- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
- Jan 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Feb 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28
- Mar 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–31
- Apr 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–30
- May 1–2 3–9 10–16 17–23 24–30 31
- Jun 1–6 7–13 14–20 21–27 28–30
- Jul 1–4 5–11 12–18 19–25 26–31
- Aug 1 2–8 9–15 16–22 23–29 30–31
- Sep 1–5 6–12 13–19 20–26 27–30
- Oct 1–3 4–10 11–17 18–24 25–31
- Nov 1–7 8–14 15–21
Saturday, August 8, 2009
David Frum's Counsel of Despair
Posted by on 8.8.09 @ 9:58PM
Can anyone suggest a good purpose in Frum's writing this:
What would it mean to "win" the healthcare fight? For some, the answer is obvious: beat back the president's proposals, defeat the House bill, stand back and wait for 1994 to repeat itself.
The problem is that if we do that . . . we'll still have the present healthcare system. . . .
We'll have entrenched and perpetuated some of the most irrational features of a hugely costly and under-performing system, at the expense of entrepreneurs and risk-takers, exactly the people the Republican party exists to champion.
Not a good outcome. . . .
There's more in that vein, if you'd care to read it. What Frum's analysis neglects, it seems to me, is the possibility that the Left knows what it's doing in pushing for ObamaCare. If defeating ObamaCare would not be a victory for conservatives, then why is the Left pushing so hard to pass it? Is the "status quo" so "irrational" and "underperforming," does Frum mean to say that ObamaCare would be a genuinely beneficial reform?
On the other hand, if a massively expensive government takeover of the health-care industry is bad policy -- and conservatives are unanimous in saying so -- then why does Frum seem so eager to discourage and demoralize opponents of ObamaCare? Frum's "New Majority" strategy looks like what some would call the Vichy Republican response.
Lefty Hack Charles Cooper of CBS Calls Healthcare Skeptics "Teabaggers"
Posted by on 8.8.09 @ 6:32PM
CBS News, the TV network of disgraced former anchor Dan Rather, doesn't even pretend anymore to not be siding with Big Government instead of backing the right of patients to choose their own healthcare. (Of course, it would be better yet if CBS just reported the news instead of cheering for one side or the other.)
Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters reports that blogger Charles Cooper, an editor for CBSNews.com, referred to opponents and skeptics of ObamaCare at a townhall meeting using the derogatory term "teabaggers."
Not surprisingly, Cooper's blog posts are fairly consistently idiotic.
If the people who ran CBS had any integrity they would fire Cooper immediately. Let him fulminate and agitate against the ordinary Americans he despises somewhere else, such as maybe DailyKos, where he would seem fairly moderate by comparison to the kooks who post on and operate that site.
Grassroots vs. Astroturf
Posted by on 8.8.09 @ 11:53AM
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and the White House have called opposition to Democratic health care plans "Astroturf," while organizing their own "authentic" pro-Obamacare rallies at the same time. But there's one important question I have, checking out these protest photos from Denver, taken by Looking at the Left (link via Holy Coast).
If opponents of Obamacare are Astroturf, then how come all of their signs are homemade, with all sorts of different shapes and sizes and colors and stuff...
and how come all of the pro-Obamacare demonstrators have official-looking and uniform, pre-printed, signs?
And as a bonus question, why is this worker for Obama's Organizing for America teaching a man wearing an SEIU t-shirt how to use a bullhorn?
Friday, August 7, 2009
Washington Post's Pathetic Identity Politics
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 9:40PM
Over the past three years I've come to admire the Washington Post editorial page as the voice of the sane center-left, definitely not agreeing with it most of the time but still recognizing its sober tone, its attempt to be fairminded and constructive. That's why today's editorial on Sonia Sotomayor is so disappointing. It is, in a word, pitiful. Its first paragraph reads as follows: "At 3:15 P.M. Thursday, Aug. 6, the nation witnessed the confirmation of its first Hispanic justice to the Supreme Court. By a vote of 68 to 31, Sonia Maria Sotomayor, daughter of the Bronx and Puerto Rico, became the 111th person and only the third woman to join the highest court in the land." This is nearly vomit-inducing. When can we, finally, please, please get beyond this identity politcics? The fact that she is Hispanic, and from the Bronx, and by heritage (not herself) from Puerto Rico, is utterly, completely irrelevant to ANYthing having to do with her qualifications for the court. The Post is playing ethnic identity politics in making that their lead.
Then there is this: "The moment will be remembered above all as a triumph for Justice Sotomayor, who refused to let financially humble beginnings define or restrict her in any way." Funny: Did the Post emphasize the humble beginnings of Clarence Thomas, and celebrate them? Thomas grew up in far more impoverished surroundings than Sotomayor did.
Then the Post writes this of the 31 senators who voted against her: "These senators were within their rights to dislike the outcomes, but they were wrong to overlook the fact that in each of these cases Judge Sotomayor either followed settled law or appropriately exercised judgment that was well within the mainstream." This is utterly laughable. Stuart Taylor showed conclusively that Sotomayor did not even come close to following settled law in the Ricci case. It wasn't even close. Likewise, her opinion in Didden v. Port Chester, the eminent domain case, was nowhere near mainstream. Indeed, it was outrageous. Likewise with her opinion in Hayden v. Pataki, the case where she opined that currently incarcerated murderers and rapists have a right to vote. And, of course, the Post ignored its own judgment in an earlier editorial that Sotomayor's testimony strained credulity, that in fact she dissembled. How does lying under oath qualify one for the Supreme Court?
Nevertheless, all that latter stuff is secondary to the main problem with the editorial: the aforementioned identity politics. It is disgusting racialism to play up such aspects of a person's life. It is divisive, irrelevant, and wholly without regard to current conditions in which, if anything, ethnic identity-mongering is an advantage to promotion rather than a disadvantage, in an America that overwhelmingly rejects race or ethnicity as a determining factor in public life. As for Judge Sotomayor, Lindsey Graham was right in what he said early in the hearings, before he himself dismissed his own remark in a breathtaking example of a double standard. What he said was that if he himself had said and written some of the things Sotomayor has said and written not just once but repeatedly -- but if he had said them just once -- his career in public life would have been over. Actually, as I have noted, if any Hispanic of black REPUBLICAN had said those things, their public lives would have been over. And for good reason. But Sotomayor gets a pass because she is Latina, and a Latina of the right sort, meaning a liberal Democrat. That double standard is despicable. Yet, in effect, the Post embraces it. How intellectually incoherent. And how shallow.
Senators Seek Answer From ITC About IG
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 8:04PM
Three senators, including Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, have sent a letter to Shara L. Aranoff, chairwoman of the International Trade Commission, expressing "serious concerns" about the contractual terms under which the ITC's inspector general is hired.
The letter, signed by Lieberman, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine -- the committee's ranking Republican -- and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), complained of the ITC's unusual practice of hiring the agency's IG under a six-month contract, which the senators suggest may undermine the watchdog's independence.
In June, Grassley sent a letter asking Aranoff about an incident in which "certain procurement files were removed forcibly from the possession" of the ITC inspector general. Within hours of Grassley's letter being sent via e-mail, IG Judith Gwynn was informed that her contract would not be renewed.
The letter to Aranoff was sent earlier this week, according to sources on Capitol Hill, but the text of the letter has not yet been made public.
A Democrat on Democratic Problems
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 3:12PM
Matt Lewis has an interesting discussion with former Democratic National Committee Executive Director Brian Lunde about how the health care debate seems to have gotten away from President Obama. Lunde tells Lewis that Obama "outsourced his health care policy, deferred to the congressional wing -- and now it's his. And he's now trying to sell something that wasn't his" and then relied too heavily on paid political professionals to "sell" a product that isn't his.
Says Lunde: "If the public isn't buying what you're selling, it doesn't matter. Bad policy cannot be changed by good communications techniques." Lunde also contends that congressional Democrats don't respect the president on policy the way congressional Republicans respected Ronald Reagan (and he might have mentioned George W. Bush too, though with much worse results.
There's a simple reason for this though: In 1981, the congressional wing of the GOP was split between House members who had never won anything as impressive as Reagan's victory and a Republican Senate majority that was built in no small part on people riding Reagan's coattails. And after Bush's increasing unpopularity battered the Republican brand, it is easy to forget that the 43rd president played a very active role in recruiting and boosting GOP candidates for Congress, especially the Senate, in 2002 and 2004. Many of the senior Democrats on Capitol Hill predate Obama and Democrats took control of Congress before Obama was elected president. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton faced much the same problem.
All that being said, it is too early to count out Obamacare when Democrats hold such large majorities in both houses of Congress and the swing vote belongs to the unreliable -- for conservatives -- Blue Dog Coalition in the House.
Quittin' Time
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 3:00PM
There's a quote I've seen attributed to both M. Stanton Evans and John Schmitz when conservatives were criticizing Richard Nixon for his trip to China: "I don't object to the president going to China. I object to him coming back."
My thoughts on Mel Martinez's tenure in the Senate, in light of conservative criticism of his resignation, are similar.
Investigate Union Thuggery Against Free Speech
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 2:24PM
Memo to Attorney General Eric Holder: I hereby call upon you to open a Justice Department investigation into organized union tactics, by both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, to stifle dissent and trample on free speech at congressional town meetings across the country.
That is all.
Martinez and Palin
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 1:53PM
Since, like Quin, I was one of those who criticized Sarah Palin when she quit as governor, I'd like to weigh in to clarify something. I didn't have a problem with Palin quiting per se, I just expressed my belief that her decision meant that she wouldn't be a credible presidential candidate, and I wanted to push back against some of the commentary suggesting that her resignation could actually help her presidential prospects. Since there's not much of a movement afoot to argue that Martinez should be president, I don't think the resignation is as big of a deal.
Hundreds of Death Threats?
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 1:27PM
North Carolina Congressman Brad Miller has upped the ante.
Recently, his press secretary said that Miller would not conduct health care town halls with his constituents due to a death threat over the proposed overhaul. Capitol Hill police reportedly are investigating the threat.
Now, Miller says that he is one of hundreds of lawmakers who have received such threats.
"Hundreds" would indicate a good portion of the 535 members in the House and Senate. Has Miller or his staff spoken with all of them? If not, what source is he relying on to make such a bold accusation?
More to the point, have any reporters asked Miller or anyone else to substantiate the claims? That might be a good idea, given the fact that liberals are now using the threats as a catalyst to avoid the public at town hall meetings. A tidy excuse, I would say, that needs to be vetted.
Martinez the Quitter
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 12:51PM
Ramesh Ponnuru asks a relevant question: Will those you criticized Palin also criticize Martinez? In the case of yours truly, YES. But with the same caveat I offered then: If a public official faces a private family crisis (or extreme family challenge), then by all means resignation is acceptable. Families come first. And if there is a major ethical problem or scandal, then resignation is a good idea. (Also, leaving office early for a promotion is okay; nobody should be denied a promotion.)
But unless one of those conditions apply, then I think it is a clear abdication of duty to leave elected office early. We don't know yet what the truth is about Martinez. But if he is getting out just because he's sick of the job, or for some other elsser reason, then he's a quitter and is exhibiting bad character. Such a resignation is inexcusable.
Martinez to Resign from Senate
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 11:17AM
CNN is reporting that Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), who had already announced he was not seeking reelection in 2010, will resign early and allow Gov. Charlie Crist to appoint a successor. Crist is running to replace Martinez but will probably name a caretaker to the seat rather than risk a huge lead by appointing himself. Martinez is a Crist supporter, because his vision of Republican outreach to the Hispanic community extends to Sonia Sotomayor but not Marco Rubio.
Grassroots vs. Astroturf
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 10:54AM
We've been hearing a lot about whether the protests against the Obama administration's policies are phony nationally organized "Astroturf" or the grassroots, self-mobilized genuine article. While some movements are more bottom-up or top-down than others, it's seldom as clear-cut a distinction as people make it out to be.
Events like the stolen Iranian presidential election don't come along very often. Organized protests usually require organization, and experienced activists are best qualified to do the organizing. At the same time, you can't have anything as widespread as the town hall protests or the tea parties without either moving people around the country or having lots of bodies in different places who are truly angry about what they are protesting against. In this case, we are looking at the latter. That's grassroots even if some national organizations with cash on hand try to help the trend along.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 10:24AM
- Rationing childbirth in France (Wall Street Journal)
- Comedians turn on Obama, audiences stunned by punchlines (Big Hollywood)
- Fannie Mae wants another $11 billion from Treasury Department (CNN)
- 1500 pound seizure of marijuana near Arizona border (KSWT CBS)
Afghans Misunderstand Democracy -- Or Do They?
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 10:17AM
Fornication, bare flesh and a descent into Western decadence -- these are Afghan definitions of democracy that expose how little the foreign concept has permeated the national psyche as elections near.
Afghanistan will vote August 20 in its second "democratic" presidential election but centuries of tribalism, decades of war and the draconian legacy of the Taliban ensure that confusion still reigns over what voting will bring.
"Western democracy is freedom and fornication. This is democracy for Western, American and European people and it is developing the same way here," said Wasim, a 28-year-old waiter in a Kabul kebab restaurant.
U.S. Loses 247,000 Jobs in July, Unemployment Rate Drops to 9.4%
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 8:51AM
The White House is sure to spend today touting this morning's unemployment numbers, showing the economy losing a better than expected 247,000 jobs, with the unemployment rate dipping to 9.4 percent in July, from 9.5 percent in June. The reason why the unemployment rate fell even though the economy lost jobs is that there were 796,000 discouraged workers in July, which means they dropped out of the labor force because of weak job prospects, so they aren't reflected in the unemployment rate. At the same time, the labor participation rate declined by .2 percent to 65.5 percent.
Got Food Stamps? You Can Still Be a Homeowner! Call ACORN Today.
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 6:15AM
Demand for food stamps, which help poor people purchase groceries, has surged, Reuters reported yesterday. "Social justice" advocates are undoubtedly overjoyed that so much taxpayer money is being redistributed to the needy.
According to the report
For the first time, more than 34 million Americans received food stamps, which help poor people buy groceries, government figures said on Thursday, a sign of the longest and one of the deepest recessions since the Great Depression.
Enrollment surged by 2 percent to reach a record 34.4 million people, or one in nine Americans, in May, the latest month for which figures are available. [emphasis added]
But just because you're jobless or on social assistance, doesn't mean you can't be a homeowner.
Just ask the friendly people at ACORN. They pioneered the use of food stamps by lenders as income in mortgage applications.
ACORN Housing is in the mortgage business as is ACORN Housing Affordable Loans, LLC. Both are affiliates in the ACORN network.
And if you default on your home mortgage, who cares.
Taxpayers will bail you out and ACORN will bring in squatters and protesters to help you live rent-free.
Unpatriotic Opponents of Health Care Reform?
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 5:30AM
The folks at Reason (magazine/foundation) have developed a fun video mocking the White House assumption that opposition to its proposal to nationalize the health care system is driven by scary misinformation.
The Ever Higher Cost of a Government Medical Takeover
Posted by on 8.7.09 @ 3:38AM
The Wall Street Journal points out that ten-year cost estimates of health care "reform" greatly understate the eventual cost of a government takeover. Explains the Journal:
In a July 26 letter, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf notes that the net costs of new spending will increase at more than 8% per year between 2019 and 2029, while new revenue would only grow at about 5%. "In sum," he writes, "relative to current law, the proposal would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits during the decade beyond the current 10-year budget window." (The House bill has changed somewhat in the meantime, but not enough to alter these numbers much.)
The nearby chart shows this Grand Canyon between spending and revenue, including CBO's long-term predictions. While these are obviously very coarse estimates, there's also a projection of a $65 billion deficit in the 10th year-and "deficit neutrality in the 10th year is . . . the best proxy for what will happen in the second decade."
That's not our outlook. That's what White House budget director Peter Orszag told the House Budget Committee in June. He added that "If you're not falling off a cliff at the end of your projection window, that is your best assurance that the long-term trajectory is also stable." The House bill falls off a cliff.
And the CBO score almost surely understates this deficit chasm because CBO uses static revenue analysis-assuming that higher taxes won't change behavior. But long experience shows that higher rates rarely yield the revenues that they project.
As for the spending, when has a new entitlement ever come in under budget? True, the 2003 prescription drug benefit has, but those surprise savings derived from the private insurance design and competition that Democrats opposed and now want to kill. The better model for ObamaCare is the original estimate for Medicare spending when it was passed in 1965, and what has happened since.
First, the Congressional Budget Office only carries its estimates out ten years. Costs keep rising thereafter. Second, virtually every estimate of the cost of a new social program has been too low--way too low. Third, once Congress begins the process of nationalizing the health care system, it isn't likely to stop.
The battle over health care reform is ultimately a fight over whether government will remain limited in any meaningful way.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Hateful Elderly Rightist Nazi Dittohead GOP Thugs Storm AARP Meeting!
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 11:26PM
Oh, the humanity!
Here's a video from Breitbart.com of an American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) members' meeting at which members refused to behave as their socialist betters expected.
How dare these hateful, racist, swastika-bearing septuagenarians paid by the insurance industry, bussed in by Rush Limbaugh, mindlessly regurgitating Glenn Beck quotations, and controlled by RNC-installed microchips in their brains express skepticism of the Almighty Obama's plan for healthcare utopia!
Standing up to authority is downright un-American.
They should be reported to flag@whitehouse.gov
immediately.
Unions on Mob Disruptions, Part II
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 6:34PM
As I pointed out earlier, the AFL-CIO has been crying crocodile tears about mob tactics being employed by opponents of nationalized health care. This is, perhaps, the first time in U.S. history that unions have opposed intimidation and violence.
In fact, it's worth looking at the way California unions responded to educators who filed suit against unions misusing their (mandatory) dues. It will probably come as a shock to most of you, but rather than listen respectfully, the union members did their best to disrupt the press conference that featured teachers who were brave enough to face down the politically powerful unions backed by equally powerful state politicians.
On the bright side, the vocabulary of the protestors appeared to be quite limited. Probably the result of being educated in government schools.
(H/t to Patrick Semmens at the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.)
Younger Voters: Unaware of What they Will be Paying for?
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 6:13PM
Rasmussen Reports tells us that a majority of Americans worry about the debt being piled up by the Obama administration. Yet younger voters, who will pay the bulk of the bill, have convinced themselves that he is "investing" their money for the nation.
Most likely voters (53%) believe President Barack Obama's economic policies will translate into debt for future generations, although younger voters are more likely to take the view that the President is making an investment in America's future, a new Zogby-Scoop44 interactive poll shows.
Thirty-eight percent of likely voters believe the President's approach to dealing with the U.S. economy is an investment for future generations of Americans - another 10% are not sure. Younger Americans are most likely to take this view - 47% of those age 18-29 feel this way, compared to just 32% of those age 65 or older. Democrats (72%) and liberals (83%) largely view Obama's economic policies as an investment, while Republicans (94%) and conservatives (96%) overwhelmingly believe those polices equal debt for future generations of Americans. Sixty percent of self-described political independents view Obama's policies as leading to debt, while just 28% think they are an investment. Moderate voters are evenly split at 43%.
If only it were so. Younger voters who believe that the government is "investing" for the future should go back and read the misnamed "stimulus" bill. And they should ponder Social Security and Medicare--those "investments" have generated a $100 trillion unfunded liability. Those programs sure turned out well financially!
The real trick is to figure out how to pass the bill to liberals and Democrats, the large majority of whom have deluded themselves that the government is making "investments." If they are willing to cover the debts being rung up, I'd let them reap the full "return" they can expect to receive from their "investments"!
Kennicott the Race-Hustler
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 5:17PM
By the way, this might be the single most asinine, nonsensical, off-the-wall, flat-out stupid piece I have ever seen in the Washington Post. And that's saying a lot. Somehow, even though Heath Ledger's "Joker" character was white, the use of the image superimposed over Obama is portrayed by Post staff writer Phllip Kennicott as being racist. This is the ultimate liberal bugaboo: that EVERY criticism from the right carries with it the secret motive of deep racial animus. Kennicott writes, or rather bleeds his own twisted psychology, on the page thusly: "Although Ledger was white, and the Joker is white, this equation of the wounded and the wounding mirrors basic racial typology in America. Urban blacks -- the thinking goes -- don't just live in dangerous neighborhoods, they carry that danger with them like a virus." Which leads to this breathless, accusatory conclusion: "Obama, like the Joker and like the racial stereotype of the black man, carries within him an unknowable, volatile and dangerous marker of urban violence, which could erupt at any time. The charge of socialism is secondary to the basic message that Obama can't be trusted, not because he is a politician, but because he's black."
I repeat, this is quite simply lunacy. And it is vicious. Look, I know something about real racism. Check my long, long record of fighting it in multiple, very public ways in Louisiana and in Alabama (which I won't bore you with here). This Obama/Joker post has nothing to do with race. Nothing. But those who say it does are the ones who can't get beyond race, who are obsessed with race, who are purveyors themselves of continuing racial discord. In fact, one of the biggest spurs to some whites IGNORING real racism when people point it out to them is that they so often have been falsely accused, with no facts and no truth, of being racist themselves that they discount even the real thing the same way the villagers discounted the threat of the real wolf because the boy had cried "wolf" so often. It is the false accusation that makes it harder, not easier, to fight against the real thing.
And yes, the real thing, actual racism, of course still exists. It exists by whites against blacks and by blacks against whites. But it is nowhere near as widespread, especially among whites, as it was 30 years ago, or even as it was 10 years ago. And its vestiges will never be stamped out if idiot agitators like Kennicott keep crying "Racist" when no racist is there.
Somebody ought to get a photo of Kennicott and paint a Joker mask on HIS face......
Sotomayor Confirmed
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 3:18PM
The Senate just confirmed Sonia Sotomayor by a 61 to 38 vote. The nine Republicans who voted for her were Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Christoper Bond (Mo.), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Mel Martinez (Fla.), and George Voinovich (Ohio).
A Warning From Our Future
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 2:47PM
Conservatives in their teens and early twenties, who will continue to confer over at George Washington University through Friday, took a break from exhortations from the likes of Sen. Jim DeMint and Stephen Moore to entertain a cautionary missive carried from a looming socialist future. The emissary was English Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan, a rugged and outspoken advocate of limited government perhaps best known for his screed in March castigating UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown for reckless spending in the precise and devastating way that only a British parliamentarian could manage.
Hannan appealed to history, heritage, and global interests in his apologetic against nationalized health care, delivered, as he put it, from the vantage point of a decade down the road that the U.S. Congress is now on. NHS, the British socialized health care system, is the third largest employer on earth, following the Chinese Army and Indian Railways. Established following World War II in 1948, Hannan said the British system demonstrates a timeless truth of governent: "When government adopts a system, it is very hard to get rid of it. I don't want anyone in this room to think you can experimentally adopt a state option in health care."
Hannan's recommendation for healthcare? Adopt a system like that of Singapore, with a limited pay-in and a number of incentives to keep prices low.
Much of Hannan's talk was easy on American ears, as he waxed eloquent about the vision and high ideals of the Founders and encouraged students to respect the freedoms guaranteed by the "most sublime constitution ever drafted by human intelligence."
Of Britain and the European Union, Hannan was less flattering. His talk of the EU in particular, with its bulky 567-page constitution granting power upon power to the state, its legislative "democratic deficit," and its drive to centralize power, made it clear that he'd be delighted to put himself out of a job.
But he held out hope for the UK, citing its first fully open primary, held on Wednesday. That vote, he said, signaled a way British politics has changed "utterly, irrevocably, and benignly."
You can find the rest of Hannan's talk, including anecdotes about Churchill and a fresh perspective on Che Guevara as a fashion statement, recorded here.
Voinovich's Rebel Yell
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 2:13PM
Ramesh Ponnuru points out what's wrong with Kathleen Parker's interpretation of Sen. George Voinovich's (R-Ohio) recent anti-Southern remarks: Big George is as socially conservative as any oogedy-boogedy Parker would like to chase out of the party. As senator, he has voted with the National Right to Life Committee 100 percent of the time and he supported the federal marriage amendment. As governor, he defended Ohio's "With God, all things are possible" motto against legal challenges.
Where Voinovich really parts company from Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint is on size-of-government issues. In fact, it is economic conservatives and gun-rights activists who have always complained about Voinovich in Ohio and hoped to mount a primary challenge against him. Voinovich's strong social conservatism, particularly his pro-life stand, made such a challenge implausible: conservative primary challengers are usually only successful when they can mobilize a broad range of conservatives behind them. If there is a God-n-gubmint Republican in Washington right now, it's George Voinovich.
Getting Serious About the Supreme Court
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 1:30PM
While I agree with Quin that the Republican campaign against Sonia Sotomayor left a lot to be desired, it is nevertheless part of a pattern of slow but real progress toward taking judicial nominations -- especially nominations to the Supreme Court -- as seriously as the other side does. Republican presidents have historically nominated a combination of moderates (sometimes outright liberals) and conservatives while Democratic ones increasingly moved toward liberal litmus tests; Republican senators continued to vote overwhelmingly for liberals nominated by Democratic presidents long after Democratic senators stopped supporting qualified conservative nominees.
The result of that imbalance was predictable: a court that could at best nibble away at a half century of liberal jurisprudence despite an ostensible conservative majority. The traditional conservative understanding of the Constitution continued to erode, not only (but not least) because of an indifference to who was being nominated. Qualifications matter, elections have consequences, but the raw truth is that ideology and judicial philosophy can no longer be ignored.
The first real signs that things were starting to change came under George W. Bush. Outspoken public opposition by conservatives and Republican senators to Harriet Miers -- as well as the largely behind-the-scenes campaign against a potential Alberto Gonzales nomination -- showed that the right was no longer going to accept stealth nominees, especially when there is a clear, established bench of qualified legal conservatives available. The fact that Republicans look like they are going to vote against Sotomayor 31 to 9 -- including Republicans like Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch who have never voted against a Supreme Court nominee in their long careers -- is more progress, even if there is still a long way to go.
Will They Get the Imus Treatment?
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 1:07PM
Two of the Washington Post's hotshot political reporters had a little fun with a video camera, posted the results on the newspaper's Web site, and got promptly shut down:
In the video, columnist Dana Milbank and White House correspondent and blogger Chris Cillizza appeared in smoking jackets to discuss the kinds of beer politicians might drink. Milbank said he couldn't reveal to whom President Barack Obama would serve a drink called "Mad B---- Beer." That line was followed by a brief picture of Clinton.
The group Women, Action and the Media complained to the Post in a letter signed by 32 women. They called the video "sexist" and "tasteless."
Does WAM have an Al Sharpton equivalent who will harp on this transgression until the Post cans the reporters? Milbank, at least, appears more flippant than remorseful:
"I regret that we put up that image," Milbank said, "and while I highly doubt the secretary of state has seen 'Mouthpiece Theater,' I would be honored to have the opportunity to apologize to her over a beer."
Or perhaps Mrs. Clinton will get all Palinesque on 'em.
Astroturf Alert: Obama's Group Asks People To Call Their Representatives
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 12:12PM
I just received an email from President Obama's Organizing for America group that starts off by accusing citizens opposing his health care policies as being tools of special interests and then urges his own supporters to call their representatives. The email provides contact info for a person's representative based on location, gives a script of what people should say to their representatives, and asks them to click on a form to report any contact they made with their representatives.
"These groups are using scare tactics and spreading smears about the President's plan for reform, trying to incite constituents into lashing out at their representatives and disrupting their events," the email reads.
"Your representative, Eleanor Norton, has been fighting hard for real health insurance reform." the email instructed me. "Can you call the local office in Washington? Let the person who answers know that you're a constituent. Then tell them: 'Thanks for working to enact real health insurance reform this year. Voters like me support your efforts.'"
So listen up all you corporate-funded old ladies showing up at town hall meetings, all you tea bagging stooges of insurance companies, all you Astroturfing military veterans, this is what real, organic, authentic grassroots organizing looks like.
The whole email below:
Continue reading…The Elusive Palestinian Center
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 11:52AM
For those who aren't regular watchers of Palestinian politics, this week was just like any other. For those who are, however, all eyes have been on the Sixth Fatah General Congress taking place in Bethlehem. The conclave, the first gathering of the Palestine Liberation Organization's political core since 1989, is being seen by many as a make-or-break moment - an opportunity for the faction to modernize its political positions and bring itself into the political mainstream.
But will it? Although the General Congress is still underway, all signs suggest that the results will leave much to be desired. At issue, as Israeli scholar Pinhas Inbari has outlined, is whether Fatah finally gives up on the muqawama - the "resistance" and armed struggle against the state of Israel that has defined its existence since the PLO was founded in 1964. And the "political program" now being debated by Fatah does no such thing, despite admittedly more dulcet tones about the need for political reconciliation with Israel.
Nor is it likely to. As David Schenker of the Washington Institute points out, recent times have seen a clear trend toward a more uncompromising, exclusionary worldview on the part of the Palestinian Authority (PA). Indeed, as PA president Mahmoud Abbas has - with Western assistance - tightened his once-tenuous grip on power, his political party increasingly has reverted to pre-Oslo type, renewing well-trodden rhetoric denying Israel's existence and espousing maximalist territorial demands. Or, as Fatah Jerusalem Regional Committee member Kifah Radaydeh put it recently in a television interview, "our goal has never been peace. Peace is a means; the goal is Palestine."
All of which raises serious problems for the Obama administration. Since this spring, the White House has made shoring up Abbas' rickety government a major priority. It has channeled millions of dollars in humanitarian and military aid to prop up the Palestinian Authority against its powerful Islamist rival, Hamas. The strategy seems to be working; according to Israeli military assessments, Abbas' rule is now more or less "stable" - a sea change from just a year ago. But with greater confidence in Ramallah has come a drift away from the political center. So the United States might soon find that its worries about a radical, anti-Israeli Islamist movement in the Palestinian Territories have been compounded by the revival of a radical, anti-Israeli nationalist one.
The Failure on Sotomayor
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 11:38AM
Jeff Sessions' heroic efforts notwithstanding, the Senate GOP made only a fitful, hesitant, somewhat fearful effort to really publicize the extent of Judge Sotomayor's disqualifications. They never really fought against the meme that her own record on the court was in the broad mainstream (even if on the left side of it) -- even though it is nothing of the sort. And they never even TRIED to turn the tables and put the so-called moderate Dems on the spot and make it a tougher vote for the Dems than for the GOP. They did not use every procedural arrow in their quiver to push a vote back into September in order to give the Dems a chance to hear from angry constituents on Sotomayor the same way they are hearing from angry constituents on health care. Without the month recess, also, there is too little time for the NRA's "scoring" of a vote against Sotomayor as the right vote to really take effect. Yet despite all this, Soto's approval ratings in the general public are pretty much 50-50 -- extraordinarily low for a Supreme Court nominee before the vote. Imagine how much lower those polls would be if the GOP had gone all-out?
So while other conservatives seem satisfied with getting 31 votes against her, I count it as a much bigger opportunity missed. I actually think she was defeatable, and if not that, then the vote could have been close enough to really make liberals sweat and pay a price -- and that defeating her or making the libs sweat would have been a victory that would have energized the conservative base not just with their current sense of protest, but with a more important sense that protests can actually be turned into political victories.
I am extremely disappointed. This fight is ending later today with a fizzle, not a pop. And it's a big letdown, and another sign that the Senate GOP as a whole still doesn't "get it." Like amoebas at a yoga class, they have no spine.
"Fishy" Poem
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 10:47AM
We’ve forwarded The American Spectator website information to the official White House enemies list e-mail address (flag@whitehouse.gov).
“Fishy”
Poem
By Asher
Embry
Here’s my “fishy” poem and I’ll try to keep it nice:
ObamaCare is rotten; it really stinks on ice.
My name is Asher Embry and you’ll always find me here;
Now take your snooping web address and shove it you know where!
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
The Spawn of Fannie and Freddie
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 10:40AM
The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is considering yet another overhaul of troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the latest rescue, the government would create a "bad bank" that would take on all the toxic mortgages, thus creating a new "good bank" with a "clean slate." The Post reports that "Options for the 'good banks' include consolidating the firms into one government agency, leaving mortgage finance to private banks or maintaining a hybrid model."
So, just to recap the sad history of Fannie and Freddie, both institutions were government-chartered enterprises created to boost home ownership. Though they were technically privately owned, they benefitted from an implied government backing, allowing them to borrow money at cheaper interest rates than their competitors, dominate the mortgage market, and inflate the housing bubble to unsustainable levels while they were protected from any real scrutiny because of their cozy relationship with Congress, particularly among prominent Democrats. When the housing bubble bursted, that "implicit" government backing became explicit, as the government took an ownership stake in the institutions and put taxpayers on the hook for $1.5 trillion in direct aid and loan guarantees. Now, still stuck with bad assets from its idiotic risk management decisions that were the result of a government-created moral hazard, the government wants to create a new entity that will put taxpayers on the hook for additional losses, and quite possibly remove all pretense of these institutions being "private," and morph them into one giant new government agency.
And now this same administration is trying to sell a health care plan in which the government expands Medicaid, requires individuals to purchase insurance, gives them government subsidies to purchase insurance on a government-run exchange, choosing among government-designed "private" plans, or a fully government-run plan -- and crying "fearmongering" when some of us rise up to say that this will lead to a government takeover of health care.
A Job in the Obama Administration Is More Important Than Life Itself
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 10:40AM
John McCormack examines Rep. John McHugh's (R-N.Y.) strange leftward shift on abortion since President Obama tapped him to serve as army secretary. He contrasts it with Rep. Joseph Cao's (R-La.) apparent decision to accept near-certain defeat by opposing any health plan with mandatory abortion coverage.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 10:12AM
- State Department re-calibrates Honduras policy -- no sanctions (Wall Street Journal)
- Cuban oil crisis: Russia signs deal to drill near Key West (Investors Business Daily)
- Shocking. Number one cash for clunker tradeup a Japanese car (Detroit News)
- Facebook friends won't be enough for Newsom to get elected Governor of California (San Francisco Weekly)
Rielle in Raleigh, Baby in Tow
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 10:07AM
My friend and co-worker, Don Carrington, was at the federal courthouse in Raleigh, North Carolina this morning when Rielle Hunter, John Edwards' former mistress, pulled up in a black SUV. She was escorted into the building by federal agents, baby in tow.
A grand jury meeting this morning in the courthouse is believed to be considering alleged campaign finance malfeasance by Edwards. The AP has some preliminary details here.
Don managed to snap this shot as Hunter walked in.
Automakers Win; Taxpayers, Poor, and Mechanics Lose
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 8:04AM
The "Cash for Clunkers" program is a good example of the sort of program which gives special interests a reason to exist--cash distributions to members at everyone else's expense.
The taxpayers are the most obvious losers, out $3 billion once the Senate Republicans sell out yet again by approving a big spending Democratic initiative. So are poor people, who will find fewer cheaper used cars available. But in the Obama administration's view, they should be taking buses anyway.
Then there are the mechanics. The federal government is using their own money to put them out of work. Such a deal. This apparently is "change we can believe in"!
Reports the Wall Street Journal:
The loss of such potential work -- as many as 250,000 vehicles will be destroyed in the program's first round -- prompted Mr. Wiygul to question the federal program's focus on dealers and big business at the expense of the little guy.
"How do we get on the special interests, special treatment bandwagon? How much is it going to cost me and to whom shall I send the check?" he said. "Who picks the winners in this game 'cause obviously the game is fixed."
Betty Jo Young, co-owner of Young's Automotive Center in Houston with her husband for 35 years, said her concern is that the federal program, unlike her state program, AirCheck Texas, doesn't give car owners the option of repair. The Texas program, created for low-income residents, provides $600 vouchers for repairs to bring older cars up to emissions standards. Participants have to make a co-payment of $30. It also offers up to $3,500 to replace the vehicle.
"I have found my customers want to keep their cars. They're doing good to make the $30 co-pay, much less buying a new vehicle," Ms. Young said. "Why aren't we putting money into repairs as long as the car is running?"
The auto-repair segment of the car industry, with about 164,000 independent shops, is a small portion of the automotive aftermarket that includes maintenance shops, parts suppliers and companies that remanufacture engine parts, among others.
The automotive aftermarket, a $250 billion industry that employs about 4.6 million people, could be among the biggest losers in the clunkers program, said Kathleen Schmatz, head of the Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association: "It's everybody from the Fortune 500 parts manufacturer all the way through the supply chain to the independent repair shop."
No one is surprised when Congress plucks taxpayers at someone else's expense. But they aren't the only victims of government bungling. As the "Cash for Clunkers" program demonstrates, Uncle Sam is well able to hurt lots of other people as well. Just ask your local mechanic.
Coming Out of Their Shells
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 8:03AM
Apparently, the turtles are also hurting in this recession. Florida and Massachusetts want to use part of their stimulus funds to help build "turtle tunnels" under major highways. Taxpayers, in an economic recession so bad that the government needed to temporarily take over part of private industry (think automotive), are funding the prevention of roadkill.
Florida's Department of Transportation estimates $3.4 million will be required for such a tunnel. Activists supporting the ecopassage spending say they've been researching for years and there's been no opposition until now. Of course, when they began the study eight years ago, I doubt they anticipated the recession or the stimulus bill. Saving wildlife is not the issue. Using taxpayers' hard-earned money in difficult times to fund the turtle tunnels is.
"MassHighway and the NHESP hope to have a statewide priority list of turtle road-kill hot spots," a local news story reported. Some of their stimulus funding has already gone to fund the research of the turtle population and the dangers they face.
Jobs are scarce and money is tight, but the turtles will be alright.
Christians Still Under Attack in Iraq
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 6:25AM
Unfortunately, Iraq remains a perilous place for Christians. Reports McClatchy:
For 35-year-old Rajo Qardaq Palander, a church security guard, the breaking point came last year, when insurgents demanded that he pay $20,000 or abandon his home in Baghdad's Dora neighborhood.
The choice was easy. He slipped out of Dora in the dead of night, joining the exodus of Assyrian Christians from Baghdad and Mosul to this haven in Iraq's Kurdish-controlled north.
"I held on as long as I could," Palander, 35 said. "I have no future in Iraq."
One of Iraq's most ancient national groups, the Assyrian Christians, who're Eastern Orthodox Christians, have largely quit their ancestral home in Arab Iraq and fled to the Kurdish region, where tens of thousands now live, or abroad.
The pressure on the Assyrians continues: Five churches were bombed in Baghdad in early July and killings continue in Mosul. In Ainkawa, a city of 40,000 on the outskirts of the main city of Irbil, there's sanctuary, castle-like churches, which dominate entire city blocks, and liquor, a trade that Christians dominated in Baghdad, is for sale openly.
Still, refugees and others who're choosing to stay in Iraq fear the days ahead. They're hoping to make political gains in Iraq's Kurdish provinces and to reclaim lost land.
"For the time being, it's a better place. But it's a dark future," said Father Isha Najiba, an Eastern Assyrian priest in Ainkawa who served in Dora until 2002.
As many as half of Iraq's Christians have been driven from their homes, many to Jordan and Syria. No one knows how many will be able to return, if ever. The destruction of Iraq's historic Christian community remains one of the great tragedies of the war.
Alaska Blogger Who Pushed Palin 'Divorce' Rumor Resigns From Anchorage School
Posted by on 8.6.09 @ 2:45AM
It is not illegal to impersonate a journalist, but when an anti-Palin blogger published a bogus "exclusive" Saturday, he signed up for a lesson in the law of unintended consequences:
Jesse Griffin, the Alaska blogger who Saturday claimed in an "exclusive" report that Todd and Sarah Palin were divorcing, will no longer work as an Anchorage kindergarten teaching assistant, school officials confirmed Wednesday.
Griffin's resignation followed revelations that the 49-year-old Griffin had posted (under the alias "Gryphen") sexually explicit advocacy of pornography and masturbation on his "Immoral Minority" blog. . . .
Griffin blamed "the Palin team and their minions" for discovery of his "Gryphen" online alias, which he says resulted in death threats and harassment. . . .
"Minions"? Merely a reporter doing his job. It's like Joe Friday said: "Just the facts, ma'am." Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Former Dem Congressman Jefferson GUILTY!
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 6:21PM
Former Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) has been found guilty of accepting bribes.
Jefferson is the guy they found with $90,000 in cold hard cash in his freezer.
Get out your stopwatch and let's time how long it takes for the left and for Democratic hacks to cry racism.
The Not So Smoking Gun
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 6:12PM
Mary Katherine Ham has great post exposing the dishonest attempt by MSNBC, the DNC, and Think Progress to use a memo written by the leader of an obscure grassroots organization to create the impression of a highly-orchestrated national campaign to disrupt town hall meetings.
She writes:
Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.
"We're just trying to shake this state up and make a difference up here," MacGuffie told me during a telephone interview. He's surprised at his elevation to national rabble-rouser by the Left.
Right Principles has a Facebook group with 23 members and a Twitter account with five followers. MacGuffie describes himself as an "opponent of leftist thinking in America," and told me he's "never pulled a lever" for a Republican or Democrat on a federal level. Yet this Connecticut libertarian's influence over a national, orchestrated Republican health-care push-back is strong, indeed, if you listen to liberal pundits and the Democratic National Committee, who have crafted a nefarious web out of refutable evidence.
Think Progress highlighted his memo's directives to "‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’," calling it a "right-wing harassment strategy against Dems." The blog falsely connected MacGuffie to the national conservative group FreedomWorks through the most tenuous of threads. The Think Progress link that purports to establish MacGuffie as a FreedomWorks "volunteer" leads to his one blog posting on a Tea Party website (on the free social networking site, ning.com). Think Progress calls Tea Party Patriots a "FreedomWorks website."
The problem is it's not a FreedomWorks site, according to FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon. FreedomWorks is a "coalition partner" of TeaPartyPatriots.org, but does not fund the site in any way.
The whole thing is well worth a read.
Health Care Video
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 4:42PM
Here, you can see a good video soberly explaining the health care issue, by the good folks at the Alabama Policy Institute.
A Strange Way of Showing Its Support
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 3:34PM
The U.S. remains perhaps the strongest supporter of bringing Ukraine into NATO. That support obviously has had no impact on Ukraine's dealings with Iran, against which Washington has applied economic sanctions.
Ukraine's state-owned Zorya-Mashproekt, a gas turbine design complex from Mykolaiv, will begin delivering power engineering equipment to Iran Power Plant Project Management (MAPNA) in August, a spokesman for the Ukrainian concern told Interfax.
The five-year contract covers delivery of 58 turbocompressors totaling 172.5 million euro. Zorya-Mashproekt won the contract at a tender in 2008.
The two companies have signed a framework agreement on delivery of 42 turbogenerators rated at 25 megawatts each and worth a total of 150 million euro. The Ukrainian concern has already begun purchasing materials and components under the order, the spokesman said.
Zorya-Mashproekt also has a contract concluded in 2007 on delivery of power equipment for Iran's IGAT-7 gas pipeline now under construction.
Quotations from Speaker Newt
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 3:27PM
Introduced as "a true American patriot," former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was all smiles as he took the stage in front of conference room overflowing with young conservatives Tuesday afternoon.
Gingrich used his time in the spotlight at the Annual National Conservative Student Conference not to inspire future leaders, but instead encouraging passionate activism now. Beginning with the fearless champion of the modern conservative movement, Gingrich drew parallels between former President Jimmy Carter's administration and current President Obama's to illustrate Ronald Reagan's rise.
Continue reading…A Study In Contrast
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 2:54PM
In defense of Obamacare, the Democrats have lately moved from debating Republicans and talking heads to debating everyday Americans; indeed, from debating to snitching and smearing. Following hot on the heels of their "report your friends and family" program, the DNC has released a new ad characterizing the Republican base, and those who oppose Obamacare, as a dangerous mob. Fearmongering is the new careful analysis, as any student of global warming warfare knows.
As the legitimacy of protest is under fire from the White House and folks like "Call me Senator" Barbara Boxer, with President Obama activating his activist army that answers only to him, with the DNC telling America that dissent is the highest form of rampage, it's useful to take a look at how the Republicans have dealt with protest these last eight years. As any honest observer will recall, the anti-war protests have been beyond compare for inflammatory and destructive rhetoric (check out Zombietime.com if you have a strong stomach.)
So over at RedState, Brian Faughnan does just that: explores and contrasts the responses.
Given the debate over the legitimacy of protests against the Democratic agenda on health care, cap-and-trade, and the economy generally, I thought it might be instructive to look at how the last administration addressed protests against its policies. The contrast is quite stark: Faced with protesters camped outside Bush's residence in Crawford, White House officials chose to meet with Cindy Sheehan and others:
About 70 anti-war protesters shouted "bring the troops home" from Iraq near President Bush's ranch on Saturday, prompting two White House officials to come out to meet with mothers who lost children in combat in Iraq.
National Security Adviser Steven Hadley and Deputy White House chief of staff Joe Hagin listened to the concerns of Cindy Sheehan and five or six other mothers in a meeting that lasted about 45 minutes, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said. Duffy said Sheehan told the two officials she appreciated the meeting.
White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer didn't question the legitimacy of anti-war protesters:
I think the president welcomes the fact that we are a democracy and people in the United States, unlike Iraq, are free to protest and to make their case known,"White House Press Secretary Trent Duffy echoed these sentiments:
The American people have a right to protest, and the right of free speech is something that we're fighting for in this war on terror, to preserve that right of free speech. So the President welcomes opinions from all Americans.
Kos: If Bill Doesn't Include Gov't Plan, Liberals Must "Kill It"
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 2:51PM
Last month, Bill Kristol drew fire from President Obama and his liberal allies for urging Republicans to kill current health care legislation and start all over. But on Keith Olbermann's show last night, Markos Moulitsas, founder of the influential liberal website DailyKos, said progressives should be the ones to go for the kill if final legislation does not include a government-run plan.
“If they kill the public option and all we get is some insurance mandates, then I think it’s up to progressives to kill it, and then try again in two years after we get a new Congress,” Moulitsas said.
So in other words, when conservatives argue against rushing to pass what they believe to be a bad bill, they are branded as being anti-reform in general, are accused delaying help to millions of uninsured, and are told that we can't wait any longer. But if liberals don't get what they want, it's perfectly okay to scrap health care legislation and defer action for another two years.
Meanwhile, Moulitsas all but admitted that the government-run plan, or so-called "public option," would move us toward a single-payer system over time.
“Now the best option may be off the table, but if we get a good solid public option, that’s something we can expand in further years, and this is why insurance companies and conservatives are trying to kill it, because they don’t want further expansion of this program, which I think could happen,” he said.
Video here, relevant part begins around the 4:50 mark.
Dr. Paul Running for Senate
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 2:47PM
That's Rand Paul, the ophthalmologist son of Ron Paul, who is running for the Republican nomination in Kentucky. He takes similar libertarian-conservative positions on the issues but he'll also have to emulate his dad's success with fundraising "money bombs" to stay competitive with Secretary of State Trey Grayson, who is the party establishment's choice and himself a prodigious fundraiser.
Where is the ACLU?
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 1:53PM
Forget the part about whether illegal immigrants should be released; my question, based on this Wash Times editorial, is where is the ACLU when it comes to defending Sheriff Joe Arpaio's First Amendment rights?!? Where are all the other civil rights groups? Is it not an outrage when a lawyer for the immigration service writes taht "conditions can lawfully be imposed on the receipt of a benefit... includ[ing]the surrender of a constitutional right...provided the conditions are reasonable"???
Ridiculing Bush = Cool; Ridiculing Obama = Racist Hate?
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 1:07PM
The left is howling with indignation over a poster depicting Barack Obama as the villainous Joker character from The Dark Knight Batman movie. The poster, by an anonymous artist, has popped up in Los Angeles and Atlanta. The word "socialism" appears under the president's PhotoShopped face.
"Don't they know rule number five from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals: ‘ridicule is man's most potent weapon'? Interesting how mad they get when you use their rules against them, isn't it?" Glenn Beck said on his TV show yesterday. (segment begins at 5:20 on linked video)
The posters have some liberals furious. For example, Steven Mikulan of LA Weekly writes:
The poster, which bears a very superficial resemblance to Shepard Fairey's famous Obama Hope illustration, has been pasted on freeway supports and other public surfaces. It has a bit of everything to appeal to the drunk tank of California conservatism: Obama is in white face, his mouth (like [actor Heath] Ledger's Joker's) has been grotesquely slit wide open and the word "Socialism" appears below his face. The only thing missing is a noose.
Of course the left cheered and cackled when President Bush was depicted as the Joker in Vanity Fair last summer.
Mikulan's own publication previously ran a poster on its cover depicting then-President Bush as a vampire. The artist? Shepard Fairey, creator of the iconic Obama "Hope" poster.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 12:45PM
- Airport to nowhere, $15 million in stimulus money to build airport in 150-person Alaskan town (ABC News)
- Nationalized health and driving the life expectancy argument off the highway (Red State)
- Politics, Rahm Emanuel-style (Examiner)
- Must-watch: Kagan gets turfed (grass, not astroturf) at townhall in Packer country (San Francisco Chronicle)
Astroturf Alert: Obama Emails Supporters to Pressure Congress on Health Care
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 12:35PM
At the same time that the DNC and his own White House are trying to argue that people voicing their concerns about health care legislation to their elected representatives are "manufactured," President Obama just sent out an email to members of his Organizing for America operation to "commit now to taking at least one action in your community this month to build support for health insurance reform..."
He wrote:
Organizing for America is putting together thousands of events this month where you can reach out to neighbors, show your support, and make certain your members of Congress know that you're counting on them to act.
But these canvasses, town halls, and gatherings only make a difference if you turn up to knock on doors, share your views, and show your support. So here's what I need from you:
Can you commit to join at least one event in your community this month?
Gibbs Backs Off Iran Statement
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 12:12PM
After yesterday calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the "elected leader" of Iran, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs reversed himself today, Reuters reports:
"Let me correct a little bit of what I said yesterday. I denoted that Mr. Ahmadinejad was the elected leader of Iran. I would say that's not for me to pass judgment on," Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One.
Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. Absolute amateur hour.
All in the Game
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 11:09AM
Jamie Kirchick has a good piece in the NY Daily News explaining that the "birther" controversy is in fact manufactured by the left. He sums it up nicely:
It is not Obama's right-wing opponents, however, who are devoting the most attention to this obscure, Internet-driven "movement," if one can even use that label to describe such a paranoid groupuscule. Rather, it's liberals, bent on portraying their conservative opponents as extremists - and changing the subject to help a President under increasing scrutiny for the substance of his policies - who are driving this story.
Relatedly, Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic has written a useful explanation of the White House's strategy to paint the opposition as composed of birthers, people who believe the president is a secret islamist, and other extremists. Doing so is their best hope for getting their big projects -- such as health care -- passed despite the public's growing wariness.
Leftist Bloggers Who Get Marching Orders from Obama Attack Protesters as "Astroturf"
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 11:06AM
Last month, President Obama held a conference call with a small group of liberal bloggers, asking them to keep pressure on Congress in the health care fight. Now those same bloggers are part of an orchestrated effort by the Democratic Party and the White House to portray protests against their health care legislation as, well, orchestrated.
"It is important just to keep the pressure on members of Congress because what happens is there is a default position of inertia here in Washington," Obama instructed the bloggers last month. "And pushing against that, making sure that people feel that the desperation that ordinary families are feeling all across the country, every single day, when they are worrying about whether they can pay their premiums or not... People have to feel that in a visceral way. And you guys can help deliver that better than just about anybody."
Obama later added, "I know the blogs are best at debunking myths that can slip through a lot of the traditional media outlets...And that is why you are going to play such an important role in our success in the weeks to come."
Since then, support for legislation has cratered, and those bloggers who get their marching orders from the White House and DNC have become part of the effort to attack ordinary Americans expressing their beliefs about an issue of great importance.
John Amato of Crooks and Liars was on last month's conference call with Obama. Yesterday, Amato asked, "How long will it take the traditional media to expose the corporations that are running this con and even mention the word 'astrotufing' in a serious way?" In the same post, he praised Robert Gibbs for accusing the protesters of being phony.
David Dayen of the blog D-Day was on the call. Yesterday, he wrote a post titled, "Top-Level Democrats Assault The Extremist Astroturfers." It began, "The White House took the lead on this, publicly calling the teabagger disruptions an example of astroturfing and citing conservative industry-backed groups taking credit for activating the rioters. Now other elements of the Democratic Party are taking up the baton. Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer blasted the clown show today..."
Joan McCarter of Daily Kos was also on the call. Yesterday, she wrote of the protesters, "It's kind of sad, isn't it? They think they're part of a real populist movement, but the freedom they're fighting for is the freedom of corporations to make even more money off of them. It's that cynicism of this astroturf campaign that's particularly disturbing, because it's not about the rights of citizens to freely express their dissent."
So just to sum up, Obama enlists the aid of a small group of liberal bloggers in the health care fight, and then those same bloggers write posts echoing White House and DNC talking points -- and in the very process of doing that, accuse their political opponents of astroturfing!
You're Paying For This
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 10:40AM
It gave me warm fuzzies this morning to discover yet another use of taxpayer dollars to bankroll the left's holy war against global warming.
Not.
I recently pulled The Climate Registry's IRS Form 990. As I discussed in an AmSpec column last year, TCR is a nonprofit whose mission is to get companies, organizations, state and local governments, and other entities to report their greenhouse gas emissions. TCR has convinced 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, to sign a statement in support of the group and pay an annual fee for the 2007 and 2008 fiscal years ranging from $20,000 to $50,000, depending on the state's population.
Turns out that TCR operated last year almost entirely courtesy of these payments from taxpayers, plus a dose of support from liberal foundations. Out of $1.33 million in revenue for fiscal year 2008, $800,000 came from state governments and $359,000 from liberal foundations, such as Kendall and Merck. Its remaining budget was funded from fees paid by companies or other entities that have joined as emissions reporters.
Thus, 60 percent of its budget was courtesy of the American taxpayer. Most of the rest came from global warming alarmist groups.
Although the donations are small compared to the spending orgies going on in Congress, they illustrate state governments' misplaced priorities. Here in North Carolina, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources gave TCR $100,000 and bankrolled travel for an air quality official to attend the group's board meetings in Scottsdale, Ariz., and Chicago. Now, the department is handing out pink slips thanks to a massive budget deficit.
Not that most politicos would connect the dots between wasteful spending in the past and current deficits. Why do that when you can just raise taxes.
A Great Idea, Unless You Consider the Costs and Benefits
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 10:32AM
Today the Boston Globe praises the Massachusetts health care reform, aka Romneycare. They're taking their lead from a paper (pdf) published by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a left-wing think tank, and announce that the reform is "only" costing Massachusetts taxpayers $88 million per year. In return, 400,000-plus more residents have taken up health care insurance.
As Arnold Kling notes, the $88 million is only the added cost to the state taxpayers. The feds are also picking up an equivalent amount.
So in other words, the Globe and the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation are proclaiming the program a success on the basis of only one half of the explicit costs to the state. They don't include the other half of the explicit costs, not to mention the implicit costs to all of the people who would rather have the take-home pay but are now forced to purchase health insurance. They also don't include the costs of longer waiting times or higher premiums.
Reform Health Care By Setting People Free
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 4:21AM
John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis tells us how to reform heath care by setting people free. For example, number two is setting patients free:
Many patients have difficulty seeing primary care physicians. All too often, they turn to hospital emergency rooms, where there are long waits and the cost of care is high. Part of the reason is that third-party payer (insurance) bureaucracies decide what services patients can obtain from doctors and what doctors will be paid. To correct this problem, patients should be able to purchase services not paid for by traditional health insurance, including telephone and e-mail consultations and patient education services. This can be done by allowing them to manage more of their own health care dollars in a completely flexible Health Savings Account.
Of course, before setting us free Congress must reject proposals for a government medical takeover.
Americans Say "No Thanks" to Clunker of a Program
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 3:24AM
The Democrats (and some Republicans, alas!) don't get it yet, but the American people appear to be tired of politicians wasting their money. Rasmussen Reports observes:
Fifty-four percent (54%) of Americans oppose any further funding for the federal "cash for clunkers" program which encourages the owners of older cars to trade them in for newer, more fuel-efficient ones.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 33% of adults think Congress should authorize additional funding to keep the program going now that the original $950 million allocated for it has run out. Thirteen percent (13%) are not sure.
These numbers are virtually identical to the findings in mid-June just after Congress first approved the plan when 35% favored it while 54% were opposed.
Senators should to consult their constituents before they vote more money for this clunker of a program.
Unions Object to Mob Rule
Posted by on 8.5.09 @ 3:13AM
Apparently organized labor has found some violence that it doesn't like. It's just terrible, these protestors showing up at congressional town hall meetings opposing nationalized health insurance. Complains the AFL-CIO:
The extremist fringe of the anti-health care reform movement-with a wink and a nod from more mainstream health care opponents-is using mob rule to disrupt town hall meetings and community forums set for the congressional recess. Mob rule tactics stopped the Florida vote count during the contested 2000 presidential elections, ultimately turning the presidency over to George W. Bush-a strategy now emulated by the anti-health care reform lobby.
Terrible, just terrible. It's not as if unions every resort to, oh, shall we say "enhanced" protest techniques. Such as blatant violence and intimidation.
Patrick Semmens of the National Right to Work Foundation reports on just one instance:
In Upstate New York non-union workers were targets of a campaign of violence and intimidation by Operating Engineers Union Local 17 thugs:
The indictment accuses Local 17 leaders and members of dozens of threats and instances of vandalism and harassment against non-union workers and contractors. At times, members of other unions were also targeted.
Much of the activity took place at major publicly funded construction projects, including the expansion of Roswell Park Cancer Institute and renovations at Ralph Wilson Stadium, Buffalo State College and the Buffalo Sewer Authority's treatment plant on Bird Island, prosecutors said.
One of the disturbing aspects to the case, in Flynn's view, is that members of the local repeatedly used the Web site of the state Department of Motor Vehicles to find out the addresses of people they intended to harass.
It's nice of the AFL-CIO to be concerned about the democratic process. Perhaps labor officials should start by campaigning against violence within their own movement.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Wrong on All Counts
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 11:33PM
Art Laffer (why is he, of all people, on my TV?) asks what it will be like when the government runs Medicare and Medicaid.
This is supposed to be snarky, and it would in fact be funny if Art Laffer, the patron saint of supply-side economics, thought that the government did not run Medicare and Medicaid. But if you follow the link, it goes to a Media Matters clip with the headline "Economist Laffer on CNN:'[J]ust wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid ... done by the government.'" That's some very selective editing; if you watch the clip you'll see that Laffer had just finished up talking about the government's unfunded liabilities for Medicare and Medicaid when he says, "...just wait till you see Medicare, Medicaid, and health care done by the government."
Then Krugman goes on to say -- and he really says this -- the following:
But I'd raise a further question: he warns that when the government takes over these, um, government programs, they'll be like the Post Office and the DMV. Why, exactly, are these public functions unquestioned bywords for "something bad"?
Maybe I'm living a sheltered life here in central New Jersey, but I don't find the Post Office a terrible experience - no worse than Fedex or UPS. (Full disclosure: I worked as a temp mailman when in college.) And nobody likes going to the DMV, but the one on Rt. 1 I go to always seems fairly well managed.
Can he really be that detached from reality? The only things that don't work well in my life are government-run things like the Post Office and the DMV. For the sake of brevity, let me take just my most recent experiences with each.
Last year, the mailman broke my mailbox. While delivering the mail he slammed it shut or somehow jammed the lock. I called the Post Office during their very limited hours, and they promised to look into it. Nothing happened. About a week later, still no mail, so I called again on a Saturday. This time they told me my only option was to pay them $25 to fix the mailbox. When I asked whether they could waive the fee in light of the fact that they broke the box, the person on the phone literally hung up on me. Enraged, I went down to the office to confront them. I was given the runaround, and told that the maintenance guy had left earlier (I'm guessing he was the same guy who hung up on me.) After a week or two of this kind of treatment, I go into the other Arlington post office during work hours, with the idea of doing an end run on the counter guys at my own office. Sure enough, they give me the name and number of a supervisor for my office. I call the number, and she promises to help, but I have to come in during office hours to sign a work release. A week or so passes before I can get there during office hours, meanwhile about a month has gone by since I was last able to access my mail without accosting the postman on his rounds. I go, sign the work release, and pay the $25 because I'm feeling defeated. They tell me that they'll do the job as quick as possible and give me my new keys. Fast forward about another month. I still have no new lock and no access to mail. I storm down to the office again, and wait through another huge line. I finally get to the maintenance guy and tell him what I'm following up on. He looks at me as though I'm an idiot. "Yeah, we've had that done for weeks," he tells me condescendingly. "Why haven't you come in for your new keys?" he asks, as though I must be crazy not to have figured out such a small problem as setting up a new mailbox lock. "We've been calling you a lot," he glibly lies, apparently not knowing or caring that cell phones list all missed calls. Remember, this is only my most recent experience with the Post Office. They have all been about this bad.
As for the DMV: Last month, I attempted to get swap my Massachusetts driver's license for a Virginia one. I arrived at the DMV 10 minutes after it opened to find a line hundreds of people long. I waited in this line for over an hour and a half -- outside the building. This line didn't even get you to the counter. It got you to the people who asked you what you wanted, took your number, and told you if you had the proper applications material for that particular process. In my case, I didn't, even though I'd followed the website's instructions perfectly. So I waited in line for an hour and a half just to be told I couldn't wait in the real line. I can only imagine how long that would have taken.
Krugman wraps up:
And in general: is dealing with these government agencies any worse than, say, dealing with the cable company?
To be fair, I did also recently have a terrible experience with Comcast. Apparently the rate they quoted me was only an expiring promotional rate, and they had started charging me much higher rates in addition to random fees every month. I called them and they didn't fix the problem. I also wasn't 100 percent happy with their customer service (although never in a million years would they have hung up on me as the Post Office did). So guess what... I cancelled my cable.
Liberal Whining a Sign They're Losing Health Care Debate
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 6:04PM
I have a rule of thumb in politics that if one side is doing a lot of whining, it probably means they're losing. This was true, for example, when liberals were on an electoral losing streak and carped that Republicans were simply meaner people and better at Rovian/swift boat tactics; or when conservatives blamed the media for the fate of the McCain-Palin ticket. Liberals complained about special interests destroying health care legislation in 1993/94, while conservatives were forced to lament the dishonest demagoguery being used by the left to turn the public against Social Security reform in 2005. As I wrote yesterday, Democratic lawmakers have been at the receiving end of a public backlash against their health care proposals, and now they've been working with their liberal allies to discredit protesters by painting them as tools of insurers and the Republican Party. Today, a blogger for liberal activist group Campaign for America's Future equated opponents of liberal health care policies with Holocaust deniers, and the Democratic National Committee jumped into the fray today with a statement claiming that, "The Republicans and their allied groups - desperate after losing two consecutive elections and every major policy fight on Capitol Hill - are inciting angry mobs of a small number of rabid right wing extremists funded by K Street Lobbyists to disrupt thoughtful discussions about the future of health care in America taking place in Congressional Districts across the country."
This is silly. We can argue about how many of the anti-government health care protesters were encouraged to attend townhall meetings by larger groups and how many decided to organize at the local level. But either way, it doesn't really matter, because the whole reason activist groups exist is to encourage citizens who agree with them to get more involved. This is no different from what unions, liberal activist groups, the DNC, or Obama's own Organizing for America are trying to do. During last summer's Democratic National Convention, I attended a number of events in which self-described progressives argued that it was up to them to make sure that once elected, they forced Obama to govern as a liberal, just as past movements had pressured initially reluctant FDR and LBJ to create new social programs. And after Obama won the presidency on the strength of his organization, we heard lots about how he would harness his impressive grassroots apparatus to build public support for his policies.
If liberal organizations were succeeding in the current health care debate, they'd simply have larger numbers of people in support of their policies at all of the townhall meetings, allowing them to drown out the "small number of rabid right wing extremists." Instead, the meetings are being swamped by opponents of their proposals. Coordinated or not, the attendees of the meetings are real people with real concerns about what is being discussed in Washington. The fact that liberals are reduced to whining thus suggests they're losing the organizing war, and that they know it. With that said, it's important that conservatives not get too cocky. Losing is not the same as having lost.
Mary Robinson's Disgraceful Medal
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 5:39PM
The Obama Adminstration -- is it just President Obama -- seems to delight in provoking the Jewish people by either honoring or appointing individuals who have done one or more of the following:
1. Sided with Israel's enemies in diplomatic or military theaters, thereby giving them both political and strategic support.
2. Provided Israel's enemies with a forum for advancing anti-Semitic or anti-Israel propaganda or have willfully engaged in propagandizing themselves.
3. Singled out Jews and Israel as the primary obstacle peace in the Middle East and have advanced the argument that a Jewish or Israel lobby has created that obstacle and should be eliminated.
Here's a short list of these individuals. Feel free to add others in the comment section:
Reverend Wright.
Rashid Khalidi
Chas Freeman
Merrill McPeak (See my Spectator article.)
Robert Malley (See my other Spectator
article.)
But now that Obama has awarded her a Presidential Medal of Freedom, add Mary Robinson to the top of the list. She, by virtue of being the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, was able to advance the agenda of the enemies of Jews and Israel everywhere. By turns she's been a Neville Chamberlain in a petticoat or the principal organizer in what has become a world-wide indulgence of radical Islam, which consists of excusing human rights abuses in places such as Iran and abetting anti-Israel and Jewish sentiments.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "There are statements that obviously that she has made that the president doesn't agree with, and that's probably true for a number of the people that the president is recognizing for their lifetime contributions."
Statements? We are talking about actions, which speak a lot louder than words.
First, she gave aid and comfort to Israel's enemies in time of war. In 2003, weighing in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, UNWatch notes:
In a speech to the Special Session last week, Mary Robinson endorsed Palestinian propaganda that accusations of using Palestinian ambulances to convey explosives were baseless Israeli lies. In doing so, she chose to place greater trust in the Palestinian statement than in that of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which witnessed the unloading of an explosive "suicide belt" from an ambulance and its controlled detonation.
Second, she effectively sided with those who believed that silencing Israel and Jewish voices would advance "peace." Hence, she organized the 2001 Durban UN Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia, etc. to reflect the interests and views of Arab states. Colin Powell walked out. The late Tom Lantos blamed Robinson for handing the conference over to the Organization of Islamic States and Iran in particular. He noted that Israelis were not allowed to be delegates at this conference because Iran and other countries objected. Meanwhile, discussion of human rights abuses, religious oppression and other issues in Islamic countries were never raised because Mary never batted an eye.
Third, and most importantly, she provided a world platform for Jewish hatred.
As High Commissioner, Robinson was scorned by no less than another Medal of Freedom recipient, Eli Wiesel. Here is what Wiesel wrote about her handling of the Durban conference :
The conference in Durban will go down in history as an enterprise of disgrace. Instead of being an important international conference that expresses goodwill, the conference has been turned into a circus of calumny.
What began as an idea for a world gathering against hatred has turned into a meeting of hatred characterized by wickedness. I was supposed to have been there. Both Kofi Annan and Mary Robinson did their utmost to persuade me, particularly in light of my membership on the small board of "very important persons" that the UN established to help with the preparations. But after I read the work papers, I quit.
Mary Robinson phoned me a number of times. I had lunch with the UN secretary general, whom I have known for years. I explained to both of them why I could not take part in this event, which is so infuriatingly anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish.
They said they would make changes in the phrasing, but the problem was with the content. I warned the UN secretary general that the conference and the manner in which it had been prepared would go down in history as a moral catastrophe of the political and social behavior of the world's nations.
Anti-Semitism, the oldest form of racism against a certain group in the world, did not appear in the program. What did appear was something about "holocausts such as the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israelis."
By means of the disgraceful conference in Durban, history has given us, the Jews, a sign. And we had better learn how to decipher it.
Here's one sign: The Obama administration is no friend to the Jewish people.
White House Throws Iranian People Under The Bus
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 4:42PM
In a slap in the face to Iranian people who have been jailed, beaten, and killed for protesting results of the Islamic regime's June election, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declared today that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the "elected leader" of Iran, thus legitimizing the results. President Obama dragged his feet in responding to the events in Iran as they unfolded because he claimed he didn't want to "meddle," but now his administration is weighing in on the side of a brutal regime. Truly sickening.
Leftist Activist Compares Obamacare Opponents to Holocaust Deniers
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 4:18PM
A blogger for liberal activist group Campaign for America's Future has equated those opposed to passing health care legislation that includes a government-run plan to Holocaust deniers.
In a long, rambling post titled "Birthers = Health Care Deniers," blogger Brian Dockstader writes:
Let me preface this by explaining my rationale for labeling opponents of health care reform "health care deniers". I call them deniers, in much the same vein as global warming deniers and Holocaust deniers, and for the very same reason. These people deny that we have a health care problem. They deny this in the face of all facts. They choose blindness, they deny, to further their own self-interested agenda. And to add a second definition of denier--these people not only deny the problem, but in doing so they also seek to deny us a solution. Their denial is pathological, and it is toxic to having an intellectually honest debate about health care reform.
During the rest of his rant, Dockstader makes a desperate attempt to connect those opposed to liberal health care policies to people who don't believe Obama is a U.S. citizen.
Campaign for America's Future has played a key role in pushing Congress to pass a health care bill that includes a government-run plan modeled after Medicare, and it is a founding member of the liberal Health Care for America Now coalition.
Cash for Clunkers and the Poor
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 3:57PM
I just read today that the cars traded in for the Cash for Clunkers program are rendered unusable by running liquid glass through the engines.
Has anyone considered the impact of this on the poor? What has happened is that a huge number of low cost cars are being removed from the market. These are cars low income earners would ordinarily drive or teenagers would buy them who need to get to school or work.
What happens when we radically reduce the supply of a particular good? If there are no good substitutes, then the price goes up. In effect, this is a tax on the lower end of the market.
"Progressive" policy isn't always good for the poor.
Fix Healthcare: Refute This
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 2:40PM
Say what you will about Minnesota, what with electing Al Franken and all as their Senator, but at least their Governor has some sense.
Tim Pawlenty's been crisscrossing the country for weeks now talking politics and ideas. He's especially vocal about healthcare and critical of Obama's plan. In this op-ed in yesterday's WaPo, he sounds like a true-blue conservative and says Obama should look at how some state's handle health care to see how the country's plan should follow suit.
In Minnesota, our state employee health-care plan has demonstrated incredible results by linking outcomes to value. State employees in Minnesota can choose any clinic available to them in the health-care network they've selected. However, individuals who use more costly and less-efficient clinics are required to pay more out-of-pocket.
By contrast, he sums up Massachusetts's plan:
While the Massachusetts plan has reduced the number of uninsured people, costs have been dramatically higher than expected. The result? Increased taxes and fees. The Boston Globe has reported on a current short-term funding gap and the need to obtain a new federal bailout.
Imagine the scope of tax increases, or additional deficit spending, if that approach is utilized for the entire country.
How can Obama refute such a difference? If he could, his plan could work, but as it stands he can't; his plan is bound to mirror the mess of Massachusetts.
Either way conservatives read that and say, well, duh.
Obama and cronies on the other hand, read that and say, well darn, I'm sure our plan will work out better for the country than it did for Massachusetts.
Sanford's Press Guy Leaving
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 2:33PM
Of course you never know the whole story behind politicos leaving one camp for another, but the timing on this one makes the reason seem obvious. From an email I just received, Gov. Mark Sanford's spokeman Joel Sawyer announced:
Tomorrow will be my last day in the Governor's Office, as I am leaving to begin my own communications consulting firm. It's been a pleasure to work with and get to know so many of you, and I wanted to pass along my new contact information.
Don't know why I received the message as the only time I ever had contact with Sawyer was about Sanford's creation of a climate policy development commission. Never received any messaging from him before or since. I guess he wanted to let as many people as possible know he is LEA-VING!
Update 2:40 p.m.: Obviously I missed this announcement from a couple of weeks ago.
Re: Republicans Up 14 in VA, NJ
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 2:32PM
If the 2009 Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections were held today, the Republicans would win both by 14 points. And unlike Chris Christie, Bob McConnell is leading a non-incumbent who is actually a fairly decent candidate. Of course, the Democrats in New Jersey still have time to persuade Jon Corzine to fall on his sword so they can get Frank Lautenberg to run for governor instead.
Dems Way Behind in VA, NJ Gov Races
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 2:17PM
New polls continue to bring bad news for Democrats in this year's governors' races in two states won comfortably by President Obama. In New Jersey, a Monmouth County poll gives challenger Chris Christie a 14-point lead over Gov. Jon Corzine, who has an anemic 35 percent job approval rating among likely voters, compared with a disapproval rating of 58 percent. Meanwhile, in Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell also edges out his Democratic opponent Creigh Deeds by 14 points in a Public Policy Polling survey. In both cases, the polls are trending against the Democrats, and as Dave Weigel notes, a deeper look at the Virginia data show waning enthusiasm on the Democratic side, suggesting dampened turnout.
The "Good Arguments" of the Islamists?
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 12:08PM
During a recent visit to Kyrgyzstan, reporter Michael Ludwig of Germany's leading daily, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), spoke with one "Sanjar", a local leader of the Islamist Hizb ut-Tahrir al Islamijja or "Islamic Party of Liberation". On Ludwig's account, Sanjar made clear that the goal of Hizb ut-Tahrir is the establishment of Islamic rule throughout Central Asia and ultimately "Islamic world revolution." But he had a special message for Christians who might find this prospect unsettling. "We are not monsters [Unmenschen]," Sanjar told Ludwig:
We will suggest to Christians that they convert to Islam and if they refuse, they will still be able to practice their religion within well-defined limits. But in exchange for the right to do so, they will have to pay us a special tax.
Jews, however, will not be shown similar tolerance. "We will exterminate the Jews," Sanjar added.
This nugget is contained in a June 23 article that the FAZ editors astonishingly saw fit to title "The Good Arguments of the Kyrgyz Islamists." (Hat-tip: WADI-blog.) Apparently, not even a first-hand encounter with the literally genocidal extremism of Hizb ut-Tahrir was sufficient for the FAZ editors to treat the "story" as anything other than the alleged repressiveness and corruption of the Kyrgyz and other Central Asian governments against which the Islamists are fighting.
It is not only in Germany that journalists and political commentators appear increasingly inclined to treat the well-known anti-Semitism of the Islamists as somehow just a bit of incidental folklore. And yet the evidence suggests that Sanjar's depiction of the relative treatment reserved for Christians and Jews under Islamic rule is in fact an established feature of Islamist doctrine. Thus, during his 2006 trial, when asked whether in threatening to "destroy you" he was referring to all Americans, Zacarias Moussaoui responded as follows:
No, we have difference we make. You are not all the same for us. Okay? For the American, American Jewish, we will exterminate them. For the Christian, it is different. The Christian, we have a way to accommodate them if they don't fight us.
(For full transcript, see here.)
Paying for Obama's Health Reforms
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 11:51AM
Congress is groping for ways to finance this thing and every day they come up with a swell new idea. One day it is a tax on soda pop, the next day it is botox, next a VAT tax on everyone, and then a “surtax on the rich,” and so on.
They don’t want to limit the exclusion for high cost insurance coverage because Labor likes that high-cost insurance coverage. Politico reports that, “White House officials are embracing a plan to tax "gold-plated, Cadillac" insurance policies, giving momentum to an idea that is receiving bipartisan consideration on Capitol Hill."
This is the nifty new idea Sen. John Kerrey came up with – instead of making insurance coverage taxable income for the people who get it, we’ll tax the insurance company itself if they sell a “gold-plated health plan.”
Apparently, no one stops to think, “let’s see now, if we tax the insurance company, where will it get the money to pay it? Oh, by raising the cost of the coverage to the employer! But if the employer pays more for the coverage where will it get the money from? Oh, by lowering workers’ wages! So, who ends up paying for it after all this smoke and mirrors? Who else? The very same workers we were trying to help.”
Toomey for Sotomayor
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 11:39AM
Pat Toomey, the former Club for Growth president running for the Republican senatorial nomination in Pennsylvania, has an op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer in which he says he would vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor. Politically, it will be seen as a move to the center in a competitive Senate race. On the merits, Toomey hangs a lot of his argument on the need to get ideology out of the confirmation process.
I've said many times before why I don't believe this model still applies. For one, it can't be maintained by just one side. Barack Obama doesn't get to vote against Sam Alito and even John Roberts but then claim a strong presumption in favor of his nominees as president. Second, the judiciary is increasingly unchecked by the elected branches of government. A confirmation process that is not a slam dunk barring a "complete meltdown" is a check that should be retained. Third, conservatives and constitutionalists cannot uphold their understanding of the Constitution by validating even the mainstream of liberal jurisprudence. Finally, if the Supreme Court is going to function as an unelected national policymaking body on issues like abortion, then we should care what kind of policies our black-robed masters will impose.
All that being said, it is a sign that Toomey can move away from the hard ideological role he played at the Club for Growth back toward the swing-district congressman he once was. Toomey once represented a congressional district that voted for Obama. Now he wants to replicate that feat statewide.
What Obama Actually Said
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 11:33AM
Drudge has been pumping up a video purporting to show Obama in March 2007 telling the SEIU that his health care plan would eliminate private health coverage. I haven’t blogged about it at this point because the video only excerpted a short clip, and I didn’t want to pass judgment until I heard the full context of his quote. I was able to track down the full video of his question and answer session, and wanted to set the record straight about what Obama did and didn’t say. Let me start by quoting Obama’s fuller statement (bold refers to section in the Drudge-linked video):
“As I indicated before, I think we’re going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool is typically their employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can’t go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out, where we’ve got a much more portable system, employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage or at least coverage that gives them more for the health care dollars that they spend outside of their employer, and I think we’ve got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage. I do believe that employers are going to have to pay or play. I think that employers either have to provide health care coverage for their employees, or they’ve got to make a decision that they’re going to help pay for those who don’t have coverage outside the employer system, so I think that’s one important principle.”
(Video below, relevant section begins around the 1:25 minute mark.)
Some background. There are health care policy experts on both the left and right who agree that the employer-based insurance system is problematic because people can’t take their health insurance from job to job and losing a job can often mean losing one’s health coverage. But these experts offer drastically different remedies. Advocates of a free market system argue for changing the tax code that currently discriminates against those purchasing insurance on their own to the advantage of those purchasing insurance through their employers. Such a change would not only address the portability issue, but also give people an incentive to search for better deals, since they’d be paying rather than their employers. But liberals argue, fundamentally, that there can’t be a functional market for individual insurance because in order to get a good deal on insurance a person needs to be part of a larger pool, typically either an employer or the government. And this is the point Obama is trying to make.
In the video, when Obama talks about creating a different sort of pool, he’s referring to what is now being described as a government insurance exchange, along the lines of what they have in Massachusetts. What he’s saying is that he wants to give people the option of either getting insurance through their employers, or through the government exchange. Over time, he says, he can see that leading to a system in which most (if not all) people buy their health insurance at a government store instead of through their employers. Would this be the same as eliminating private insurance? Not technically, since private insurers could do business through the exchange. But at the same time, all of the private insurers would be subject to much more government control, and if Obama gets his way, they'd have to go up against a new government-run plan that would also be offered on the exchange.
It’s important to note that these comments were made just two months after Obama announced he was going to run for president, and before he even had a formal plan. Now we have actual bills to look at and thus can see how they stack up against what he talked about in the March 2007 remarks.
On one hand, the House Democrats’ bill, once implemented, would not allow individuals to purchase insurance outside of a government store. (More detail here). On the other hand, much to the chagrin of liberals, the Democratic bills also restrict the ability of an individual already covered by his or her employer to opt out of that plan and purchase health insurance through the government exchange. In other words, one provision would accelerate the number of people who buy their insurance through government, while the other would place limitations on it.
The Drudge-linked video also includes the 2003 clip of Obama arguing that he favors a single-payer health care system to the AFL-CIO, as well as clips of Democratic Reps. Barney Frank and Jan Schakowsky arguing that offering a government-run plan (or “public option”) will lead to single-payer over time. Taken together, I think this highlights Democratic double-talk on health care. When speaking to liberal audiences who want a single-payer system, Democrats will argue to them that offering a government-run plan within a government-run exchange is the politically pragmatic way of getting to a single-payer system over time. But when addressing the general public, they talk about the government plan merely as something that will provide people with “choice” and foster “competition.” They don’t get to have it both ways.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 10:35AM
- Cures ED (Economic Dysfunction)? Stearns says $50 million of stimulus money is being spent on pornography (Human Events)
- Border Patrol seizes 950 pounds of marijuana near Las Cruces, New Mexico (ABC El Paso)
- Trillions in debt, federal government proud of saving $573k on two-sided-paper (Wall Street Journal)
- Lou Holtz for Congress? Former Notre Dame coach meets with NRCC (Politico)
Don't Ask the Media
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 10:18AM
Who is, and who isn't, a qualified climate scientist? The Competitive Enterprise Institute's Myron Ebell explained yesterday if you're interested.
John McCain Gets It Right
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 9:43AM
John McCain sometimes gets it very, very right indeed. It's not just the eloquence of his statement opposing Judge Sotomayor's promotion (click through to the further link for the whole speech), but the substance of it, that is extremely admirable. I wish every American could read, or better yet watch, McCain's announcement. I also wish that McCain's friend Lindsey Graham would read it, learn it, and memorize it -- and act accordingly. McCain explains what it is all about:
Though she attempted to walk back from her long public record of judicial activism during her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor cannot change her record. In a 1996 article in the Suffolk University Law Review, she stated that "a given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction." Mr. President, it is exactly this view that I disagree with.As a district court judge, her decisions too often strayed beyond settled legal norms. Several times, this resulted in her decisions being overturned by the Second Circuit. She was reversed due to her reliance on foreign law rather than U.S. law. She was reversed because the Second Circuit found she exceeded her jurisdiction in deciding a case involving a state law claim. She was reversed for trying to impose a settlement in a dispute between businesses. And she was reversed for unnecessarily limiting the intellectual property rights of freelance authors. These are but a few examples that led me to vote against her nomination to the Second Circuit in 1992 because of her troubling record of being an activist judge who strayed beyond the rule of law.For this reason, I closely followed her confirmation hearing last month. During the hearing, she clearly stated that "as a judge, I don’t make law." While I applaud this statement, it does not reflect her record as an appellate court judge....Should she engage in activist decisions that overturn the considered constitutional judgments of millions of Americans, if she uses her lifetime appointment on the bench as a perch to remake law in her own image of justice, I expect that Americans will hold us Senators accountable.Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government. And, as I stated earlier, regardless of one’s success in academics and in government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench. For this reason, and no other, I am unable to support Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.
Politics on ICE
Posted by on 8.4.09 @ 8:06AM
One doesn't even need to be a fan of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa COunty, Arizona, to be outraged at the underhandedness and lies that the Obama administration is using against him. The latest: They ordered him to release some illegals, and then tried to blame him for releasing them. They didn't count on him outsmarting them, though. Read about it here.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Durbin Accuses Citizens Opposed to Obamacare of Being Planted By Insurers
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 5:16PM
With opponents of government-run health care speaking out at town hall meetings in growing numbers and with increased ferocity (watch this video of Arlen Specter hearing it from constituents), liberals are attempting to delegitimize citizens exercising their rights by portraying them as part of some ominous conspiracy run by evil corporations.
Lee Fang of the Center for American Progress’s ThinkProgess blog snarls:
ThinkProgress reported today on the growing number of angry right-wing activists viciously harassing Democratic, as well as moderate Republican, members of Congress on health care reform. Jonathan Cohn wrote that these tactics represent “classic astroturf organizing, in some cases bankrolled by the health care industry.” The insurance industry is sending staff members to over 30 states to “confront” lawmakers about health care reform. Simultaneously, Cohn writes, the health care industry will use the August recess to “flood the airwaves with ads picking apart reform legislation.” Indeed, AHIP, the lobbying juggernaut for the health insurance industry, has promised to change its tone and begin running negative ads on reform soon.
The site also runs a video in which Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin says:
“These health insurance companies and people like them are trying to load these town hall meetings for visual impact on television. They want to show thousands of people screaming ‘socialism’ and try to overcome the public sentiment, which now favors health care reform. That’s almost like flooding the switchboards on Capitol Hill. It doesn’t prove much other than the switchboards have limited capacity, so we want to have a balanced approach that allows members of Congress to hear both sides of the story, rather than be sucker-punched, or sidetracked by these tactics.”
This is absolutely absurd on several levels. For one thing, I’ve been closely tracking liberal groups involved in the health care fight for some time, and all I’ve been hearing is how much money unions and other activist groups would be pouring into fighting for liberal health care legislation. Last July, the group Health Care for Americans Now announced the start of a $40 million campaign expressly for this purpose, and the groups were loaded with backers from big labor and groups such as MoveOn, Planned Parenthood, and ACORN. As I've reported elsewhere, the group received a $10 million grant from Atlantic Philanthropies, whose CEO, Gara LaMarche, was previously director of U.S. programs for the Open Society Institute, the philanthropic foundation founded and chaired by George Soros.
In June, I attended a news conference in which HCAN and other liberal groups announced they would spend $82 million in an effort to support President Obama's health care push and press for legislation that includes a new government-run plan modeled after Medicare. Howard Dean, former chair of the DNC, is involved in this supposedly grassroots effort.
But aside from this, Durbin’s statement that the American public is supportive of the Democratic health care agenda and thus any people protesting it at townhall meetings are merely tools of the insurance companies flies in the face of the actual polling data we have. For instance, a Pew poll released last week found that just 38 percent of Americans favor the health care proposals making their way through the Democratic Congress, compared to 44 percent who are opposed. And you can’t pin this one on “angry right-wing activists.” The poll also found that among independents, only 34 percent favored the proposals, compared with 49 percent who opposed them (the number opposed rose to 70 percent among independents who said they were following the health care debate closely).
The liberal effort to discredit American citizens who are expressing their views on an issue of vital importance is completely without merit, but it is instructive. It tells us that liberals know that despite their tremendous advantages in terms of resources and power in Washington, they are losing the health care messaging war. It’s becoming clear that Americans are not ready for a government takeover of the health care system, and they aren’t going to sit by idly while Democrats ram it down their throats.
Schumer Threatens Republicans Have Until September, Enzi Responds
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 3:55PM
Bloomberg reports:
(Sen. Chuck) Schumer said Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus set a Sept. 15 deadline for getting a bipartisan agreement among six senators on the finance panel who are negotiating a deal.
“If we cannot produce a bipartisan solution by then, you have to wonder if the Republicans would ever be willing to agree to anything,” Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the panel, said on a conference call with reporters. “We will enact health-care reform by the end of the year. If the Republicans are not able to produce an agreement, we will have contingencies in play.”
To which Mike Enzi, one of the Republicans involved in the talks repsonded:
“I have not and will not agree to an artificial deadline because I am committed to getting health care reform right, not finishing a bill by some arbitrary date. Improving access to quality, affordable health care for American families is too important to do hastily. Additionally, since many of the policies under discussion will not take effect for a number of years, we should focus on the goal of meaningful reform and not rush to meet timelines…
“We’re making progress, but we still have several significant, outstanding items to work on. I won’t be moved by partisan threats to misuse the budget reconciliation process. I am committed to getting health care reform right.”
Why Health Insurance Mandates Are A Middle Class Tax Hike
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 2:01PM
Drudge has been pumping up the fact that the Obama administration would not rule out the possibility of raising middle-class taxes to pay for health care legislation. While this is worth highlighting, it shouldn't distract attention from the fact that the health care bills currently being proposed all include a middle-class tax hike in the form of a mandate requiring that individuals purchase health insurance.
It's true that current proposals offer subsidies to help people buy insurance, but even the more generous subsidies in the House Democratic health care bill cap off at 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $43,320 for individuals. Yet if you look at Census data, 8.5 million of the uninsured have incomes of between $50,000 and $74,999, while an additional 9.1 million have household incomes of $75,000 or more. We can't put a precise number on the full cost of the mandate to the middle class based on these statistics. For instance, Census data refers to "household" income which in some cases could mean individuals but in other cases could mean families, and we don't know how the uninsured population breaks down within the over $75,000 group (i.e., how many of them have household incomes of between $75,000 to $85,000 vs. how many are above $200,000). But what is pretty obvious is that there will be millions of middle-class Americans who won't qualify for subsidies, yet will be forced to either buy insurance or pay a fine. While people focus on the penalty aspect of it, if you're making $45,000 a year and the government begins forcing you to spend thousands of dollars each year for a product, that's a lot of money, and it's undeniably a tax on the middle-class.
And there's also something else insipid about the idea of mandates. While those advocating mandates accuse those Americans who are uninsured by choice as being burdens on the system, there's a flip side to that. Millions of the uninsured are young and healthy and simply don't spend enough on medical care each year to justify the annual cost of premiums. If Obama gets his way, they'll be forced buy something that isn't a good deal for them so that older and sicker people can obtain more affordable insurance. If liberals want to argue that it's a moral imperative that government make it affordable for sick Americans to get health insurance, they'll have to be forced to acknowledge that the cost of doing so will have to be paid by others -- and some of that burden will be borne by the middle class.
Christians at Risk in Pakistan
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 12:42PM
America's allies have long been among America's biggest problems. Saudi Arabia was the biggest source of funding for Islamic extremism and backed the Taliban. It is one of the most repressive regimes on earth, especially for religious minorities. Pakistan also supported the Taliban, promoted nuclear proliferation around the world, and brutalized non-Muslims.
Some things haven't changed since 9/11.
Islamic extremism, always dangerous in Pakistan, has turned virulent. Reports the Washington Post:
They do not want to bury the Christians. They want the nation to see them.
By nightfall Sunday, hundreds of residents of the Christian enclave here stood in defiant vigil around seven particleboard coffins neatly aligned on the train tracks that run through town. They had demands: Until the government investigates the killings and finds those responsible, they will not remove the bodies.
Police waited warily in the street. A man on a loudspeaker bellowed the villagers' sentiments, which included anger at provincial authorities for not stopping the killings.
"Death to the Punjab government!"
A spasm of religious violence came to this rural town in the shape of an angry Muslim mob Saturday morning. The Muslims marched to avenge what they believed was the desecration of a Koran one week earlier. When it was over, dozens of houses were torched and Faith Bible Pentecostal Church lay in ruins. Two villagers were shot dead, residents said. Five others, including two children, burned alive.
The New York Times also covered the story.
The next time Islamic leaders propose an ecumenical or political dialogue, the West should respond sure. But before we start talking, could you please stop killing Christians, Jews, and other religious minorities? Only then is serious dialogue possible.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 10:29AM
- Townhall Must-Watch: Austin voters chant "Just Say NO" to obamacare at Doggett's meet-and-greet (Human Events)
- Oops. Hillary Biden-gaffes Indian nuclear policy (Washington Times)
- British forced to keep stiff upper lips as NHS rations pain injections to cut costs (Telegraph.uk)
- Protecting its peasants from the "bourgeoisie," Venezuelan government shuts down 34 radio stations (Reuters)
Eric Holder, Rotten to the Core
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 10:21AM
**)&&!@&#^&@ that $%#&$&#ing Jennifer Rubin. Here I was, planning to do my column later this week on the incredible font of corrupt, race-baiting rottenness otherwise known as Attorney General Eric Holder, and Jennifer Rubin steals my thunder! Her article in the newest issue of The Weekly Standard lays out a sober, thoughtful, thorough case proving that Holder's Justice Department is becoming frigtheningly lawless (my words, not hers). Read it. And be very afraid.
It's not just the "nation of cowards" speech or other racial stunts, and not just the outrageous dismissal of the voter intimidation case against dangerous New Black Panthers. It's also the stonewalling of legitimate congressional inquiry, and it's also the open politicization of the staffing and the atmosphere at Justice. Rubin writes:
Then there is Les Jin, who was chief of staff to the controversial former chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mary Frances Berry, who engaged in such regular political stunts as attempting to prevent the seating of George W. Bush's lawful nominee to the commission. Jin is now in a senior counselor spot at Justice. Another opening has been staffed by Julie Fernandes, an attorney who, prior to joining the department, worked for a left-wing civil rights organization and routinely weighed in on pending cases. Mark Kappelhoff who was chief of the criminal section of the civil rights division at Justice (and who took the position, while serving in the criminal section, that a campaign mailer reminding voters they must be citizens to cast a ballot was illegal "voter intimidation") maxed out as an Obama donor and has been boosted to principal deputy attorney general for civil rights.
While the Bush administration was investigated for seeking out conservative lawyers and staff, the Obama administration has been given a pass for going to the other extreme and stocking Justice with ultra-left leaning partisans. Overt signs of political activity and support now are on full display throughout the department. While it was unheard of to display campaign literature or paraphernalia during the Bush years, in the Holder Justice Department "Yes we did!" signs are fully evident, as are copies of reverential Obama campaign posters.
And it really does get worse. Again, read Jennifer's whole article, linked above (at "steals my thunder"). Eric Holder is subverting American justice. He is dangerous. He must be stopped.
In 2012 Preview, Pawlenty Takes Aim at RomneyCare
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 10:20AM
In today's Washington Post, Tim Pawlenty has an op-ed urging Washington to learn from health care reform experiences at the state level. Not surprisingly, he touts reform efforts in Minnesota, but it's also noteworthy that he takes aim at the Massachusetts overhaul that was led by Mitt Romney (though he doesn't mention Romney by name). Not that Pawlenty is a free market puritan on health care -- he supported SCHIP, for example -- but the disastrous results of Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts could prove a big obstacle for him during the 2012 Republican primaries in which at the moment, he's viewed as the very early frontrunner.
Romney has tried to have it both ways on health care. On the one hand, he points to health care as an example of his ability as an executive to get things done, yet at the same time he blames the Democratic legislature for changing his original plan (even though he signed it with changes, knowing that he wouldn't be around to oversee its implementation and that his successor would likely be a Democrat). He wants to take credit for the fact that his plan expanded coverage, but doesn't want to accept blame for the endless wait times for doctors, skyrocketing costs and the fiscal crisis that went along with that expanded coverage. He claims that his plan is a free market alternative to a government takeover of health care, and yet it's a plan that expanded Medicaid rolls, forced individuals to purchase insurance or pay a tax, and had government provide subsidies to people to purchase a government-run insurance on a government-run exchange. Anybody worried about life under ObamaCare should not be a fan of RomneyCare -- other than the absence of a government plan in the exchange, both plans are structurally very similar.
Those Wascally Wepublicans
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 10:14AM
Republicans may want to "kill" President Obama's version of health care reform, but without significant defections there's not much they can do about it. Democrats control 60 seats in the Senate. They have 78 more seats than the Republicans in the House, where the majority can basically do whatever it wants. Yes, Republicans are rallying the opposition and will supply the largest single bloc of "no" votes. But without Democratic defections, it doesn't mean anything. If a health care bill fails to pass, it will be because Democrats don't vote for it.
About Those Crazy Democrats
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 10:07AM
Lots of conspiracy theories abound, but if you read or view the usual news sources, you'd probably assume most of the conspiracy-minded folks were on the Right. Turns out it ain't so. Observes David Freddoso:
Twenty-eight percent of Republicans believe President Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States, and 30 percent are "not sure," according to this poll.
But before liberals begin to smirk, here's a poll from 2007, in which 35 percent of Democrats said that President Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks, and 26 percent were not sure.
So if 58 percent of Republicans are living in a delusional fantasy world because they are out of power, then 61 percent of Democrats were doing the same thing until just recently (perhaps they still are). It's a clean, apples-to-apples comparison with a clear lesson: People get a bit kooky when they're out of power, Democrats about 3 points kookier -- which is probably within the margin of error.
I missed the latter news at the time. Wow.
Nearly two-thirds of Democrats thought it was possible that George W. Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened? Now there is a really wacko theory and crazy bunch of people!
Crisis in the Washington Times
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 9:38AM
Today's Washington Times has an excellent review by Wesley Pruden of our editor Bob Tyrrell's newest book, a collection of his monthly Continuing Crisis column.
A sample:
"The Continuing Crisis" is a collection of one- or two-line items culled from the newspapers, delivered in a deadpan voice unadorned by unnecessary context, the harvest of a rich vein of human amusements, outrages and peccadillos, subjects as various as presidential wannabes, congressional blowhards, media pomposities and healthy nose-picking, donkey soup, the importance of elephant droppings at Manhattan art galleries, Nigerian genital soup and the perils for unsuspecting homeless Muslims supping on pork stew at a Brooklyn soup kitchen.
Alternative Hypocrisy
Posted by on 8.3.09 @ 8:18AM
One of the ways Democrats and President Obama have sought to deflect attention from the growing public opposition to their health care plans is to turn the tables and argue that Republicans are just trying to kill "reform" without offering any alternatives. This argument is problematic on serveral levels. Republicans do not have the votes to kill any legilsation, and in any event, several Republicans have offered alternatives (see here and here). Now, it is true that Republicans as a whole haven't united around a single alternative bill. However, it's hypocritical for Democrats to try to criticize them for it given that in 2005, they didn't offer an alternative to President Bush's plan to reform Social Security -- and still haven't offered anything on this crucial issue after two and a half years in control of Congress, and six months in control of the White House. Instead, they just attacked Bush's plan until public support for it collapsed and any chance of passage died. So, Democrats simply have no leg to stand on when they argue that Republicans are being the "party of no" on health care.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
CNN Bozo Accidentally Outs His Source; Palins Threaten LegalActionOn Divorce Smear
Posted by on 8.2.09 @ 8:53PM
An attorney for Sarah Palin has delivered a letter threatening legal action against an anti-Palin blogger who was the source of a divorce rumor that the attorney for the former Alaska governor called "categorically false."
Publication of the letter at a Web site that repeated the rumor has uncovered circumstantial evidence that the anti-Palin blogger "Gryphen" is a kindergarten teacher at an Anchorage elementary school.
Saturday, the rumor that Todd and Sarah Palin were divorcing created an online uproar. CNN stringer/anti-Palin blogger Dennis Zaki published a thinly-sourced "news" item asserting that "multiple sources" had confirmed the rumor first published by "Gryphen" at his Immoral Majority blog.
Zaki obtained a copy of a letter from Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein, ordering "Gryphen" to retract the allegations -- calling them "complete fabrications, false and defamatory" -- or face legal action. The Van Flein letter, published by Zaki with the name of the recipient blacked out, ended with this sentence:
"If you do not have an attorney, please let me know if you want to be served with the summons and complaint at the kindergarten where you assist or at your residence." (Emphasis added.)
By publishing the letter, Zaki inadvertantly provided valuable information to an anonymous tipster who compiled online research indicating the identity of "Gryphen," whose Immoral Minority blog received more than 170,000 visits in July. Blogger Dan Riehl received the same information.
The tipster also forwarded examples of the Immoral Minority blog's attacks on Palin, where "Gryphen" used vulgar obscene language in reference to Mrs. Palin, including the so-called "Trig Truther" suggestion that the governor was not actually the mother of her fifth child:
"Wherever Trig came from he has proved to be a very valuable asset to Sarah Palin indeed. But just where did Trig Palin come from? As of today, as of this minute, and after over a month of searching I cannot tell you. I simply do not know for certain. I do know however where he did not come from. He did not issue forth from Sarah Palin. He may have been conceived inside her house (The jury is still out on that one), but he was not conceived in her uterus. On that one fact I have absolutely no doubt."
-- June 6, 2009
I am currently awaiting confirmation from Alaska sources of the tipster's circumstantial identification of "Gryphen," who has been inadvertantly put in career jeopardy by his friend Zaki's publication of the Van Flein letter.
Media in Alaska will not be able to ignore the news that the state's most notorious anti-Palin blogger is a kindergarten teacher at public school. Having spent part of my early career as a newspaper reporter covering the education beat, I can predict that "Gryphen" will soon at the center of a maelstrom of controversy.
UPDATE 9:21 p.m.: Dan Riehl, who has even better sources in Alaska than I do, reports that we are now "gold" on the tipster's identification of "Gryphen" as Jesse Griffin, a part-time teaching assistant at Trailside Elementary School in Anchorage. At his Immoral Minority blog, Griffin now confirms the basics (without using his real name), saying he has "every confidence that I will be vindicated."
Huffington Post reports on the controversy, and the blogosphere is beginning to fan the flames. Good luck with that vindication, Mr. Griffin. Im sure the taxpayers of Anchorage won't mind you calling Mrs. Palin all those ugly names -- "trailer trash Barbie" being a relatively mild example.
Britain Balances Its Healthcare Budget on the Backs of the Sick -- LITERALLY!
Posted by on 8.2.09 @ 3:25PM
Ah, humane socialist healthcare.
Britain's National Health Service (NHS) is cutting off painkilling drugs for some chronic back pain sufferers in order to reduce costs, the Telegraph (UK) reports.
This frightening story from Jolly Olde England ought to serve as a warning to Americans high on ObamaCare.
From the Telegraph article:
It hardly needs to be said that if a government takeover of America's healthcare system happens, such headlines are likely to become commonplace here.
The Government's drug rationing watchdog says "therapeutic" injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known.
Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.
Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.
The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million.
But the British Pain Society, which represents specialists in the field, has written to NICE calling for the guidelines to be withdrawn after its members warned that they would lead to many patients having to undergo unnecessary and high-risk spinal surgery. [...]
That's just one universal healthcare horror story from the United Kingdom. There are thousands of others.
And just wait until socialist medicine comes to America.
The practice of medicine will become explicitly political.
Bureaucrats will make decisions that deny care and then the interest group warfare will begin because Americans, unlike submissive, statist Europeans, don't like being told how to live by government officials.
It will be a bonanza for lobbyists and lawyers as they advocate for their respective patient interest groups. Politically effective groups will carry the day and those patients who lack political pull will be forced to go without care or will be provided substandard care.
Think of the frenzied lobbying and legislative horse trading that took place during the brief debate over President Obama's stimulus legislation -- and multiply that by 300 million.
That could very well be America's future.
The Obama Administration: Pursuing Zero Economic Growth?
Posted by on 8.2.09 @ 7:15AM
President Barack Obama talks about restoring economic growth. But his science adviser, John Holdren, once called for zero economic growth while writing with Paul and Anne Ehrlich--who predicted mass starvation in the 1970s.
Reports Cybercast News Service:
At a time when it was popular among environmentalists to talk about capping pollutants, John Holdren was writing about placing "caps" on the U.S. economy itself--and working toward "zero economic growth."
Holdren, who is now President Obama's top adviser on science and technology policy, wrote in the 1970s that it would be "entirely logical" to cap the Gross National Product--the total productivity of the American economy.
"It is by now abundantly clear that the GNP cannot grow forever. Why should it?" Holdren asked in a 1977 college science textbook he co-wrote with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, titled "Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment."
"Why should we not strive for zero economic growth (ZEG) as well as zero population growth?"
Admittedly, President Obama hasn't formally adopted this goal. But by putting the economy into hock and running up government borrowing, which even the Congressional Budget Office warns will crowd out private investment, the president seems determined to prevent a robust recovery. Maybe John Holdren will get his wish after all.
So Much for Those Stimulus Funds
Posted by on 8.2.09 @ 7:01AM
The "stimulus" bill hasn't been stimulating much of anything. Even so, one could imagine the money doing some good, such as repairing decrepit bridges. But no! Those appear to be last on the list.
Reports Cybercast News Service:
Tens of thousands of unsafe or decaying bridges carrying 100 million drivers a day must wait for repairs because states are spending stimulus money on spans that are already in good shape or on easier projects like repaving roads, an Associated Press analysis shows.
President Barack Obama urged Congress last winter to pass his $787 billion stimulus package so some of the economic recovery money could be used to rebuild what he called America's "crumbling bridges." Lawmakers said it was a historic chance to chip away at the $65 billion backlog of deficient structures, often neglected until a catastrophe like the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed two years ago this Saturday.
States, however, have other plans. Of the 2,476 bridges scheduled to receive stimulus money so far, nearly half have passed inspections with high marks, according to federal data. Those 1,123 sound bridges received such high inspection ratings that they normally would not qualify for federal bridge money, yet they will share in more than $1.2 billion in stimulus money.
The wooden bridge built in 1900 carrying Harlan Springs Road in Berkeley County, W.Va., is one of the nation's unsafe structures not being repaired. About 2,700 cars cross it every day. But with holes in the wooden deck and corroded railings and missing steel poles, only one car at a time can travel the 300-foot rickety span.
The bridge is an example of how Obama's call to spend recovery money quickly -- on "shovel ready" projects to get people back to work -- has clashed with other goals of the stimulus, such as targeting high-unemployment areas and rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. State transportation officials say the need for speed makes it hard to funnel money into needy counties or to take on extensive bridge repairs that can involve years of planning and construction.
You've just got to love Uncle Sam! He knows how to spend lots of money, but not how to spend it right.
The Democrats: The New Stupid Party?
Posted by on 8.2.09 @ 6:35AM
The Republicans long have been known, appropriately, as The Stupid Party. But the Democrats might be making a better claim to that name these days.
During the Bush administration, Democrats made huge gains in some important Republican areas. For example, on the question of which party would do a better job in handling the federal budget deficit, Democrats held a 19-point advantage in a November 2005 Journal poll, a 25-point advantage in July 2007, and a 22-point advantage in January 2008.
Now all that has changed. In the new poll, the results have completely turned around, and Republicans hold a six-point advantage. On the related issue of controlling government spending, in July 2007, Democrats held a 16-point advantage. In the new poll, Republicans hold a nine-point lead.
Also in the Bush years, Democrats erased the Republican advantage on the issue of taxes. In November 2005, Democrats held a 10-point advantage over Republicans on the tax issue. That lead diminished over the next few years, but Democrats still held a five-point advantage in January 2008. In the new poll, Republicans have a seven-point advantage.
The big-spending Bush administration and Republican Congress tossed away the mantle of fiscal responsibility. It looks like the even bigger spending Obama administration and Democratic Congress have managed to throw it back!
Obama DOJ Threatened Oklahoma Over English-Only Vote
Posted by on 8.2.09 @ 1:50AM
The Obama administration believes that an inability to speak English is a civil right. It is even more distressing that the administration, legally speaking, may be right.
In April President Obama's Department of Justice threatened to cut off federal funding to Oklahoma if that state's voters approve a state constitutional amendment making English Oklahoma's official language, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) revealed.
The threat came in the form of a letter (PDF) from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King to Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson. King wrote that "implementation of this amendment may conflict with Oklahoma's obligations to protect the civil rights of limited English proficient (LEP) persons."
This would mean that such people, LEPs, have not only a federal right not to learn English but a right to have government services provided to them in languages other than English.
The Tulsa World reports that the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment has been changed since King's letter to Edmondson and that as a consequence of the change the Department of Justice no longer considers it to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Joe Being Joe
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
- Two Weddings and a Demerol