being run under the philosophy of 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Rep. Edolphus Towns, (D-N.Y.) said during a hearing on the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) went as far as to compare the Treasury's refusal to provide regular updates on how TARP money is being spent to the way convicted Ponzi scheme mastermind Bernard L. Madoff misled his clients. . . .
The antipathy during Tuesday's hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was provoked by a report issued earlier this week by Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general for TARP, in which he repeated calls for the Treasury to require regular, more detailed information from banks about their use of bailout funds. . . .
Barofsky also said Tuesday that his office was conducting 35 ongoing criminal and civil investigations as of June 30, covering topics from accounting and securities fraud to insider trading. "Really, almost any kind of white collar crime you can think of," he said.

Thirty-five separate investigations! No wonder the Treasury department is trying to prevent Barofsky from getting the documents he has subpoenaed. The independence of these watchdogs is what Gerald Walpin says this fight is all about:

"For a second I was thinking, 'Why do I need all of this?' I'll just resign and go back to my good legal practice in New York," Gerald Walpin told The Washington Times' "America's Morning News" radio show Tuesday.
"But I would then be part of the apparatus that is totally torpedoing the inspectors general," Mr. Walpin said. "The watchdog would not really be a watchdog. He'd just be afraid of his shadow." . . .

More at Memeorandum.

CNN Attempts to Discredit Canadian Mayo Clinic Patient, Fails

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.21.09 @ 7:26PM

Patients United Now, which is a project of Americans for Prosperity Foundation, is now running an effective TV ad opposing President Obama's socialist healthcare scheme.

It features patient Shona Holmes of Waterdown, Ontario, Canada. As her brain tumor grew, Holmes was told by Canada's dysfunctional government-run healthcare system that she would have to wait for six months to see a specialist. "In six months I would have died," Holmes says in the spot. The Mayo Clinic where Holmes received successful treatment tells her story at its website. Mayo is also fiercely critical of ObamaCare.

Of course the liberal journalists at CNN --in this case Dana Bash and Lesa Jansen-- who are cheering for ObamaCare attempted to discredit Holmes in a recent news package. They were unable to do so but did manage to find another patient who claims to have received speedy treatment following a cancer diagnosis. Nonetheless on average Canadians have to wait a long time before receiving medical treatment for serious ailments as Canada's preeminent think tank, the Fraser Institute, has demonstrated time and time again. (See PDF file of the Fraser Institute's "Waiting Your Turn: Hospital Waiting Lists in Canada," 2008 Report, 18th edition.)

CNN also managed to pull Canadian Sen. Hugh Segal away from the all-you-can-eat buffet for a quote. Segal is what's known in Canada as a "Red Tory." In other words he may belong to the Conservative Party but he's ideologically a liberal with very little in common with American conservatives. Not surprisingly, this soulmate of Lincoln Chafee defended Canada's universal healthcare system. (By the way, the Canadian Senate is unelected. Its members are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister so it bears more than a passing resemblance to the British House of Lords. It is a final resting place for political has beens who are free there to bloviate blissfully without the public even noticing.)

The well-practiced liar who would feel perfectly at home in America's Democratic Party told CNN his "fellow conservatives" in the U.S. are dead wrong about Canada's healthcare system. "What you have is a longer life span, better outcomes and about one-third less costs. That's what you have," said Segal as he resisted the urge to snarf down a dozen Timbits.

Here is the video featuring Holmes:

40 Comments | Add a Comment

Mo Money, Mo Problems

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.21.09 @ 7:25PM

The Associated Press is reporting that Sarah Palin may have violated Alaska's ethics laws by accepting private donations through the Alaska Fund Trust to pay her legal bills, among other purposes.

Demonizing From DC

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.21.09 @ 5:24PM

That's what an Arkansas state legislator accused some in Congress of doing today in testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee:

But Republican Gov. John Hoeven of North Dakota said the legislation under consideration would cause job losses in his oil-producing state. The prospect of a climate change bill already has halted new technologies to harvest oil and natural gas, Hoeven said.

He was joined by Arkansas state Rep. John Lowery, a Democrat and the owner of Lowery Oil Co., who said that while the bill may create green jobs for the West Coast and Northeast, it would harm middle America.

"It might be popular for some in Washington to demonize oil and gas, fertilizer and chemical companies, and farmers," Lowery said, "but where I come from, they are an integral part of our communities."

Arkansas was the site of perhaps the greatest state-level blowback against cap-and-tax to date.

topics: Global Warming, Cap and Trade

They're Dropping Like Flies Around Manny Ramirez

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.21.09 @ 4:19PM

Democrat governors in support of cap-and-trade, that is.

You just bop around YouTube (and especially Sen. Inhofe's neighborhood there) and there's no telling what you'll find. In a crowning height of hypocrisy, the chairman of the Western Governors Association and of the Democrat Governors Association, Brian Schweitzer of Montana, slammed cap-and-trade on Bill Maher's show last week:

Maher: ...it's an incentive to make clean energy.

Schweitzer: Maybe.

Maher: Maybe?! (with incredulous emphasis)

Schweitzer: It also says to the biggest utilities in America, "We're going to add a trillion dollars to your bottom line. We're going to franchise you, and only you, to be the only producers of CO2." I think it's the wrong approach.

Maher: You do?! (more incredulity)

Schweitzer: Absolutely.

Maher: But isn't that the Democrat approach?

Schweitzer: It might be some of the Democrats' approach, but I think if you want to get to the root of the problem, you establish a price of the cost of that pollution to the rest of society....

Worse than fellow WGA Democrats Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming and Bill Ritter of Colorado, Schweitzer joined the Western Climate Initiative -- whose goal is a cap-and-trade agreement among member states (AZ, NM, CA, OR, WA, UT, and MT)!! Now he says out of one side of his mouth that it's wrongheaded, while out of the other side he defends WCI (and WGA's management of it) to the hilt.

What kind of craziness is going on at WGA? Do you have to be a Wild West Looney Tunes to be a member? Apparently pandering to all the environmental groups who run and fund the place has driven the governors nuts.

topics: Global Warming, Cap and Trade

Henry Louis Gates-gate

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.21.09 @ 3:10PM

As soon as I leave the Boston area, all hell breaks loose. Harvard professor and leading African-American scholar Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct outside his home by police officers responding to reports of a break-in in progress. Gates, who was apparently having problems with the lock on his front door, charges the Cambridge police with racially profiling him. Here is the police incident report; here is the Boston Globe's story; and here is the Boston Herald's report. The charges against Gates have already been dropped.

17 Comments | Add a Comment

Another Dem Governor Thinks Waxman-Markey is a Turkey

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.21.09 @ 2:34PM

Note how Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter avoids the question from Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (YouTube embedded at Michelle Malkin's site):

Inhofe: ...are you here supporting Waxman-Markey today?

(Insignificant exchange)

Ritter: Here's what I support. I support a national energy policy that is married to a national climate policy. It gets at these goals that we have for greenhouse gas reductions. And I believe that if you do that, that there will be some vehicle that looks not exactly like Waxman-Markey, particularly after the Senate finishes its work, but I very much support climate legislation that is joined with a national energy policy to get us to the greenhouse gas emission reduction goals that are set for 2050.

A whole lot of talk without saying anything, with it clear that Ritter won't publicly acknowledge he supports Waxman-Markey. That's because as Inhofe set up his question, he outlined how Colorado oil shale deposits would be put off limits by the bill (therefore severe economic consequences for the state, and political consequences for the governor), and he also detailed how W-M would harm farmers in eastern Colorado.

Curiously also, "green" Governor Ritter has failed to take the step of joining his enviro-left colleagues as members of the Western Climate Initiative, the regional cap-and-trade initiative, despite going to great lengths during his term to hone his global warming credentials. After noting Wyoming Democrat Gov. Dave Freudenthal's position yesterday, that now makes two of the party's governors holding their noses over Waxman-Markey.

When you hold their feet to the fire over the implications for their states, the big talkers on greenhouse gas emissions reduction cave.

Hat tip: Club for Growth's Andy Roth (via Facebook)

topics: Global Warming, Henry Waxman

Chappa....

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.21.09 @ 1:29PM

I was out of town and away from my computer over the weekend, and am still in catch-up mode, so I shouldn't take the time to write this blog post either. But since nobody else here (or at The Corner either) mentioned it on Saturday, I wonder, is it just terribly uncouth and nasty and gauche and rude for me to note that no major news outlet that I could find, or that the MRC could find either, even mentioned the 40th anniversary of Chappaquiddick?

I make no apologies for saying that Ted Kennedy's political career should have been over immediately upon news of Mary Jo Kopechne's death and the manner thereof. No apologies are needed for saying that Kennedy should have gone to prison for a while.

While Miss Kopechne may well still have been alive, this man, this senator, walked past four houses without asking for help, returned to a guest cottage and did not call for help, went back to his hotel and went to sleep, awoke, showered, hung out on a hotel balcony with the winners of a regatta, chatting pleasantly, and then took the ferry back to Chappaquiddick, ignoring aides' advice to report the incident, making numerous phone calls to others but still not reporting the incident.... and he still suffered no legal ramifications worth talking about, still stayed in office, and still had the appalling viciousness to slander Judge Robert Bork, smear all sorts of other Republicans, accuse President Bush of bribing foreign leaders, bent every rule of decency in his treatment of his ideological adversaries, set up sham investigations of judicial nominees, and in essence spent a whole career doing horrible things that only he could get away with, meanwhile seriously eroding our level of public discourse and of conduct in office (not to mention his awful private conduct for another two decades at least after Chappaquiddick).

Ted Kennedy's actions on the night of July 18-19, 1969, were the actions of a reckless man and of an utter, pathetic, gutless coward.

30 Comments | Add a Comment

Lawyers and Envirocrats Unite in Deception

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.21.09 @ 1:15PM

My former John Locke Foundation colleague David Bass (also an AmSpec contributor) has another great story up today about how lawyers for the North Carolina Department of Justice, which sued the Tennessee Valley Authority in a "nuisance" lawsuit (they couldn't come up with anything better) over pollution from coal-fired power plants drifting into the NC mountains, did not look fondly on evidence that wouldn't help their case. It turns out that the state's Division of Air Quality was ready to release a report that showed a dubious connection between nitrogen oxide (spewed by the plants) and the actual pollution that forms particulate matter. The timeline David put together makes it look like DOJ had a role in nixing the report:

DAQ staff decided to abandon the report shortly after meeting with Cooper’s attorneys in September 2008.

The air quality official responsible for the document, however, says the attorneys never pressured her to drop it.
“They never once told me you all can’t do this,” Laura Boothe, attainment planning branch supervisor for DAQ, told Carolina Journal.

But e-mail correspondence suggests that Cooper’s team was concerned about the report’s potential impact on the TVA case. After being informed of DAQ’s findings, special Deputy Attorney General Marc Bernstein wrote in an e-mail dated March 17, 2008, that it “hopefully … won’t create any issues in TVA. … ”

Six months later, DAQ staff met with Bernstein to discuss a final draft of the report. Shortly afterward, DAQ declared the project “officially dead.”

An example of the great investigative reporting being increasingly produced by several conservative/libertarian think tanks across the country. David's previous story told how Washington lawyers hired by NC DOJ to press the TVA case lived exquisitely on the state taxpayers' dime. Grandstanding attorney generals wedded to environmental extremist groups and bedding high-powered DC lawyers on the side -- lots of fodder for scrutiny there.

topics: Environmentalism

Berkowitz on Levin: More Mush From the Wimps

Posted by Jeffrey Lord on 7.21.09 @ 12:49PM

Mark Levin has a great piece over at the American Thinker, reviewing a review of his best-selling book Liberty and Tyranny. The review by the Hoover Institution's Peter Berkowitz appears in this week's Weekly Standard.

I don't know Mr. Berkowitz. Mr. Levin is more than capable of answering on his own, which he has done in such specific detail that I have an image of Berkowitz seeking treatment in the scalded dog clinic at Stanford.

Still.

First reaction here to Berkowitz? More mush from the wimps, to borrow a line from several campaign seasons ago. Here is my own review of Levin's book.

"Like it or not, the New Deal is here to stay," says Berkowitz. Reading this gives one a sense of relief that Berkowitz was not around to advise Washington (who ended the "here to stay" premise that was the British monarchy's control of America), Lincoln (ditto with slavery) and Reagan (ditto with Communism). Indeed, Berkowitz on the New Deal sounds like John Kerry on Communism in his 1971 speech to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "We cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now." Well, wrong. Not only could we fight, we could win. Had Reagan listened to the Kerry/Berkowitz view of the world, the Soviet Union would still be here, Berlin still a divided city.

Again, Levin's response is by far the best. But one is forced to ask Berkowitz if he reads history. The New Deal, come to power in 1932, had flowered by 1940. This in turn begat a long parade of Republican presidential nominees who were taking Berkowitz's advice, some well before there was a Berkowitz. By name: Willkie, Dewey (1944 and 1948), Eisenhower, Nixon (of 1960 but not 1968 or 1972), Ford, Bush (of 1992 but not 1988), Dole in 1996, and McCain in 2008. Eisenhower, while a moderate, was clearly elected because he was the biggest military hero since Grant, and presumably could have won short of anything up to but possibly not excluding beating up Mamie.

Every other time -- every single time -- the GOP nominee ran as a moderate, he lost. Nixon waxed Berkowitzian in the opening line of his first 1960 debate with Kennedy ("The things that Senator Kennedy has said many of us can agree with.") He lost. By 1968 and running for re-election in 1972, Nixon had learned his lesson. "Amnesty, acid and abortion" went the immoderate line from one of the Nixon commercials in 1972 -- and 49 states were carried. Berkowitz cites Colin Powell, he who has never run in a solitary election in his life yet advocates moderation -- and voted against McCain, precisely the kind of candidate he pretended to advocate. Powell is the classic case of the Emperor having no clothes. When it comes to things electoral, he is truly clueless.

One could go on. Moderation kept the House GOP in the minority for four decades. Conservatism made Newt Speaker of the House. Moderation lost the GOP House again in 2006. The Berkowitz remedy has been tried repeatedly -- and failed. Levin writes but a mere book on conservative principles and is vaulted to 15 weeks on the New York Times bestseller list with a book read by almost a million people. From ex-New Jersey moderate GOP Governor Christine Todd Whitman to moderate fanatic David Frum, books extolling Berkowitzian moderation theory vanish down the memory hole. Lots of talk radio hosts write books. They don't do 15 weeks atop the Times bestseller list. There is a reason for this. Levin's success in and of itself speaks volumes about the audience for seriously articulated conservatism.

With all due respect to Berkowitz, perhaps it's time to start seriously thinking in that tank out there. In brief: "Moderation" is a loser. It's also intellectually defeatist, politically corrosive and, well, stupid. Moderate Washington on King George? Lincoln on slavery? Reagan on Communism? Stop with the mush, already.

25 Comments | Add a Comment

The Cliche Factory...

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 7.21.09 @ 11:47AM

...is oh so stimulated.

Americaversery

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 7.21.09 @ 11:36AM

Karol celebrates her escape from the Soviet Union 31 years ago with a touching tribute to the father who made it happen.

Local Engagements With Non-Totalitarians Coming Soon!

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 7.21.09 @ 10:41AM

Details on the global day of solidarity with Iranian protestors can be found here.

Really, Who's Politicizing Health Care?

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.21.09 @ 10:33AM

The White House has seized on a comment Jim DeMint made on a conference call last week, which I reported at the time: “If we are able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” I think that sort of talk is unhelpful for Republicans, because killing Democratic health care legislation isn't about damaging Obama politically, it's about preventing the government takeover of one-sixth of our economy, stopping job-killing tax increases on individuals and small businesses, unsustainable deficits, and the deterioration of the quality of health care in the U.S. It's about blocking Democrats efforts now so that hopefully one day there will be an opening to pass true health care reform. When Obama is floundering on his own, there's no reason for DeMint to throw him a life raft. Whenever Obama gets into political trouble, he responds by misdirection. During the campaign, he'd point fingers at Bush and McCain, and now it's Republicans who stand in the way of change.

“This is all about politics,” Obama said of the DeMint comment. “That describes exactly an attitude that we’ve got to overcome, because what folks have in their minds is that, somehow, this is about me."

Of course, this is silly, because Democrats have overwhelming majorities in both chambers of Congress. If they want to pass something, they can do it without a single Republican vote. To block health care legislation, at least 40 House Democrats would have to cross over to oppose it (even assuming uniform GOP opposition), or at least one Senate Democrat would have to support a Republican filibuster. Obama's health care push is hitting a rough patch because moderates in his own party are skittish about the price tag and tax increases. The Congressional Budget Office determined that none of the Democratic bills do anything to rein in costs -- the primary rationale for his health care drive. And the Mayo Clinic, which Obama has routinely praised as a model for the health care system, has blasted the House legislation. Yet Obama wants to rush legislation through so he has a victory going into an election year.

In fact, as CNN reported, "The Senate Democratic leadership and the White House are putting heavy pressure on the Finance Committee to adopt its health care plan before the president speaks to the nation (on Wednesday)." So in other words, Obama is trying to pressure the Finance Committee not to write the best legislation its members can, not to reach a bipartisan compromise, but to pass whatever bill they can before he goes in front of the television cameras to give a prime-time news conference.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.21.09 @ 9:43AM

Republican Senate hopeful gets booed for acknowledging Obama's citizenship (Politico)

22-year old Brit dies after NHS denies liver transplant (BBC News)

Bailouts could cost up to $24 trillion (Washington Times)

A booming Venezuelan industry: kidnapping (New York Times)

Dogs Don't Hunt

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.21.09 @ 9:17AM

Only the Boston Herald's sports columnist Gerry Callahan could tie the indignant response over the NFL return of Michael Vick to politically correct eco-crazies, and make them both look foolish:

You hate Michael Vick now for the same reason you drive a Prius or ask for paper when you really want plastic: to show you care. You care more than I do. You care more than your neighbor with two SUVs and no recycling bins. You care more about the earth, the air, the water, the children, and of course, lovable, huggable, innocent little puppy dogs.

Let Michael Vick back in the NFL? What are you, some kind of savage? He killed Marley! He killed Scooby! He killed that whole Hotel for Dogs! And then he lied about it! Which was, of course, starkly different from most guys who are accused of running dogfighting rings. Usually they come clean at the first sign of trouble.

The whole thing is worth pasting here, but I can't do that.

topics: Environmentalism, Professional Football

IG-Gate: Democratic Staffers 'Useless' in Investigations, SayRepublicans

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.21.09 @ 5:50AM

The inspector general saga causes bad blood on Capitol Hill:

Behind closed doors on Capitol Hill last week, I asked a Republican source about the investigative efforts of Democratic staffers for the House Oversight Committee.
"Honestly?" the source said. "They're useless."
More than three weeks have passed since Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) joined the committee's ranking Republican, California Rep. Darrell Issa, to launch an investigation into the case of former Amtrak inspector general Fred Wiederhold Jr. . . .
Despite the "grave concerns" expressed by Towns and Issa three weeks ago, however, Republican sources on Capitol Hill have complained that Democratic staffers on the Oversight Committee have not shown much zeal for the investigation. Sources say Democratic staffers have skipped meetings and conference calls to which they were invited by GOP investigators, who are attempting to work with Grassley's staff in order to prevent unnecessary duplication of efforts. Sharing documents and scheduling interviews with witnesses, allowing Republican and Democratic investigators from both chambers an opportunity to question these witnesses, is a demanding logistical task. And GOP staffers complain that this task seems to be lacking in terms of bipartisanship. . . .

Please read the whole thing.

IG-Gate: Connecting the SIGTARP Dots

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.20.09 @ 7:43PM

The big news on the IG front today was that Neil Barofsky -- SIGTARP, the special inspector general for the Wall Street bailout rushed through Congress last October -- has issued a report accusing Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner of "rejecting 'common sense' by not requiring banks receiving billions of dollars in government money to say how they are using the money."

The Obama administration's promises of "transparency" are being revealed as lies on the magnitude of "The check's in the mail" and "Sure, I'll respect you tomorrow morning." Avoiding public scrutiny of reckless misappropriation of taxpayer dollars is at least one possible motive for the legislation sponsored by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) -- discussed in this morning's American Spectator story about the IG investigations -- that would give President Obama power to fire and replace five IGs at federal financial oversight agencies.

All administrations, Republican and Democrat, have an adversarial relationship with IGs because the job of these watchdogs is to dig up embarrassing mischief with taxapyer dollars that lend themselves to that journalistic classic, the "Your Tax Dollars At Work" story. But big-spending liberal Democrats have more to fear:

The Democrats just want to shovel money out the door and don't care who gets it, except to be sure their well-connected friends get their share.
According to the liberal neo-Keynesian economic gospel, as long as the federal government does X-billion dollars of deficit spending, that will produce X-plus-Y amount of stimulus value (where Y = Magic Government Spending Multiplier Effect) without regard to whether the money ends up feeding orphans or supplying the mistresses of Goldman Sachs executives with bustiers and garter belts.
Unfortunately for liberals, the stupid taxpayers can never seem to comprehend the nuances of neo-Keynesian theory the way Nobel Prize-winning genius Paul Krugman does.
No matter how many times they're lectured about this "stimulus"/bailout brilliance, the idiots who pay the taxes get a little miffed to discover that their great-grandchildren's future has been hocked to pay for new wallpaper and wainscoting in the executive lavatory of a giant banking conglomerate which -- as every expert in Washington explained last fall -- was so frantically in need of cash that the branch managers were sending tellers to sell plasma to the blood bank, merely to prevent a complete catastrophic meltdown in the global finance system. . . .

You can read the whole thing. Meanwhile, it is estimated that the total cost of Obama's bailout agenda could run as high as $23 trillion. (That's "trillion" with a "t.") An effort to muzzle the watchdogs at such a time, given the scandals surrounding certain prominent Democrats, inevitably arouses suspicions among those familiar with "The Chicago Way."

Rationing Life?

Posted by Asher Embry on 7.20.09 @ 5:49PM

When President Obama talks about health care savings, he stresses the conversation we need to have about “end of life” choices. You do the math.

Rationing Life?
By Asher Embry

“End of life” choices, euphemistically used,
Just means that the elderly’s care is refused.

That Bypass we need, who’ll decide if we’re able?
Not our Doc. It’s the actuarial table.
And Barack thinks our Grandpa acts piggish if he
Seeks relief from his pain by replacing his knee.

O insists if we’re old we’ll most likely confuse
All the “end of life” options from which we can choose.
So he’ll mandate a bureaucrat comes for a chat
And he’s hoping we’ll come to our senses and that
We’ll forego old age health care and won’t give a yelp
When they say: “We’re the government, how can we help?”

Barack thought no-one’d notice the “savings” they boast
Means that old folks stay healthy or else they are toast.

(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)

Democrat Governor Against Cap-and-Trade

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.20.09 @ 5:08PM

In my piece today about the Western Governors Association management of the Western Climate Initiative, despite the lack of enthusiasm from many of its members, I cited the criticism of cap-and-trade by two of the governors -- Sarah Palin of Alaska and Rick Perry of Texas, both Republicans -- as examples where they oppose the type of policy in WCI that they are supporting via WGA. I discovered this afternoon another example of a WGA member doing the same thing: Democrat Gov. Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming. AP reports via the Casper Tribune:

Freudenthal's long-held position on climate change legislation has been that it should provide certainty about the future regulation of greenhouse emissions. More certainty should encourage companies to invest in building power plants and other energy projects, he has said.

The climate change bill doesn't provide that certainty, Freudenthal said Wednesday.

Freudenthal's hardly against the limitation of carbon emissions, but he's clearly stated his opposition to cap-and-tax of the type that WCI administers.

topics: Global Warming, Cap and Trade

Mayo Clinic Blasts House Democratic Health Care Bill

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.20.09 @ 3:28PM

The Mayo Clinic, which President Obama has touted as a model for the rest of the health care system, has delivered a blistering critique of the House Democratic health care bill:

Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.

Mary Katherine Ham has a good roundup of Obama's past statements praising the Mayo Clinic.

Centrist Self-Interest

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.20.09 @ 3:15PM

Michael Tomasky argues that moderate Democrats have their political interests all wrong on Obamacare:

These Democrats, from red or just-barely blue states, are by longstanding habit terrified of associating themselves with anything that is remotely associated with a tax or an expanded government. This is well known.

What's less well known is the counter-argument. If the president of their party goes down in flames on a major bill, and the Republicans can do a war dance on his (political) grave, whom does that hurt?

It hurts all Democrats, but most of all it hurts the most vulnerable ones - the ones from red or barely-blue states. In other words, them!

Imagine that Obama loses on healthcare. His approval rating sags to 42%. The Republicans stand to make gains in 2010. Where are they going to make them? Not in the navy-blue districts represented by the solons who are certainly going to vote for whatever plan emerges. They're going to make their gains in the marginal, gettable districts and states.

So: is Ben Nelson better off making sure his named isn't attached to a liberal-ish reform bill? Or is he better off lashing his fate's to his president's?

I say he's a lot better off if the president of his party succeeds.

All things being equal, yes, Democrats across the board will be better off if Barack Obama remains popular. The Republicans' whole electoral strategy is just a bet that he won't. But Tomasky's argument is flawed. People's attitudes about politics may be closer to sports fandom than I'd like, but it doesn't all come down to winning and losing Washington legislative battles. If people see their taxes go up or lose existing health coverage as a result of Obamacare, they will be displeased at the legislators who gave them this "victory."

Even if Obama remains broadly popular at the national level, his popularity will lag in redder states. Paradoxically, some of his successes will make him less popular. Bill Clinton won the legislative battle over raising taxes in 1993. But moderate to conservative Democrats still lost their seats in droves for voting for the tax increase -- and because the tax increase passed anyway, that number included some Democrats who actually voted against Clinton on raising taxes. (See Krueger, Bob.) The Blue Dogs are reluctant to support Obama because they come from the states and districts most likely to oppose the substance of Obama's policies.

Moderate to liberal Republicans like Lincoln Chafee frequently voted against President Bush's policies. They were still among the hardest hit when those policies became unpopular in 2006 and 2008. Chafee's independence gave him a fighting chance, and independence saved the two ladies from Maine. But I doubt any of them wish that Bush had more legislative victories.

Gallup Poll Is Even Worse for Obama

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.20.09 @ 3:12PM

Earlier today, I posted on the sagging numbers for President Obama in the new Washington Post/ABC News poll, but Obama comes across even worse in a USA Today/Gallup poll, which pegs his approval rating at 55 percent -- ranking him 10th among the 12 post-World War II presidents at the same point in their first terms. Specifically, on health care, his approval is at 44 percent, and only 41 percent approve of his handling of the deficit.

More:

•59% say his proposals call for too much government spending.

•52% say they call for too much expansion of government power.

•Expectations about when the economy will recover are souring. In February, the mean or average prediction for a turnaround was 4.1 years; now it's 5.5 years.

•There's limited faith in his economic stimulus package, especially when asked for its likely impact on their own finances. A third predict it will make things better for their families in the long term; a third say it will make things worse.

13 Comments | Add a Comment

Kidnap the Boss, Blow Up the Factory

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 7.20.09 @ 1:57PM

Are these the kind of antics we have to look forward to in a Europeanized American economy?!

How Not to Start A Revolution

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.20.09 @ 1:43PM

A.C. Kleinheider reports that a Ron Paul Republican who got himself elected as vice chairman of the Davidson County GOP in Tennessee decided it would be a good idea to refuse to shake GOP gubernatorial candidate Zach Wamp's hand. Why? "I am not interested in being friendly towards those who violate the Constitution," this fellow, one Matt Collins, explained.

Now, it is possible to be counterproductive by being too accommodating of the party establishment -- like the Ron Paul delegates at the Republican National Convention who voted for John McCain instead. But this kind of behavior defeats the purpose of getting involved in practical politics altogether. As Kleinheider says:

What exactly is the point of joining "the system" just to go spit in the eye of the establishment the first chance you get? What kind of influence can one hope to have if, at every turn, one is burning bridges. Politics is as much about personal relationships as it is about policy or ideology. It is about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. And most of all, it is about keeping from sight the knife you wish to plunge into a man's back until you are strong enough to strike the finishing blow.

Kleinheider concludes:

The Ron Paul movement is certainly not the answer to all that ills the Republican Party, but, at the very least, it is a breath of fresh air. It is a right wing movement that shows youth, vigor and potential for growth. If moderated, if absorbed into the elements of the establishment Right, one could see how it could provide some of the vision and foot soldiering for the GOP's trip out of the wilderness.

However, if the Ron Paul Republicans, the Tea party protesters and the other "growth sectors" of the Right remain content with "keeping it real" and thumbing their nose at "the man," they should not complain when their ideas are discarded and dismissed. It is not the Establishment that is keeping the "revolution" from occurring, it is the revolutionaries, through their myopic view of politics, who keep the boot on their own neck.

Amen.

42 Comments | Add a Comment

Affirmative Action in the Year 2525

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.20.09 @ 1:17PM

In his New York Times column, Ross Douthat looks at affirmative action in 2028 -- the year Sandra Day O'Connor promised us we wouldn't need affirmative action anymore. (What? That sounds more like a policy judgment that should be made by an accountable elected official than a reading of the law by a judge? Well, grow some empathy!)

Douthat's analysis is spot-on, but two points that he tiptoes up to deserve to be made explicit. The first is the role of class. There's a certain irony in white liberals employed at elite institutions at which women and minorities are frequently underrepresented railing against "white skin privilege." Most of them got to work at these institutions after graduating from fine colleges, to which they were admitted after performing well on the SATs and AP exams -- two exams that would surely fail any "disparate impact" test. But that's okay because that's meritocracy. White skin privilege is when a bunch of boring blue-collar "fire buffs" who study fire manuals and stuff pass tests to qualify for jobs that some politically connected minister would prefer to see his buddies get.

The second point that deserves amplification is affirmative action as a "source of permanent grievance among America's shrinking white population" that "corrodes the racial attitudes of its victims." If Ricci-style racial preferences continue after the United States becomes a minority-majority country, it will fuel the growth and political viability of white racialist politics. (Something like the British National Party could happen here.) When American Renaissance-style white nationalists make the argument that whites should organize politically along racial bloc lines just like everybody else, most whites roll their eyes because the beneficiaries of racial preferences are more obvious than the victims. But a few more decades of mass immigration plus affirmative action could change that.

White nationalism would be very bad because, among other things, when the former majority population of your country sees itself as a distinct identity-politics group, you no longer have a country. You are then reduced to a squabbling bunch of identity-politics groups. For people who are rightly concerned about the moral evils of racism, this possibility seems like something more worthwhile to worry about than Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy," which got a bunch of white people who supported George Wallace -- an actual segregationist -- to instead vote for a Republican who helped create affirmative action.

18 Comments | Add a Comment

One Small Flub for (a) Man

Posted by Reid Collins on 7.20.09 @ 12:53PM

NASA, and Neil Armstrong himself, have at last given up trying to gloss over the most famous flub of a line yet uttered by man. As he stepped on the moon from the LEM forty years ago, Armstrong said, with a single omission, the words he had rehearsed: "That's one small step for man; a giant leap for mankind."

Missing from his recitation was the article ("a") supposed to precede "man." "A man" would mean himself, contrasted with mankind -- all of humanity. A self-abnegating way of saying "Aw shucks, 'twart nothing for me, personally. Anybody could've done it." For weeks after the flight NASA struggled with the missing "a" tried in fact to supply it as a freak of electromagnetic eccentricity. Armstrong himself says he was sure he had said it, as he had in rehearsal (it wasn't just any old ad lib).

But now, forty year later, we are all settling down. We, the world, know what he meant, a self-effacing syllable that simply got forgotten in the rush of the moment. We forgive you, Neil, for muffing the most famous line uttered by man.

And that's the way it is.

The Missing Link

Posted by Chris Horner on 7.20.09 @ 12:42PM

I've got an important (IMO) piece today in Energy Tribune explaining the global warming movement's missing link. That those who demand so much of us have never been required to make their case is staggering when you consider how far they have advanced in Congress, with EPA and in the realm of international entanglements.

The burden of proof, or even persuasion, isn't on those who question the agenda. Now's a good time to ask.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Study: 83 Mln Would Lose Private Health Coverage Under House Dem Plan

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.20.09 @ 12:16PM

Democrats and President Obama have denied that the creation of a new government-run health care plan would be a Trojan Horse for single-payer health care, but a new report by the Lewin Group (comissioned by the Heritage Foundation) finds that the House Democrats' health care bill would shift more 83.4 million Americans from private health care coverage to the government plan. To put that in perspective, that would mean that nearly half (48.4 percent) would lose their private health coverage. In all, the government plan would have 103.4 million members once implemented, according to the Lewin analysis. President Obama has repeated the mantra that anybody who likes their health insurance plan can keep it, but in reality about 63 percent of covered Americans get their health care through their employers, and if employers decide to drop their current health plans in favor of the government plan, workers won't have any choice but to sign up.

Here's a Lewin chart titled, "Changes in Sources of Coverage under the American Affordable Health Choices Act Assuming Full Implementation in 2011 (millions)":

The reason for the dramatic shift is that the Lewin Group has anticipated that with government setting lower reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, the government plan will offer lower premiums than private plans. However, the flip side is that the Congressional Budget Office estimates providers will lose $361.9 billion in revenue over the next decade if the House bill is passed. That will mean lower quality of care, shortages in doctors and hospitals, and/or increased shifting of costs on to those with private health care. Should further cost-shifting occur, it will then in turn erode private health care coverage even more dramatically.

UPDATE: Over at Investor's Business Daily, David Hogberg explores the key question concerning whether the government plan will be operating on a level playing field: will a government-run plan be allowed to fail?

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Governors Fret Cost of Obamacare

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.20.09 @ 11:12AM

Last week, I reported on how health care legislation posed a threat to states, and this turned into a major concern of nations' governors as they met in Biloxi over the weekend. As I noted, all of the major Democratic bills envision a massive expansion of Medicaid which would add 15 million to 20 million to the rolls of a program that is already bankrupting the states. Generally, the federal government covers 57 percent of the cost of Medicaid and the states pick up the remaining 43 percent. But while the House Democrats bill would have the federal government fund the cost of the expansion, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee would only cover it for the first five years -- after which point the states will be on the hook for hundreds of billions of more dollars. The New York Times article, quotes Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee as saying Congress was creating “the mother of all unfunded mandates.” He added, "“Medicaid is a poor vehicle for expanding coverage...It’s a 45-year-old system originally designed for poor women and their children. It’s not health care reform to dump more money into Medicaid.”

And though the Times doesn't note this, he speaks from experience. In 1994, Tennessee expanded Medicaid coverage as part of a health care reform effort, but by 2003 its health care system was deemed “not financially viable” and Bredesen was forced to rein in the program.

Of course, the Medicaid issue isn't the only thing that should be concerning governors. As I described in detail in last week's article, the HELP bill also creates bestows hundreds of new powers on the unelected Secretary of Health and Human Services, and it would force every state to create an insurance exchange within for years, or else have the Secretary step in and set one up for the state.

Obama to Congress: Delay for Me But Not for Thee

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.20.09 @ 10:51AM

The White House has delayed for at least a month the release of its mid-year budget review, the Associated Press reports. Conveniently, that's after Congress is scheduled to leave for recess. So just as the Obama administration embarks on a campaign to arm-twist Senators and Representatives to rush through (in three weeks!) health care legislation that would overhaul one-sixth of the nation's economy, the administration is delaying the release of a report that will highlight what a fiscal mess we're in.

Poll Shows Obama Approval Rating on Health Care Drops Below 50 Pct

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.20.09 @ 10:38AM

Presient Obama plans this week to step up his efforts on health care (capped with a primetime news conference on Wednesday), but a new Washington/Post ABC News poll finds that only 49 percent of Americans approve of his handling of health care, compared to 44 percent who disapprove. By comparison, back in April, the same poll found 57 percent approval to 29 percent disapproval. In other words, over the past three months, as Obama consistently pounded on the drum for health care legislation, his net approval on the issue has shrunken dramatically. And if you look deeper into the numbers, it gets even worse for Obama, because those who now strongly disapprove of his handling of health care outnumber those who strongly approve 28 percent to 22 percent.

While Obama remains broadly popular, with a 59 percent overall approval rating, that's down from 65 percent last month. And this is part of a larger phenomenon -- no matter the issue, the trend for Obama is south. Approval of his handling of the economy is now at 52 percent, compared with 60 percent in February and on the federal deficit, approval has dropped to 43 percent, compared with 52 percent in March. Now 56 percent say they're confident Obama's economic program will improve the economy, compared to 72 percent in January. Ironically for a president who was elected on economic rather than foreign policy issues, the approval of his handling of Afghanistan is holding steady at 62 percent.

There's also evidence Obama is losing the image war. In March, just 32 percent said Obama was "an old-style, tax-and-spend Democrat" while 62 percent said he was "a new-style Democrat who will be careful with the public's money." But the public is starting to catch on to him, and 43 percent say he's a tax-and-spend Democrat, and now 52 percent see him as an new brand.

Some other noteworthy findings: 61 percent say they oppose another stimulus package; 55 percent say it's more important to avoid a deficit right now than increase spending to boost the economy; and 54 percent say they would support a health care bill containing the major provisions of the House Democrats bill. But as Jake Tapper notes, "That's not an incredibly high number, and that didn't include any of the pushback language that for so long has worked so effectively on countering health care reform efforts."

But before Congressional Republicans get too excited, they should keep in mind that their own approval ratings are still in the toilet at just 36 percent.

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.20.09 @ 10:14AM

India tells Hillary no thanks to carbon cuts (Financial Times)

New taxes threaten limousine liberal voting block (Wall Street Journal)

Big government means healthy DC economy (Politico)

Merriam-Webster adds "earmark" to dictionary (FoxNews)

Space Duty

Posted by Asher Embry on 7.20.09 @ 10:05AM

One of the two toilets on the international space station broke down on Sunday (with more astronauts than ever before -- 13 in all -- aboard). A Belgian and an American bravely suited up in goggles, masks, and gloves to attempt the repairs.

Space Duty
By Asher Embry

Just one toilet remains.
“Rocket scientist” brains
Now are forced to repair
That important spot where
Everyone in the place
Does their business in space.

A crowd of 13’s all it takes;
And, sure enough, the toilet breaks.

And as everyone knows,
When the head overflows
Best just put up a sign
And get set for a line.

Things have sure gotten rough
Just to show “The Right Stuff.”
It’s “one small step for man”
When repairing the can.

But it’s really a hero
(When gravity’s zero)
Who puts tight goggles on
And tries fixing the john.

(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)