The American Spectator

'If Your Mother Says She Loves You, Check It Out'

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 8.1.09 @ 10:14PM

Such was the axiom of the Old School editors who trained me when I was a young newspaper reporter who covered nothing more important than school-board meetings and Fourth of July parades. How was I to know then that their advice would some day lead to me getting a worldwide exclusive quote from the most famous female politician in the world?

Excuse the gloating, folks, but it's not every Saturday that this happens to me, and the spectacular idiocy of CNN's Dennis Zaki is worth a story all its own. Look at his online bio:

I was a newspaper photographer and magazine photographer in the 80's and 90's. I'm also a stringer for CNN news.
I'm available for assignments. My experience includes advertising, editorial, corporate work, portraits, and photojournalism.

Also, if you need a clown for your kid's next birthday party, give Dennis Zak a call!

Let's look at the story with which Zaki destroyed whatever scrap of credibility he ever had. Take a close look at what we call "sourcing" and "attribution":

• Zak first links a notorious anti-Palin blog;
• Next, he says, "Multiple sources in Wasilla and Anchorage have confirmed the news."
• Next, "A National Enquirer story exposing previous affairs on both sides led to a deterioration of their marriage . . ."

And next . . .? Zero, zilch, nada. Having touted these "multiple sources" in his lede, Zaki neither quotes, paraphrases nor describes them at any later point in the item. Nor is there so much as a "could not be reached for comment" indicating that he had attempted to get the Palins to verify what he heard from these mysterious "multiple sources" (who for all we know are his wife's hairdresser, the shoeshine man at the bus station and a night-shift clerk at the second-largest convenience store in Wasilla.)

Ask any newspaper editor in the country whether he would dare publish a story that alleged so much on the basis of so little. Among the Old School editors for whom I worked was the legendary Wes Pruden of The Washington Times. Wes would have personally fired any reporter who ever turned in such a smelly pile of steaming nonsense, which wouldn't have gotten past any assistant metro-desk editor who valued his paycheck.

Common sense: If it were definitely a fact that the Palins were "splitsville," as one anti-Palin blogger put it, why don't the words "lawyer" or "attorney" appear anywhere in Zaki's piece? Even if your source was merely a paralegal or a courthouse clerk who'd seen the filing, you might characterize that as "sources familiar with the legal proceedings" or some such term.

Given that divorce -- like a libel suit -- is a legal proceeding, any careful reporter might want to get his hands on some actual documents before alleging what Zaki alleges.

Beyond even such basic considerations of sourcing, however, the question occurs, "What's the hurry?" Other than some left-wing bloggers, who was competing with Zaki to be the first to pass along this unverified stuff from those "multiple sources"? Is it really so important to beat those people that you're willing to be the defendant in a libel suit? (I'm not an attorney, so I am certainly not qualified to say whether Zaki's item is what the lawyers call "actionable.")

This insane haste to pass along gossip is what Wes Pruden has always hated about the blogosphere. Wes's motto was and no doubt remains, "Get it first, get it right." There is no reason to rush to print (or, nowadays, pixels) with a story that's wrong. Better to miss a scoop than to get your facts wrong.

The bigger the story, the juicier the scoop, the more caution should be exercised in reporting. That worldwide exclusive quote from Sarah Palin? You can take that to the bank, baby. (I made sure that the quote was shared with veteran blogger Dan Riehl, by the way, so as to ensure rapid widespread dissemination on the blogosphere.)

After I'd filed that, however, I sent an e-mail containing the admonishment that now, no matter what happens, the Palins can never get divorced, as this would undermine my credibility. This was probably unnecessary, because I think that the Palins would agree that Wes Pruden's motto is equally applicable to marriage: Get it first, get it right.

Otherwise, you might end up like Dennis Zaki, whose next career -- according to "multiple sources" -- may involve a red nose and floppy shoes.

18 Comments | Add a Comment

Palin Divorce Gossip 'Completely False'

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 8.1.09 @ 5:08PM

"Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd? I may be just a renegade hockey mom, but I'm not blind!"
-- SARAH PALIN, 5:35 p.m. ET

PREVIOUSLY (5:08 p.m.): "Completely false," said a source close to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, in response to claims by Web sites that she and husband Todd are divorcing.

The rumor appears to have originated with one blogger who cites an unnamed "source" and claims a recent National Enquirer article as having led to "splitsville."

"Sarah is finished with Todd and has decided to end their marriage," the blogger "Gryphen" posted on an anti-Palin blog.

My own source, while not yet authorized to speak for attribution, stated categorically that the reports are utterly without basis in fact, and that the Palins had no idea what caused them. Official statements from the Palins are expected soon, denying the claim.

UPDATE 5:15 p.m.: Official statement from Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton:

Yet again, some so-called journalists have decided to make up a story. There is no truth to the recent "story" (and story is the correct term for this type of fiction) that the Palins are divorcing. The Palins remain married, committed to each other and their family, and have not purchased land in Montana (last week it was reported to be Long Island).
Less than one week ago, Governor Palin asked the media to "quit making things up." We appreciate that the more professional journalists decided to question this story before repeating it.

UPDATE 5:27 P.M.: Stapleton's statement is also cited by Tim Lindell of the Conservatives For Palin blog, who explains that the "ludicrous rumor being spread by Alaskan CNN stringer Dennis Zaki." Lindell writes that the "Gryphen" blogger "is a friend of Zaki's" as are other well-known anti-Palin bloggers.

We may soon see photos of Todd and Sarah laughing at the idiocy of all this.

464 Comments | Add a Comment

More Proof that the American People are Smarter than Their Representatives

Posted by Doug Bandow on 8.1.09 @ 3:01PM

Congress voted to waste $1 billion on the "cash for clunkers" program, essentially paying people to pay in older vehicles.  The American people think the idea is stupid, but will take the money if offered.  So the budget has been broken and Congress has voted to waste even more money.

Observes Rasmussen Reports:

A Rasmussen Reports survey conducted in mid-June showed that 17% of Americans were Very Likely to take advantage of the "Cash for Clunkers" program. Another 18% said they were Somewhat Like to do so.

Despite the willingness of people to accept the money if it was available, 54% opposed the "Cash for Clunkers" proposal and just 35% were in favor the plan. Twelve percent (12%) were undecided.

The Cash for Clunkers plan was designed to encourage people to trade in old cars for new, more fuel-efficient models. At the time of the survey, Congress had just passed the legislation and sent it to President Obama for his signature. Since it has become available, the number of people signing up has greatly exceeded government estimates and the program has already reached its initial one billion dollar spending limit. The House of Representatives quickly approved an additional $2 billion for the program and the Senate is set to vote on it next week.

Well, don't worry, be happy.  With a deficit of nearly $2 trillion, what's another couple billion among taxpayers?!

11 Comments | Add a Comment

T. Boone Pickens Responds To 'Franken Meltdown' Post

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.31.09 @ 6:40PM

For what it's worth, in response to my post earlier today, The Franken Meltdown Begins, which detailed the verbal abuse Sen. Al Franken (D-ACORN) hurled at T. Boone Pickens, Pickens himself responds through his spokesman Jay Rosser.

Here it the Rosser comment provided to me:

If they have a problem, that's their problem. Boone has clearly moved on and is focused on a mission to solve the foreign oil dependency problem that he believes is a national security and economic crisis that America has to confront. Boone's grateful for the impressive turnout of Democrats at the Democrat Policy Committee yesterday and for the interest they have shown in helping address this problem.

18 Comments | Add a Comment

More on the Periello global warming scandal

Posted by Chris Horner on 7.31.09 @ 5:50PM

Sometimes fate smiles on those of us toiling in the global warming fields. Like now, that chairman Henry Waxman of the powerful Energy and Commerce Committee is calling for a full investigation of forged letters to freshman Rep. Tom Periello asking him to oppose the Waxman-Markey carbon cap-and-trade energy rationing scheme.

What a great hook -- the education of young Rep. Periello! -- to remind everyone that this particular Virginia Gentleman needs all the mail he can get, forged or otherwise, as this sage of my own congressional district actually told a local radio interviewer here in Charlottesville that the U.S. is losing jobs to India and China precisely because they've already enacted such measures!

True story. I heard it live with my two ears.

The public are generally very forgiving, if less so at the moment. But some ignorance is beyond shrugging it off with a simple a wink and a nod, and some voters don't think they should be the ones represented by those who apparently are the least able or willing to handle the issues independently, resisting the say-anything, talking points-obsessed attitude, to be satisfied then with a raging ignorance of facts. That is, the least likely to stand up for them against a Speaker highly unrepresentative of the young fellow's district, let alone the president.

Let's call this a teaching moment.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Fey-ned Outrage

Posted by Chris Horner on 7.31.09 @ 5:15PM

So, per the WSJ's Environmental Capital blog, it seems that someone at the grassroots lobbying firm Bonner & Associates forged some letters to Members asking them to vote against the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy rationing legislation which is based on the claim that the earth is alarmingly warming and computer model projections that it will get warmer still.

Bill co-author and Special Global Warming Committee (really) chairman Ed Markey is shocked, shocked that someone would engage in subterfuge on this issue, and vows a congressional investigation.

Pause.

Surely you remember Markey's outrage over those falsehoods, frauds and far, far worse underlying his legislation's express premise. Like the "Hockey Stick" swindle? His fulmination over Gore's phony claims which were outed by the UK High Court? The fraud at University of Albany relating to a key, apparently fabricated data set relied upon by the IPCC for its claims? NASA repeatedly being caught in funny business with data, only to have the gremlins get back into the system and re-monkey the numbers after they've been corrected? Over taxpayer-funded surface temperature stations being moved from fields to parking lots, over air conditioning units and even barbeque grilles (and the data being used by NASA for it's sexed up claims)? About EPA claiming that CO2 poses an "endangerment" to human health and the environment, demurring on the idea that it would perform its own research of the matter saying it outsourced that function to the IPCC (seriously), which, uh, says right there on its website that it conducts no research? You shrieked to the heavens over Team Gore smearing Roger Revelle in his grave, chasing Will Happer and Sherwood Idso out of government jobs, and their Doppelgangers' current assault on EPA whistleblower Alan Carlin, didn't you? And about torturing children so that they report nightmares, refuse water and even get committed after melting down from being told they're contributing to an ongoing ecological crisis? About physical attacks and death threats against skeptic scientists for the crime of speaking out about science?

Right? 

Yeah, nary a whimper because, you know, that's all chump change. I suppose I could go on. Like, maybe, write a book titled "Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud and Deception to Keep You Misinformed" (talk about ammo for a special committee).

Please, congressman. Spare us your dudgeon.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama Appoints U.S. Attorney Who Contributed to His Campaign

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.31.09 @ 4:30PM

President Obama on Friday announced the nominations of four U.S. Attorneys, at least two of whom made political contributions exclusively to Democrats, and one of whom contributed directly to his presidential campaign.

Timothy Heaphy, a Virgina lawyer who Obama has tapped to be a U.S. Attorney, gave $2,401 to Obama's 2008 election campaign, and $5,101 total to Democrats over the past two election cycles, according to Federal Election Commission data.

Another nominee, Deborah Gilg of Nebraska, donated $1,750 to Democratic candidates.

Two other nominees, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Peter Neronha of Rhode Island, were not listed in the contributions database.

UPDATE: Bogden was one of the attorney's forced to resign during the Bush administration.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Blue Dogs May Get an Earful

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.31.09 @ 3:58PM

The Politico is reporting on an overnight deal between Blue Dogs and liberals that will allow the House Democratic health care bill to clear the Energy and Commerce Committee. But as Blue Dogs return home during August recess, they may be facing a backlash among their constituents. While there's no polling data that breaks down support for health care legislation by Congressional district, what we do know is that legislation is even less popular among independents than it is among the national at large, and independents are more abundant in Blue Dog districts. According to Pew survey, just 34 percent of independents said they support the health care plans currently being discussed in Congress, compared to 49 percent who are opposed. But the actual break down of the numbers is even worse. Among those who say who they are following the issue closely, just 27 were supportive, compared to an overwhelming 70 percent who were opposed. And presumably, those who are paying more attention to the issue are the ones more likely to be attending town hall meetings and calling their members of Congress.

30 Comments | Add a Comment

The Franken Meltdown Begins

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.31.09 @ 3:03PM

As predicted by many, it appears the meltdown of the most emotionally unstable member of the United States Senate is finally underway.

After being a good boy during the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, the newly fraudulently installed Sen. Al Franken (D-ACORN), couldn't resist letting T. Boone Pickens have it for funding those delightful Swift Boat ads that helped bury John Kerry's presidential prospects.

The Politico reports

According to a source, the wealthy oil and gas magnate and author of "The First Billion is the Hardest" stepped up to introduce himself to Franken in a room just off the Senate Floor after the lunch ended

Franken, who was seated talking to someone else, did not stand when Pickens said hello. Instead, Franken began to berate him about the billionaire's financing of the Swift Boat ads in 2004.

According to a source, the confrontation grew heated.

Said Franken spokeswoman Jess McIntosh: "It was a lively conversation."

This sounds like congressional flakspeak for a vicious verbal brawl.

It's just the beginning. Sen. Smalley just can't help himself.

Post Script: T. Boone Pickens responded to this blog post. 

66 Comments | Add a Comment

Cambridge Limerick

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.31.09 @ 1:10PM

A friend, Noel Parmentel, passes on this limerick (with an extra parenthetical line to boot):

    WhiteHouse BeerBust 

A Harvard Professor called Skip

Was  busted by Fuzz for a Quip

Which contained a  >Yo Mama<

13 Comments | Add a Comment

Strictly Business, Nothing Personal

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.31.09 @ 12:58PM

Yesterday, toward the end of a post taking issue with Andy McCarthy for using shoddy sourcing to raise questions about President Obama's biography, I noted that what's driving down Obama's approval ratings are his positions on the issues, not concerns about him personally. I just wanted to add some data to back up my point.

If you examine the recent Pew survey titled, "Obama's Ratings Slide Across the Board" you will find that he has a 54 percent approval rating overall, while on any given issue, he polls lower: a minority of 42 percent approve of Obama’s handling of health care; just 38 percent approve of his stewardship of the economy; and a mere 32 percent like the way he is handling the budget deficit. Yet if you keep scrolling down you will notice that an overwhelming 74 percent of Americans say they like Obama personally, compared with just 12 percent who say they dislike him.

So, putting aside any disagreements that may exist between McCarthy and I concerning Obama's biography, from a purely pragmatic perspective, the best chance conservatives have toward stoping Obama from implementing big government policies that will damage our country, is to focus our critcisms on intellegently explaining why his policies are failing and why his proposals will prove destructive. The American people have already decided that they generally like Obama the person, and barring a smoking gun, that isn't going to change in the near future, and certainly not by peddling stories based on pure speculation. Focusing on Obama the person rather than on his policies doesn't help stop the march toward socialism, if anything, it accelerates it.

11 Comments | Add a Comment

Black Panther Case Bites Holder

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.31.09 @ 10:37AM

The establishment media lap dancers for Obama are, of course, mostly ignoring the story about the Justice Department dropping the already-won, voter intimidation case against the New Black Panthers, but at the Washington Times we have been holding, or is that Holdering, the feet of Justice to the fire of righteousness. I dug up this MySpace page of the Panther who is simultaneously a Democratic poll watcher, Jerry Jackson. Kerry Picket did a great job listing the highlights/lowlights of this sicko web page. Reps. Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith have been doing an excellent job at keeping the heat on as well. Earlier editorials on the topic are here and here. Oh, and here. And kudos to the Election Journal, which I THINK was the first one to break the news that Panther Jerry Jackson AGAIN was a poll watcher four days after his case was dismissed.

Overall, this case, combined with Walpin-gate, about the fired AmeriCorps IG, shows SO much more corruption and cover-up of legitimate law enforcement or investigatory functions than ANYthing the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department did, that it really is outlandish for the establishment media to mostly ignore the stories, But here we are, again today, with the Washington Post giving big play to the story about the fired Bush-era US Attorneys -- or, I should say, what basically should be a non-story. (Since the Post requires a pain-in-the neck sign-in every time you visit the site, and I can't be bothered to look up my friggin password, I won't bother linking to today's Post story.)

Anyway, this Panther story has legs, and even Inspector Clouseau could figure out it's important. Which makes Clouseau a hell of a lot smarter than the establishment media.

14 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.31.09 @ 10:15AM

• Obama's, Biden's choices of beer sagging in popularity. (Los Angeles Times)
• McCain, Coburn: $78 billion of Federal Highway Trust Funds wasted (Fox News)
• 97 illegal immigrants found in near-frozen produce truck (Reuters)
• 58% of Republicans "not sure" that Obama was born in the United States (Politico)

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Government Logic

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.31.09 @ 9:53AM

As has been reported widely, the "we'll pay you cash money for your still-running and useful car" program has already run out of funds. I thought it was fashionable to criticize our disposable society?

6 Comments | Add a Comment

topics: Government Waste

WH Cautious in Touting Better Than Expected GDP Number

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.31.09 @ 9:48AM

Christina Romer, chairman of President Obama's Council of Economic advisers, was cautiously optimistic on CNBC about the better than expected GDP numbers, which showed the economy shrank at at 1 percent rate last quarter. "It is still minus, but less minus," she said.

Romer said that without the stimulus package, the economy would have shrank 2 or 3 percent instead, and insisted the numbers showed the economy was on "the right trajectory," and would begin to show growth in the second half of the year.

At the same time, she noted that the fact that economy still shrank implied that next week's unemployment report would show another few hundred thousand job losses.

Though the economy contracted at a slower pace, consumer spending was worse than expected, suggesting to economists a sluggish recovery.

The stock market has had a mixed reaction in early trading, fluctuating between slightly positive and slightly negative territory.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

All Or Nothing At All

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.31.09 @ 7:47AM

Charles Krauthammer argues in today's column that even though President Obama's health care push is in trouble, he'll likely settle for a more modest set of insurance reforms, which Democrats will give him because they'll suffer if he completely fails on this issue. While Krauthammer makes a good case for the "he'll at least sign something" school of thought and I would by no means discount that possibility, there's also the argument for the "all or nothing" outcome. By that I mean either  Obama will sign a very liberal comprehensive health care bill, or come away with nothing at all. There are both political and policy reasons behind my reasoning.

Politically, Obama deciding to scale back his ambitions is one thing, but getting liberals in Congress to agree to that is another story entirely. Just this week, Lynn Woosley, a leader of the House Progressive Caucus, denounced a deal that was struck with Blue Dog Democrats even though it included a government plan, because of a disagreement over reimbursement rates. I can't imagine how her group of 80 House members would react if Obama tried to argue that they'd have to settle for bill that merely stepped up regulation of private insurers. And even though, broadly speaking, it would make sense for Democrats to give Obama some sort of victory, it doesn't mean that in reality any single lawmaker or group of lawmakers will be willing to sacrifice what they want. As Jim Antle has noted on a number of occasions, the liberal members of the House are from safe districts and are virtually assured reelection no matter what happens. So they very well may be willing to go the distance to fight for what they want, and reject any sort of watered down legislation.

As for policy, Krauthammer argues that, "the president will in the end simply impose heavy regulations on the insurance companies that will make what you already have secure, portable and imperishable: no policy cancellations, no preexisting condition requirements, perhaps even a cap on out-of-pocket expenses." He acknowledges that imposing these new regulations will create the need for a mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. But the problem is that once you adopt the liberal mindset for health care reform, you can't stop at these changes, because more government begets more government. Obama won't be able to mandate that individuals buy insurance if they can't afford it, so that will create the need to expand Medicaid and/or offer sliding scale subsidies for people to purchase coverage. But given the problems with the way the individual insurance market is currently set up, they'll want to create some sort of exchange on which people can purchase insurance. Then we're back where we are now, debating whether that exchange should include a new government run plan. The point is that to adopt any aspect of the liberal changes, you end up having to adopt them all. 

So my view is that either moderate Democrats will fold and vote for a very liberal bill, or the whole effort will go down in flames.

UPDATE: David Hogberg has a piece exploring whether the House liberals will actually risk killing health care legislation to fight for a "robust public option."

4 Comments | Add a Comment

GOP to Trade Elephant for Chickadee

Posted by Hunter Baker on 7.30.09 @ 10:56PM

My latest tweet:

In 2010, GOP adopts the bird as a symbol: "Compared to healthcare the war in Iraq was cheep, cheep, cheep . . ."

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Re: Not a McCarthyite

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.30.09 @ 5:23PM

I applaud Phil for his further investigative work. I was indeed basing my endorsement of Andy's article on my assumption that all his facts are right, an assumption based on my high regard for Andy's work. If some of those facts are wrong, I withdraw as much of my short endorsement as is necessitated by the inaccuracies.

But I do not find Andy's article as a whole to be paranoid. He CLEARLY says he is not endorsing the central message of the "birthers," i.e. that Obama somehow was born in Kenya, etc. Instead, he is making a broader relevant point that Obama has been caught in lie after lie after lie, and that he has completely blown off his pledges of transparency -- and that the refusal to release the ACTUAL birth certificate, with ALL the info on it, is an indication of lack of transparency again. The point is not to show that he wasn't born in Hawaii, but that there might be SOMETHING embarrassing on the certificate for him to so repeatedly refuse to produce it. Again, this is IF and ONLY IF Andy is right that the birth certificate contains MORE IMFORMATION than the simple certificate of live birth.

Frankly, I don't care what is on the birth certificate. And I do think he was born in Hawaii. And I am not even sure that all private information ought to be coughed up on demand. Hell, my own birth certificate had a random typo on it that has been corrected only by a letter from the relevant government official (I THINK that is the only form of correction) -- so I think if somebody dug it up, they would still see the incorrect info that is on the typo, without necessarily seeing the letter of correction. I therefore have some sympathy for not wanting the full original document released -- SOME sympathy, if not entire sympathy.

Again, what I continue to endorse is the main message of Andy's piece: "The point is that he lies elaborately about himself and plainly doesn’t believe it’s important to be straight with the American people."

And this, from his concluding paragraph: "The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it."

These are relevant points to raise.

62 Comments | Add a Comment

That Republican Resurgence

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.30.09 @ 4:53PM

Earlier today, the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza reported on wide differences in polls asking people whether they will vote for a Democrat or a Republican for Congress. While I noted on the main site that there are at least two recent polls that show Republicans narrowly in the lead, a number of other polls show a distinct Democratic advantage, albeit with some tightening. (And of course there is always the caveat that the generic ballot doesn't predict how people will vote in their own district.)

But when you look at the polling in several high-profile races for 2009 and 2010, Republicans are in a better position than they have any right to be considering the party's ongoing problems. What is clear is that the public's antipathy toward Republicans, a product of George W. Bush's presidency after 2005, is not so great as to preclude individual Democrats -- even fairly entrenched ones from blue states -- from being held accountable. If Democrats are involved in scandals (Chris Dodd), are seen as governing poorly (Deval Patrick), or both (Jon Corzine), they can be beaten.

The 2010 House races also are going to highlight the downside of the Democrats' Blue Dog strategy: they got a decent number of members elected in 2006 and 2008 who will find their home territory hard to defend in the first election cycle with significant Republican improvement. It was many of the more liberal Republicans in areas with lots of Democrats who lost their seats in 1974 and 1982. It was many of the more conservative who fell in 1994.

None of this is written in stone and things can change rapidly if the the public's perceptions of the economy and the president improve. That's especially the case when the Republicans are reliant on a message of opposition. As the Democrats learned with Ronald Reagan in the mid-1980s and the Republicans learned with Bill Clinton after 1995, it is difficult to pivot from blaming the president for everything that is going wrong to denying him credit for things that are going right. But so far, unified Democratic control of the government has given the GOP a fighting chance that none of its leaders could in the last couple of elections.

4 Comments | Add a Comment

A Different Story

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 7.30.09 @ 4:49PM

Today New York Times technology reporter David Pogue is launching a crusade against mandatory 15-second voicemail instructions. These messages are wholly useless -- who doesn't know by now to leave their message after the beep -- and yet the phone companies make a fortune off of the airtime we spend listening to them. Pogue estimates that Verizon alone may be making as much as $620 million per year with these messages. He rightly calls it a scam and a nuisance, and goes on to list the PR contacts for each of the major carriers and urge his readers to mount a grassroots campaign to get rid of the mandatory voicemail instructions. 

Good for him. Maybe it will work. Maybe it won't, but in that case Pogue's readers will at least know which services allow you to get rid of the message (iPhone owners don't have to deal with it). Perhaps in time people will get fed up enough to start switching services, in which case the competing carriers will be forced to rethink the terrible mandatory messages.

It's interesting that the first thing that occured to Pogue, and also to Mark Thoma, a liberal economist on whose blog I found the story, was not to write that the government should make a regulation preventing mandatory messages. It would be a simple enough regulation, after all.

Why are people like Mark Thoma comfortable letting the market take care of problems like mandatory voicemail instructions, but not things like confusing mortgages? What is the difference between cell phones and personal finance that consumers can take care of themselves on one but not the other?

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Not a McCarthyite

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.30.09 @ 4:32PM

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with Quin Hillyer's endorsement of Andy McCarthy's paranoid National Review rant on President Obama. It does not seperate fact from fiction, but rather substitutes speculation and conjecture for actual reporting, and its sourcing is atrocious.

For instance, McCarthy's source for claiming that Obama's description of his early employment "is bunk" is the Sweetness & Light blog. If you link to the post he cites, Sweetness & Light offers an expired link to another blog, Analyze This, written by somebody claiming to be one of Obama's former coworkers. Sweetness & Light also cites a commenter to the Analyze This blog. Now, it's entirely possible that everything written on Analyze This, including its comments section, is completely accurate. But if McCarthy wants to see Obama's original birth certificate (because the official "certification of live birth" does not provide enough information for him), you'd think he'd want to do more legwork to corroborate his own claims, instead of just lazily linking to another blog and writing without skepticism, "As the website Sweetness & Light details, this is bunk."

At another point, McCarthy writes:

There’s speculation out there from the former CIA officer Larry Johnson — who is no right-winger and is convinced the president was born in Hawaii — that the full state records would probably show Obama was adopted by the Indonesian Muslim Lolo Soetoro and became formally known as “Barry Soetoro.” Obama may have wanted that suppressed for a host of reasons: issues about his citizenship, questions about his name (it’s been claimed that Obama represented in his application to the Illinois bar that he had never been known by any name other than Barack Obama), and the undermining of his (false) claim of remoteness from Islam. Is that true? I don’t know and neither do you.

It's stunning enough that McCarthy, a former prosecutor, would engage in such amateur speculation without backing it up with actual facts. But his favorable citation of Larry Johnson is even more alarming. As Dave Weigel reminds us, Johnson is not a reliable source, but a "now-discredited blogger who blew his credibility last year after insisting, for weeks, that he knew 'sources' who were holding onto a tape of 'Michelle Obama railing against ‘whitey’ at Jeremiah Wright’s church.'" In addition, Johnson erroneously reported that Karl Rove was indicted during the Valerie Plame affair, in a post titled, "Rove Indicted -- Frog March the Bastard." Johnson also has the distinction of having authored a New York Times op-ed titled "The Declining Terrorist Threat" -- which was published just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks. It is simply irresponsible journalism by McCarthy to cite the authority of this man.

Right now, Obama's approval ratings are sinking. And it isn't because people like McCarthy are raising questions about his biography. It's because his economic policies aren't working as promised, and Americans are not buying the health care proposals he's trying to sell them. By writing this dreck, all McCarthy is doing is providing fodder to liberals who seek to distract attention from Obama's fading popularity and his disasterous health care plan by arguing that conservative opposition to Obama is rooted in an effort to portray him as somehow illegitimate.

12 Comments | Add a Comment

Chewing the Fat

Posted by Molly O'Connor on 7.30.09 @ 4:11PM

The federal government and individual state governments are facing widespread budget falls for this fiscal year and the next. It's a pity spending less is not in the left-wing toolbox of solutions. Instead, we face possible taxes on unhealthy foods from the federal government as discussed this week at the Center for Disease Control's first ever Weight of the Nation conference.

The conference's stated goals include exploring "law-based efforts to prevent and control obesity" and published a report recommending policy be put in place to eliminate unhealthy food choices, to force portion sizes to be reduced, to set lower prices for healthier foods in public venues, and to implement stricter advertising control.

The suggested means in which to equalize prices between "health" and "unhealthy" food and to provide "incentives" to achieve these other goals is through government policy and new taxes. This is just the beginning of the new tax craze to help make up for budget deficits across the nation, as CDC Director Thomas Frieden suggested a tax on sugary drinks as a possible solution in efforts to decrease availability and increase costs of foods deemed "unhealthy."

While potentially increasing revenues, this concept is one that leads down the ominous slippery slope to the nanny state, dictating what the government allows us to consume. Other new taxes proposed by states also seem to have at best unintended consequences leading to an expanded role of government in private affairs and at worst a calculated attempt to use the deficit as means of further means of control over citizens.

On a state level, New York has considered such a fat tax, as well as taxes on a number of other everyday goods and services to make ends meet. California has also tried to tax away our vices with an increased tax on cigarettes and proposed taxes on marijuana for recreational (which would also require legalizing it first) and medicinal use. Many states have considered gambling taxes and in Georgia, strip club taxes were debated.

Amidst the Obama crusade to give everyone affordable health care, there's even talk of taxing insurance plans over a certain amount. Taxes on these specific items have an underlying agenda beyond balancing the budget. Both state and federal governments are doing their best to dictate what food you eat, the amount of health care coverage you receive, and what vices you may or may not partake in.

More taxation and government control hurt consumers and businesses alike. It's one more reason to start demanding personal responsibility -- and fiscal responsibility too.

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Bull Fever: Is the Good News on Wall Street Really Bad News?

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.30.09 @ 3:29PM

Sitting here watching CNBC's Erin Burnett raving about today's Wall Street surge -- DJIA up by more than 150 points as of 3 p.m. -- my natural pessimism looks for the cloud behind the silver lining.

Having spent the past few days wading through financial news, I'm now seeing this:

• Stocks up;
• Dollar down;
• Oil, gold, other commodities up;
• Bonds still slightly jittery.

A few months ago, when I asked a private-sector economist what he thought of the policy now being pursued by the Fed, Treasury and Congress, he answered: "They're trying to re-inflate the bubble."

That stock prices could go up as a result -- the deficit-funded flood of currency being partially diverted into securities -- is certainly a possible consequence of this inflationary policy.

Well, good news for those who bought low (in March) and are now in a position to sell high. But does this mean that the market "bottom" is behind us and recovery awaits around the proverbial corner? I'm not persuaded. Today's rally is chiefly being attributed to good news from China, an independent variable. If I were playing the market, I'd be watching bonds very closely. The bond market is the canary in this fiscal coal mine.

The happy bulls need not let a stubborn bear spoil their happiness. Heck, even bond-watcher Rick Santelli was a bit more optimistic today. But focus on the objective fact: Everything looks like good news when Erin Burnett is reporting it.

10 Comments | Add a Comment

GDP: The Most Important Number of the Week

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.30.09 @ 2:43PM

With President Obama's approval rating continuing to falter, one of the few things that can help him at this point is an economic recovery (or at least signs that one is underway). Tomorrow, the U.S. Commerce Department will provide a sneak peak of the second quarter gross domestic product. The number, which will be subject to several revisions, is expected to show that the economy shrunk at a slower rate than in previous quarters, which no doubt the White House will use to argue that its economic policies are working and we're on the path to recovery. The adminsitration's ability to do so will depend in large part on the way investors react to the news. Markets have already rallied in anticipation that the report will show a modest contraction. Marketwatch's survey of economists has the Q2 GDP number at -1.2 percent, while Reuters' has it at -1.5 percent. This compares with the steep 5.5 percent contraction in the first quarter. If the GDP meets or beats expectations, the market is likely to react positively, giving Obama a much-needed bit of good news to take into the weekend. If the number is worse than expected, then Friday's story will likely be a market sell-off as investors determined that the recession would be deeper and last longer than anticipated. The news will be released tomorrow at 8:30 in the morning.

UPDATE: I should also note that any good news for Obama in tomorrow's number could be short lived, because next week we'll get the July unemployment report.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Dogged ACORN Researcher Nancy Armstrong (MsPlacedDemocrat) Is Dead

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.30.09 @ 2:34PM

I have just learned that Nancy Armstrong, an ardent researcher of all things ACORN, has died. No cause of death has been reported.

Armstrong ran the MsPlacedDemocrat blog. She lived near Wichita, Kansas, and was only in her mid to late 40s.

Her family posted a notice about her passing on her blog. After campaigning for Hillary Clinton, she became disillusioned with the Democratic Party and left it last year.

I just spoke to her a few days ago. She was a very thorough, determined person who cared about the truth.

Tributes: No Quarter, You Have To Be This Tall To Go On This Ride, Voice For Liberty In Wichita, Proof Enuf, Free US Now, The Provocateur.

Updated Aug. 2, 2009: It is reported that Nancy died of a massive heart attack. She was 49 years of age. I have been informed by another source that the autopsy raised further questions and that the coroner is not yet prepared to officially state a cause of death. 

(This blog post was updated over several days ending Aug. 2.)

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.30.09 @ 2:26PM

• Cheating the curse: Ramirez and Ortiz tested positive the year before winning the World Series (New York Times)

• Taliban launches Petraeus-style field manual. No more taped executions. (Washington Times)
• At 13 million per year, Communist China leads the world in abortions (New York Times)
• Scientists confirm that organic food is a waste of money (Reuters)

4 Comments | Add a Comment

New Poll Shows AARP Doesn't Speak for Older Americans

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.30.09 @ 12:42PM

I've been reporting on AARP's cozy relationship with the Obama administration, particularly on health care. While the group insists that it hasn't endorsed a specific bill yet, it has been echoing White House talking points on just about every aspect of the health care debate. And just this Tuesday, the group, which purports to represent older Americans, hosted a staged "townhall" meeting with pre-screened questions allowing President Obama to promote his health care proposals. But a new Pew poll, which is bad for Obama in general, highlights just how out of touch AARP is with its own membership on the health care issue. Taking a look at the full report shows strong opposition to health care plans currently being discussed in Congress among the 50-plus crowd, which is AARP's membership base. While Pew found that within the 50 to 64 age group, a slim plurality of 45 percent supported the current proposals compared to 41 percent who opposed them, among the over-65 set, just 29 percent were supporters, compared to 48 percent opposed. In fact, those above retirement age were more opposed to current health care proposals and less supportive than any other age group. The bottom line is that AARP's full-throated support for the Democratic health care agenda stands in stark contrast to the actual sentiments of older Americans, which range from tepid support to fierce opposition.

26 Comments | Add a Comment

I Am Now a McCarthyite

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.30.09 @ 12:06PM

Andrew McCarthy, that is. He has a brilliant piece separating fact from fiction on the Obama "birth" brouhaha, and explaining why what matters is not whether Obama was born in Hawaii (he was), but whether Obama tells the truth and has been transparent, etc -- which he most certainly is not. Read Andy's whole article. It's absolutely superb.

11 Comments | Add a Comment

Liberal Intolerance on TV

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.30.09 @ 11:39AM

Ah, liberal tolerance.

NBC wants Fox competitor Glenn Beck fired.

Chuck Todd and company at NBC News are outraged that conservative talker Beck won't --or can't-- be fired for calling President Obama a "racist." They blogged as follows:

*** On the Glenn Becks and Howard Beales: The White House doesn't want to give Glenn Beck a bigger platform or extra oxygen -- especially regarding his remark yesterday that the president has "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture" -- so they won't comment, even off record. Beck, after all, is a radio DJ who somehow ended up getting a national platform to give his opinion on politics. What's most amazing about this episode is that what Beck said isn't a fireable or even a SUSPENDABLE offense by his bosses. There was a time when outrageous rants like this would actually cost the ranters their jobs. But not anymore; if anything, it's now encouraged. And all of this could turn ACTUAL journalists into the next Howard Beales. It's getting nuts that the folks who are creating the perception of an ideological/polarized media world are people who have never really spent their lives being journalists. Whether it's former political consultants-turned-TV execs or former radio DJs, or former California socialites, the folks helping to accelerate the public's perception of the media off a cliff made their livings trying to do other things. Of course, Beck's crazy language could have one unintended consequence: It could cost him bookings with any Republicans who want to be popular outside Beck's hard-core bizarro-land viewers.

So much for the national discussion on race relations that leftists and journalists say America desperately needs.

Of course when liberal demagogues maliciously declare their enemies racist in the complete absence of evidence, such as when House Ways and Means Committee chairman Charles Rangel (D-New York) said Republican tax cuts were racist ("It's not 'sp--' or 'ni--er' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.'") we hear barely a peep from the liberal media.

Meanwhile, a radical pressure group called the Southern Poverty Pimp Law Center wants adversary Lou Dobbs of CNN canned.

The SPLC's Richard Cohen claims he wants Dobbs off the air because "[f]or years, Dobbs has been trading in baseless, conspiratorial claims that originate on the radical right."

Anyone who has monitored this fundraising powerhouse that masquerades as a public interest law firm knows the SPLC hates --and I don't use that word lightly-- Dobbs because of the hard line he takes on immigration issues. 

The group continually smears Dobbs as a racist and this helps its coffers grow.

47 Comments | Add a Comment

Nancy Pelosi Isn't Winning any Popularity Contests

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.30.09 @ 11:28AM

Poor Nancy.  She's got the Congress in her hands but she can't get any respect--or at least love.  According to Rasmussen Reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains America's best-known - and least-liked - congressional leader, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. voters have an unfavorable view of the Democratic congresswoman from San Francisco, and 35% view her favorably. But those who have a very unfavorable opinion of Pelosi overwhelm those who regard her very favorably - by a five-to-one margin - 45% to nine percent (9%).

Democrats in marginal House districts might want to keep these numbers in mind when they choose whether to do as Speaker Pelosi desires, or to vote to protect the interests of their constituents.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

What's the Difference Between a Blue Dog and a Liberal?

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.30.09 @ 11:12AM

The Blue Dogs talk conservative while voting liberal.

The new health care agreement is merely the latest in a long string of Blue Dog sell-outs.  My Cato Institute colleague David Boaz wonders if the Blue Dogs will ever bite.  He observes: 

They call in the journalists, and they moan and complain about their concerns over the deficit and rising federal spending. And when the rubber meets the road, what happens?

They vote for whatever big spending bill is at issue.

The Blue Dogs need to understand that they won't be able to get away with conservative rhetoric in next year's election if they vote to nationalize the health care system.  The generic ballot preference for Congress has turned Republican.  A Blue Dog sell-out will make them particularly vulnerable in any GOP resurgence.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

How to Get Real Competition in Health Insurance

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.30.09 @ 11:01AM

One of the arguments liberals have repeated in making their case for the creation of a government-run plan is the idea that there isn't enough competition in the health insurance market. Last month, the liberal activist group Health Care for America Now released a study finding that in most states, just a handful of insurers dominate the market, leading to skyrocking premiums. "This is the starkest evidence yet that the private health care insurance market is in bad need of some healthy competition,” Sen. Chuck Schumer said of the report. "A public health insurance option is critical to ensure the greatest amount of choice possible for consumers."

This is just the latest example of liberals arguing for a  government solution to a problem that was created by government.

To start with, liberals -- particularly those who support single-payer -- typically argue that the health insurance market is too "fragmented." The 1,300 insurance companies in America, they say, carve up the risk pool instead of allowing the risk to be shared among the broader population.

Greg Scandlen, President of Consumers for Health Care Choices, testified before Congress on this very issue. During his testimony, he recounted that in the late 1980s insurance regulators determined that, "the small group market was suffering from an excess of competition that was confusing to purchasers. They thought it would be better if there were only three or four competing companies in each state."

As a result, they imposed a raft of new regulations on insurers, and Scandlen explained:

All of these regulations, however well-intentioned, add to the cost of coverage. Moreover, many carriers found it expensive and difficult to comply with all the varying requirements of many different states, especially as the requirements changed from year to year. As a consequence, many carriers decided to get out of the health business and sold off their blocks of business to larger carriers who could afford the compliance costs. This is the primary cause of concentration in this market.

Regulation, in other words, creates what economists call "barriers to entry" into a given market, rigging the game in favor of larger companies with deep pockets.

At the same time they have pushed for more regulation, liberals have fought the introduction of new kinds of insurance products, such as health savings accounts, which have been one of the few areas where we've seen new players enter the insurance market. But they are still subject to heavy restrictions.

If the goal is to increase competition in the insurance market, the solution is pretty simple. Stop fighting the introduction of innovative new insurance policies. Cut down on unnecessary regulation. And create a national market for insurance by allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, as Rep. John Shaddegg has been pushing for years. As an alternative, Scandlen suggests giving insurers the option of being federally chartered (allowing them to operate nationally) or state chartered (allowing them to operate only in a single state), which would counter the liberal argument that if purchasing insurance across state lines were allowed, all insurers would move to the state with the lowest standards.

Don't hold your breath for liberals to entertain any of these ideas for fostering competition. As Rep. Paul Ryan put it on MSNBC during his brilliant takedown of Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, liberals are "using capitalist rhetoric to try and move a plan that is inherently anti-market."

Liberals want to create a system in which government provides subsidies to individuals to purchase insurance on a government-run exchange, and to create a new government-run health care plan modeled after Medicare. Even if this doesn't ultimately lead to a single-payer system (as I and many others believe), it's clear that the only insurers who could possibly go up against the government would be the very large insurers. This is not a plan to tackle the problem of consolidation in the insurance market -- it is a plan to accelerate it.

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Want to Get Healthy? Don't Eat Organic Food!

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.30.09 @ 10:36AM

Okay, to be fair, organic food isn't likely to make you less healthy.  But it isn't likely to make you more healthy, either.  Reports Reuters:

Organic food has no nutritional or health benefits over ordinary food, according to a major study published Wednesday.

Researchers from the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said consumers were paying higher prices for organic food because of its perceived health benefits, creating a global organic market worth an estimated $48 billion in 2007.

A systematic review of 162 scientific papers published in the scientific literature over the last 50 years, however, found there was no significant difference.

"A small number of differences in nutrient content were found to exist between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs, but these are unlikely to be of any public health relevance," said Alan Dangour, one of the report's authors.

"Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority."

Want to "go green"?  Sure, if that's what you are into.  But please stop lecturing the rest of us about the alleged benefits of doing so. 

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Video Shows ACORN Founder Wade Rathke Plotting America's Downfall

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 7.29.09 @ 8:23PM

On his TV show today, Glenn Beck spotlighted a fascinating interview that ACORNcracked.com editor Kyle Olson conducted with disgraced ACORN founder Wade Rathke.

Olson visited Rathke's book signing in New Orleans to get the footage. The book is Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign to Save Working Families, in which Rathke serves up some community organizing war stories, and offers his thoughts on the future of organizing.

As I wrote here at the American Spectator, Rathke is a pioneer of the so-called welfare rights movement that aims to get Americans on welfare. He devotes an entire chapter of his book to what he calls "The 'Maximum Eligible Participation' Solution." It is a strategy for orchestrated crisis that savvy leftist groups across America are likely to embrace.

Rathke confirms in Olson's footage (during what appears to be a book talk) that he is pursuing this strategy that calls for all Americans eligible for welfare payments to pursue every penny the law "entitles" them to. He urges people to "make sure that other people in the community" are actually getting their due from the government.

The Maximum Eligible Participation Solution is just the old Cloward-Piven Strategy in new clothes. The strategy aimed at radical social and political change was articulated by Marxist university professors Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven in a 1966 Nation article, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty." The two academics called for "a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls" in an effort to overwhelm the system. [Italics in original.]

Rathke writes in his book, "it is hard to believe that we cannot assemble the troops to mount a campaign for maximum eligible participation that harvests the opportunities and dollars already available if we could achieve full utilization of existing programs."

As I noted previously, Rathke has also said that technology should be utilized to make it as easy as possible for people to claim welfare benefits.

Here is the segment from today's "Glenn Beck Program":

Here is Olson's interview with Rathke:

25 Comments | Add a Comment

Liberals Bark Back

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.29.09 @ 5:26PM

Roll Call is reporting that, "House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) postponed the health bill markup that he planned to hold Wednesday afternoon amid a backlash from liberals to the deal that he cut earlier with four conservative Blue Dog Democrats. "

More:

The weakening of the public option incensed some liberal Members, with Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chairwoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) declaring she would vote against it.

“It has to be much stronger to get our support,” Woolsey said after a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who tried to sell them on the deal.

The big beef liberals have is that they don't want the government plan to negotiate rates as the agreement with Blue Dogs calls for, but to use Medicare rates -- which is what they typically mean by "strong public option."

Woosley said, “We’ve got a long way to go before this gets to the House floor."

This is a dynamic I've been trying to focus on. Or as I put it last month, "Will the Left Kill Health Care Reform?"

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Drug Smuggling Battle Heating Up

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.29.09 @ 4:58PM

Yesterday, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol seized a half-ton of marijuana in a boat off of the San Diego coast. I did some math on Microsoft Excel -- with the help of an unnamed source who informed me of the market prices in Southern California -- and calculated that this delivery could have yielded close to $6 million in illegal revenue.

The often-repeated justification from pot smokers in California is that their stuff is "home grown,"  but the fact is that our private citizens are helping to fuel a civil war in Mexico by buying their illegal drugs. Revenue for certain cartels can be as high as $200 million per week. Forbes Magazine estimates Sinaloa Cartel leader Joaquin Guzman's net worth at $1 billion.  The Secure Fence Act, passed in 2006, approved  700 miles of fence in hot-spot areas. As of today, approximately 661 miles have been built. Since 2006, Mexico's Drug War has killed 12,800 people. The gang violence has spread over into the United States -- Phoenix now ranks second in kidnappings with 700 in this past year. Mexico City ranks first. In light of recent events, it might be time to re-examine whether we should build a fence that stretches all 1900 miles.

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol Agent Robert Rosas was killed last week, during a suspected drug smuggling raid near San Diego.  A fence will not keep out all the criminals, as indicated by the fact that the last drug bust was on a boat. However, it seems apparent that Congress should "provide for the Common Defense" quickly in order to prevent our Southwest from descending into chaos. In the meantime, maybe the Che Guevara shirt-wearing pot smokers can stop funding the smugglers by either "saying no to drugs" or at the very least by cultivating their own crops.

20 Comments | Add a Comment

Why We Must Oppose the Expansion of Government Healthcare

Posted by Hunter Baker on 7.29.09 @ 2:56PM

The argument from federalism:  One of the great benefits of federalism is that the states can act as the laboratories of democracy.  If a new public policy is tried in the states and works (as happened with welfare reform in Michigan and Wisconsin), then a similar program has a good chance of succeeding at the national level.  The welfare reform went national and proved to be one of the most successful public policy initiatives of the last half century.  On the other hand, major governmental healthcare initiatives have been tried in Tennessee and Massachusetts.  Neither of those have panned out.  That should be a cautionary sign to avoid rushing ahead to just get a bill done!

The argument from misery:  I cannot think of any encounter with my government that I willingly seek out.  I hate going to the DMV.  I hate going to the post office.  I hate getting my car inspected.  I hate getting a passport renewed.  All of these things eat up productive time in my day and are filled with useless, inefficient waiting.  This basic situation also applies to people who rely on the government for their healthcare.  When my wife did indigent care in Houston, her clients did not pay for her services.  They paid with their time.  LOTS OF WAITING.  I don't need more waiting in my life.  And because government employees are typically unionized, I don't need to be at the mercy of a bunch of unionized employees any more than I already am.

The argument from incentivization:  If the government provides the care too cheaply, then there will be a glut of clients who overwhelm the system and create the nightmare of waiting as the price to pay.  If the government offers the care too expensively, people will opt out which is exactly what they wanted to avoid.  If the government tries to control utilization by deciding what services you can and can't have, then you are up against a far worse foe than the worst HMO you ever faced.  And the government will go where the insurance companies fear to tread.  They will decide who should live or die.

The argument from missing the verdammten point:  It is exceedingly clear that a huge reason for the skyrocketing costs of medicine is the problem of predatory litigation driven by lawyers looking for 30-40% of a bloody fortune from an industry thought to be able to afford it.  Between the cost of malpractice insurance, the payouts, and the defensive medicine that must be practiced to ward off lawsuits, it is easy to see why healthcare is outrageously expensive.  Yet, the president very clearly said he would not seek to deal with that problem in the legislation.  WHAT?  WHY?  Because the trial lawyers are very good political donors?  Not a compelling reason for the formation of a particular public policy.

The argument from economic theory: Look at two sectors of the healthcare market that are typically paid out of pocket without the influence of insurance providers or the government.  I am thinking of plastic surgery and lasik procedures for improving eyesight.  Both of those services are becoming less expensive in real dollars rather than skyrocketing out of control.  This happens to be the portion of the healthcare industry where actual market conditions apply.  Customers pay for and receive value at a price that is becoming more reasonable all the time.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

What Ailes Chuck Todd?

Posted by Jeffrey Lord on 7.29.09 @ 2:44PM

Amazing.

NBC's Chuck Todd has this very revealing bit in Politico today.

Targeting, among others, Glenn Beck (by name) and, not by name, Roger Ailes and Arianna Huffington.

Dissing Beck as a "radio DJ" using "crazy language" to deliver "outrageous rants," for which he should be taken off the air, Todd goes on to foam that "actual journalists" may be headed toward a Beckian world of Howard Beales, the unhinged TV star from the film Network.

"It's getting nuts that the folks who are creating the perception of an ideological/polarized media world are people who have never really spent their lives being journalists. Whether it's former political consultants-turned-TV execs or former radio DJs, or former California socialites, the folks helping to accelerate the public's perception of the media off a cliff made their livings trying to do other things."

Hmm… News flash for Chuck. Here's a list of liberals/progressives who "never really spent their lives being journalists." I don't recall a word about them from you.

Tim Russert -- the onetime aide to Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Democratic New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was made the host of Meet the Press by NBC. That would be Chuck's network. Where Russert was also the Washington bureau chief for NBC News.  

Bill Moyers -- the onetime ordained minister from Texas began his career in the mailroom of Democratic Senator Lyndon B. Johnson. From the mailroom Moyers worked his way to being a senior political aide to Senator Johnson, the liaison between 1960 Democratic candidates JFK and his running mate LBJ. Next he was a Kennedy appointee as Deputy Director of the Peace Corps. When LBJ became president, Moyers went along as a special assistant and then White House press secretary, the Robert Gibbs of his day. He is now the host of his own TV show on PBS, has been an editor and commentator at CBS News and the editor of Newsday.

Chris Matthews -- former aide to Democratic U.S. Senators Frank Moss (Utah) and Edmund Muskie (Maine). Next there was time as a speechwriter for Democratic President Jimmy Carter and senior aide to Democratic House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill. In case you've missed this, Chuck, Chris is the host of a television show called Hardball on, well, MSNBC.

George Stephanopoulos -- former aide to Democratic Congressman Ed Feighan (Ohio), Democratic Presidential nominee and Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, Democratic House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (Missouri) and, last but not least, a senior aide to President Bill Clinton. George is now both the host of ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos and the Chief Washington correspondent for ABC News.

Paul Begala -- Ex-Clinton White House aide became a co-host of CNN's Crossfire and is now a network commentator.

One could go on -- and on -- here. This list also contains names like MSNBC's Joe Scarborough (ex-Florida Republican Congressman), ABC's Diane Sawyer (ex-White House aide to P resident Nixon), MSNBC's Pat Buchanan (who actually began his career as a newspaper journalist before becoming famous as an aide to President Nixon).

For the record, as someone who is listed as a contributing editor to The American Spectator and writes a column -- I too worked for a U.S. Congressman (Bud Shuster, R-PA), U.S. Senator (John Heinz, R-PA), a President ( Ronald Reagan) and a Cabinet Secretary (Jack Kemp.)

Oh. Let's not forget that billboard salesman named…Ted Turner.

Truth, Chuck? If all you people who spent a life in journalism hadn't turned journalism into a codeword for liberal political activism, maybe Roger Ailes and Glenn Beck and all the rest of us would be doing something else.

Come to think of it, if you believe this strongly about this, will you be quitting journalism when your network hires Robert Gibbs?

56 Comments | Add a Comment

My Favre-ite Time of Year

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.29.09 @ 2:16PM

Brett Favre has surprised me for the past two years. Last year, I was surprised he decided to come out of retirement and play for the New York Jets. Now I'm surprised that he is remaining retired rather than playing for the Minnesota Vikings. I'm not saying it's a bad decision: Favre's legacy was sure to take a hit if his performance was closer to his run as Jets' quarterback than his last season with the Green Bay Packers. He's no spring chicken.

Yet with a better running game, better defense, better backup quarterback, and an offense more similar to what Favre ran in Green Bay, the Vikings had to have been an enticing opportunity. When he was still considering it this late in the game, I figured yes was a likely answer. Favre's last two seasons ended in disappointment: an overtime loss to the eventual Super Bowl winners in the NFC Championship and falling short of the playoffs last year.

Even that disappointing season with the Jets has to be put in perspective. Favre threw his first six-touchdown game, was the first to defeat the Tennessee Titans, overcame one of Matt Cassel's best performances in New England, and led the team to 8-3 before tearing a bicep in his throwing arm. Favre still finished the season by taking a team that had gone 4-12 the previous season to a 9-7 record, eliminated from the playoffs only in the final game of the season.

Unfortunately, Favre's will-he-or-won't-he spectacles between seasons was increasingly detracting from his legacy on the field. The longtime franchise quarterback was starting to look bitter and less like a team player. He has created a quarterback controversy on the Vikings only to tell the team he won't be playing 36 hours before training camp, leaving them to pick up the pieces. It's the third franchise he's held for ransom in two years.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Blue Dogs Wave White Flag

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.29.09 @ 1:21PM

As many had speculated, the bark of the Blue Dog Democrats has proven bigger than their bite, and they have now struck a deal with Henry Waxman that should move the bill out of the House energy and Commerce Committee, while extracting an agreement that would put off a floor vote by the full House until after August recess.

The Politico has these details of the deal:

The Blue Dogs also succeeded in cutting $100 billion from the overall cost of the bill, bringing the total price tag under $1 trillion. The legislation will now exempt small businesses with a payroll greater than $500,000 from paying for any government-sponsored health coverage - double the $250,000 in the initial draft. And finally, under the terms of the deal Ross announced, doctors and other health care providers will be allowed to negotiate their payment rates with the government-sponsored health care arm.

Assuming these are all the changes, it wouldn't alter the overall infrastructure of the bill. It would still mean a massive expansion of Medicaid, providing subsidies for people to purchase government-designed insurance policies on a government-run exchange, creating a new government-run health care program that would put the nation on a pathway to single-payer, mandates on individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax, and a tax hike on employers that did not provide health care to their workers. And it's not clear how many of the compromises will be adopted by the full House once this bill is reconciled by the two other committees.

But by delaying the full House vote until September, it means that there will still be time for Blue Dogs to change their mind on the final bill if they take a lot of heat from their constituents during August recess.

19 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.29.09 @ 12:49PM

• Rewarding the base --$783,000 of federal stimulus money to be used for pot smokers and malt liquor drinkers to record their daily habits (Syracuse.com)

• House Defense Appropriations bill has $3.3 billion in pork (Businesswire)
• Only 47% of Hispanic voters support Sotmayor, but 100% of Lindsey Grahams are in favor (PRweb)
• Two months before release, Rod Blagojevich's book already on sale (Chicago Tribune)
• Barack sixpack to have a bud light with Sergeant Crowley tomorrow (Bloomberg)

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Enzi Said Finance Committee Deal Not Even Close

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.29.09 @ 12:44PM

Sen. Mike Enzi, one of three Republican Senators involved in the Finance Committee negotiations, has just released a statement pushing back against media reports that the committee was on the verge of a bipartisan compromise:

"We still have several areas where we haven’t been able to come to a consensus. No deal is at hand and substantive issues, big and small, remain under discussion and need to be resolved.  We need to keep working together.

 "I will need to see complete language and a final estimate from the Congressional Budget Office before I can agree to any health care reform bill...

 “I also need commitments from Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi, as well as the Administration, that the bipartisan agreements reached in the Finance Committee will survive in a final bill that goes to the President.”

If Enzi means what he says, his demand makes it effectively impossible for him to back a compromise. There's absolutely no way that Pelosi, Reid and Obama would preemptively agree to a deal that included neither a government-run plan or an employer mandate just to attract the support of a lone Senator of the minority party. And even if they were willing to, they don't have the power to guarantee that liberal members would go along with any such deal. After reading this statement, I'm starting to think that we may see Enzi follow Orrin Hatch's lead, and drop out of negotiations.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Health Care Squeezing Out "Card Check"

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.29.09 @ 12:20PM

As health care gets bogged down in the legislative process, it is also sucking up so much oxygen on Capitol Hill, that it's making it harder for Democrats to push other aspects of their agenda. And today, Congress Daily reports:

Senate efforts to compromise on a watered-down version of the Employee Free Choice Act have been put firmly on the chamber's back burner -- perhaps for the rest of the year -- as senators, aides and lobbyists focus on health care and other legislation, participants said.

 "We're not doing anything right now," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said of talks he has led among a group of Democrats since it became clear in late March that a more ambitious "card check" bill to help unions organize could not win 60 Senate votes.

"We've got the healthcare bill; we've got appropriations bills, and we're lacking two senators that we need right now," Harkin said in an interview. "Nothing is happening on that right now."

5 Comments | Add a Comment

"Cost-Containment" in Obama-ese

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.29.09 @ 12:09PM

After the Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Doug Elmendorf, delivered a serious blow to President Obama's credibility on health care when he testified that none of the current Democratic bills does anything to control costs -- the stated goal of reform -- the White House responded with a novel idea: create a commission! The new Independent Medicare Advisory Council would be for a panel of experts chartered to make recommendations on how to contain costs in Medicare. But when Obama was asked about it during yesterday's AARP townhall, he backtracked that cost-containment actually the point of the commission. Er, maybe he didn't. Okay, let's just look at the relevant portion of the transcript (with emphasis on my part):

Q    Hello, Mr. President.  My question is some concern we have about the possibility of a cost containment commission.  If you could comment on that.

THE PRESIDENT:  The idea is not the cost -- it's not a cost containment commission that's been proposed.  It's been what I just described -- an independent medical advisory committee modeled on the kind of committee that is called MedPAC right now.  It's got people who are health care experts, nurses, doctors, hospital administrators.  The idea is how do you get the most value for your health care dollar.

Now, the objective is to control costs.  But it's not cost containment by just denying people care that they need.  Instead it's reducing costs by changing the incentives and the delivery system in health care so that people are not paying for care that they don't need.  The more we can reduce those unnecessary costs in health care, the more money we have to provide people with the necessary costs -- the things that really pay high dividends in terms of people becoming healthier.

Got that? It isn't a cost-containment commission even though its objective is to control costs. I can think of no more concise demonstration of Obama's double-speak on health care. The problem Obama faces is that he wants to push the idea that he's going to reduce Medicare spending to satisfy the CBO and those concerned about exploding deficits, but he doesn't want senior citizens to think any of the cuts will affect the care they currently receive. And this gets to the heart of his failure as a leader -- his inability to acknowledge that tradeoffs exist. This has been the case no matter the issue. He wants to drastically increase spending and reduce the deficit while maintaining that he'll cut taxes on 95 percent of Americans and only raise them a slight amount on the very wealthy; he claims he'll rein in entitlement spending by creating a massive new entitlement; he argues that a national energy tax (which he won't admit is a tax on energy) will help the environment and improve the economy at the same time; and he says that we can give health insurance to 46 million more people, save money, improve the quality of care, and avoid rationing.

But for a moment, let's take Obama at his word. Let's say that the $622 billion in Medicare cuts he's proposed would merely eliminate waste, fraud, abuse and inefficiency and would not affect care. And let's say that the proposed Medicare panel finds that billions more are being thrown away by Medicare, and simply paying for services that patients don't need. Uh, doesn't that kind of undermine Obama's case that we need to create a new government-run health care program because it will be efficient and have low administrative costs?

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Isaac Hayes to Challenge Jesse Jackson Jr.

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.29.09 @ 11:56AM

Well, not that Isaac Hayes, who died last year. But Rep. Jackson's Republican challenger could have some fun with campaign slogans invoking his more famous namesake.

Tired of getting the Shaft from Washington? Vote for Isaac Hayes. Or: Isaac Hayes -- finally, a Chef who won't spoil the broth. And maybe even: Vote for hot buttered soul.

Stranger things have happened. Though I doubt Rev. Hayes will be calling me for campaign advice anytime soon.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama Is No LBJ

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.29.09 @ 10:58AM

Dick Polman has a good column about why liberals are dreaming when they ask Obama to seize his "LBJ moment." Polman hits all the differences between now and then, but the most fundamental is really this: Obama doesn't have LBJ's legislative experience or the Washington alliances built up over a period of decades. He has never cobbled together majorities, bipartisan or otherwise, to pass controversial legislation.

The only real leverage Obama has over Democrats on Capitol Hill is the fact that he is popular and many of them are not. Defying Obama on an issue of importance to liberals carries some cost with the Democratic base. There is also the argument that these Democrats, especially the ones from red and purple states, will benefit politically from Obama's success. But popularity can be a temporary thing and many of these Democrats represent places where Obama was at less than 50 percent -- in some cases, as low as 30-odd percent -- at the peak of his popularity.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Coming to Your State?

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.29.09 @ 10:45AM

AmSpec contributor David Bass, whose day job is to report for the John Locke Foundation's Carolina Journal, learned a couple of months ago that the North Carolina Department of Revenue was singling out large families for audits, demanding proof such as Social Security card copies and birth certificates to prove their dependents' existence. The department threatened to withhold income tax refunds if the families failed to provide the documentation.

In his story today, after waiting weeks to obtain public records he requested, David reports that the State of Kentucky has shown an interest in North Carolina's auditing actions. Undoubtedly this will spread as a great idea among state-level lawmakers at the National Conference of State Legislatures and will become standard practice everywhere in a few years.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

topics: Taxes

Republicans Narrowly Lead Generic Congressional Ballot

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.29.09 @ 10:35AM

NPR is reporting a 1-point lead for the Republicans on the generic ballot for Congress. A Rasmussen poll has the GOP up 3. Congressional Quarterly still rates the Democratic majority as secure and points to three House seats where the Republicans are very vulnerable. (A fourth will no doubt be added if Michael Castle decides to retire or run for Senate in Delaware.) My only quibble with the CQ analysis is that it doesn't take into consideration the number of seats held by Democrats in conservative districts who have never faced a tough election cycle. The national trends will be different enough in 2010 to make a number of Democrats who could win in 2006 and 2008 tough sells next year.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Behind the Times

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 7.29.09 @ 10:29AM

Today's New York Times columnists are Tom Friedman, talking about Tom Watson, and Maureen Dowd, talking about Sarah Palin's future.

Did they accidentally post last week's edition?

It reminds me of the Daily Show sketch on the Times: "Why is aged news better than real news?"

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Gallup Suggests Obama Losing the Health Care Battle

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.29.09 @ 10:25AM

Gallup delivers a sober analysis its latest health care poll findings: "These results do not coalesce into a terribly optimistic picture of Americans' views of the perceived impact of healthcare reform." That would be putting it mildly. The findings show that Americans are not buying President Obama's claims that legislation would improve quality, expand access, and reduce costs among the general population, and the numbers get worse when people are asked how they think the proposed changes would effect them personally.

Specifically, the poll found a minority 44 percent thought legislation would improve the nation's medical care, while just 26 percent said it would improve their own; 47 percent said it would expand access overall, compared to 21 percent who said it would expand their own access; just 30 percent bought the idea that health care costs would go down, and only 18 percent said their own costs would fall.

Put it all together, and it means that Obama's arguments have failed to convince a skeptical public as it is, and his approval ratings continue to get worse with each passing day. (See: NPR Poll Finds Tough Sledding For Obama.)

UPDATE: The NPR poll also found, "when asked about the plan now moving through Congress, a plurality of 47 percent was opposed and 42 percent said they were in favor, based on what they had heard about the plan so far."

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Malkin on Fire

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.29.09 @ 10:05AM

Michelle Malkin does a great job here at compiling a compendium of White House thuggery. More and more, it looks like Michael Barone was right to call it "gangster government."

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Waiting for Finance

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.29.09 @ 9:58AM

The health care push is deadlocked right now as everybody waits to see what emerges from the Senate Finance Committee, where Republicans Chuck Grassley, Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe are trying to hash out a deal with Democratic Chairman Max Baucus and two other more moderate Democrats. But the dribs and drabs of information we do have about what they are considering make it sound like a plan that would be acceptable neither to conservatives nor liberals. From what we know so far, that the deal is likely to create some sort of non-profit co-op insurer to compete with private insurers as a substitute for creating a new government-run plan and it will drop a mandate that would tax employers who did not provide health care. 

For liberals, this would simply be unacceptable. To them, the creation of a government-run plan is not just one feature among many, but the central part of reforming the health care system -- this is especially true among those who are single-payer advocates at heart. And liberals don't think that a non-profit co-op would have the scope to really drive down prices and threaten private insurers (or as they would say, "keep private insurers honest"). Asking them to drop a government plan is difficult enough as it is, but to also drop the idea of an employer mandate will be even harder to swallow. Furthermore, as we've seen so far, having an employer mandate helps the evaluation of the Congressional Budget Office. Not only does the tax raise some money and help marginally with financing, but the CBO thinks that if employers would face a penalty for not providing coverage, few would drop coverage -- meaning the mandate makes it easier for Democrats to claim that people who like the insurance they have, can keep it, and helps them get closer to universal coverage. Absent the mandate, the CBO has found, a lot more employers would drop coverage -- providing Republicans with the talking point that millions would lose their employer-based health care.

At the same time, assuming the agreement maintains features of other bills, I don't see how it would be acceptable to any actual conservative. While a co-op would not be as bad as a government-run plan, we'd most likely still end up with a system in which government provides subsidies to individuals to purchase government-designed insurance from a government-run exchange. And if they want the CBO to score the bill as coming close to universal coverage, those subsidies would have to be generous, and the bill would also have to include an expansion of Medicaid. Both in terms of regulation and the creation of the exchange, you'd still be creating the infastructure for the eventual government takeover of health care. You'd basically have a system like the failed and financially unsustainable model they have in Massachusstets. As time goes by, Congress could easily make more people and employers eligible to join the exchange, and perhaps add a government plan down the road (or even take over the co-op plan if it runs into trouble).

Politically, a Finance Committee agreement before recess would provide some face-saving momentum for the Obama administration, and allow them to point to some bipartisan cooperation. But I don't see how it solves the larger issue -- how do you create a bill that is acceptable to both liberals and moderate Democrats?

2 Comments | Add a Comment

IG-Gate Aggregator

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.29.09 @ 9:53AM

Our firend Robert Blevedere of Camp of the Saints has a new place to keep track of all the Inspector General scandals. Great work!

2 Comments | Add a Comment

The King of Birthers

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 7.28.09 @ 6:08PM

Mary Katherine Ham asks Andrew Sullivan to remove the beam from his own eye before he criticizes the birthers for the mote in theirs. And in passing she makes an invidious comparison between Sullivan and a paranoid, crazed, and irrational conspiracy theorist.

28 Comments | Add a Comment

Talking "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" on MSNBC

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.28.09 @ 5:49PM

Here's a clip of me discussing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on MSNBC.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Tummy Tuck Tax

Posted by Asher Embry on 7.28.09 @ 5:09PM

Treasury Department economic advisor Gene Sperling suggested, and the Senate Finance Committee staff has discussed, funding health care “reform” by imposing an excise tax on “medically unnecessary” cosmetic surgery.

Tummy Tuck Tax 
By Asher Embry

If Eugene Sperling has his way
We’d better get botoxed today.
For soon enough we could be taxed
When lipo’d or bikini waxed.
And if our tummy’s tucked away
Our government will make us pay.

Our snout, which we had hoped to fix,
Is now ensnared in politics.
Does our planned rhino surgery
Repair an abnormality;
Or is it just a luxury
For which we’ll owe the Treasury?

Just don’t be shocked if our tongues wag
When V.P. Biden starts to sag.

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

6 Comments | Add a Comment

President Obama's $6,000 Lie

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.28.09 @ 4:57PM

During last week's prime time press conference, President Obama incorrectly said the United States spends $6,000 more per person than any other country in the world. Perhaps his defenders would chalk it up to an honest mistake he made during a long press conference. But the problem is, he not only repeated, but elaborated on the error this time, making additional factual errors.

Here's Obama during this afternoon's townhall with AARP, based on the official White House transcript:

Last point I would make, just to give you a sense of why I know that we can get savings in the system without over the long term spending more money.  We spend about $6,000 per person more than any other industrialized nation on Earth -- $6,000 more than the people do in Denmark, or France, or Germany, or -- every one of these other countries spend at least 50 percent less than we do, and you know what, they're just as healthy. 

However, if you look at OECD data (which can be downloaded here), you will find the following statistics for per capita health care costs, adjusted for purchasing power parity:

United States: $7,290

Denmark: $3,512

France: $3,601

Germany: $3,588

Obama is correct that all of those countries spend less per person on health care, but it isn't anywhere near $6,000 less. The widest gap among the countries mentioned, between the U.S. and Denmark, is $3,778 per person. Of course, other systems don't keep costs down with magic wands, but with rationing care to the sick -- something Obama denies he wants to do in the U.S.

21 Comments | Add a Comment

IG-Gate Update: 'No Doubt' Political Pressure Led to His Firing,Walpin Says

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.28.09 @ 4:24PM

Readership of The American Spectator includes former AmeriCorp inspector general Gerald Walpin, who was fired last month on orders from President Obama. In a telephone interview today, Walpin said he noticed last week's report that Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) had contacted White House officials in March, publicly vowing that sanctions against Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson didn't prevent the city from getting its share of bailout cash.

Questions about what role Matsui may have played in Walpin's dismissal are being asked on Capitol Hill, and the ex-IG himself is curious about the Sacramento congresswoman's intervention, which drew attention after it was highlighted by California blogger Eric Hogue.

On the larger question -- whether political pressure over his investigation of Mayor Johnson's St. HOPE Academy was a factor in the June 10 quit-or-be-fired ultimatum from the White House -- Walpin is certain.

"I have no doubt about that," Walpin said.

Walpin recalled how he was trying to get a nap in a rental car while his wife drove up the New York Thruway to the Second Circuit Judicial Conference when White House lawyer Norm Eisen called his cell phone to deliver the presidential ultimatum.

"That ended my nap," said Walpin. who called the dismissal "totally unexpected."

Walpin explained that his staff of career investigators had "spent a large amount of time digging up facts in Sacramento," and he was startled to discover that the President of the United States had directly ordered him fired.

"I never thought that the president would have interceded," said Walpin, who on July 18 filed a federal lawsuit seeking reinstatement in his job.

The ex-IG also said he was dismayed when Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) announced that the House Oversight Committee would halt its investigation of Walpin's firing, citing his lawsuit at the reason.

"I'm not sure why that should interfere with the congressional obligation to investigate" evidence of political pressure to undermine the independence of watchdogs, Walpin said. "What kind of message is being sent?"

If Walpin's lawsuit has given the Towns Committee an excuse to stop asking questions, others on Capitol Hill are still determined to get to the bottom of this story, sending letters that routinely include an important legal warning:

"No records related to these matters shall be destroyed or otherwise made inaccessible to Congress."

Violation of such a warning can have frightful legal consequences, to say nothing of the political ramifications of what Glenn Reynolds and co-author Peter Morgan once described as The Appearance of Impropriety.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Can Catholics Support Obamacare?

Posted by Ryan Ellis on 7.28.09 @ 4:12PM

As Congress heads toward its August recess, Washington is questioning whether the Democrat Congress and President Obama will be able to pass a healthcare bill this year.  Most of the attention thus far has focused on the hundreds of billions in new taxes, the control board the government will set up, the escalting costs of the plans, etc.

But the most interesting pushback, at least for me, is from many quarters of the Catholic Church.

Raymond Arroyo over at EWTN recently posted a very helpful summary of what the Church's major objections would be to Obamacare as it is coming together.  They include:

1. Federal funding of abortion and/or federal requirements that all insurance plans cover abortion on demand
2. Lack of any meaningful rights of conscience for health care providers.  Without this, doctors and nurses could be compelled to perform abortions, issue contraceptives, sterilize, euthanize, etc.
3. A chilling requirement for Medicare beneficiaries to go into end of life counseling every five years.  The idea would be to bully them into euthanizing themselves.  Old people that linger on are a major driver of health care costs.  The most effective rationing is to get rid of old folks.

Any one of these three would be enough to spook most faithful Catholics.  All three of them result in a total deal-breaker.

The normally-liberal USCCB (whose staff is dominated by Christian Democrat-like socialists) would ordinarily be expected to support government medicine.  After all, they have been full-throatedly behind things like S-CHIP expansion and other government spending.  But they are sending out VERY strong signals of concern on this one.

Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center (NY), who heads up the USCCB division working on the healthcare issue had this to say in a recent letter:

On respecting life and dignity, he said, "No health care reform plan should compel us or others to pay for the destruction of human life, whether through government funding or mandatory coverage of abortion. Any such action would be morally wrong."

After citing protections from public funding of abortion in U.S. law, Bishop Murphy added, "Health care reform cannot be a vehicle for abandoning this consensus which respects freedom of conscience and honors our best American traditions. Any legislation should reflect longstanding and widely supported current policies on abortion funding, mandates and conscience protections because they represent sound morality, wise policy and political reality."

Getting to 218 in the House with the opposition of the Catholic bishops would be very problematic for Nancy Pelosi.  Recently, 19 House Democrats signed a letter to Speaker Pelosi opposing abortion funding in any health care legislation (Democrats for Life even got in on the action on Arroyo's EWTN show).  The Blue Dogs have concerns about cost.  Combine all this with the House Republicans (likely to be unanimous in their opposition), and you have a headcount problem for the Democrats.

At the same time, it's hard to imagine a comprehensive healthcare reform bill passing out of the House of Representatives that doesn't genuflect at the altar of the culture of death.  Just another reason why this issue is going nowhere as we enter the dog days of the August recess.

8 Comments | Add a Comment

topics: Health Care, Catholicism, Abortion, Euthanasia, Culture of Death, Culture of Life, Catholic Church, Obamacare, Conscience Rights, Pro-Life Doctors

Maybe We Can Goad Obama Into Saying the IRS is Acting Stupidly?

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 7.28.09 @ 4:08PM

Determined to prove he is, indeed, a close friend of President Obama ahead of that White House beer, Henry Louis Gates is amending a 2007 tax return. Holding forth with general brilliance is apparently not deductible, just FYI. 

For the record, I'm with Radley Balko on the initial Gates arrest. 

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Apologize, Mr. President

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.28.09 @ 3:39PM

Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.) doesn't think an invitation for free beers at the White House cuts it -- he wants the president to retract and apologize for his comment that Sgt. James Crowley "acted stupidly" in arresting Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates. McCotter, a member of the House Republican leadership team, introduced a resolution to that effect yesterday. During a conference call this afternoon, he framed it as an issue of presidential power.

"If you want to talk about an overexpansion of presidential powers," McCotter said, "You have the most powerful man in the world admit bias toward a party and a lack of facts and determine that a police seargant in Cambridge, Massachusetts acted improperly." McCotter emphasized the "inherently unequal power relationship" between President Obama and Sgt. Crowley.

McCotter acknowledged that the Democrats were unlikely to bring his resolution to the floor but said it was important to state the principle that the president should not have the power to "prejudge" and "accuse a private citizen of wrondoing." McCotter was not satisfied with the president's efforts to "recalibrate" his remarks and tone down the controversy, calling it "a stylistic change, not a substantive change."

"The president reiterated that the officer did something wrong," McCotter said. He continued by saying that if the president could force the CEO of General Motors to resign, this is a terrible precedent to set with a local police officer. Michigan's police union backs McCotter's resolution. "After admitting a bias against the police officer and an ignorance of the facts, the President used his bully pulpit to help a well connected friend by unfairly accusing an officer of misconduct in the performance of his duties. It must not stand. If it does, what officer will be next?"

5 Comments | Add a Comment

A Once Fervent Sarah-phile...

Posted by Shawn Macomber on 7.28.09 @ 3:37PM

...waves goodbye.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama's Latest Clunker

Posted by Molly O'Connor on 7.28.09 @ 2:36PM

President Obama has certainly been busy with his bailouts, stimulus packages, and attempts to take over the health care system. It seems as if the money that we don't have is still burning a hole in his pocket. Obama's efforts to stimulate the economy ($1 trillion here, $1 trillion there) continue with the implementation of Cash for Clunkers yesterday.

Cash for Clunkers allows people with older cars a government rebate for up to $4,500 when trading in for new, more fuel efficient cars. (Let's clarify, by "old" the government means a car less than 25 years old that already gets less than 18 MPG). Car dealers must meet certain requirements, released last week, in order to be a "qualified" dealership. This presents two problems: The first being that we, the taxpayers, are essentially buying other people new cars.

This apparently will stimulate sales and benefit both car dealers and manufacturers, as well as those who qualify for a new car. I don't remember "the right to own a car" being in the Bill of Rights or for that matter Roosevelt's far more expansive Four Freedoms. The second thing I take issue with is taking functioning cars of the road to be destroyed in favor of newer (post-2007) more environmentally friendly models.

How is it environmentally friendly to create a fleet of new cars and destroy, thus waste, old ones before their time? And this all to the tune of $1 billion (provided it doesn't go over budget). How long can the government throw around billions of dollars like it's petty change? And is the taxpayer-funded Cash for Clunkers really going stimulate the economy more than it costs? Voters need to start looking at the costs and not just the benefits of these government-sponsored programs.

13 Comments | Add a Comment

Frum Targets Levin Again

Posted by Jeffrey Lord on 7.28.09 @ 12:30PM

Mark Levin is once again targeted by David Frum. Sometimes these kinds of debates get lost in the whirl of personalities. When one deals with someone as reticent as Levin, who always has to be prodded to speak his mind, this can be a problem. Under a post titled "Quit Whining" over at his New Majority website Frum tries to convince that Levin, whose business it is to make other people whine -- a task at which he is remarkably proficient -- has written a book "suffused with this message of doom." Inexplicably, Frum then describes Levin's bestselling Liberty and Tyranny (now in its 17th week on the New York Times bestseller list) as "excellent." Whatever.

Unintentionally, Mr. Frum has fingered precisely what's wrong with the approach of Republican "moderates" or "neo-Statists," as Levin might say. Having read Levin's book from cover to cover and reviewed it, I sense not a scintilla of "doom" in these pages. Levin is a seriously credentialed Reaganite, which among other things by definition means he shares the late president's affinity for bold colors and optimism. But even if one were unaware of that, the hard fact is that it is not Levin or his book but the "Statist" argument that is the greatest purveyor of doom and gloom. And if one is a "neo-Statist" as Frum has apparently become, the idea is to be gloomy but just not as gloomy as the Statist. Sort of gloom-lite.

At the core of the Statist is the drive for control, or, as Levin all too accurately puts it, "an insatiable appetite for control." This appetite is nothing if not fed by a sense that the world will go to hell in a hand basket unless the government controls…let's see…automobile manufacturers, banks, financial institutions, your health care, your kid's school…etc. etc. etc. down a list that truly is eternal. From what's served up at Applebee's to what you say on your college campus, the driving force is control, control, control. But why?

Because of an absolute reflexive horror at individual freedom. And contrary to Frum's point that freedom is not popular in "Gaza and Waziristan" and Paris, Stockholm, London, Toronto, Buffalo and New Orleans, one only has to ask the obvious: What is it that gives whoever is in charge in these places the drive to do whatever they do, whether for good or ill? A drive for freedom. No freedom in Gaza? Who runs Gaza? Hamas -- a bunch of thugs who are so insistent on their own freedom to be thugs they enforce that freedom at the point of a gun.

This said, Frum is right to say that "apocalyptic despair" on the part of conservatives is wrong. From some of what he says it sounds as if he's having a debate with himself. The gloomy gus who elitely views us outliers outside the Beltway as part of some sort of "Cult of Rush" -- versus a Frum who sends up the occasional bubble of optimism as if he were having a bit of an intestinal moment. 

The Levin book I read is filled with the zest of the happy warrior. OK…maybe the occasionally cranky warrior. But gloom and doom from Levin? Not only is this not so (that's a smile he's wearing on the cover of his book. Really!), it's a real safe bet that nearly 1 million copies of his book would not have been sold nor would his radio show be as popular as it is if all he had to offer was despair. Americans -- God bless us one and almost all -- simply aren't culturally built that way. They aren't buyers of gloom and doom. Ask Jimmy Carter, who is still licking those 1980 wounds from trying to sell "malaise."

Almost a million people buying a book that tells them to get under the bed, it's over? I don't think so. Why do you think Air America fails and Levin succeeds? Because at its heart, we don't live in a Frumpy country.

29 Comments | Add a Comment

AARP Goes to Bat for Obama Again

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.28.09 @ 11:10AM

Last week, I detailed the cozy relationship that AARP has developed with the Obama administration. Today, the nation's largest organization of older Americans has devoted the front page of its website to promoting a telephone town hall meeting with President Obama at 1:30. You can register to attempt to ask a question here.

 The group already has a Q&A up trying to counter legitimate concerns about his proposals. A sample:

Why is AARP not standing up for seniors when Obama says he will cut Medicare to help pay for health care?

The proposed changes to Medicare will help to get fraud, waste and abuse out of the system and create payment incentives to reward doctors and hospitals for the quality, rather than the quantity, of care they provide. They will not cut the benefits our members rely on in the traditional Medicare program, but will help to keep it affordable to make sure you get the care you need.

Isn’t this socialized medicine?

No. In socialized medicine the government directly owns the hospitals and directly employs the doctors. No one in Washington is talking seriously about anything like that. What health reform will do instead is provide people with a system much like the one members of Congress enjoy today. They will be able to choose from a range of quality, affordable private health plans, and possibly a publicly run option as well. These plans will have to accept everyone regardless of preexisting conditions or age. There also will be sliding-scale subsidies for people with moderate to low incomes to make sure the coverage is affordable for everyone.

If you can't tell much difference between the spin given by AARP and what you hear from Obama himself, that's because there isn't any. AARP has essentially turned the organization into a de facto branch of the White House media operation. The group, which bills itself as nonpartisan, has thrown its full weight behind Obama's health care proposals even though they would slash Medicare spending by $622 billion. As a conservative, of course, I'm all for reining in entitlement spending, but this is a group that spreads fear whenever Republicans try to do anything about the issue, no matter how modest. As I previously noted, in 2006, when Bush proposed far smaller Medicare cuts of $105 billion over 10 years, USA Today quoted an AARP spokesman as saying, "The Congress, in an election year, is not going to pass these disastrous provisions." 

22 Comments | Add a Comment

The Pelosi Tax

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.28.09 @ 11:08AM

Congress is eyeing a new tax on plastic surgery as a possible revenue source to help pay for health care reform. Will the feds take a 10 percent bite out of every botox injection?

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.28.09 @ 10:16AM

• Oink. Jindal approved $31 million in earmarks in Louisiana budget (Houma Today)

• Scandal-battered Dodd grasping at Obama's coattails (Washington Times)

• Seven North Carolina men arrested for plotting international jihad (Associated Press)
• Dollar falls to 2009 low -- rich Obama supporters doing study abroad in France forced to order small crepes (Bloomberg)
• Watch out Hollywood Liberals, Congress could tax plastic surgery (NationalJournal.com)

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Giving Up on Health Care Reform--And Social Security

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.28.09 @ 12:36AM

According to the latest Zogby poll, independents have turned against Obama-like health care "reform."  Republicans and Democrats serve as mirror images of each other, but a majority of independents say no thanks to budget-busting, choice-destroying government control.

Reports Zogby:

Respondents were presented with two statements describing different universal healthcare plans and asked whether they agree or disagree with each: 

Universal Plan A - "Do you agree or disagree with a universal healthcare plan that would require everyone in the U.S. to have health insurance with federal help for those who cannot pay the premiums?" 

Universal Plan B - "Do you agree or disagree with a universal healthcare plan where the government would provide health insurance for everyone in the U.S. under a single-payer plan, similar to everyone having Medicare?" 

Plan A

Plan B

*Numbers may not add to 100% due to rounding

Perhaps even more important over the long-term, most Americans don't believe Social Security and Medicare will be there for their kids.  Most young people don't believe it will be there for them.  The American people seem to be wising up!

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Seniors in Space

Posted by Robert M. Goldberg on 7.27.09 @ 9:11PM

Congress is desperate to find ways to pay for a government takeover of health care. Today there was discussion of taxing plastic surgery and Botox injections, a "Botax" on vanity procedures so to speak. (There goes the Hollywood and Palm Beach vote.) Also considered, a tax on video games, because -- as well as know -- they turn kids into couch potatoes.

Why beat around the bush? Democrats should go to the source of problem, the seniors who run up the Medicare tab with all the wasteful spending that The One could be devoting to universal health care. Simply pulling the plug on old people according to a rationing scheme developed by a Medicare Einsatzgruppen would be too…messy.

Democrats should instead adopt a proposal developed by Senator Al Franken, who came up with this innovative approach for slowing the costs of Medicare over a decade ago:

"I was looking at these budget cuts and I noticed two seemingly unrelated facts. One is that a third of a person's Medicare dollars are spent in the last years of their life. The other fact was that NASA spends billions a year on astronaut safety. My idea: Why not shoot the elderly into space? And this isn't just about cost, you know. This is for gathering scientific data. Think how many more manned space operations you could have if you didn't really, you know, have to worry about getting the astronauts back. And I'm not saying you wouldn't try to get them back. It's just that, you know, you wouldn't make such a big deal out of it." (Source Chicago Tribune, January 21, 1996) (http://preview.tinyurl.com/l69mgr)

Leave it Franken to be ahead of his time on health care. After making such a profound impression during the Sotomayor hearings, he stands to play a crucial role in shaping health care reform as a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Can't wait.

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Newsweek's Obama Correspondent Joins Administration

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.27.09 @ 7:20PM

Daren Briscoe, a Newsweek correspondent who was embedded with Barack Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, has taken a job with the Obama administration, according to an email sent to a listserv of his classmates at the Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.

The email, written by Time reporter and fellow Columbia grad Jay Newton-Small, said Briscoe would be serving as deputy associate director of public affairs for the Office of National Drug Control Policy as of Monday.

"Despite his multiple basketball games with our commander-in-chief, he always brought a skeptical eye to his work and in conversations about the candidate," Newton-Small wrote the email.

Briscoe's campaign reporting helped provide the basis for Newsweek's book on the campaign, A Long Time Coming.

I received the email because Briscoe graduated Columbia's journalism school in 2001, the same year as I did.

11 Comments | Add a Comment

Biden Mocks Putin

Posted by Asher Embry on 7.27.09 @ 5:51PM

Is there any politician less well suited to diplomatic pronouncements than self-proclaimed “foreign policy expert” Joe Biden (as was sadly on display in his recent Wall Street Journal interview about U.S.-Russia relations)? Have his gaffes -- previously just innocuous and pathetic -- now turned dangerous? 

Biden Mocks Putin  
By Asher Embry

Gaffes all the time, does “Clueless Joe”
He’s mostly harmless, this we know.
But what once seemed hilarious
Has turned to deadly serious.

In Biden’s recent blithering,
He said that Russia’s “withering.”
Then started taunting Putin and
He said we hold the upper hand.

Though we may really think that way,
It’s hardly something we would say.

It’s not the wisest strategy
To mock a former KGB,
Or Vladimir, Joe’ll surely give,
Excuse to be provocative.

We’re fortunate the Lord did bless
Our VP with profound finesse.
(Took Hillary to clean his mess.)

Joe needs to learn to “calibrate”
His comments, not just simply state
Each thought that jumps inside his head.
It’s best to think it through instead.
(A lesson not just meant for Joe;
Last week, Gates taught the same to “O.”)

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

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Come Again, Ma'am?

Posted by Mark Goldblatt on 7.27.09 @ 5:32PM

Brief sidelight on the recent dustup between Harry Alford, President  and CEO of the Black Chamber of Commerce, and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), in which Boxer countered Alford's skepticism about proposed environmental legislation not with a direct rebuttal of his data but by citing opinions to the contrary by the NAACP and by John Grant, CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta… arguing, in effect, "Yeah, well lots of other black people disagree with you." (YouTube link here.)

Alford took offense, rather theatrically; Boxer responded by stammering and fumbling and shuffling through papers before stating that, in any event, she was sure that Grant "would be proud that you were here. He's proud, I'm sure." Because, I suppose, Alford is one of those "articulate and bright and clean" black guys Joe Biden likes to talk about.

But now the sidelight: Several times during their exchange, Alford addressed Boxer as "Ma'am."

Maybe my memory is shaky, but didn't Boxer just last month dress down Brigadier General Michael Walsh for calling her "Ma'am" rather than "Senator"?

So is the Boxer Rule that black guys get to call her "Ma'am" but white guys better stick with "Senator"?

Just asking.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Bunning Goes Down Sniping

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.27.09 @ 5:21PM

Jim Bunning had some choice words for Republican leaders as he announced his retirement, implicitly including his fellow Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell: "Over the past year, some of the leaders of the Republican Party in the Senate have done everything in their power to dry up my fundraising," the Washington Post quotes Bunning as saying. "The simple fact is that I have not raised the funds necessary to run an effective campaign for the U.S. Senate. For this reason, I will not be a candidate for re-election in 2010."

The money that McConnell and John Cornyn were keeping from Bunning will now flow to Trey Grayson. But expect Rand Paul to tap the Ron Paul "money bomb" donor base to compete with Grayson in the Republican primary. This is a rare case where an open seat actually improves the incumbent party's chances of retention.

UPDATE: This is Rand Paul's Facebook status right now: "Rand Paul has nothing but good things to say about Senator Bunning. I would also like to thank him for his service, and I commend him for his courage to vote against the bank bailout." Both he and Grayson said they would not run if Bunning sought re-election.

17 Comments | Add a Comment

Jim Bunning to Retire

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.27.09 @ 4:22PM

Kentucky Sen. Jim Bunning, one of the Republican Senators viewed as potentially vulnerable in 2010, has announced he would not seek reelection after a lackluster fundraising performance. Trey Grayson, the Secretary of State, is now viewed as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.

3 Comments | Add a Comment

Don't It Make Your Blue Dogs Blue

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.27.09 @ 3:06PM

The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza says 49 is the most important number in politics today (one of his recurring features). That's the number of Democrats representing congressional districts carried by John McCain, a subject I've discussed many times and bring up again in the fortchoming September issue of the print magazine.There are some districts that will be very difficult for the Democrats to hang onto in 2010, a fight that will made tougher by votes on the stimulus, cap and trade, and health care.

Writes Cillizza: "The problem for Pelosi in this debate is that her caucus is almost too big. Democrats picked up more than 50 seats in the past two elections, many of them in places like Idaho where Obama took just 36 percent; a vote for the president's agenda, particularly on an issue as divided along partisan lines as health care, could be enough to convince their constituents that they are more loyal to the national party than to their own state."

After the 2006 and 2008 elections, there was a lot of focus on the congressional seats once held by moderate to liberal Republicans, especially in the Northeast, that are now held by liberal Democrats. That's a real trend, and it isn't going away anytime soon, just like the Southern districts that went from electing conservative Democrats to voting for conservative Republicans. But there are also a lot of districts that were real reaches for the Democrats and their trend away from the GOP is likely to prove temporary.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Genocide Museums

Posted by Paul Chesser on 7.27.09 @ 2:20PM

AmSpec contributor Doug Bandow mentions today the blogs I've posted here recently about the trial of Khmer Rouge jailer Kaing Guek Eav, who ran the Phnom Penh torture chamber that was S-21, or Tuol Sleng. Doug recounts his own visit a few years ago to the prison, and his descriptions accurately capture the horror and despair that Tuol Sleng -- now a museum -- conveys. I've been twice in the last two years and you can easily imagine what the place was like in the late 1970s: the gritty linoleum floors; the haphazard, quick-bricked cells; the crumbled walls; and of course the black-and-white photos of the victims.

In contrast, yesterday I happened to be in the Washington area for a brief family visit and decided to visit DC with my children for the day. Our first target was the Jefferson Memorial and on the way we passed the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, so we decided to take a brief stroll through.

I am fairly new to the study of the genocide issue so I am in no position to make value comparisons between the worth of one museum over another. Both have significant contributions to make to the education of society and both should burden visitors with how and why questions, and with puzzlement that such evil could exist.

But as for effectiveness in placing you at the scene of the crimes, there is no comparison. Tuol Sleng, as minimal and as undeveloped as you could imagine such a museum to be, overwhelms you. I imagine the experience is similar to what you would feel visiting Auschwitz, untainted. In contrast the U.S. Holocaust Museum, overflowing with facts and displays, and about as professional and slick as you can imagine, only conveys information. It's a modern building with modern interactive techniques in spiffy displays which clue you in, but place you far away from the events it covers.

Obviously you couldn't put a Tuol Sleng in our country, and have it have the same meaning. And the U.S. Holocaust Museum serves a great purpose in educating those who are unable to visit the sites of these historic horrors. But I guess my point is, in order to understand the gravity and magnitude of the mass murder -- you have to visit the places where it happened. At least for me, that was the case.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

topics: genocide

Sestak Shifts Specter Further Left

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.27.09 @ 2:00PM

A new study shows that Sen. Arlen Specter has gone from voting with the Democrats 44 percent of the time when he was a Republican maverick, to 69 percent of the time in the first month after his party switch, to 97 percent of the time now that he drawn Rep. Joe Sestak as a liberal primary challenger. Only "contentious votes," where a majority of senators from each party vote differently, are scored. According to the study, Specter defected on only one of 29 such votes since Sestak got into the race.

Originally, Specter pledged to remain independent rather than become a reliable party-line vote for the Democrats. At first, it looked like he was going to keep his promise when he declined to support cloture on card check, voted against Obama's budget, and appeared to root for Republican Norm Coleman to beat Al Franken.

Then Sestak got into the Democratic primary race and Specter began to realize that a Northeastern Democrat who voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, and Sam Alito (not to mention one who was endorsed by Rick Santorum and George W. Bush) was going to have serious problems. Specter pulled the same trick when he thought he was going to face a Republican primary challenge from conservative Pat Toomey, voting with the Democrats only 16 percent of the time in his final month as a Republican.

Toomey's campaign is highlighting these results. "Over the past couple of months, Arlen Specter has become the poster child for everything that is wrong with Washington today," Toomey Communications Director Nachama Soloveichik says in a statment accusing Specter of "changing his position so many times voters are beginning to get dizzy. Pennsylvanians are quickly learning that they cannot trust Sen. Specter from one day to the next." The study was conducted by noted liberal number-cruncher Nate Silver of the website FiveThirtyEight.com.

You have to wonder about the priorities of a senator who goes from voting with a political party less than 20 percent of the time to 97 percent of the time in the span of a few months.

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Pro-Lifers for Planned Parenthood

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.27.09 @ 1:30PM

Last week the House defeated the Pence Amendment, which would have stopped taxpayers from funding the country's leading abortion provider, Planned Parenthood. At the same time, some soi disant pro-lifers are working to increase Planned Parenthood's tax take. Congressman Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) quickly emerged as a leading pro-life Democrat and advocate for finding "common ground" on abortion. But his Reducing the Need for Abortions and Supporting Parents Act has been criticized by some pro-lifers for increasing rather than decreasing the likelihood of abortion.

The bill contains an increase in funding for family planning under Title X, in order to reduce the likelihood of unplanned pregnancies. But many of the organizations providing these services also are involved in abortion. A recent Family Research Council statement on the legislation points out:

The Ryan bill contains no provisions preventing recipients from promoting or referring patients for abortion. Since Planned Parenthood -- the nation's largest and most profitable abortion provider -- is funded under the Ryan measure, inevitably the group will use the funds it receives to encourage the very procedure the bill says it wants to make more rare.

Not long ago, Ramesh Ponnuru said of Ryan in National Review, "Nowadays his allegedly 'pro-life' advocacy consists almost entirely of working with [pro-choice] Congresswoman DeLauro to funnel more money to abortion providers." It's the kind of logic that gets you an ambassadorship to Malta these days.

4 Comments | Add a Comment

Sotomayor Snubs the Senate

Posted by Quin Hillyer on 7.27.09 @ 1:15PM

This is STILL worth fighting about. Why won't anybody pay attention?

6 Comments | Add a Comment

The "Public Option" and the Social Security Debate

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.27.09 @ 1:03PM

President Obama's proposal to create a new government-run plan has been one of the most contentious aspects of the ongoing health care debate. The plan isn't a Trojan Horse for a government takeover of the health care system, proponents argue, but merely a "public option" that would compete on a level-playing field along side private plans. They argue that the new government plan wouldn't have any unfair advantages or access to general tax revenue. Meanwhile, they say, individuals will be able to keep their health care if they like it. As the public becomes increasingly skeptical of their plans for overhauling the nation's health care system, liberals have fought back by arguing that opponents are resorting to to "scare tactics" and not paying attention to what is actually in the legislation.

But this is a bit rich coming from liberals, whose strategy to kill Social Security reform in 2005 was built on attacking not what President Bush was proposing, but what they said his proposals would lead to. His proposal was portrayed as an attack on seniors, even though Bush said that the changes wouldn't apply to anybody under the age of 55. Liberals warned that it would privatize Social Security, even though it would be completely voluntary. And they said government would be gambling Social Security on the stock market, even though participants would be limited to investing in diversified funds rather than individual stocks. The bottom line is that it was considered fair game in the media for critics to focus their attacks on what they saw as the broader effects of Bush's proposals.

Therefore, I see no reason for critcs of the Democratic health care proposals to hold their fire. The bottom line is that President Obama has gone on the record as saying he's in favor of a single payer health care system (video here), and has maintained that it would be the ideal system "if we were starting from scratch." The idea of a government-run plan is to create the infastructure for the government to seize control of the health care system over time. For all the talk of a level playing field, the bottom line is that government would be running the health care exchange and setting the rules for private insurers. Under the House bill, insurers would be forced to join the exchange if they want to continue offering individual insurance policies. Even if the legislaton says that the government-plan would not have access to general tax revenue, it's unrealistic to believe that would be the case if the plan ever ran into financial trouble (see Fannie and Freddie). And it's also wrong to say people would be able to keep their insurance if employers will be able to dump workers onto the government-run exchange. After their behavior in the Social Security reform debate, liberals don't have a leg to stand on when they accuse Obamacare critics of distortion and "scare tactics."

8 Comments | Add a Comment

Michelle vs. Michelle

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.27.09 @ 11:28AM

Michelle Malkin's new book, Culture of Corruption: Obama And His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies, is officially released today and anyone who reads Chapter 2 ("Bitter Half: First Crony Michelle Obama") will know that Malkin is not a big fan of the First Lady. Malkin's book features a long section about Michelle Obama's involvement in the University of Chicago Hospital's "Urban Health Initiative," which The Prowler looks at today:

Republicans on Capitol Hill are taking a fresh look at one of the seedier Chicago stories from Barack and Michelle Obama's past in ratcheting up the debate on Obamacare: the University of Chicago Hospital's "Urban Health Initiative," which Michelle Obama ran prior to her taking a leave of absence to campaign with her husband in 2007. . . .
It wasn't just Obama's wife who was involved in creating the program. Senior White House adviser and political strategist, David Axelrod, and his PR firm in Chicago were retained to develop a media campaign to encourage area residents not to use University of Chicago as a medical facility. Senior White House official, and Obama friend, Valerie Jarrett served on the board of directors of the hospital and approved the plan for the Urban Health Initiative, and the hiring of Axelrod. . . .

Read the whole thing. The Prowler's mention of Valerie Jarrett's name will certainly be of interest to Malkin, who has a long blog post about Jarrett today.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Patrick Plummets

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 7.27.09 @ 11:19AM

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick is in a state of free fall, according to the latest polling (pdf) from the University of New Hampshire for the Boston Globe. Fully 52 percent of voters view him unfavorably while 36 percent view him favorably. Consider that Patrick won the 2006 gubernatorial election with 56 percent of the vote to Republican Kerry Healey's 35 percent.

Every demographic group in the state except Democrats, voters under age 35, and Western Massachusetts residents disapprove of Patrick. Only 16 percent of independents, now a plurality of voters, approve of his performance in office; 68 percent disapprove. Despite being the commonwealth's first black governor, African-Americans disapprove of Patrick by a 52 percent to 44 percent margin.

Those are the kinds of numbers that sink Democrats even in Massachusetts, and Patrick trails both Republican candidates for governor (though Christy Mihos' lead is within the margin of error). This is true even though over 60 percent of voters don't know enough to have an opinion of Harvard Pilgrim CEO Charlie Baker, the candidate with the strongest lead over Patrick.

Patrick's campaign had a lot in common with Barack Obama's: the "Together We Can" theme, a post-partisan and post-racial appeal, even some of the same advisers. But even in one of the most liberal and Democratic states in the country, it has not survived the test of reality. And Patrick brought significantly more experience running things in government and the private sector than Obama.

As I reported earlier, however, a possible gubernatorial run by Democrat-turned-independent treasurer Tim Cahill keeps hope alive for Patrick. The poll shows them tied at the low 30s with the Republicans near the low 20s. (Patrick is also banking on an economic turnaround.) Republicans are counting on the usual Massachusetts trend of the third party candidate's support melting away by Election Day, but if Cahill is seen as the more viable anti-Patrick candidate Republicans may be the third party.

5 Comments | Add a Comment

Obamacare and States' Rights

Posted by Philip Klein on 7.27.09 @ 11:02AM

House Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner issued a report today along with Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, called: Capital Malpractice: How a Washington Takeover of Health Care Will Hurt States. The report estimates that Democrats' health care bill will cost the nation 5.5 million jobs over 10 years as a result of the tax on employers who don't provide health insurance. It blasts the proposed Medicaid expansion as an "unfunded mandate," and notes that as it is, the program is already crippling states (it currently accounts for 20 percent to 25 percent of state budgets). The report also raises concerns about "dozens of new mandates and regulations, preventing them from developing health care programs that best fit the needs of their residents." While the 19-page report itself isn't terribly detailed (it relies on lots of quotes from newspaper articles), it does suggest we're going to start to see Republicans employ states' rights arguments more and more during the health care debate.

A few weeks ago I wrote a longer article on the main site about how the Democrats' planned overhaul of the health care system threatened the states, but since then the issue has gained more traction. Last weekend, both Republican and Democratic governors meeting in Biloxi raised alarms, especially on the planned massive expansion of Medicaid. And last week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry declared that if the Democrats passed legislation resulting in a government takeover of health care, he would invoke the 10th Amendment to fight its implementation in Texas, and suggested other states would do the same. As I previously reported, in June,  the Arizona state legislature voted to include a referendum on the 2010 ballot that would amend the state constitution to prevent anybody in the state from being forced to participate in any health care system, aimed at exempting Arizonans from various mandates imposed by the federal government.

As an aside, Pawlenty's involvement in the report released by Boehner's office is another indication of the increasing prominent national role he is attempting to play, which could be seen as him laying the groundwork for a likely presidential bid. Earlier today, he was named vice chair of the National Governors' Association. Also telling? Last week, in an interview on Fox in which he assailed Obama's health care plans, Pawlenty also took a jab at the Massachusetts system that was signed into law by likely rival Mitt Romney. "The cost of that thing has nearly tripled in just 36 months and they're looking for an additional federal bailout," Pawlenty said. "It has not been successful in containing costs."

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Daily Must-Reads

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 7.27.09 @ 9:53AM

• Flush it: $2.8 million of stimulus money being spent on "historic" toilets in New Mexico (New York Post)
• You gotta pay to play -- White House dominated by Chicago insiders (Chicago Sun-Times)
• Bad cop, stupid cop. Clinton contradicts Biden's statement about Russia (Los Angeles Times)
• Zelaya thinks Hillary is standing him up, camps out on Nicaraguan border (BBC News)

2 Comments | Add a Comment

More Doubts About Global Warming

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.27.09 @ 7:30AM

One of the biggest sources of funding behind climate alarmism is the federal government.  In a new study for the Science & Public Policy Institute Joanne Nova figures Uncle Sam has spent some $79 billion over the last two decades on climate change.  She asks:

The large expenditure in search of a connection between carbon and climate creates enormous momentum and a powerful set of vested interests. By pouring so much money into a question have we inadvertently created a self‐fulfilling prophesy instead of an unbiased investigation?

Advocates of wrecking the economy in the name of confronting global warming want us to believe that Uncle Sam is disinterested and objective.  However, long ago we should have learned that politicians and bureaucrats are not Vestal Virgins, acting without prejudice or agenda.  Indeed, Public Choice economics clearly demonstrates how the political process so often is biased against the interests of the public.  Global warming is no different than any other issue.

Similarly flawed is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the shrine at which all climate alarmists worship.  Earlier this year science writer John McLean suggested that we shouldn't assume the IPCC is the broad, inclusive organization that it has been made out to be.  Wrote McLean:

How many times have you heard or read words to the effect that 4000 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) supported the claims about a significant human influence on climate? I think I've seen it on television, radio and the Internet and I know that politicians at national levels have quoted suchfigures. There's no question whatsoever. It's utterly wrong.

In fact, once the duplicated names are removed that number falls below 2,900 and if we only want those who explicitly supported the claims it falls to only about 60. So how does 4,000 become 60 and were they all qualified and credible scientists? Let's take a closer look at the real numbers.

Even if global warming proves to be a serious problem, it can be dealt with without wrecking the economy.  For instance, Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, favors making "green" energy cheaper.  (Personally, I'm not convinced that increased government subsidies would yield much more than in the past.)  More important, however, Lomborg dismisses the sort of boondoggle cap and trade legislation now pending before Congress:

Yes, and that too is a problem. Cap-and-trade is essentially a system for trading permits to emit gases, like carbon dioxide, that are blamed for global warming. The problem is that it makes possible immense amounts of gaming the system through political lobbying. Because typically, most of these permits are given away, which is one of the big things the Obama Administration is talking about right now. The companies that had the most benefit from Kyoto in Europe were the energy companies. That is because, at least for the first three or four years, these companies got all the permits to pollute, but the companies still charged their customers -- me and everybody else. So they made tens of billions of euros each year from climate-change policies. Not surprisingly, they are very much in favor of these policies, but it doesn't mean that they are smart policies.

Philosophy does not predetermine science one way or the other: climate change might eventually become a significant challenge.  That case has yet to be convincingly made, however, and even if so, economics tells us that some alleged cures are worse than the disease.  Like impoverishing people today in an attempt to lower temperatures a fraction or two decades hence.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

Falling Support for "Stimulus" Plan

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.26.09 @ 7:00PM

Oops.  The president's poll numbers continue to slide.  Remember the "stimulus" bill.  So do the American people--and not fondly.

Explains Rasmussen Reports:

Confidence in the $787-billion economic stimulus plan proposed by President Obama and passed by Congress in February continues to fall.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 25% of U.S. voters now say the stimulus plan has helped the economy. That's a six-point drop from a month ago.

Thirty-one percent (31%) say the stimulus actually hurt the economy, little changed from a month ago. However, this is the first poll showing that more voters believe the plan hurt rather than helped.

A plurality (36%) says the plan has had no impact.

Just after Congress passed the plan, 34% said it would help the economy, 32% that it would hurt and 26% predicted no impact.

The Democrats want a second "stimulus" bill?  Let's see them try to sell that great idea!

31 Comments | Add a Comment

Rep. Murtha at it Again?

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.26.09 @ 4:56PM

Rep. Jack Murtha does like those earmarks!  Reports the Washington Post:

Tucked into the voluminous congressional plan for U.S. military spending next year is $160 million intended to help Mexico's police buy U.S.-made first-responder radios.

It is a major purchase that one radio manufacturer got rolling, 12 members of Congress formally requested and a powerful defense appropriations chairman championed, according to records and congressional staff members. But details of the plan to pump Pentagon money into Mexico's crime-fighting efforts are cloaked in vaguely worded language in the House defense bill. The program is one of many congressional requests in the measure, which also includes 1,080 projects worth $2.7 billion tacked on at lawmakers' request.

The language in the $636 billion bill, which the House Appropriations defense subcommittee approved last week, discloses neither the specific purpose of the radio project nor the dozen lawmakers who asked Chairman John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to include it.

Members of Congress are required under new rules to disclose all requests they make to direct federal money to pet projects, but the radio-buying program is not technically a congressionally directed "earmark." Instead, according to the panel, the item is classified as "program support," which means that the requesting lawmakers do not have to publicly claim it.

"It kind of makes a mockery of the disclosure requirements we have," said Bill Allison, a senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation, a watchdog group. "They will disclose the little things, the $1 million projects, but when you have the big-ticket items, you don't have members willing to take responsibility for those."

9 Comments | Add a Comment

SIGTARP Neil Barofsky vs. Geithner's 'Black Hole' Bailout

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 7.26.09 @ 9:10AM

The Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's war against SIGTARP -- Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Trouble Assert Relief Program bailout -- continues escalating steadily. Barofsky's estimate that the total cost of TARP could reach more than $23 trillion (that's "trillion," with a "t") was criticized last week by Geithner's spokesman:

The Treasury Department disputed Mr. Barofsky's estimate as "inflated." Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said Mr. Barofsky's estimate "does not take into account the assets that offset the risk in these programs" and also doesn't reflect "fees and other charges that compensate the U.S. taxpayer for the risks incurred."

Saturday, ABC's Jake Tapper published an interview with the man tasked with watchdogging the bailout cash, who defended his numbers:

"I think that the Treasury Department ought to read the report before they make comments, at least the spokesperson's office," Barofsky said. "Our methodology is laid out in black and white in the report. ... As far as the numbers being inflated, where do you think we got the numbers from? We got it from the Treasury Department, we got it from the Federal Reserve. ... If these numbers are inflated, it's because they inflated them when they put them out in the public, not because of us."
The inspector general defended the numbers outlined in his report, saying that all his team has done is to "gather the 50 programs, put them in one place, and told the American people what the government has said about the maximum of each of these programs."
"Perhaps their criticism is that we dare to do math," he said. He added that his team tried to convince the Treasury that they were wrong, and that recipients should be required to report on how they use the federal funds, and those should be shown to the American people so that they know it's "not being thrown into a black hole."

(Hat-tip: Hot Air; more blog reaction at Memeorandum.) There are important political factors involved in this battle over SIGTARP, which began when Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley started asking questions about Treasury's attempt to withhold documents from Barofsky's investigators. As I noted earlier, Barofsky's testimony Tuesday before the House Oversight Committee unleashed a bipartisan firestorm about the lack of transparency:

"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 Wall Street bailout has been unpopular from its inception. Sen. John McCain's outspoken support of the bailout was the decisive factor in his landslide defeat in last fall's presidential election. Now, we see unemployment soaring (more than 15% in Michigan, near 12% in California) and consumer confidence falling, while the stock market surges upward. You can't blame people for suspecting that massive taxpayer-funded assistance to financial giants like AIG, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America might have something to do with this widening chasm between prosperity on Wall Street and misery on Main Street.

Saturday, after giving a speech at the "Liberty 101" event in Richmond, Virginia, I had a conversation with a local businesswoman who has owned a travel agency for 24 years. Like many other small business owners in this economy, she's fighting hard just to hang on.

Polls indicate a growing perception that the Obama administration is mismanaging the economy, with special favors for politically connected Wall Street fat cats at the expense of ordinary American taxpayers. When you talk face-to-face with the people like that travel agency owner -- people whose livelihoods are threatened with annihilation by the economic blundering of President Obama, Secretary Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke -- you realize that poll numbers can't begin to capture the pain and anger many people are now feeling.

With another approaching crisis in banking and forecasts that unemployment will continue rising for months to come, Obama will eventually start looking for a scapegoat. Though once hailed as an economic savior, the nominee who was "too big to fail," Geithner is now odds-on favorite to win the Scapegoat Sweepstakes. SIGTARP Barofsky's watchdogging of the bailout "black hole" may be enough to push Geithner across the finish line.

NEIL BAROFSKY: DOCUMENT DUMP

• Copy of SIGTARP Quarterly Report (PDF)
• Text of Barofsky testimony to House Oversight Committee (PDF)
• Text of closing statement by Oversight Chairman Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.)
• Press Release From Oversight Ranking Member Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)
• Text of Issa statement (PDF)
• Sen. Chuck Grassley Pressures Treasury on TARP (July 22)
• Grassley Press Release About SIGTARP (June 18)
• Grassley Letter (PDF) to Secretary Geithner (June 17)

15 Comments | Add a Comment

Subsidizing Illegal Immigration

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.26.09 @ 3:51AM

Apparently it's not enough to socialize the health care system.  Taxpayers are supposed to pay for illegal immigrants to have government-guaranteed health care too.

Reports Roll Call:

Leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus planned to use a meeting Friday with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to reiterate that illegal immigrants should be covered under health care reform legislation.

A CHC member, who requested not to be identified, said the group is urging Pelosi to ensure that everyone - including illegal immigrants - will be able to receive services as part of comprehensive reform.

"We're pushing to include everyone in the health care bill. Everyone," said one CHC member.

Asked if CHC leaders will ask Pelosi to specifically spell something out in the bill to address illegal immigrants, the Member said no. Rather, the Member said the CHC simply wants to make sure the bill - as drafted - doesn't prohibit illegal immigrants from accessing care.

"Sometimes if you don't say something, something happens," said the Hispanic lawmaker.

Additionally, CHC leaders will reiterate their opposition to any provision that imposes a waiting period for immigrants to receive services, said the Member. Such restrictions have emerged in welfare reform and children's health insurance debates; both had provisions to bar immigrants from receiving services until they had been permanent residents for five years.

"We had that battle over [the State Children's Health Insurance Program]. We fixed it," said the CHC member.

It there anything which American working people aren't supposed to subsidize?  Apparently not.

44 Comments | Add a Comment

Obama's Health Care Fibs

Posted by Doug Bandow on 7.26.09 @ 3:11AM

President Barack Obama has been busy attempting to sell his government takeover of the health care citizen.  In doing so, he contines to be, shall we say, a bit lax with the facts. Philip Klein has pointed to the president's, er, "mistakes."  Other publications are picking up the trail.

Reports Newsweek:

President Obama tried to sell his health care overhaul in prime time, mangling some facts in the process. He also strained to make the job sound easier to pay for than experts predict.

• Obama promised once again that a health care overhaul "will be paid for." But congressional budget experts say the bills they've seen so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
• He said the plan "that I put forward" would cover at least 97 percent of all Americans. Actually, the plan he campaigned on would cover far less than that, and only one of the bills now being considered in Congress would do that.
• He said the "average American family is paying thousands" as part of their premiums to cover uncompensated care for the uninsured, implying that expanded coverage will slash insurance costs. But the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation puts the cost per family figure at $200.
• Obama claimed his budget "reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion" compared with where it was headed before. Not true. Even figures from his own budget experts don't support that. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $2.7 trillion increase, not a $2.2 trillion cut.
• The president said that the United States spends $6,000 more on average than other countries on health care. Actually, U.S. per capita spending is about $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country. Obama's figure was a White House-calculated per-family estimate.

Oops!

22 Comments | Add a Comment