- 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, November 7, 2009
The 39 Democrats Who Voted "No"
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 11:58PM
Via Eric Cantor's office, here's a list of the 39 House Democrats who voted against the health care legislation:
1. Rep. John Adler (NJ)
2. Rep. Jason Altmire (PA)
3. Rep. Brian Baird (WA)
4. Rep. John Barrow (GA)
5. Rep. John Boccieri (OH)
6. Rep. Dan Boren (OK)
7. Rep. Rick Boucher (VA)
8. Rep. Allen Boyd (FL)
9. Rep. Bobby Bright (AL)
10. Rep. Ben Chandler (KT)
11. Rep. Travis Childers (MS)
12. Rep. Artur Davis (AL)
13. Rep. Lincoln Davis (TN)
14. Rep. Chet Edwards (TX)
15. Rep. Bart Gordon (TN)
16. Rep. Parker Griffith (AL)
17. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD)
18. Rep. Tim Holden (PA)
19. Rep. Larry Kissell (NC)
20. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (FL)
21. Rep. Frank Kratovil (MD)
22. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (OH)
23. Rep. Jim Marshall (GA)
24. Rep. Betsy Markey (CO)
25. Rep. Eric Massa (NY)
26. Rep. Jim Matheson(UT)
27. Rep. Mike McIntyre (NC)
28. Rep. Michael McMahon (NY)
29. Rep. Charlie Melancon (LA)
30. Rep. Walt Minnick (ID)
31. Rep. Scott Murphy (NY)
32. Rep. Glenn Nye (VA)
33. Rep. Collin Peterson (MN)
34. Rep. Mike Ross (AR)
35. Rep. Heath Shuler (NC)
36. Rep. Ike Skelton (MO)
37. Rep. John Tanner (TN)
38. Rep. Gene Taylor (MS)
39. Rep. Harry Teague (NM)
Pelosi's Pyrrhic Victory?
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 11:39PM
House Democrats just narrowly passed their health care legislation, by a margin of 220 to 215, with 39 Democrats voting against it, and just one Republican -- Louisiana's Joseph Cao -- voting in favor. Obviously, this is an historic victory for Democrats as it's the first time that a health care bill of this magnitude has made it this far. Passing it in the House gives it momentum going into the Senate. And also, in a larger sense, Democrats have proven once again that no matter how messy the daily grind may look, they've eventually been able to use their overwhelming majority to keep moving the health care ball down field.
With that said, tonight's victory of a mere five votes, came at a tremendous cost for the House leadership and may eventually help doom the entire effort. In order to get over the top, Democrats had to agree to pass an amendment that would bar taxpayer funding for abortion. The measure is strongly opposed by pro-choicers, and Planned Parenthood has vowed to fight it. While pro-choice Democrats voted for the bill tonight to keep the process moving forward, they did so under the assumption that they could strip it from the bill once the House goes into negotiations with the Senate. If the measure gets stripped, suddenly there's a risk of pro-life Democrats dropping their support of the final bill. And considering that the measure only passed by five votes, Nancy Pelosi cannot afford to shed more than a handful of members. Also keep in mind that because 64 Democrats voted in favor of the Stupak anti-abortion amendment, it means that should it get stripped from the bill, Republicans will be on firm ground arguing that the remaining legislation allows taxpayer funding for abortion. Yet if Pelosi maintains the pro-life language, it's hard to see how staunch pro-choicers support the final bill, and suddenly you could see defections of liberals.
And of course, all of this assumes that some sort of bill passes the Senate. Yet if it was this heavy of a lift in the House -- where it's supposed to be easy for the majority party to ram things through -- it suddenly looks like a daunting task to get to 60 votes in the Senate. So, clearly, this was a step forward for Democrats. But tonight's victory could prove Pyrrhic.
Pro-Life Amendment Passes Easily
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 10:22PM
The House just easily passed the Stupak amendment barring tax dollars from funding abortion, by a vote of 240 to 194, with John Shadegg the lone lawmaker voting "present." In the end, 64 Democrats voted for the measure. Assuming the health care bill passes tonight with the pro-life language, this creates a huge rift among Democrats. Pro-choicers will be pushing to have the language stripped in negotiations with the Senate, and if that happens, it will become difficult for pro-life Democrats to vote on the final reconciled bill. It won't be easy for pro-life Democrats to go back to their districts and argue, "I voted against taxpayer funding for abortion before I voted for it."
UPDATE: Planned Parenthood has condemned passage of the amendment in a statement, and promises, "In the coming weeks, Planned Parenthood will work with its allies in the Senate to ensure that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and those who oppose abortion do not once again hijack the legislative process in their ongoing campaign to make abortion illegal."
Shadegg to Vote "Present" on Stupak
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 8:19PM
As I wrote earlier, the Stupak amendment to prevent taxpayer funding for abortion poses a dilemma for pro-life Republicans, since supporting the pro-life amendment would help ensure that the Pelosi bill moves forward. While the Republican leadership in the House and many of the members have said they would support the measure, Rep. John Shadegg has told Politico that he will vote "present," and says at least 4 or 5 Republicans will join him:
“(Nancy) Pelosi is speaker and she’s pro abortion every minute of every hour of every day as speaker,” Shadegg said in an interview with POLITICO Saturday evening. “This is a vote to help her move the bill forward.”
He added: “This is a gut-wrenching issue for a lot of people...But I won't support Pelosi’s bill, which is not pro-life at all.”
The item also notes that Shadegg has "has been bickering all day via email with his Republican colleagues" about how to vote, and disagrees with the pro-life groups who have announced they would negatively rate a "present" vote on the measure.
So, will enough Republicans join Shadegg and help block passage of the Stupak amendment? And if that language doesn't make it in the bill, will Pelosi have enough votes to pass it? Right now, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's office counts 35 Democrats opposed to the larger health care bill -- just five short of the number needed to defeat it, if the GOP caucus stands together. And that number doesn't include the pro-life Democratic members who are currently undecided, awaiting the outcome of the vote on the Stupak amendment.
The Stupak Amendment
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 6:43PM
This is the first legitimate pro-life amendment to the House health care bill that has had a chance of passing the full House (no, the Capps Amendment doesn't count). That's why it is very unlikely that it will survive the next stage of the legislative process. If it does, the bill might not.
Politico: Dems Have Needed Votes to Pass Health Care Bill
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 5:38PM
The Politico is reporting that the Democrats are now confident that they have the 218 votes needed to pass the House health care bill. If the bill does end up passing, it seems that the difference maker would be the passage of the Stupak amendment barring taxpayer funding for abortion, which hasn't been voted on yet but is expected to pass. But assuming this turns out to be the case, the big questions are: will Democrats actually defy Planned Parenthood and keep the pro-life language in the final, reconciled bill? And if it gets stripped, then how do the pro-life Democrats end up voting when the merged bill comes up for a vote in the House?
Meanwhile, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor's office counts 33 Democrats who are confirmed "no" votes. That would mean that the maximum number of votes the bill would get would be 225.
"No Guarantees"
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 2:53PM
The House is in the midst of a 4 hour debate ahead of a vote sometime tonight on the health care bill. House Minority Leader John Boehner just asked Rep. Henry Waxman if he could guarantee that the Stupak amendment to prevent federal funds from being used to cover abortion will survive once the bill is reconciled with the Senate. The idea, of course, is that Democrats are using the Stupak amendment as a means to attract the votes of pro-life Democrats who are currently on the fence about supporting the larger bill, even though it could (and quite possibly will) be stripped down the road. In response to Boehner, Waxman said if the Stupak amendment passes it will become the position of the House heading into negotiations with the Senate, but he could offer "no guarantees" as to whether the anti-abortion language would make it into the final bill.
The vote on the Stupak amendment raises an interesting dilemma for pro-life Republicans. Do they vote for the Stupak amendment even though it will, presumably, make it easier for Nancy Pelosi to secure passage of the health care bill? Or do they block the amendment to help kill the bill as a whole, even if it means losing their best opportunity to make sure tax dollars aren't subsidizing abortions? Then again, the best means of preventing tax money from funding abortions is to make sure the health care bill doesn't pass in the first place. Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity is urging Republicans to vote "present" on the Stupak amendment as part of the greater effort to kill the bill. Of course, the risk of doing that is that they could vote down the Stupak amendment, and still see the bill pass anyway, only without the pro-life protections. Tough call.
UPDATE: Bart Stupak says there are 225 votes to pass his amendment, Roll Call reports..
UPDATE II: Boehner repeated the same exercise with the other relevant committee chairmen, Charle Rangel and George Miller, and neither of them would offer any sort of guarantee.
Government Takeover is a Double-Edged Sword
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 11:47AM
Liberals are upset that Democrats gave in and supported a vote on an amendment to prohibit federal funds from being used to subsidize abortions.
"They totally caved because they couldn’t find the votes for their bill. Now they’ll try to jam it down the throats of pro-choice Dems," writes David Dayen on Fire Dog Lake, who describes the measure as a "ban abortion coverage in the private individual and small group market by passing the bill tomorrow."
The Washington Post's Ezra Klein laments that, "Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage."
The New Republic's Jon Cohn, meanwhile, writes that the measure would make it "more likely that millions of American women will no longer be able to purchase insurance that covers abortion services"
But there should be a very important lesson in this. If you don't want government to be involved with dictating what kind of insurance people can purchase with their own money, then don't support a health care bill that forces individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies from a government-run store.
Too Big To Succeed
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 10:01AM
I participate in a number of discussion groups, often with highly educated experts in health policy. In recent months it has become increasingly difficult to even discuss the health reform proposals. There are so many versions and iterations of all these bills and amendments that it has become nearly impossible to discuss any of it. And some of it isn’t even exposed yet, like Reid’s bill. CBO keeps scoring this, that and the other, and it is hard to match up the particular CBO score with the right bill or amendment, let alone compare specifics.
Yet every provision is critically important, and not just by itself, but how it interacts with the other provisions.
It feels like a shell game, and it is small wonder people are edgy about the whole enterprise. Too many moving parts, too little clarity, too much rhetoric and jargon, and all tainted with political ambitions.
I think we are way beyond what the legislative process is capable of doing. There is literally no one in Washington who knows what it is they are voting on anymore.
It would be far better to take all these topics one bite at a time, by which I mean separate bills for --
-- Medicare payment reform
-- Insurance
regulation
-- Assistance to the
needy
-- Management technology
upgrades
-- Workforce
initiatives
-- Quality improvement
initiatives
-- Professional liability reform
Each of these is complex by itself. Blending them all together into a single bill is simply impossible.
For example, I agree that we need to completely overhaul the regulatory regime currently in place for insurance. Each state has completely different statutes for the individual, small group, and large group markets. Some states have separate regulations for Blue plans, commercial companies, and HMOs. Then ERISA exempts self-funded employers from any state regulation. Regulatory reform is an enormous challenge all by itself and the current bills are way too vague on how, or even whether, that is supposed to happen. For instance, it is not at all clear what will be the state and federal roles for regulating carriers that participate in the Exchange. Who oversees their solvency, reserves, accounting, investment practices? If a company markets exclusively through a national Exchange, what is its state of domicile? Will HMOs continue to be regulated by separate agencies than other carriers as they are in California? Who will regulate brokers?
Or take the workforce issue. We are facing substantial shortages of primary care physicians and nurses as the Baby Boom generation retires. Expanding insurance coverage will aggravate the problem. Plus there are new technologies coming on-line all the time. How do we get enough technicians to run the machines?
It is not just a matter of giving scholarships to med students or opening more slots in dental schools. The whole licensure and oversight regime currently in place needs to be re-examined. Everyone who looks at it concludes it is a mess. Why at least could there not be interstate reciprocity for licensing and disciplinary actions? Why can’t a physician who is licensed in Arizona prescribe drugs for patients in New Mexico? Or how is it that a doctor who is disciplined in one state can set up shop in the adjoining state?
And on and on and on. Because this thing is so big, we are not paying enough attention to the critically important REAL issues.
Down to the Wire in the House, Focus Turns to Abortion
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 9:52AM
As of now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still intent on pushing though health care legislation at some time tonight. With all Republicans expected to vote against it, Pelosi needs to make sure she doesn't lose 41 Democratic votes, or else she won't get the 218 votes needed to pass. According to the Politico, at least 23 Democrats are firm no votes at the moment.
President Obama is scheduled to visit the Capitol today to make a late push for Democratic votes, while House Republicans have called for another "House Call" protest in front of the Capitol today at 1 p.m.
The big news this morning is that there will be a floor vote later today on anti-abortion Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to apply the Hyde language to the current health care legislation, which would mean that the government plan could not pay for abortion, and women could not use federal subsidies to purchase health insurance policies that cover abortion.
Liberals have said that they could not vote for a bill if it includes the amendment, because they argue it would go beyond the language of the Hyde amendment since women would also be applying some of their own money to purchase insurance through the exchange.
“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” Alcee Hastings warned, according to the Hill. “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”
And Planned Parenthood in a statement, declared, "A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have."
Jan Schakowsky, on C-SPAN this morning, drew a distinction between today's vote, which she called the "first step" and the vote on the ultimate bill once it gets reconciled with whatever comes out of the Senate. She said if the final bill includes the Stupak amendment, she would vote against it.
Alabama vs. LSU and Nancy Pelosi vs. the American People
Posted by on 11.7.09 @ 6:52AM
A struggle of world-historical importance will take place today when the University of Alabama hosts the LSU Tigers in Tuscaloosa. Yet we who care about this existential crisis of civilization -- SEC football is rivaled only by NASCAR as an unassailable bastion of American exceptionalism -- are being forced to suffer an unwelcome distraction.
Nancy Pelosi wants a House vote on health care today, and a major motivation for her panic-struck haste is the desire to funnel taxpayer support to Abortion Inc.:
Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have been hit hard by the economic meltdown -- seems a lot of their supporters were Bernie Madoff's friends like Jeffrey Picower -- and this is one reason there is such a frantic urgency for the "public option" on the Left.
Ann Coulter has said that abortion is the sacrament of the Church of Liberalism, and the Democrats desperately fear that they're missing opportunities to kill babies because of the funding shortage caused by the bankruptcy of their Ponzi-scheming friends. So now they want to bankrupt the rest of us to bail out the baby-killers, and trying to do it secretly by sneaking through their plan on a football Saturday.
This is not merely wrong, it's evil. Stop ObamaCare now. And Roll, Tide, Roll!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Golden State Showdown
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 7:17PM
Earlier today, Brian noted the endorsement race between former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, but I thought I'd add a few broader points about the sure-to be contentious California Senate primary.
It's pretty clear that DeVore, who has less built-in fundraising advantages and lacks institutional support, will try to Scozzafava-ize Fiorina. Essentially, his best bet is to portray her as a liberal who is being thrust upon voters by the establishment, while he tries to galvanize grassroots activists -- and grab the online donations that go along with it. This much was pretty clear when DeVore spoke at a Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast in August. At the time, Fiorina wasn't even running yet, but he blasted her as a "rich moderate" and "self-funded dilettante."
Fiorina, for her part, comes into the race with more institutional support and should have plenty of financial resources, so her challenge will be to calm fears that she's really just another liberal Republican, while at the same time making the case that she'll be more electable statewide.
When it came to New York's 23rd Congressional race, the case for Doug Hoffman was a no-brainer for conservatives. Scozzafava was a liberal on both economic and social issues -- as evidenced by her ultimate endorsement of Bill Owens -- and she was running in a district where a conservative candidate had a reasonable chance of victory. Things are a bit more murky in California. It's much harder to see somebody who describes himself as a movement conservative winning a state that Obama carried by 24 points than it was to see the possibility of Hoffman winning a district that Obama carried by 5. And while Scozzafava had a very clear liberal record, it's not yet clear where Fiorina is ideologically. For what it's worth, in a recent interview Fiorina said she did not support the Wall Street bailout or economic stimulus package, which would put her to the right of Charlie Crist on the issue. On abortion, she said that she believes that life begins at conception and that she's "personally pro-life" while adding that government policy should be focused on reducing abortions and promoting adoption. She also said that she's opposed to government funding for abortion. I imagine that social conservatives will want to hear a bit more on this front, because when some politicians say they're "personally pro-life" it still means that they think it should be up to each individual woman whether or not to choose abortion. But either way, her remarks certainly put her well to the right of Scozzafava, who was openly pro-choice.
So I think there are a lot of factors that will play into this race going forward. Will a long campaign show Fiorina to be as liberal as DeVore says, or is she more conservative than a lot of people currently perceive? Is DeVore the real deal, or are there some things in his voting record that may tarnish his conservative credentials? Who will look more electable against Barbara Boxer come next June's primary? Of course, there are all the other non-ideological factors that will also play into the race. Fiorina, for one, had a very controversial tenure at Hewlett Packard, where she pushed through a contentious merger with Compaq, and was eventually ousted. Without getting into the merits, the point is that Fiorina made her fair share of enemies during her days as a corporate executive, and my guess is that they'll be ready and willing to come out swinging against her, potentially resulting in some very unflattering stories she'll have to fend off. While I'm somewhat familiar with Fiorina's history in the business world from my days as a financial reporter, I'm less familiar with DeVore's background beyond what he's said directly and what I've read to this point. But the same thing applies. How will his biography hold up over the course of a seven month primary that is sure to be expensive and brutal?
Either way, it should be one of the Senate races worth keeping an eye on.
Helpful Ramesh
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 6:04PM
He advises moderate Democrats who are going to vote against their leadership to announce their positions now.
Hero Injured
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 4:43PM
The outrages of Ft. Hood and Orlando have become occasions once more for journalistic misuse of the language.
If you were shot but not killed, you were "wounded." The policewoman credited with stopping Ft. Hood's murderous Major is a "heroine."
Count, if you like, the number of times "injured" is referred to the many who were actually wounded, but don't bother to count the times the little lady shows up as a "hero."
Thank God Obama "Saved" Jobs
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 4:25PM
Too few have looked critically at the 640,329 jobs the Obama White House reported as “saved or created” by the Stimulus. Those who looked have been left incredulous by the many examples of world-class exaggeration, distortion, and bureaucratic bungling -- just in time for the unemployment rate to soar to 10.2%.
Thank God Obama “Saved” Jobs
By Asher Embry
Barack and Joe on Friday raved
About the million jobs they “saved.”
A closer look and you will see
What Webster’s calls: hyperbole.
Wanna see a good example?
Evidence is clear and ample.
$1000 bucks to cut the lawn
“Saves” 50 jobs? That’s quite a con!
And how could $15,000 grease
The way to “save” 5-score police?
$900 draws the biggest hoots:
Nine jobs “created” making boots.
Don’t trust this count from Joe the Vice,
We know some jobs were counted twice.
And many “saved” jobs, people say,
Were really just a raise in pay.
Some jobs they “saved” were threatened but
They’d never really have been cut.
Still others “saved” more jobs by far
Than they admit there even are.
And typos caused the count to grow
By thousands more, as now we know.
So, all in all, what we can state:
This White House sure can obfuscate.
Who’d ever think they’d get away
With counting “saved” jobs anyway?
The ruse could only work this well
With Press still deep in ‘Bama’s spell.
Perhaps that spell is broken when
Our unemployment’s over 10.
(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.)
Louisiana Attorney General Raids ACORN Office
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 3:18PM
Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell's investigators have raided ACORN's headquarters in New Orleans.
A warrant was executed at ACORN's office at 2609 Canal Street and not at 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue, a former funeral home that used to serve as the radical advocacy group's headquarters.
The cash-strapped group has put the Elysian Fields Avenue office up for sale.
I've Invented a New Game
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 2:12PM
I've invented a game where first you take what Pres. Obama wrote about the dire consequences without his stimulus:
And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits.
Then you switch it around so that he's talking about what did happen with the stimulus:
And if [we pass my stimulus], this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits.
And suddenly he's a prophet!
Jon Stewart invented a similar game a few years back, one about Bush's justifications for invading Iraq. For some reason he isn't up for making up similar games with a Democrat in the White House.
Re: DeMint Endorses DeVore
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 1:40PM
Regarding Fiorina's base, she gained conservative support on Thursday from Senator Tom Coburn along with much of the Republican mainstream following her announcement on Wednesday. DeVore has a big mountain to climb both with national and California conservatives if he wants to secure the right-wing base. Still, the endorsements from prominent national leader Jim DeMint and Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) are a start.
Update: timeline adapted.
The Whip Job Ahead of the Democrats on the Way to 218
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 1:34PM
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has posted a useful list of 69 Democrats who have expressed opposition to the speaker's health care bill, with quotes. With zero Republican defections, a large number of wavering Democrats will have to be brought in line. The closer the final vote is to 218, every Democrat in a tough district who votes for the bill will be able to be blamed for the outcome. Who wants to volunteer to be the Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky of the 2010 election cycle?
DeMint Endorses DeVore
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 12:12PM
Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) endorsed California US Senate candidate Chuck DeVore Tuesday, one day before former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina formally announced her campaign at a "green detergents" plant. Fiorina is likely to have the support of mainstream Republicans, and her personal wealth indicates that DeVore has a huge uphill climb in terms of fundraising. DeMint's PAC, the Senate Conservatives Fund, has already poured thousands into the Marco Rubio senate campaign in Florida, where the conservative Rubio is running against the more moderate Governor Charlie Crist. If national conservative leaders begin to support DeVore, it could make for an interesting competition.
Update: Timeline adapted.
Obama in Feb.: Without Stimulus Bill, "Unemployment will approach double digits."
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 11:59AM
Here's what President Obama wrote when pushing the economic stimulus bill in a February Washington Post op-ed titled, "The Action Americans Need":
And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits.
Good thing we passed that stimulus bill and staved off double-digit unemployment. Er, scratch that.
Hoyer: Vote on Health Care Bill May Be Delayed for Lack of Votes
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 11:43AM
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has said Democrats may have to delay a health care vote scheduled for Saturday until Sunday or early next week, according to the Associated Press, because they don't yet have the 218 votes needed to pass the bill.
Eric Cantor, the House Minority Whip, has said that he's confident that no Republican would vote for the bill, meaning that Democrats cannot lose more than 40 votes. When "cap and trade" passed the House in June, 44 Democrats voted against it, but the leadership made up for it by the defections of 8 Republicans.
Looking Past the Party Label
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 11:11AM
Today in the Politico, I make the case that the ineffectual Democratic supermajority proves conservatives were right to choose loyalty to ideas over party loyalty in New York's 23rd congressional district. Yes, you need a big tent with some diversity of opinion to assemble a majority. But if your tent is too big to govern or implement your agenda, your majority is meaningless.
Nidal Malik Hasan
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 11:09AM
As I wrote yesterday, it's important to be cautious when commenting about the massacre at Ft. Hood, because early media reports often turn out to be wrong. With that said, we now have several details that portray shooting suspect Nidal Malik Hasan as a devout Muslim who was adamantly opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was conflicted about being in a position where he would have to fight fellow Muslims.
Fox News reports:
A former Fort Hood colleague of the shooter said Hasan would frequently make "outlandish" comments.
"He said maybe Muslims should stand up and fight against the aggressor," retired Col. Terry Lee told Fox News. "At first we thought he meant help the armed forces, but apparently that wasn't the case. Other times he would make comments we shouldn't be in the war in the first place."
Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that the authorities had monitored web postings that may have been written by Hasan, in which the author portrays suicide bombers in a heroic light. The AP also reported that soldiers who witnessed the shooting say Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar" before opening fire.
Last night, CNN showed surveillance footage taken yesterday morning of Hasan at a convenience store near the base dressed in traditional Muslim garb. According to a CNN producer who spoke with the store owner, Hasan was a regular, and about a week ago, told the owner that he was stressed about his imminent deployment to Iraq. "[Hasan] expressed that he had a problem, I guess one would judge it as a religious conflict, but as a fellow Muslim, and someone of faith, he had a problem with having perhaps the opportunity in the future to have to shoot or kill or injure or fight fellow Muslims," the CNN producer recounted. "And that was something that was weighing heavily on him."
I agree with the sentiment that this incident shouldn't be used as a blanket indictment of all Muslims serving in the military. But there should be some sort of middle ground between putting every Muslim in the U.S. armed forces under suspicion, and letting political correctness put the lives of our soldiers in danger. If further evidence confirms the emerging narrative, this is an instance in which it seems that there were a lot of warning signs and red flags. And to be clear, when I refer to "political correctness" I'm not blaming yesterday's tragedy on political correctness, because that would be irresponsible based on what we know now. What I mean is that going forward, it would be troubling if political correctness prohibited us from discussing ways to prevent an officer with Hasan's views from being in a position to kill U.S. soldiers on a military post. This is not an matter of Muslims in the military, it's about how to make sure that we don't have people in our military whose loyalty to our enemies puts our own men and women in danger.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 10:20AM
- Times of London describes yesterday's health care protesters as "radical conservatives." I was there, and while many may have been described as conservative, there was very little about basically all of them that might be called "radical" (Times)
- Moveon.org raising money to take down DINOs (Examiner)
- European allies are agonizing over Obama's indecisiveness about troop levels (Independent.uk)
- $1.6 million of stimulus money used to spruce up a 150-year lighthouse (Palm Beach Post)
Double-Digit Unemployment
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 9:12AM
The unemployment rate jumped to 10.2 percent in October, the highest rate since April 1983, the Department of Labor reported this morning. Psychologically speaking, I think the jump to "double digit" unemployment will make it a lot more difficult for the Obama administration to argue that the economic stimulus program is working well. The economy shed 190,000 jobs in October, which is a slower rate of losses than the revised 219,000 in September but higher than the 154,000 loses in August. There were also 808,000 discouraged workers who are not included in the unemployment rate because they aren't looking for work because they believe no jobs are available. That number is up from 706,000 in September.
And let us not forget that when President Obama pitched the economic stimulus package in a February prime time press conference, he was pretty clear about his "bottom line":
My bottom line is to make sure that we are saving or creating 4 million jobs....
So my bottom line when it comes to the recovery package is send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs....
But my bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs, and are we laying the foundation for long-term economic growth?...
And there was also this exchange:
QUESTION: -- how can the American people gauge whether or not your programs are working?
Can they -- should they be looking at the metric of the stock market, home foreclosures, unemployment? What metric should they use? When? And how will they know if it's working or whether or not we need to go to a Plan B?
MR. OBAMA: I think my initial measure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs. That's bottom line number one, because if people are working, then they've got enough confidence to make purchases, to make investments. Businesses start seeing that consumers are out there with a little more confidence. And they start making investments, which means they start hiring workers.
So step number one, job creation.
Since the economic stimulus bill passed, about 2.9 million jobs have now been lost.
Double Digits
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 9:11AM
Today's Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report contains the unwelcome news that unemployment has, as expected, crept up into the double digits: 10.2 percent, up from 9.8.
190,000 jobs were lost, which is fewer than have been lost in recent months.
Psychologically, the double-digit barrier is a big one. In particular, look for the Republicans to start hammering the Dems on their economic program more and more, and don't be surprised if Democrats start advocating more unusual and bold stimulus-style job creation measures.
"It's Shocking"
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 8:51AM
A friend stationed at Fort Hood posted the following on Facebook last night:
found it hard to sleep last night. Fort Hood is a special place to me, sort of a bastion against the trials of Iraq and such. So it's just hard to accept Soldiers being killed right here at home. It's shocking.
The Day Ahead: November 6
Posted by on 11.6.09 @ 6:10AM
Today on the main site:
- Feeding the Beast, by Phillip Klein
- The Somali-Kenya Connection, by George H. Wittman
- Joe Wilson, Call Your Office, by Larry Thornberry
- ACORN's Big Spender, by Matthew Vadum
- Divisive Unanimity, by Daniel J. Flynn
Comment of the day:
Reader Laura on An American Tragedy:
As a woman married to a younger man (and we have two children together), I find the whole "cougar" thing insulting the way that the degradation of all male-female relationships is now insulting: trite, flippant, shallow, insecure, oversexualized, and uncommitted. EVERY male-female relationship is portrayed on TV like that - why would May-December romances be any different?
What to watch for:
Thursday's best:
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Ft. Hood Tragedy
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 10:35PM
I have avoided posting about the tragic event in Ft. Hood up until now, because the reported details keep changing rapidly (i.e. shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan originally reported to be dead, turned out to still be alive). So, while I have a lot of opinions and theories and questions about the incident, I think it's best to wait until we have more information to start opining. But of course, the question that's on everybody's mind right now, is if this Associated Press account is accurate and Hasan was actually being monitored by authorities for web postings in which he portrayed suicide bombers in a heroic light, how did he remain in the military? How was he promoted in May? And how was this allowed to happen?
Re: Storming the Capitol
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 5:51PM
A bunch of sites are highlighting the arrests from the health care protest today:
This was not the 1968 Democratic Convention. Phil's photo basically indicated the makeup of the crowd -- a lot of middle class families.
The size estimates have also varied widely. NBC put the number at 3,000-5,000, while Talking Points Memo reported 8,000. I would put the number at around 20,000, or in the tens of thousands -- 99.9 percent of which went home without any incident with police officers.
Abortion Care
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 5:34PM
From today's Drudge Report. Minority Leader Boehner indicates that "Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium":
On line 17, p. 110, section 222 under “Abortions for which Public Funding is Allowed” the Health and Human Services Secretary is given the authority to determine when abortion is allowed under the government-run plan. The Speaker’s plan also requires that at least one insurance plan offered in the Exchange covers abortions.
What is even more alarming is that a monthly abortion premium will be charged of all enrollees in the government-run plan. It’s right there on line 16, page 96, section 213, under “Insurance Rating Rules.”
But why should this surprise any of us?
According to the misguided reasoning of Roe v. Wade or Planned Parenthood v. Casey, abortion is a right. This "right" stems from the manufactured "right to privacy" that is found exactly nowhere in the U.S. Constitution (a conversation for another day). Nevertheless, to many, it's there and thus recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, just who is shocked that a contrived civil right would get government protection (i.e., funding)? Once the government becomes the health care provider, how will it be able to deny financial assistance for a civil right?
Anyone who believes that abortion won't eventually become a part of government run health care needs to start paying attention; you're kidding yourself.
LA Times Loses Mind
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 4:22PM
I haven't seen the real-paper version of Wednesday's LA Times, and I am ASSUMING that an editor had sense enough not to let this article see the real light of day (as opposed to the light of cyberspace), but still, whoever allowed this to be put up even "just" on the web has so little sense of objectivity, or scale or balance or neutral reading of basic facts, that he or she doesn't belong anywhere near the "straight news" side of a respectable newsroom. This was, apparently, the first full report on the Times web site on Tuesday night (after midnight Wednesday morning Eastern time, in other words well after the results were all in) about the election scene nationwide. And yes, the headline says the BIGGEST news is that the Dems won congressional victories in (blue) California and (blue) New York.
This must be the first time, EVER, that two House races have been given precedence over two major governor's races, in a national political roundup of a major paper for a city that didn't feature any of the races. And, lemme see, how again is it that a 4,000-vote margin in a purple district with all sorts of anomalies is more noteworthy than a 100,000-vote margin for governor of a major blue state going red?
Only in the TENTH paragraph of the story does this report get around to mentioning that "meanwhile," as in oh-by-the-way, Republicans won the governorships of Virginia and New Jersey. And in Virginia, well, the report makes sure to place the "proper" perspective on it: "In Virginia, McDonnell's victory was no surprise. A stronger, more polished candidate than Deeds, he had history on his side: Virginia voters have not elected a governor from the same party as the president in more than 30 years. The election was fought mainly over local issues; more jobs and better roads. McDonnell did his best to hug the middle, downplaying his conservative social views."
That's rich. After lovingly describing a supposedly epochal Republican split in New York, this article finally talks about the biggest landslide in VA history, and downplays it as "no surprise" with "history on his side" and not on national issues but mainly local ones, and McDonnell hugged the middle while hiding his conservatism. Yeah, right.
And in New Jersey, it was just a battle of two unpopular candidates, in a state that usually just "leans" Democratic. No national significance there at all: Christie "refrained from any criticism of Obama."
Oh -- and back to the Hoffman race. Scozzafava supposedly withdrew because of right-wing concern about abortion and gay marriage. Well, yes. But not a word, in the LA Times, about conservative disagreement with her on card check, ACORN, the stimulus package, taxes,.... etc etc etc etc etc etc etc......
Just us intolerant social Inquisitioners here, dontcha know.
But of course, the establishment media isn't biased. They assure us of that all the time.
Storming the Capitol
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 3:06PM
Thousands of protestors gathered on the lawn of the U.S. Capitol today and lined up outside House and Senate office buildings to protest Democrats' health care legislation. The crowd, chanting "Kill the Bill," "Throw Them Out," and "Hear us Now," listened to speeches by Rep. Michelle Bachman, who organized the event, as well as Reps. Tom Price, Eric Cantor, Michael Burgess, John Shaddegg, Marsha Blackburn, Joe Wilson, talk show host Mark Levin, among others. Here's a sampling of some of the photos I snapped at the event.
Here's an example of the angry, violent, mob element that dominated the gathering. It's amazing I made it out of there in one piece without bringing a gun.
This sign was my personal favorite.
After the speeches tailed off, protestors moved to Congressional office buildings to lobby their representatives to oppose Democratic health care legislation, and the lines snaked around the buildings and down the block. Here's a photo I snapped of one of several entrances to the Cannon House Office Building, all of which were jammed.
Proud to be an American
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 2:54PM
Excellent essay today from sometime AmSpec contributor Patrick O'Hannigan, over at his site "The Paragraph Farmer." It's a lengthy essay in which he argues that there IS an identifiable American character. Among many other insights, he writes: "Freedom and optimism seem indispensable to the American character." Well put. So is the rest of the essay. Go read it. Now.
Gay Marriage "Bradley Effect"
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 2:29PM
Before Tuesday's vote on marriage in Maine, CQPolitics ran this piece exploring whether the polls were understating popular support for the "people's veto." As it turned out, they were. One of the more interesting findings: the poll (pdf) that showed the most support for marriage redefinition repeal used an automated message, not live interviewers. This raises the possibility of a "Bradley effect" for gay marriage, where people who believe marriage is between a man and a woman are reluctant to share their real views with pollsters.
Like the overall Maine result, this cuts both ways in the same-sex marriage debate. It suggests that overall public opposition to same-sex marriage may be understated in national polls, raising questions of how much the recent shifts reflect rising support or just the public's sense of what the socially acceptable position is. It also raises questions about marriage polling in places like Massachusetts and New York, where some surveys have shown plurality support for same-sex marriage (this has been true in Massaachusetts for years). Gay rights groups have nevertheless been reluctant to see the issue put on the ballot there, perhaps for good reason.
On the other hand, if voicing an opinion that less than a decade ago wasn't terribly controversial -- the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman -- is now something people are afraid to say to strangers, that doesn't bode well for traditional marriage's long-term prospects. It suggests that the bandwagon effect could work, putting opposition to same-sex marriage in the closet or reducing it to the opinion that dare not speak its name.
Bank of America, Jersey Edition
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 1:59PM
As you may have heard, New Jersey governor Jon Corzine is about to have a lot more time on his hands. He is going to join the swollen ranks of the unemployed because he lost the governorship to Chris Christie.
What is he going to do with his newfound freedom? Well Corzine is, of course, a former co-CEO of Goldman Sachs, and knows his way around the banking industry. As Dealbreaker points out, there is going to be an opening soon at Bank of America, as CEO Ken Lewis steps down at the end of the year. What better career transition could Corzine hope for than to alight effortlessly at BofA, leaving his reelection struggles behind? And as for BofA, if the past year shows anything it's that political savvy is the number-one trait you should look for in an executive.
Rand Paul Rising
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 1:41PM
Yesterday I somehow missed this: for the first time Rand Paul leads Secretary of State Trey Grayson in a poll of Kentucky Republican primary voters. Paul and Grayson are running to succeed Sen. Jim Bunning. According to Survey USA, Paul's 35 percent to 32 percent lead is within the margin of error but combined with his fundraising success -- he has hauled in more money than Grayson -- Ron Paul's son is looking like a very competitive candidate.
Uncle Sam Got Suckered
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 1:30PM
The $3 billion cash for clunkers program has been one of the most popular parts of the Obama administration's assorted (de)-stimulus efforts. Well, a new AP analysis shows that, true to form, the program didn't exactly accomplish its mission with flying colors.
Remember the so-called environmental benefits cash for clunkers would produce by taking gas-guzzlers off the road? Looks like many Americans turned in their cars for models that have comparable or even worse fuel economy — for example, an old Ford F150 pickup truck for a new one.
Given the program's goals, I would call that fraud.
The AP reports:
The single most common swap -- which occurred more than 8,200 times -- involved Ford F150 pickup owners who took advantage of a government rebate to trade their old trucks for new Ford F150s. They were 17 times more likely to buy a new F150 than, say, a Toyota Prius.
The fuel economy for the new trucks ranged from 15 mpg to 17 mpg based on engine size and other factors, an improvement of just 1 mpg to 3 mpg over the clunkers.
Owners of thousands more large, old Chevrolet and Dodge pickups bought new Silverado and Ram trucks, also with only barely improved mileage in the middle teens, according to AP's analysis of sales of $15.2 billion worth of vehicles at nearly 19,000 car dealerships in every state. Those deals helped the Ford F150 and Chevy Silverado -- along with Ford's Escape midsize SUV -- climb into the Top 10 most-popular vehicles purchased with the government rebates. The most common truck-for-truck and truck-for-SUV deals totaled at least $911 million.
In scores of deals, the government reported spending a total of $562,500 in rebates for new cars and trucks that got worse or the same mileage as the trade-ins -- in apparent violation of the program's requirements. The government said it is investigating those reports and said in some cases they were probably entered incorrectly by dealers or based on outdated fuel economy figures.
Whew! I can sleep better at night knowing the feds are going to devote more taxpayer dollars to covering up the trail — err, I mean — investigating fraud and abuse.
Now, who's up for the federal government controlling our health-care system?
Lindsey Graham, Still the Worst
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 11:29AM
Lindsey Graham is not content merely with being the single worst Republican senator. He wants to win the title by a HUGE margin. And he does. "To those people who are pursuing purity," says our Lickspittle-in-Chief, "you’ll become a club not a party." Well, sir, where, oh where, ANYwhere, did anybody prominent demand absolute ideological "purity"? There he goes again, parroting the unwarranted, unfair, and untrue descriptions of conservatives made by the lefty establishment media. What an insufferably pompous, shallow, suck-up.
Machiavelli, the Prince, and the Tradition of Liberty
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 11:09AM
Machiavelli's succinct and semi-diabolical advice to the prince is one of the most enduring works of political philosophy in the world. This man, writing in a time roughly contemporaneous with the Reformation, was less concerned with seeking the will of God than with winning at all costs. I wrote about him in my book The End of Secularism.
He is famous for advising the prince that it is important to appear honest, humane, religious, faithful, and charitable, but that it is equally important the prince be ready to abandon any of those attributes when opportunity presents itself. The prince should not worry about whether he will gain a bad reputation for deception, because, as Machiavelli suggests, there are always ordinary people willing to be deceived and the world is FULL of ordinary people.
The primary thrust of the book is advice about how to gain principalities and to maintain control of them. Many things work to a prince's advantage, such as traditions of servitude and customs that reinforce the reign of a prince. But there is one thing that puts sand in the princely engine and grinds things to a halt. That thing is a tradition of liberty. If a people are accustomed to liberty, Machiavelli writes, then they will never stop trying to regain it. Even if they haven't had it for a hundred years, the ancestral memory of liberty will be overpoweringly strong. It may be so strong that no manipulative device of the prince will be able to defeat it and he may have no other option than to destroy such a city.
Might I suggest to you that on Tuesday night we saw Americans in New Jersey and Virginia issue notice that they are not prepared to trade their liberty for hyper-statism and that they are not ready to become Europeans, always more subservient to the state than we have been, instead of free citizens of a great republic? The tradition of liberty is one of the greatest weapons we have in this struggle.
When William F. Buckley thought about the possible triumph of the United States in the Cold War, he imagined that American children would someday be thankful that "the blood of their fathers ran strong." Let our blood, too, run strong with the cherished memory of our past and present liberty.
CBO Scores GOP Health Care Plan
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 10:57AM
The Congressional Budget Office has issued an analysis of an alternative health care bill proposed by House Republicans. The bill will cost $61 billion over 10 years (as opposed to the $1.055 trillion House Democrats bill) and reduce budget deficits by $68 billion, according to the CBO. The bill would also lower average health insurance premiums by 5 percent to 8 percent for individuals, 7 to 10 percent for small groups, and zero to 3 percent for large groups. At the same time, the CBO estimates that it would have a marginal impact on insurance coverage by only reducing the number of uninsured by 3 million.
Overall, I wasn't very impressed by the GOP alternative, which you can read more about here. There are some elements of it that are good, including allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines, giving businesses more flexibility to offer financial incentives aimed at encouraging people to be healthier, and expanding health savings accounts. But there are also plenty of new mandates imposed by the bill, including barring insurers from having annual or lifetime spending limits and a "slacker mandate" that would make insurers allow adults to stay on their parents insurance until age 25.
But more importantly, the bill doesn't do anything to move us beyond the employer-based health care system, a system in which the tax code discriminates against individuals purchasing insurance on their own, workers are locked into whatever insurance policies their employers choose for them, and they cannot take their insurance with them when they move from job to job. The GOP proposal isn't what I would consider real reform. It's more of a document that Republicans have put out so they can say they have some sort of health care bill that reduces premiums at a fraction of the cost of the Democrats' bill.
Also disturbing to me is that the one page summary of the bill has a chart titled, "Scorecard: Speaker Pelosi's Government Takeover vs. GOP Common-Sense Solution" in which the GOP boasts that while Pelosi's bill cuts Medicare by $500 billion, the Republican alternative has $0 of Medicare cuts. This is what we've come to -- a Republican Party that talks a big game about standing up for small government while openly touting the fact that their health care proposal does not touch the health care entitlement program that is bankrupting our country.
The Day Ahead: November 5
Posted by on 11.5.09 @ 6:10AM
Today on the main site:
- Celebrating Limits, by Quin Hillyer
- Yes, Virginia Foxx, by Wayne Crews and Ryan Young
- Gotcha! by Joseph A. Harriss
- The Reality of Middle-East Anti-Semitism, by P. David Hornik
What to watch for:
Wednesday's best:
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Earmarks for Me, Not for Thee
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 2:29PM
Conservatives who are excited about Republican victories in last night's elections should read this article in the Politico and remember that the GOP has a long way to go before it has any credibility as a small government party. The piece takes a close look at the House select committee on earmark reform, which Republican leaders created among much fanfare after the Nov. 2008 election to combat pork barrel spending projects. Yet the committee still hasn't delivered a report on earmark spending that was supposed to be completed in February, and more tellingly, eight out of the 10 members of the committee have requested earmarks themselves this year. This is a great example of the futility of Republicans when it comes to reining in government -- they talk a big game about cutting spending, take symbolic measures like creating a committee, but don't deliver anything tangible.
Commenting on the article, David Hogberg asks three questions:
First, does it make much sense to have an earmark reform panel dominated by members who earmark?
Second, is the GOP ready to reach out to the Tea Party movement (which is clearly anxious about the size, scope and honesty of government) or is it a party that is engaged in “business as usual”?
Third, is this what Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, was referring to when he recently said the following about the Tea Party movement on CNN: “It’s going to be a difficult road to walk with these relatively new entrants into the political system and work with them to show them that, by and large, we are the party that represents their interests?”
I would add a fourth: if Republicans can't kick their spending habit when they have absolutely no power, than how can we expect them to control themselves should they return to power?
Chill, GOP
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 2:18PM
The biggest Election Day surprise yesterday was that a majority of Maine's liberal voting pool OK'ed a ballot initiative protecting the traditional definition of marriage. It's a double bombshell given that several New England states — either by legislative dictate or judicial fiat — have approved same-sex marriage in recent months.
As the New York Times points out, same-sex marriage supporters had everything going for them in Maine — "far more money, volunteers and political support, and geography" — than conservative forces. Yet they got an electoral spanking.
What does it show? That marriage protection is still a winning issue for Republicans, despite clamoring to the contrary by the party's wishy-washy moderates. I made that argument in an AmSpec column in May, and it still holds true today.
Thirty-one states have now approved amendments or laws defining marriage as a heterosexual institution. On the flip side, about half-a-dozen states have legalized homosexual marriage through the legislature or judiciary, never by a direct vote of the people.
Yes, polls indicate a gradual slide to the left nationally on the issue, but that holds true for many other positions taken by conservatives, too. Marriage and abortion are not costing the GOP elections.
Along those lines, my takeaway from the Maine vote is simple: the various parts that make up the GOP coalition — fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, foreign-policy conservatives, and those in between all three — need to chill. It's time we focused more on shared ideals and less on areas of disagreement.
I'm tired of hearing fiscal conservatives gripe about those whack-job religious nuts and their abortion and marriage fetishes. Likewise, it's wearisome to see social conservatives rip the small-government policies vital for the welfare of this country.
The coalition that Ronald Reagan built was both fiscally and socially conservative, and also strong on national defense. All three are critical planks of the movement, and bickering between them doesn't help.
The Maine Marriage Vote
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 1:28PM
Maine's narrow rejection of same-sex marriage has implications for both sides of the debate. Same-sex marriage has lost in every state where it has been subject to a popular vote, even in states that are liberal, already have redefined marriage (and in Maine's case, did so through the legislative process rather than by judicial fiat), and where many public polls show plurality support for same-sex marriage. This is why proponents of same-sex marriage in places where the concept polls well (like Massachusetts and New York) or where there is a large Democratic majority among the voters (like Washington, D.C.) have worked so hard to keep this issue off the ballot -- even in liberal areas with favorable poll numbers, they know from experience there is a good chance they will lose.
In all, 31 one states have now voted on whether to keep the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In every single one of them, despite very different political cultures, same-sex marriage has lost. When Arizona defeated a defense-of-marriage amendment by a slim margin in 2006, it was clear that unrelated freedom-of-contract concerns had sunk the initiative. So supporters tried again with a more narrowly worded initiative, which passed easily in the next election cycle. California's attorney general worded Proposition 8 in such a way as to reduce public support for it, yet it still defied a Democratic wave and passed.
But social conservatives shouldn't celebrate too much. Even if same-sex marriage still loses on the ballot in blue states -- even in New England, the country's "marriage equality" zone -- a red versus blue divide is starting to emerge on the issue. It will soon be acceptable for a mainstream Democratic presidential candidate to openly support gay marriage. Young voters support redefining marriage. How long can the traditional definition of marriage be sustained by small majorities of 52-53 percent, buoyed by many who cannot fully articulate their reasons for opposing same-sex marriage? The case for gay marriage, meanwhile, can easily fit on a bumper sticker.
.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 12:38PM
- Taking a trip down memory lane, Obama watches the HBO special about himself instead of the 2009 election coverage (News Busters)
- Nearly six years after the Madrid train bombings and the subsequent election of a socialist government, Spain's unemployment is at 19.3% (Finance Markets)
- Iranian police beat, suppress protesters on 30th anniversary of the revolution. Opposition protesters in Iran plea for Obama not to make a deal with the government (Los Angeles Times)
- Next week is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and Obama will not be a citizen of Berlin or anywhere near Germany (ABC)
Winning in the Northeast
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 11:35AM
One of the themes after the 2006 and 2008 election cycles was that Republicans had become a purely regional party that could not win in the northeast. Chris Christie's victory in the heavily Democratic New Jersey proves that this is not the case. Christie won not because he was such a stellar candidate, but because the Democratic Governor, Jon Corzine, was absolutely incompetent at his job. When you eliminate all the purely partisan voters on each side, the non-ideological voters left over who swing elections vote on the basis of competence. Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 not because the country had moved so far to the left ideologically, but because they didn't govern the country well. So the major lesson to take from last night as it relates to 2010 and beyond is that everything will ultimately hinge on what kind of job Democrats do running the country. The results so far do not bode well for them.
A Win For Property Rights
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 11:02AM
Here's one that should not get lost in the shuffle. With Rick Perry and Kay B. Hutchison both betraying obsequiousness to big business rather than a commitment to real property rights, those two big guns actually opposed a statewide ballot proposition in Texas to restrict the powre of eminent domain so that property takings could not be used on behalf of other private entities. In other words, this is another anti-Kelo proposition, telling the government and its moneyed clients where to stick it. Well, the people spoke. The proposition in favor of property rights, against the grasping claws of big government/big business corporatism, passed overwhelmingly, 79.70% to 20.29%. This is a huge win for the property rights movement. Conservatives should take note, pay heed... and celebrate.
The Day Ahead: November 4
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 6:28AM
Today on the main site:
- Foiled Again, by Christopher Orlet
- Scouting Report, by Lisa Fabrizio
Comment of the day:
Reader Shamus on Peter Hannaford's Behold a Trojan Pony:
The plan ramps up in a strange way. Taxes go up right away, but benefits start later. The cost of health insurance will go up in 2010, but the subsidies won't be available for several years. This means that the number of uninsured will increase for several years as people are priced out of the market. Perversely, the people who lose their insurance due to mandated price increases will then be fined because they can't afford it. The plan will not only increase prices for health insurance, but also raise taxes and cause people to lose insurance coverage.
What to watch for:
Tuesday's best:
Philosopher King
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 2:17AM
After Wolf Blitzer announced CNN's projection that Conservative Doug Hoffman had lost, Larry King chimed in, "Mmm. I think that was the first defeat for the far right tonight."
Shouldn't he be interviewing Barbara Mandrel or something?
Maine Voters Appear to Have Repealed Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 2:08AM
The Associated Press is projecting that the "people's veto" of same-sex marriage has won, with about 53 percent of the vote and over 80 percent of the returns in.
Owens in NY-23
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 12:18AM
The networks are starting to call NY-23 for the Democrats, with Conservative Doug Hoffman trailing narrowly.
No to Gay Marriage??
Posted by on 11.4.09 @ 12:05AM
With 76% of the vote in, the ballot initiative to REJECT gay marriage in Maine is slowly but steadily pulling away to what looks like a probable win. Yes, it's too close to call as I write, but the percentage in the last half hour has gone from 51.8 percent to 52.1 percent. Homosexual marriage proponents had been fairly confident they would win this one. It looks like they were wrong.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Call and Response
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 11:20PM
President Barack Obama told us he was going to call us out. Well, we answered the call.
And it looks like we muddied up his new jersey.Or, rather, we took his muddy new jersey and cleaned it up.
Meanwhile, the margin of Republican victories in Virginia also should send a shiver down Obama's political spine. He said he won't "abide" his adversaries. Well, he might just be forced to abide us.
Prediction
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 11:20PM
If Doug Hoffman goes down, the only race we will hear anything about in certain quarters will be how NY-23 shows the Republican Party is fatally divided by a schism between moderates and conservatives (especially since the remaining votes for Dede Scozzafava may make up the difference).
Speaking of predictions, this one of mine concerning the New Jersey governor's race seems to have held up pretty well.
The Comstock Load
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 11:02PM
Well, it wasn't really a load of votes, but Kathryn Lopez is reporting that longtime national conservative activist Barbara Comstock won a very close and very important victory over a tough incumbent Democrat for a seat in the VA House of Delegates. Barbara is a true conservative, with experience on the Hill, and as communications director for the wonderful Ashcroft Justice Department, and as a communications executive in the conservative firm of Corallo-Comstock with sometime AmSpecBlog contributor Mark Corallo, one of the best in the business and a close personal friend. Barbara's win comes despite a last-minute barrage of negative TV ads (imagine the cost of TV for a mere state Delegate race in the expensive DC suburbs!) trying to paint Barbara as a female Torquemada. This is a pickup in a Dem-leaning district that conservatives nationwide should celebrate.
Christie Wins
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 10:25PM
While it would be one thing for the White House to write off tonight's election results if it were only about Bob McDonnell's landslide in Virginia, it will be a lot more difficult for the administration to dismiss Chris Christie's victory in New Jersey. The Garden State is solidly Democratic territory that has voted Democratic in every presidential election after 1988 and every governor's race after 1997. In 2008, Obama won the state by 15 points, and as of this writing, Christie is up by 5 points -- so that's a 20 point swing. Obama made a number of trips to New Jersey to stump for Jon Corzine, including two in the closing weeks of the campaign -- and it wasn't because he thought the weather was pleasant in the state this time of year.
Even if we don't see the New Jersey election results as a rejection of Obama, at the very minimum what they show is that his campaign appearances can't carry a Democrat across the finish line, even a candidate with a huge money advantage in a solidly blue state. And if Obama -- with all of his star power and highly-touted political organization -- can't deliver in New Jersey, then why would a moderate Democrat running for re-election next year in a red district where Obama is unpopular to begin with tie himself to Obama? Why would a red state Democrat vote with the Democratic leadership on issues such as health care legislation and "cap and trade"?
Marriage in Maine
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 10:24PM
In Maine, supporters of same-sex marriage are looking for their side's first honest statewide popular-vote victory (they prevailed narrowly in Arizona in 2006 by raising fears about elderly couples' joint checking accounts and then lost two years later when a the traditional marriage ballot initiative was revised to eliminate this red herring). Early returns -- just 70 of 608 precincts reporting -- show the "people's veto" of same-sex marriage failing 53 percent to 47 percent, which would mean that voters approve the legislature's redefinition of marriage in their state.
UPDATE: With a little less than a quarter of the vote in, the referendum is running 50-50 right now. This is shaping up to be a close one, as expected.
UPDATE II: With 76 percent of the vote in, Maine is now voting 52 percent in favor of a referendum that would veto legislation creating same-sex marriage. That's the same percentage by which California approved Proposition 8 last year.
UPDATE III: The people's veto appears to have passed.
AP Calls Race for Chris Christie
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 10:08PM
TV stations haven't yet followed, but all of the numbers trending toward Christie and away from Corzine right now.
Thanks, CNN
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 9:54PM
The network that gives us Larry King just cut away from Virginia Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell's victory speech to run a commercial about the Golden Corral's new "oceans of shrimp" special.
Chris Matthews Loses It Live
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 8:43PM
Eric Cantor was just on Hardball, being his innocuous self, positing McDonnell's victory as a rejection of government spending and overreach. Chris Matthews then launched a filibuster that quickly melted down into what would probably be called elitism and unprofessionalism if it ever tagged coherence. For example on leg-thrilling election 2008:
"States like North Carolina, where I went to school, and Virginia, because of their incredible commitment to their university systems--in Richmond and Charlottesville and around this state, with all the levels of the higher education system in both those states--had taken themselves from the Old South and made themselves enlightened enough to be able to vote for an African-American for president and to have a choice in who they vote for."
And that, children, is how Yes We Can ended the rule of the primal, non-thinking, racist automatons in Virginia--now making a comeback, perhaps because of brains addled by latent swine flu! Obama, first real choice ever? Citizens, escape the prison of the mind!
It continued and, of course, for Matthews, as most liberals, all roads lead to Sarah Palin, so while Cantor is trying to make sense of Matthew's last nonsensical answer, the host skips further afield...
Exits Give Christie 25-Point Lead Among Independents
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 8:15PM
According to CNN exit polls, Chris Christie won the indpendent vote 58 percent to Jon Corzine's 33 percent, and independents comprised 27 percent of the electorate in the New Jersey governor's race. If these numbers hold up, it would be great news for Christie. The most recent Public Policy Polling survey had Christie with a 6-point lead, and it gave him a 23 point edge among independents. By contrast, the final Monmouth University/Gannett poll that had Corzine winning by 2 points gave Christie just a 10 point lead among independents.
NY23: 'Revolution' Upstate
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 7:52PM
SARANAC LAKE, N.Y.
Doug Hoffman campaign spokesman Rob Ryan just said the off-year
congressional election in this sprawling upstate
district represents a political "revolution."
"People have just stepped up to the plate," Ryan said, describing the surge of grassroots volunteer support for Hoffamn. "They're sick and tired of politics as usual. They're sick and tired of the culture of corruption in Washington. They're sick and tired of sending all their money to the IRS."
Tonight, the Hoffman campaign is preparing to celebrate at the historic Hotel Saranac, where there are seven TV satellite trucks in the parking lot. Reporters from the New York Times, Fox News, CNN and other national media are on hand. The polls close at 9 p.m.
Most observers expect a Hoffman win tonight. During an afternoon press conference, Hoffman campaign manager Dan Tripp said his own sample of key precincts in the 23rd District show a "positive" trend.
"Things are looking pretty good right now," Tripp said, but added that the Hoffman campaign's get-out-the-vote operation would "be pushing like we're 10 points behind until 9 o'clock."
McDonnell Wins
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 7:50PM
In what isn't much of a surprise, Republican Bob McDonnell has just been declared the winner of the Virginia governor's race. Anticipating the defeat, the White House and Democrats have spent weeks trying to throw loser Creigh Deeds under the bus as a weak candidate. But with that said, Democrats had won every major election in this state since 2005, and last year Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win since 1964. The narrative was that the state was trending to be a Democratic state, yet McDonnell has pulled off a victory by what looks like a massive margin. It may not mean everything, but it isn't nothing, either.
Rachel Maddow: Middling Pundit; GREAT Propaganda Editor
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 7:07PM
Michael C. Moynihan catches the MSNBC hostess in a worse-than-usual act of hack.
ABC: Top Dems Say Health Care Won't Get Done This Year
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 6:25PM
ABC news reports:
Senior Congressional Democrats told ABC News today it is highly unlikely that a health care reform bill will be completed this year, just a week after President Barack Obama declared he was "absolutely confident" he'll be able to sign one by then.
"Getting this done by the by the end of the year is a no-go," a senior Democratic leadership aide told ABC News. Two other key Congressional Democrats also told ABC News the same thing.
The item also notes:
Asked directly by ABC News, "Will you pass health care reform this year?" Reid pointedly did not answer "yes."
Instead, he replied, "We are not going to be bound by any timetables," adding, "We are going to do this as quickly as we can."
If true, this raises several problems for Democrats. For one, if lawmakers go home for December recess, there will be more opportunities for constituents to express their disapproval, raising the chances that moderate Democrats get cold feet. Also, the more it stretches into next year, the more the 2010 midterm elections start becoming a factor.
A Nobel Calling
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 5:42PM
Reihan Salam bemoans Paul Krugman's latest attack on a right-ish economist, this time Krugman's fellow Nobelist Edmund Phelps.
[Krugman] brings a valuable, informed perspective to bear on vitally important debates. I welcome that. But his intolerance and his near-constant mischaracterizations of his interlocutors are having a coarsening effect. Moreover, Krugman has enabled the rise of an unthinking, reflexive interventionism that is, in my view, doing real damage to our economy and our democracy by creating unreasonable expectations of what bright, well-intentioned planners can realistically accomplish.
Salam also explains that not only did Krugman badly mischaracterize Phelps's piece, he did so while admitting that he did not take the time to read beyond the first paragraph.
Of course, Krugman also did a hatchet job on two other prominent economists on his blog just yesterday: Greg Mankiw and Allan Meltzer, who he said "should be ashamed of themselves" for saying something that turns out to be true and reasonable. Mankiw rightfully called it an "illogical cheap shot."
Krugman was legitimately a great economics commentator. But nowadays the ratio of partisan screeds or sloppy mischaracterizations of other people's views to insightful commentary is way too high.
The Pride of Gavin Newsom
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 3:08PM
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom quit his campaign for Governor over the weekend. Undeclared opponent Jerry Brown had out-raised him 8 to 1. Today's Chronicle outlines how his ego got in the way of a good campaign. Although, as I reported in August, it seemed that the issues he stood for really were not in line with those of California Democratic voters. The combination of appearing aloof and elitist, as the Chronicle commented on today, along with being out of touch with California voters makes it hard to win.
The gubernatorial campaign leaves 1970s Democratic Governor Jerry Brown pretty much unopposed at the moment for the Democratic nomination. On the Republican side, there is Meg Whitman (Ebay CEO), Steven Poizner, and Tom Campbell.
Those celebrating the fall of Newsom should temper their enthusiasm because Brown is on many issues to the left of almost everyone and has long been a champion for organized labor and social liberals.
Stimulus Shenanigans
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 12:17PM
USAToday has a good list of shady stimulus accounting reports:
- $15,355 "creating or saving" 108 police jobs in Connecticut.
- $2 million "creating or saving" almost 1500 Teach for America jobs.
- $26,174 "creating or saving" 450 jobs for a roofing company. It turns out that the manager had hired five roofers and an inspector for one job, and the government reported that as 450 jobs.
If only making up numbers were a productive activity, the stimulus would feed, shelter, and clothe us. Unfortunately we need cops and teachers and roofers to get by.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 10:39AM
- Update on the $3.5 million Stimulus-funded turtle tunnel in Florida, it turns out that $3.5 million will not be enough money to complete the project (Pet News)
- Sesame Street (PBS) takes a shot at Fox News (Big Hollywood)
- Planned parenthood director quits after watching an abortion procedure (Fox News)
- Congress authorized $2.5 billion for cargo planes that the Pentagon doesn't want (Business Week)
The Day Ahead: November 3
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 6:20AM
Today on the main site:
- The Amazing Sinking Charlie, by Larry Thornberry
- Behold a Trojan Pony, by Peter Hannaford
- Come so Favre, by Ryan Young
- Art Doesn't Work, by Ryan L. Cole
Comment of the day:
Reader Otis, my man on The Podhoretz Method:
Yes, you, Seth Lipsky and Norman Podhoretz are on to something here. Liberalism is a "faith system" for secular people.
Most know that Marx was born into a Jewish family that had converted to Christianity. He eventually renounced both religions. Trotsky was a Jew, as was Felix Dzerzhinsky. Many leading Communists of the early 2oth century were Jews. We often forget that Israel is a socialist country and that its kibbutzes are communes.
I find it interesting that many religiously observant Jews tend to be conservative, just as many religiously observant Christians tend to be conservative as well.
What to watch for:
Monday's best:
NY23: How Much Crazier Can It Get?
Posted by on 11.3.09 @ 6:12AM
WATERTOWN, N.Y.
Ah, Election Day at last! In 24 hours, you'll be reading
my Wednesday article about what happened in the crucial
upstate New York special congressional election. And tomorrow
morning, God willing, I'll be taking a shower, packing my bags,
checking out of a hotel in Saranac Lake, N.Y., and heading back
home to try to recover from the insanity of it all.
Meanwhile, people way above my pay-grade will be on TV telling
you What It Really Means.
Nice work, if you can get it.
Michelle Malkin is one of the few people you're likely to see on TV tonight who actually knows what it means. No, she hasn't been up here making the high-speed run along Highway 3 from Watertown to Plattsburgh, but she's followed this battle closely since her Oct. 16 column identifying Dede Scozzafava as an "ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing."
Yeah, that one left a mark, didn't it? Last night, Malkin warned readers to be ready to watch Democrats and their media allies downplay an expected "conservative surge" in this off-off-year election.
OK, I can cope with that. Let the pundits and commentators argue about What It Really Means. Who cares about mere opinions? What I genuinely dread, however, is the possibility of vote-fraud shenanigans. Last night, I heard Hoffman spokesman Rob Ryan repeat his warnings about the danger of ballot-box mischief. And now ACORN whistleblower Anita Montcrief is worried, too.
God help us. I remember Election Night 2000, when I was on the national desk at The Washington Times. We waited for the results from Florida. And waited, and waited, and waited. Finally, at 3 a.m., editor-in-chief Wes Pruden approved a fourth-edition front page with the headline, "TOO CLOSE TO CALL."
It stayed too close to call for five weeks.
Could such a thing happen again in NY23? I certainly hope not, but as crazy as this campaign has been -- the Republican candidate quitting on the Saturday before Election Day and, on Sunday, endorsing the Democrat -- it's impossible to say it's impossible.
Intercessory prayer, anyone?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Now the AP Does It
Posted by on 11.2.09 @ 3:30PM
I guess I'm destined to play media critic today. Via Kathryn Lopez at NRO, I see that the AP is out with a horribly biased story, not even listed as analysis (and therefore by definition treated as "straight news"), that tries to downplay GOP success IN ADVANCE of tomorrow's elections, so that if Republicans or conservatives win, the media can treat it all as no big deal. The objectionable parts of this Liz Sedoti story are legion. The headline starts right in: "GOP victory Tuesday won't erase party's problems." Says who? Well, says Sedoti.
"So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party's own fundamental problems — divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.
The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor's race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor's contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York."
There's a factual error here: "Similar hand-wringing happened in the GOP ahead of the 1994 midterms. Just weeks before those elections, Republicans came up with the Contract with America — and ended up taking control of Congress." Uh, wrong. This makes it sound as if the congressional GOP did some sort of rush job to create the Contract. But they didn't just "come up with" the Contract in 1994; it was well over a year in the making, suring which time the House GOP was hardly involved in "hand-wringing." I was there; from VERY early 1993 on, the House GOP was amazingly unified, perhaps for to the largest degree ever, before or since.
Then there is this nonsense: "very real split between conservatives who want to focus on social issues — which tend to work best during peaceful, prosperous times — and the rest of the party, which generally wants a broader vision, particularly given recession." Excuse me, but it is the conservatives who have been driving the bus recently, and it has been mostly on economic issues, with Tea Party protests specifically focused on government spending and the planned takeover of one-sixth of the economy. Meanwhile, it's not as if social-issues conservatives and economic ones are at war right now: Indeed, they have been mutually supportive again this year to a greate extent than they have been in years, and it's not as if social conservatives have a "narrow" vision. This idea of social issues concerns being somehow not "broad" is in itself a bad bias of the culturally leftist media.
Then there is this old trope: "Fiery talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become the angry white face of the party." If I hear one more mention of "angry white" people, I may gag. And does Sedoti ever listen to Rush? His tone is almost never angry. It may be mocking, and it may be flamboyant at times -- but angry? Nope.
And so on and so forth. This whole article is wishful thinking and editorializing disguised as news. With almost no attribution to other sources, either. For shame.
Conservative Women Reject Government Takeover of Health Care
11.2.09 @ 2:26PM
MEMO FOR THE MOVEMENT:
Women Reject Government Takeover of Healthcare and the "Public Option"
RE: Women have largely been excluded from the healthcare discussion in a meaningful way. A new poll just released by the Independent Women's Forum indicates that women voters largely enjoy their own healthcare coverage, do not believe government is the solution and reject a so called "public option."
NY23: Joe Biden and Democrats Campaign Against Rush, Beck, 'Right-Wing Extremists'
Posted by on 11.2.09 @ 12:13PM
WATERTOWN, N.Y.
Conservative Party congressional candidate Doug
Hoffman is a mild-mannered accountant. Therefore, instead of
campaigning against him, Democrats are now trying to
make the 23rd District special election a crusade
against various right-wing bogeymen.
"I'm sure [Hoffman is] a nice guy, but imagine him being able, if he won this election, to take issue with any position that Rush Limbaugh has," Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed this morning at a rally where both Hoffman and Democratic candidate Bill Owens were mere asterisks in the footnotes of the speechifying.
Owens himself delivered a speech that condemned "special interests" and "partisan ideology," while pledging to "fight for our local dairy farmers" among much else. But the most remarkable aspect of the rally was how much it focused on external enemies.
As Dave Weigel of the Washington Independent notes, Biden also took shots at Sarah Palin, whose Oct. 22 endorsement of Hoffman seems to have turned the tide, eventually driving liberal Republican Dede Scozzafava to quit the race. About 200 Democrats and 30 media personnel turned out for this morning's Biden/Owens rally.
The tone of the rally was set by New York Democratic Party State Chairwoman June O'Neill, who warned of "right-wing extremists who have brought their hate-mongering tactics to this district. . . . We cannot afford to let the right-wing extremists make a point in this district. . . . The right wing is not right."
O'Neill then named an unholy trinity -- Rush Limbaugh ("boo!"), Sean Hannity ("boo!") and Glenn Beck ("boo!") -- of evil right-wing demons whom she accused of having possessed the soul of Doug Hoffman, requiring an exorcism by Dede Scozzafava. (I exaggerate only slightly.)
"We have to stop the madness," O'Neill told the crowd, evidently oblivious to the possibility that she might help "stop the madness" merely by keeping her mouth shut.
The Washington Post's "Bigotry"
Posted by on 11.2.09 @ 11:59AM
I must admit to a fondness for the Washington Post editorial board, much like I once had fondness for The New Republic as the voice of the thoughtful and responsible center-left. I obviously find myself in disagreement with the Post, quite often, but I have found that under Fred Hiatt the editorial pages there have actually been often more fair than the news pages -- not more conservative (although that, too, by a smidgen), but more fair: less apt to employ histrionics, less likely to skew arguments and to misrepresent the other side, etc.
But when election season rolls around, the Post editorials revert to liberal form. And the paper's rage against conservative Virginia AG candidate Ken Cuccinelli knows no bounds. Last Friday, the Post dropped this stink-bomb entitled "Mr. Cuccinelli's bigotry." The Post was incensed about these comments of Mr. Cuccinelli: " My view is that homosexual acts, not homosexuality, but homosexual acts are wrong. They’re intrinsically wrong. And I think in a natural law based country it’s appropriate to have policies that reflect that. ... They don’t comport with natural law. I happen to think that it represents (to put it politely; I need my thesaurus to be polite) behavior that is not healthy to an individual and in aggregate is not healthy to society.”
The Post then wrote this absolute howler of a sentence: "Appeals to 'natural law' and 'intrinsic' rights and wrongs were the usual cliches deployed to justify the old-time religion of hatred then directed at African Americans, Jews, Italians, Irish and other immigrants." Uh, well, NO, NO. NO. Last I checked, "natural law" provided the theoretical basis for the founding, embraced by Thomas Jefferson and most of the others who founded this great nation. As in: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...."
In short, this sentence in the Post editorial is just laughably outrageous.
The rest of the editorial is over-the-top as well. It asserts that Cuccinelli -- a thoughtful, constructive legislator who has shown diligence, compassion, and fairness on multiple issues -- occupies "the far-right fringe of the party, the ultimate small tenter." (It then attributes those thoughts to "many of his fellow Republicans," a convenient formulation putting words in the mouths of others. Who, pray tell, are these "many... Republicans" who think this about Cuccinelli? If there are so many, why is Cuccinelli enjoying a large lead in the polls and overwhelming GOP support? One would think the Post is adult enough to avoid that refuge of scoundrels known as the "nameless 'many'" formulation. One could just as easily say that many Washingtonians think the Washington Post editorial page is, oh, I dunno, perhaps "Communist." I myself don't believe that about the Post, and I would vigorously defend its editorial page from that charge -- except that I don't know where to aim my defense, since I don't know who these "many" people are.) This "far-right fringe" allegation is utter nonsense; I meanwhile await the day when the Post will call John Holdren, Kevin Jennings, and other White House appointees the 'far-left fringe" of the Democratic Party.
Meanwhile, whether or not one agrees with Cuccinelli's take on homosexual acts, it is not bigotry. Every person on earth has the right to disapprove of ACTS which they find offensive. An act is a choice; being black, Jew, Italian, etc., is not a choice.
Me? I think what people do in private is usually their own business. But the question is whether it is egregiously outrageous for a public official to hold Cuccinelli's views.
I note that at a Catholic Church in the Washington area on Sunday, the priest noted in his homily that the Post's editorial effectively called every single traditionalist Catholic a bigot. The Post, he said, insulted all of us. (Clarification: I myself am not Catholic. The "us" was the priest's congregation.) The priest had a reasonable point, which begs this question:
Is the Post's editorial page guilty of anti-Catholic bigotry?
(Or, more likely, is it just completely tone-deaf and guilty of a pathetically insular worldview which does not even come close to understanding the cultural views of those who aren't part of the liberal self-anointed elite? Did it mean to insult every traditional Catholic in its reading audience? If not, then its cultural ignorance is astonishing.)
I believe the Post can do much better than this. And if polls are to be believed, it will have at least four full years to gain a better chance at understanding Cuccinelli, because Cuccinelli looks likely to become Attorney General, despite the Post's overreactive fulminations against him.
Doing Democracy A Scozzafava
Posted by on 11.2.09 @ 11:15AM
Perhaps the Obama administration can recruit Scozzafava to run against Karzai in Afghanistan.
Daily Must-Reads
Posted by on 11.2.09 @ 10:13AM
- Karzai declared winner of the election that never happened (Washington Post)
- Want an H1N1 vaccine? Terrorize the USA and the government will give it to you (CBS)
- Honduran Congress, Supreme Court to decide for itself whether to bring back Zelaya, but there is still a vote-buying risk from the wealthy leftist (Wall Street Journal)
- $500,000 of your federal taxpayer money to be spent on a 450th birthday party for the city of St. Augustine in Florida. This could be a good party, but why do non-Floridians have to pay for it? (St. Augustine.com)
Credit Where It's Due
Posted by on 11.2.09 @ 9:58AM
Vince Young did much better in his return game as the Titans' starting quarterback than I -- and maybe even Jeff Fisher -- anticipated.
The Day Ahead: November 2
Posted by on 11.2.09 @ 6:10AM
Today on the main site:
- Taking Care of Big Labor, by Kevin Mooney
- Talking Health Care with Gov. Pawlenty, by Phillip Klein
- Chle Honors Pro-Soviet Churchman, by Mark Tooley
- Arguing with Bono, by Patrick O'Hannigan
Comment of the day:
Reader Rich Rostrom on Jay D. Homnick's Go Fly Al Quaeda:
It is true that the 9/11 terrorists were Moslems, that they acted on Moslem religious motives, and that they had the support and approval of other Moslems. Not stating they were Moslems would be whitewashing this.
However, the Gestapo and the NKVD acted as agents of the recognized supreme authorities of their ideologies (Nazism and Communism). The 9/11 terrorists were not acting as agents of any Moslem authority, much less a recognized supreme authority. Their claim to be acting for "Islam" was self-asserted, and arguably fraudulent.
Al-Qaeda and its affiliates have murdered many thousands of Moslems, and are treated as criminals by the governments of most Moslem countries. The Pakistani army has had about as many men killed fighting Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as the U.S. has lost in Iraq and Afghanistan.
To define the 9/11 attackers as simply "Moslem terrorists" validates their claim to be acting on behalf of "Islam". To define "Islam" as the enemy is to make enemies of a lot of people who are not our enemies, and many of whom are our allies.
What to watch for:
Game of the day:
Weekend's Best:
