Obama Approval Hits 46%

With a passion index of -11 and a new low of 46% approval, Obama hits a new low in Rasmussen's daily tracking poll of likely voters. As Ed Morrissey notes at HotAir, this is a bucket of cold water on any hopes the Kennedy funeral will change momentum of the President's sinking support for a complete overhaul of the health care system.

The House health care bill, containing give backs to unions fails to address tort reform as well as a host of unsubstantiated claims has made a skeptical audience deeply distrustful this Congress can produce an honest reform. Obama faces an enormous challenge in undoing the damage incurred to his agenda in this August recess.

Rock Star Poses for Album Cover?

Link Fest: A Week in Review

We took the daughter child to college today, so I have some catching up to do "Full-Metal" style. Consider this my Full Metal Jacket-Better Late Than Never Edition, if I can borrow a bit from Pat . I have tossed in a few extra because they are worthy reads that I think merit some attention. So without further ado....

Anne Leary gives her Harvard-educated seal of approval to Michelle Bachmann's fabulous smack down of a loud-mouthed graduate of the Andrew Sullivan School of Gynecology.

More wisdom of the "Ancient Eight" variety comes from the good Professor at Legal Insurrection, who has taken to throwing darts at HR 3200. If anyone can read through the gibberish of HR 3200 to determine what the Dems and their minions have in store for us it would have to be Professor Jacobson.

GaterDoug has a great round-up on Green Czar Van Jones as well as a comprehensive Link-O-Rama : it even included me.

The Other McCain finds himself a victim of malicious Machiavellian mischief and must now suffer the dread onslaught of the "meet gay singles" ad rotation.

Pat at "And So it Goes in Shreveport" has a well deserved Linkiest and down-right Instalanchiest great week at her trusty typewriter.

The trusty typewriter at Pundit & Pundette blogs from Brickfair covering buildings, bikinis and the truly bizarre. Oh my!

Texas for Sarah Palin takes on a favorite target of the Dynamic Duo and finds the DSM IV diagnosis for the Immortal GriffinDork.

A reading from the Book of Sarah provides Palin links aplenty!

Verum Serum thinks "Rangel Must Go." I completely agree.
Seems Snaggletoothie agrees as well.

The Sundries Shack seeds the blogger's soul.

The TrogloPundit thinks Brett Favre might need to do some time. There are two types of prison, as any fan of the movie "Office Space" will know. Will it be the "white collar resort" type prison for Brett? Can Charlie Rangel go?

Gratuitous Palin Slam of the Day

In what has to be the most incoherent attempt to deflect the left's self-inflicted pain called to light by Palin's "death panels" statement, Jacob Weisberg argues in Newsweek that it is really the GOP that wants to pull Granny's plug. Just for laughs, I suppose, he takes Palin along for the ride. Nice try Mr. Weisberg, but it doesn't wash.

Weisberg makes the convoluted argument that Grassley's provision in the 2001 tax cut will result in seniors feeling the pressure to off themselves so their loved ones can take advantage of a brief tax respite. Grassley's provision took the estate tax or "death tax" from the 55% rate of the Clinton Administration gradually reducing it to zero for a brief time before it expires at the end of 2010. Grassley, BTW, sees this as an opportunity to raise the exemption and lower the tax when Obama and his Congress are looking to freeze it at the current level. Heaven forbid they should let it go to zero and act to keep it at zero; Dems can't let an opportunity pass to keep soaking the rich.

Weinberg ignores all of this, however, and paints a scenario where the brief respite from the ugly death tax will have families sitting down for a serious talk with their aging seniors. Seniors will wake in a cold sweat from nightmares seeing Grassley behind a mask with Nurse Palin standing by with a syringe. Words fail. No one seriously believes this Democratic regime would allow even a momentary loss of revenue from the death of a person with a sizable estate. If seniors wake from a cold sweat it will only be because they envision Surgeon Obama with his ever-ready scalpel ready to extract more from those who have built a sizable estate with Nurse Pelosi standing by his side with the syringe.

HT: Hot Air Headlines

Choices, Choices, Choices

Ezra Klein has his undies in a bundle because Charles Krauthammer looks into his crystal ball and sees a grim but plausible of the wreck we have come to know as ObamaCare. Krauthammer envisions a pseudo-nationalized health insurance industry run entirely through private insurers. Krauthammer calls this ObamaCare 2.0. The insurance companies, despite their public flogging, will end up living large, costs will continue to explode and in the end we will end up with the same rationing we would have had through ObamaCare 1.0. Klein misses the point entirely and responds "We Ration. We Ration. We Ration. We Ration."

Ronald Bailey plays Inigo Montoya position to Klein's Vizzini and argues: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Bailey is correct, Klein doesn't understand rationing. Americans have fewer choices in health care than they do with most other purchasing decisions, with the exception being utilities. Speaking of utilities, Krauthammer sees just that in his crystal ball:

The end result is the liberal dream of universal and guaranteed coverage -- but without overt nationalization. It is all done through private insurance companies. Ostensibly private. They will, in reality, have been turned into government utilities.

If the choices that lie ahead are a government monopoly or government regulated utility, I choose neither.

Government solutions created this situation; more government solutions can only make it worse. As Bailey notes the left suffers from "lack of imagination and a truly touching and naive faith in the efficacy of top/down government 'solutions'." That the "Nanny-State" type like Klein could think outside their self-inflicted box and craft a solution that would truly lead to more choices, seems in a word, inconceivable. They wouldn't want to overwhelm us:

Coffee! Coffee! Coffee!! Moscow On The Hudson @ Yahoo!7 Video

Fact Checking Murphy's Tele-Town Hall

I listened to the Patrick Murphy (PA8) tele-town hall tonight that took place between 7 and 8:30 PM. The forum consisted of live questions, pre-selected questions that had been sent to the Intelligencer and Bucks Courier newspapers. Ray Landis represented AARP who chimed in frequently with Congressman Murphy. Overall this was an interesting event for a few reasons but there were several misrepresentations by Murphy that merit some review.

Most glaring to me, was Murphy's failure to address the question that the public option would lead to single payer or socialized medicine. One questioner asked how we could be assured employers wouldn't dump empoyees in the the public option while the second was from a doctor in Newtown who believed the public option would result in socialized medicine. Murphy addressed the first with a strange answer about rewarding the employer for doing the right thing; making sure the employees had insurance. Does that mean they would only be rewarded if they put employees in a private plan, giving them incentive to keep people off the public option? Murphy side stepped this question twice. Paul Krugman, Barney Frank and a slew of public option supporters clearly believe the best way to get single payer is through the public option. Murphy repeated several times that industry members are supportive of health care reform, which is true. They also have been clear the public option is a deal breaker.

Murphy was asked how he could support a bill that the CBO showed would cost $1 trillion over ten years and then increase the deficit thereafter. (good question btw) Murphy starts out by making the same math errors the President made in his town hall in Colorado. The projected cost is $1 Trillion over ten years but the program doesn't really begin for 5 years. The House bill Murphy would vote on starts in year 4 and is fully phased in by year 6. The $1 Trillion cost should be divided by 6 rather than 10. Hennessey also notes discrepancies in the figure derived from savings from Medicare Advantage. As mentioned above Murphy expects savings to come from industry members who are willing to contribute for the good of reform. They will walk away with a public option though, so if Murphy votes for a plan with a public option, isn't he voting against the support he is banking on to keep the costs down?

Speaking of cost cutting, Murphy repeated several times he is a member of the Blue Dog caucus and is fiscally conservative. His voting record speaks otherwise. He mentioned voting against a $15 billion expenditure. I can't find any such vote. I will not suggest it didn't happen, I just can't find it based on the minimal information Murphy provided tonight. What I have found from examining Murphy's record is that even on those rare occasions Murphy votes against his party, there is always a solid block of Democrat votes to pass these votes regardless of Murphy's oppositiion. The only exception was the war supplemental which passed with bipartisan support. Murphy is on both the Armed Services and Select Intelligence Committees, voting against the supplemental would certainly raise a fuss. He has some really laughable votes against his party too. Take his vote on H. Res. 153 for example, Murphy voted against commending USC Trojans for their victory in the Rose Bowl this year. Fiscal Conservatives everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief on that one. Minor votes like that however keep his record of voting 96% with his party rather than the more realistic assessment of 99%.

Murphy was asked about voting for the use of taxpayer funds for abortion and to provide coverage for illegal immigrants. Murphy assured there is nothing in the bill that would violate Federal law that restricts paying for abortion. Even the Annenberg Center's FactCheck begged to differ when the President made similar promises in the past. Abortion would be covered under public and private plans. As an aside, Murphy's voting on abortion should send chills down the spines of the staff at Archbishop Ryan HS. See Project Vote Smart lists Murphy's ratings from pro-choice and pro-life agencies. A non partisan research arm of Congress investigated the illegal immigrant coverage and their conclusion: "undermines the claims of the president and others that illegal immigrants would not be covered under the House version of the bill." The statement from Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, was reported by CNN.

A questioner, Mike Doyle asked about tort reform. Murphy declared that the bill by design is tort reform. Howard Dean said earlier today that it wasn't in the bill because Congress lacked the courage to take on the trial lawyer lobby. The largest donations to Murphy's vast fund raising coffers come from lawyers as well. Physicians will still need to cover themselves for malpractice and will include those costs in their services. They will practice defensive medicine because they will be on the hook for paying for that insurance.

Overall Murphy stressed three factors that must be present for him to vote on a bill. These were closing the donut hole, relief for small business and eliminating discrimination for pre-existing conditions. He was reluctant to admit he would vote for a bill that didn't include the public option. I am sure the far left will be thrilled to hear that. I never heard results of the poll that was on-going through the meeting, specifically the last question about the public option. I voted strongly opposed, I wonder why that question result was omitted. Perhaps it will be in the article in the paper. Nothing in the health care plan or the Obama budgets is sustainable. We need reform that was suggested by one caller, make it portable and available across state lines to restore competition. The most surprising thing I heard tonight was that Murphy's wife is a Republican. He might want to start asking her for advice on how to vote instead of following Pelosi's instructions.

Developing Meme: Palin's Pallin' Around With a Terrorist

Mark Silva, in the aptly-named "The Swamp" blog of "The Chicago Tribune," appears to be developing the lefty meme on Palin's invitation to her friends to watch Beck's New Republic series this week. Palin's pallin' around with terrorists by associating with Beck. Three words can best describe this nonsense; whiskey, tango, foxtrot.

Beck's series looks at those who "surround" the President based on the candidate Obama's statement:

Now, the reason I think that it's important to just get these facts out is because the allegation that Senator McCain has continually made is that somehow my associations are troubling.

Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.

Those are the people, Democrats and Republicans, who have shaped my ideas and who will be surrounding me in the White House. And I think the fact that this has become such an important part of your campaign, Senator McCain, says more about your campaign than it says about me.

These are the people who are surrounding the President in the White House who have been vetted and approved by Congress; the Czars are a different story. Beck is looking at those who have highly influential positions around the President and their background and the results are startling. Palin's suggestion her friends might want to educate themselves about who these influential people are, seems to be giving the left some heartburn. Nothing settles left wing heartburn like painting folks with the "crazy" brush.

Silva seems to suggest Beck is both a radical and terrorist himself and is hypocritical for questioning the backgrounds of some in the White House. Beck questioned Jones' association with the group Color of Change, a group that also happens to be leading a boycott protest of the Beck show. Silva notes:

Jones had co-founded the group, Color of Change, promoting an advertising boycott of Beck's show since he accused Obama of being "a racist'' and not generally favorably inclined toward white people. Color of Change says Jones is no longer involved with it.

Yet he fails to note Jones co-founded the group in 2005, this is long past Jones' college years and only one in a history of more radical associations.. Jones has described himself as a communist and was a leading member of STORM. This group instructed members on Marxist teachings and Maoism. Beck has asked the White House whether they were aware of Jones' radical past but he received what can only be described as a non-answer response: "Mr. Jones is entirely focused on one policy goal: building clean energy incentives which create 21st century jobs that improve energy efficiency and utilize renewable resources."

Beck's past is entirely irrelevant since he is not a public servant who influences the President. If he can be considered a terrorist for suggesting the President may be racist in his attitudes toward white people, then Color for Change must be a radical terrorist group as well. When Kanye West claimed George Bush hated black people in a rant during Hurricane Katrina, Color of Change sold "Kanye was right" t shirts. This was also 2005 when Jones was heavily involved in the group he co-founded. It is unlikely either President was racist in their attitudes but both Beck and Color for Change are free to question a President's potential for bias. It is truly hypocritical, however, to suggest Beck is a radical terrorist for doing what Color for Change has done themselves.

Silva goes on to make the ridiculous charge that Palin is helping Beck build his base as she builds hers. The protest organized by Color For Change has done nothing but shine a light on Beck and his ratings have been massive. Who is really helping build Beck's base? It looks like Color for Change to me.

Silva's then makes a logical leap across a canyon to conclude Palin is "pallin around with terrorists." Palin is hardly wearing or selling "Beck was Right" t-shirts. She is picking up on the question McCain left dangling about the President's troubling associations; Glenn Beck provides a medium. In an ironic reference to Palin's admonition to the media, Silva states early on "we are not making things up." Sure could have fooled me.

Note: I am sure Palin's request to her facebook friends increased Becks viewership as has Rush Limbaugh's support as well. I dispute the notion Palin had any intention of building a base for Beck. I believe she wanted those who follow her to question Obama's troublesome associations. I also think the protest is inadvertently calling attention to Beck's research, increasing his audience to a degree in the process.

Palin on Beck's "New Republic" Series

Earlier on Wednesday, Sarah Palin made the following post on Facebook:

FOX News' Glenn Beck is doing an extraordinary job this week walking America behind the scenes of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and outlining who is actually running the White House.

Monday night he asked us to invite one friend to watch; tonight I invite all my friends to watch.

-Sarah Palin

There has been far less fireworks than I expected over a statement by Palin on the left's other favorite whipping post, Glenn Beck. There has still been a few fireworks , don't get me wrong. There just hasn't been the nuclear explosion I was anticipating. Well at least not yet anyway.

I am wondering if some of the silence might be due to the nature of the material Palin was urging her friends on Facebook to watch. Beck is doing a week long series on the radical connections several Czars appointed by Obama have maintained over the years as well as their far left of mainstream beliefs.

I have gathered up a collection of clips from the shows for those who may have missed the series thus far. I have more to add but I think I will break this up in a few posts. For now, there is a lot to take in just from the clips themselves.

8/25

8/26/09 Part I

8/26 Part II Mark Lloyd

Google Books Prologue to a Farce


8/26 Part III Rush

8/26 Part IV Rush

8/26 Part V Karl Rove

RIP Dominick Dunne

Vanity Fair is reporting the death of one of their long time contributors, Dominick Dunne. His son reported Dunne died today at his Manhatten home after a battle with bladder cancer.

Though I certainly did not know him personally, I feel as though I did. Dunne became a familiar voice to me in his coverage of the OJ Simpson trial. Having lost his daughter, a victim of domestic violence, Dunne's coverage of the Simpson trial was passionate and compelling. Dunne's tireless pursuit of justice was said to be a driving force in the ultimate conviction of Michael Skakel, of the Kennedy clan, for the bludgeoning death of Martha Moxley. Dunne covered other tragedies in the lives of the rich and famous including the Menendez brothers, Claus Von Bulow, Robert Blake and the death of Princess Diana.

Dunne's unflagging attention to victims of violence was no doubt born out of the loss of his daughter. I hope they are together and finally at peace.

Breaking News: Ted Kennedy Dead

So far I see nothing confirming this on the internet. Fox News just announced this at 1:25 AM Eastern. The report mentioned the Senator's office confirmed he passed away this evening after suffering from a battle with brain cancer. Will update as I find more.

Via Twitter- Michelle Malkin linked the following ABC report:

Sen. Ted Kennedy died shortly before midnight Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Mass., at age 77.

The man known as the "liberal lion of the Senate" had fought a more than year-long battle with brain cancer, and according to his son had lived longer with the disease than his doctors expected him to.

Shocker II: Pelosi Too Divisive to be Speaker

So sayeth, freshman "Blue Dog" Parker Griffith in a town hall meeting in Alabama. Paul Beddard in his Washington Whispers blog at US News & World Report has the scoop on the former oncologist who said "I would not vote for her [again]," he added. "Someone that divisive and that polarizing cannot bring us together." Gee, d'ya think?

Shocker: $10 billion Provision in HR3200 Benefits Unions

Remember how UAW came out of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcy making few concessions in return for owning 55% of Chrysler and 39% of GM?
Bondholders were shoved to the back of the line in favor of the unions. Among the "concessions" made by UAW was the acceptance of stock in return for billions owed to the union-run health care trust specifically:

It also gives a union-run retiree health care trust 17.5 percent ownership of a post-bankruptcy protection GM, with a warrant to buy another 2.5 percent.

In what has to be a stunning turn of events, turns out HR3200 (pg 65 section 164) has a provision that would reimburse "participating employment-based plans with the cost of providing health benefits to retirees and to eligible spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees".
Eligible groups are defined as:

(i) is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations, or a voluntary employees beneficiary association, or a committee or board of individuals appointed to administer such plan

Yesterday, Detroit News reported that UAW president Ron Gettelfinger urged support for health care reform "citing a provision that includes $10 billion to defray the medical costs of union members and others in retiree group health care associations." Which provision would that be I wonder? If you guessed section 164 you would be correct. More from Detroit News:

The provision could provide badly needed financial support to hourly retirees, who have agreed to accept stock in exchange for billions owed in retiree health care at General Motors Co. and Chrysler Group LLC. The UAW's voluntary employee beneficiary association, or VEBA, owns a 55 percent stake in Chrysler in exchange for billions Chrysler owed in health benefits. The UAW GM VEBA received a 17.5 percent stake in GM in exchange for billions owed. It also received a warrant for 2.5 percent of GM stock and a note for $2.5 billion.

The Senate HELP bill conatins the same language.

The provision in HR3200 is for retirees between the ages of 55 and 65 and presumably would be open to any plan providing insurance for retirees before they qualify for Medicare. This type of insurance is generally only offered by government agencies, unions, professional organizations and certain larger employers. Communication Workers of America, a division of the AFL-CIO, has stated that only 30% of retirees receive such benefits from employer based programs. Section 164 outlines that such plans must apply for the program and be approved. Are we really supposed to believe large employers who offer this insurance to retain executives are going to be approved? It's no coincidence section 164 includes the specific language "voluntary employee beneficiary association when UAW runs a program that operates under the acronym VEBA. Section 164 and the corresponding provision in the Senate HELP bill are union givebacks and most likely a means to compensate UAW for its concession in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies.

SEND BARACK OBAMA A MESSAGE

CBS News reports a slightly different version of the ad pictured above is currently running on Facebook. The ad is scheduled to target 800,000 Sarah Palin supporters. Americans United For Change is sponsoring the ad. Maybe they should concentrate on the beam in the eye of their leader who repeats the following distortions daily:

Lie One: No one will be compelled to buy coverage.

Lie Two: No new taxes on employer benefits.

Lie Three: Government can control rising health care costs better than the private sector.

Lie Four: A public plan won't be a Trojan horse for a single-payer monopoly.

Lie Five: Patients don't have to fear rationing.

Lie Six: You can keep your doctor

Lie Seven: You can keep your current health care plan.

Lie Eight: Taxpayer money will not be used to fund abortions.

Lie Nine: Reform will bend down costs over time.

Lie Ten: Will keep health care decisions between you and your doctor. Pay no attention to that panel who will decide what is worth paying for and what isn't. This could not possibly be confused with a death panel or anything, just like whether you get the pain pill or the operation. You know minor stuff like that. Don't worry. Be happy.

If anyone has any more feel free to write them in the comments. I will update the list as needed.

More Double Digits Disapproval

The Presidential Daily Tracking Poll shows a slight uptick from yesterdays low of -14% on the passion index. Today's Rasmussen's poll shows:

28% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12

Maybe people approve of his vacation.

" Death Panels:" The Story Refuses to Die

Palin's words have been dismissed by some on the right as "debasing the debate " and "hysteria about hysteria ." From the left they've been declared "obscenity." The President himself claimed assertions of death panels "offends him," in his weekly address. Still, the story "refuses to die," as Howard Kurtz laments.

The "story" is not likely to die soon because Palin's words underscore a palpable fear in many about the Democratic efforts to overhaul the industry that represents 1/6th of our economy. There have been no concrete successes in the first eight months of the Obama administration to engender confidence reform would lead to anything more than massive spending and bigger government. The mid-session budget review is only likely to reaffirm those fears.

More troubling still, is the fear the party that embraces death over life can't be trusted to care for the lives of the weak aging and vulnerable in our society. Consider this editorial sent by a citizen to my local paper:

Common sense tells you the government isn't going to pay doctors to counsel patients relative to end-of-life decisions so that the doctors can convince them to use all available methods and expensive treatments to sustain their lives. No, even if the individual doctor doesn't intend it, those conversations will inevitably put the emphasis on accepting death and getting out of the way, so that scarce resources can be freed up for those whose immediate futures are not so dire.

Let's face it, a patient can right now go in and talk to his physician about these subjects and then make rational decisions based on the answers he gets. Once doctors start getting paid by the government to do this, how voluntary will these sessions become?

As for those who believe that the public will never accept euthanasia, I submit that we already have. Witness the Schaivo case (and probably similar ones we haven't heard about) where the patient's life was not being sustained by a ventilator; nonetheless, a court decided it was legal to starve and dehydrate her to death. That resolution seems to have been pretty much accepted by the general public, who I believe (and hope) didn't really understand the issues.

The fear is real. Try, as they may, blaming Sarah Palin for fear Democrats themselves have created, will not stick. Palin didn't create this fear; she named it and gave voice to it. Almost a year ago she hit the national stage and gave voice to some glaring flaws that are proving now to have been prophetic:

But listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform - not even in the state senate.

This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word "victory" except when he's talking about his own campaign. But when the cloud of rhetoric has passed ... when the roar of the crowd fades away ... when the stadium lights go out, and those Styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot - what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish, after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make government bigger ... take more of your money ... give you more orders from Washington ... and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world.

As Winston Churchill once said, "The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."

HT/ Texas for Sarah Palin

Recess Rally Report: Patrick Murphy's a No Show / Plans to Phone it In

UPDATED: See Below for recent reports

Congressman Patrick Murphy PA 8 had no intentions of attending the Recess Rally held in Doylestown PA today. His spokesperson made that very clear:

"This (Saturday rally) is a nationally-organized protest orchestrated by insurance company lobbyists to scare seniors and stifle legitimate debate about meaningful health insurance reform, and Congressman Murphy believes that Bucks County residents deserve better than a circus," Hansen said.

Despite Hansen's allegation the rally was staged by insurance company lobbyists, there were many rallying FOR Obamacare who appeared to have been organized. Free Republic had a post stating PennAction would be rallying for ObamaCare and suggested there be opposition there to surprise them. Having lived in the community for 12 years, I can say there were plenty of local people there on their own volition. The Intelligencer Now reported 300 protesters rallied against ObamaCare. It seemed like a larger group to me. This picture is on both The Intellligencer Now and The Courier Times Now and was taken by Staff Photographer Rick Kintzel:



Notice who has the had made signs and who has the pre-printed ones. It seemed more like the groups were standing across the street from each other than intermixed like this. I thought I would have noticed something like that. Though there was no violence, it did get heated. Police were present which kept people from pouring in the street. You can see more hand made signs in the next photo:



In fairness, there were hand made signs from those who supported ObamaCare. I wonder if Murphy's spokesperson thinks they were brought in for a circus organized by insurance lobbyists too. Murphy might be surprised to see the guy holding the sign that said "HOLD A TOWNHALL U COWARD," Murphy has met with the Chamber of Commerce. The public, however, is notified of these events after the fact. Despite an editorial from the board of The Intelligencer, calling for a large town hall forum, Murphy has not scheduled one. He's decided to phone it in on August 27 in a joint effort with the Bucks County Courier Times, The Intelligencer and the AARP. I guess he figures he will need reinforcements and protection from his constituents even over the phone.

More photos online at: The Intellligencer Now I will upload more as I get them.

UPDATE: Murphy made an appearance in Bristol where a smaller group of 40 rallied. Bristol tends to vote more for Democrats than other sections of Bucks and the group had more who supported reform than against. This was reported in today's Intelligencer Murphy spoke for 90 minutes and answered questions. In my opinion, Murphy's appearance in Bristol was political theater. He fooled no one with this spineless attempt to avoid dealing with the much larger group gathered to voice their opposition. He can try all he likes to paint a picture of a moderate fiscal conservative open to addressing the concerns of his constituents, his actions and voting record speak otherwise. Murphy will return to DC and vote with Pelosi, he always does. We'll make sure he hears from us in 2010 at the polls.

Krauthammer Is Missing the Iceberg

Charles Krauthammer seems to think he is aboard the Titanic, where the ladies are excused, while the men discuss politics and smoke cigars:

"Let's see if we can have a reasoned discussion about end-of-life counseling. We might start by asking Sarah Palin to leave the room. I've got nothing against her. She's a remarkable political talent. But there are no "death panels" in the Democratic health-care bills, and to say that there are is to debase the debate."

Charles seems to be suffering from selective hearing syndrome , and has conflated end-of-life counseling with the inevitable rationing that would accompany government run health care. Two cases in two days might warrant a call to the CDC. Charles seems to have forgotten an important lesson from those who failed to heed the warning, "Iceberg, Right Ahead." It didn't end well Charles.



For further discussion, see:
Riehl World View : Palin's Misunderstood "Death Panels" Remark Has Been Mostly Mis-Reported.
Conservative4Palin : "Krauthammer Tells Palin to "Leave the Room"

Zogby Poll: How Low Can you Go/ Charlie Cook is Worried

Via NewsMax - Zogby's latest poll of registered voters showed Obama's approval hitting a new low of 45.3% compared to 50.5 disapproval. In June this number his approval was 51%. July's polls showed a slip down to 48% approval. Obama's sharp decline in approval poses problems because his support has fallen drasticaly among independent or swing voters:

Of greatest concern to Obama may well be his decline among all-important independent voters. Just 37.5 percent of self-identified independents say they approve of how Obama is handling the presidency. That compares with 59.2 percent of independents who disapprove.

Dick Morris, political analyst explains why this group is so important:

"As soon as Obama dropped below 52 percent . . . he was leaking real voters who had backed him in November," Morris tells Newsmax. "Now that he is down to 45 percent among likely voters . . . he is in deep political trouble."

Charlie Cook ofCook Political Report laments a new low for Obama at Gallup among registered voters:

For those of you not addicted to the 1:00pm EDT daily release of Gallup’s three-night moving average tracking poll, President Obama’s job approval rating in both their August 16-18 and August 17-19 averages was just 51 percent, the lowest level of his presidency.

Polls of registered voters tends to show higher approval than polls of likely voters such as Zogby and Rasmussen. Cook seems to share Morris' grim assessment of what these numbers portend for Obama and those who face re-election next year:

These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats.

Cook suggests Democrats could face serious losses in their numbers particularly in the House of Representatives.

Poll Shows 77% Support for Public Option

See even Soros looks surprised at those results. He shouldn't be however, since his organization MoveOn.org sponsored the study. Who knew the public option would actually gain support after all the arguing this summer? Let's take a look at the credibility of this sample, shall we? Question two asks: "In any health care proposal, how important do you feel it is to give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance--extremely important, quite important, not that important, or not at all important?" A whopping 58% of Republicans answered extremely important. Where did they find these Republicans? Did they pay ACORN workers to find them? Still this is the headline, major headline mind you, at Huffington Post. This news ought to keep everyone all "Wee-Wee'd UP"

Joe Klein's Hypocrisy on Palin and Schiavo

Joe Klein has an article in Time Magazine today asserting the Republican party has become a party of nihilists. Klein's allegation is based on his interpretation of Sarah Palin's "death panel" statement and the subsequent failure of the Republican Party to challenge her statement. Having two aging parents himself, Klein reports being in the midst of a difficult end-of-life discussion with his father when he heard Sarah Palin's charge, "the Obama Administration's attempt to include such issues in its health-care-reform proposal would lead to 'death panels'." Klein seems to suffer from the selective hearing disorder some men experience when it comes to listening to women.

Klein never quotes Palin directly because, of course, he can not. Palin simply never made the statement he ascribes to her. Sarah Palin's first statement does not even mention the end of life counseling, her statement focuses on rationing. Her subsequent statement draws a distinction between end of life counseling and rationing:

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”

Klein addresses none of this, he seems to prefer to conflate the end of life counseling provision that was removed with a rationing board or "death panel" which has not been removed.

Klein's difficulty in discussing end-of-life provisions with his parents appears to be frustrating him. He ascribes his failure to engage in a fruitful discussion on this subject to both a lack of standing and strategic experience. He seems certain an independent authority figure is the solution. He goes on to state:

And this is what the "death panels" are all about: making end-of-life counseling free and available through Medicare. (I'd make it mandatory, based on recent experience, but hey, I'm not entirely clearheaded on the subject right now.)

No, obviously he is not clearheaded because Palin's "death panel" statement had nothing to do with making end-of-life counseling free and available through Medicare as shown above. Nevertheless, is the absence of free counseling through Medicare really what is preventing him from convincing his father to make end-of-life decisions? Assuming high profile journalists who also happen to be best selling authors still make a decent living, does he really lack access to a lawyer? Has his father's doctor refused to discuss these issues because he is unable to be reimbursed? Does anyone really believe that doctors are doing this without reimbursement now? Does Medicare really deny payment to a doctor who answers questions about end-of-life care? Let's be honest, Klein wants someone else to convince his father to make these decisions when he himself cannot.

Klein argues he is being critical of the current crop of GOP pols when he has been critical of Dems on other occasions. This is true, I found the perfect example. In April 2005 during the height of the Terri Schiavo controversy Klein wrote:

Democrats would be wise to stow their satisfaction and give careful consideration to what thoughtful conservatives are saying about the role of the judiciary in our public life because the issue is about to get a lot more contentious.

The Schiavo case has provoked a passionate American conversation, which is taking place on a more profound level than the simple yes and no answers of the polls. Yes, the vast majority disdain the politicians who chose to exploit the case. And yes, a solid majority would not want their own lives prolonged in a similar situation. But the questions that cut closest to home are the family issues. What would you do if Terri Schiavo were your daughter? Why couldn't Michael Schiavo just give custody over to the parents? What do we do about custody in a society where the parent-child bond is more durable than many marriages? The President's solution, to "err on the side of life," seems the only humane answer—if there is a dispute between parents and spouse, and the disabled person has left no clear instruction.

Klein sees things quite differently now, however:

The same people who rail against a government takeover of health care tried to enforce a government takeover of Terri Schiavo's end-of-life decisions. And when Palin floated the "death panel" canard, the number of prominent Republicans who rose up to call her out could be counted on one hand.

Klein seems to forget there was a dispute over Schiavo's end-of-life decisions that was brought into the courts. When Schiavo had no clear instruction, not unlike Klein's father I might add, Klein found President Bush's solution humane. Yet, the same humane parental concern that drove President Bush to urge we "err on the side of life," is the portion of Palin's formulation Klein refuses to hear.

Moreover, there is great concern that the same group that was on the side of pulling Terri's tube, is suddenly going to be erring on the side of life when collective memory suggests they will not. Perhaps Klein is fine with his father being guided through this decision process with decision aids such as the one used with Veterans. This decision aid was dropped during the Bush Administration, but has been resuscitated under Obama's. Suppose Klein's father at age 89 would benefit from a pacemaker as did Jane Sturm's mother, will Klein's father get the surgery or be told he'd be better off with the painkiller? Klein may be fine putting his parents and millions of aging and vulnerable people in the hands of a system that promises to cut costs, " but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost." Sarah Palin was not fine with that nor were the other GOP nihilists who refused to call her "canard." If that is what constitutes an obscenity in Klein's opinion, perhaps his father is right to be reluctant to grant him durable power of attorney.


For further discussion see Pundette's post "NICE QALY you got there"

Verum Serum takes Joe Klein's fallacious argument apart as well.

See also Piece of Work in Progress , "Joe Klein Freaks Out"

Another Day - Another Dem Go-It-Alone Strategy

Today's go-it-alone strategy is brought to you by the letters "E" and "F" - this one is sure to end in epic failure. The WSJ has a report today that hope is running low a bipartisan agreement will be reached by the Senate Finance Committee. White House and Senior Democrat officials are considering a proposal to divide the bill in two parts. The first would consist of insurance regulations that have some support among Republicans and would contain relatively low costs. The second half, which would contain the large expenditures and presumably the bones of a public program would be passed solely by Democrats.

The report suggests the second portion of the bill would likely need to be passed through the reconciliation process, which is a budget process. There are numerous obstacles to passing a huge piece of legislation this way. Keith Hennessey recently had a series of posts on the obstacles. You can read them here , here , and here . In short, however, Hennessey concludes a bill passed by what is commonly called "the nuclear option," would end up like "swiss cheese." In a previous post, I mentioned Kent Conrad, Chair of the Senate Budget Committee used the same words to describe a resulting bill passed through the Senate by reconciliation.

Whether splitting the bill in two would result in legislation without the holes is hard to say. Assuming Republicans knew the "nuclear option" was on the horizon, they might be inclined to vote against even the first portion of the bill to prevent the second from having any teeth. Even more moderate members of the Senate find this option distasteful. Senator Olympia Snowe, who provided a key vote to pass the stimulus legislation in February is angered by the idea:
The idea of using reconciliation angers even such moderate Republicans as Ms. Snowe.

"At a time when we need to bolster the public's confidence in whatever we do with health care, I don't think the reconciliation process will serve the purpose of providing affordable health security for all Americans," she said.

Angering Senator Snowe might be the least of the White House concerns should they choose such a path. A recent Quinnipiac poll showed Independents oppose 63 - 33 percent passing a bill with only Democratic votes. A Democratic Congressman said recently , President Obama told him he was willing to risk being a one-term President to get major health care reform. If the White House chooses the reconciliation route, he would likely get his wish.

Political Calculation: Arlen Specter Bashing Hillarycare

H/T:YID With LID: Video of Arlen Specter Bashing State Run Healthcare (Hillarycare)

Pat Toomey is going to be a handful for poor ole Benedict Arlen; watch the following advertisement to see why:



Can we put Toomey in charge of all GOP advertising from now on? Specter betrayed my vote in 2004, why would you trust him to treat yours any other way?

Posner to Romer: Where Are Your Academic Scruples?

Judge Richard Posner wrote a piece for "The Atlantic" yesterday questioning Christina Romer, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, on her August 6th presentation to the Economic Club of Washington DC titled, "So is it Working? An Assessment of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act at the Five-Month Mark."

Posner challenges Romer on her answer to the group of economists as to whether the stimulus package, passed in haste in February by Congress, was in fact working. Romer answered "Absolutely." Posner finds this answer irresponsible coming from an academic and goes on to question why those who leave academia to pursue a public role don't retain their academic scruples:

I do not think her analysis is responsible, and I am concerned with the fact that academic economists, when they become either public officials or public intellectuals (like Paul Krugman), leave behind their academic scruples. (This is one of the themes of my book Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline [2001])--and Krugman was one of my examples of the phenomenon.

and then again here:

This raises the question of the ethical responsibility of academic economists, such as Romer (and Krugman, and Lawrence Summers, and many others), who write for the media or join the government, either to adhere to academic standards in their nonacademic work or to make clear to the public that they are on holiday from those standards and that what they say in their public-intellectual or governmental careers should not be thought identical to their academic views.

Ouch! Posner makes it clear he agreed with the stimulus, at least in theory, but found the design lacking and the delivery "lazy." He challenges on a variety of levels Romer's claim the stimulus is working. I won't rehash the whole article because it is a worthy read. I have read a number of Judge Posner's legal opinions and found them straightforward and readable even for someone without a law background like myself. His economic blog is not always as straightforward, at least to this layperson anyway. I think this piece in the Atlantic is more approachable, however.

I respect Judge Posner immensely, he gives an honest assessment and puts his political opinions to the side. I appreciated reading why the stimulus could have worked had it been designed better. I have held the opinion it would have been preferable to do the tax holiday or no stimulus. Because I believe him to give fair assessments though, I give his opinion more weight than a partisan assessment.

This leads to his larger point, Krugman, Romer, Summers and Buffet, lent their credibility to Obama during his campaign. As Obama had no governing experience, their backing gave his economic plans some weight. When these same high profile academics allow their scruples to "take a holiday" in service of a political agenda, the layman will have difficulty discerning political spin from solid academic opinion. For example, the other night Krugman wrote an opinion on the public option and its significance to the Progressives. On Americablog, Krugman's opinion was touted because it agreed with a political point of view but given great weight because of his academic pedigree:

Not that Nobel laureates aren't intrinsically smart folks, but I think this analysis of the politics of the public option is particularly insightful.

Now that the Nobel laureate finds Obama's willingness to sacrifice the "public option" to come up short, the commenters start questioning Obama's intelligence:

He was a lecturer and has no published or scholarly academic papers.

I don't know where the meme came from that he is "brilliant" and "all seeing" and "highly intelligent." It probably came from the same place as "he's playing eleventy dimensional chess" and "he's 25 steps ahead of everybody else."

I think this whole "constitutional scholar" thingy is way overrated.

What is the definition of "scholar" when it comes to Obama?

Those comments look as though I might have plucked them straight from a right wing blog. In fairness, most left and right wing blogs become echo chambers to varying degrees. Opinions that agree are "genius" while those that don't are "stupid." This can certainly contribute to political discourse that becomes frenzied. Obviously there is more at play in our heightened political discussion, not the least of which is hyperpartisan media-types who both lament and ridicule an uninformed public. Still, Posner's point is an excellent one. An academic "on scruples vacation" might fool an uninformed public but they can't get past their peers. Posner didn't need a disclaimer to weed through Romer's discussion, but it would be nice if Posner didn't need to advise the "uninformed public" Romer's academic scruples were in Cancun for spring break.
UPDATE: Brad DeLong of Grasping Reality with Both Hands defends Romer.
Judge Posner's response to Prof. DeLong

Palin on the Obama Administration's Shady Oil Dealings

Sarah Palin attacks Obama's decision to back off shore drilling with $2 Billion in guaranteed loans for the Brazilian oil company Petrobas. Hot Air notes the absurdity of backing a Brazilian oil company for off shore drilling when the company is not American and Obama's vehement opposition to off shore drilling during his campaign. Could there be a connection to the repositioning of Petrobas holdings by notorious Obama backer George Soros? "Inquiring minds want to know.

Palin's latest Facebook attack doesn't make those connections. I am sure a person of her position would need greater evidence before would go that far. Palin has plenty of ammunition for the suspicious deal without going that far. Here is a sample of what she has to say:

Today's Wall Street Journal contains some puzzling news for all Americans who are impacted by high energy prices and who share the goal of moving us toward energy independence.

For years, states rich with an abundance of oil and natural gas have been begging Washington, DC politicians for the right to develop their own natural resources on federal lands and off shore. Such development would mean good paying jobs here in the United States (with health benefits) and the resulting royalties and taxes would provide money for federal coffers that would potentially off-set the need for higher income taxes, reduce the federal debt and deficits, or even help fund a trillion dollar health care plan if one were so inclined to support such a plan.

So why is it that during these tough times, when we have great needs at home, the Obama White House is prepared to send more than two billion of your hard-earned tax dollars to Brazil so that the nation's state-owned oil company, Petrobras, can drill off shore and create jobs developing its own resources? That's all Americans want; but such rational energy development has been continually thwarted by rabid environmentalists, faceless bureaucrats and a seemingly endless parade of lawsuits aimed at shutting down new energy projects.

Read the whole thing on Facebook

"Harry and Louise" Redux?

Dan Perrin at Redstate has the anti-ObamaCare advertisement found to be most effective in a MediaCurves study: The ad, created by the conservative Christian lobbying group Family Research Council, was found to be most effective by both Democrats and Republicans. Glenn Kesler, president and CEO of HCD Research commented:

"A positive impact score among Democrats suggests that there is some, albeit modest, movement of Democrats away from the pro health care reform camp."

The study showed:
The majority of all parties reported that the FRC anti reform ad was effective, with 64% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans and 71% of Independents indicating that the ad was either extremely effective or somewhat effective. Redstate reports the abortion issue is raised due to the fact that no other issue gathers as many NO votes among Democrats as does the funding of abortions through taxpayer money. This is consistent with my report earlier suggesting the Democrats' support for the abortion issue through the years is playing against them in the health care debate.

The ad is reminiscent of the "Harry and Louise" ads that were effective in bringing down the Cinton health care reform. For those who care to stroll down memory lane, here is one of those ads:



UPDATE: I was reminded in the comments that there is more information available on the study at MediaCurves. I have changed the post to include that link above and here in the update. Please go and read the rest of the details including the emotions experience by both Dems and Republicans when watching the ad.

Palin Tribute Video

Seth Adam Smith at Conservatives4Palin put together a nice tribute to Sarah Palin that has gone viral. It's hard to see why this woman has been so vilified by the left especially after watching this lovely tribute.

Palin Hit a Nerve

There have been some great responses to the NRO editorial yesterday that took an unnecessary shot at Sarah Palin over her use of the term "death panel." Andy McCarthy's dissent at NRO literally shreds the editorial's lame assertion Palin's "death panel" description is "hysteria about hysteria." It is the NRO editorial that "leaps a logical canyon" as it gives credence to Palin's rational assessment of rationing yet claims her descriptor is somehow irrational.

That Palin is a lightening rod for both the left and the right, is somewhat indisputable at this point. Palin's barn-burner speech at the convention last August was a clarion call that rallied a right-wing base to the side of a candidate they were reluctant to embrace. On the left, an army of bloggers and media-types found a looming threat to the election of their heretofore unassailed candidate. The army was dispatched to destroy this threat with a crazed fervor that was chilling at a minimum. Rather than question the manic attack machine unleashed by the left, much of the right leaning beltway elite chose to pile on instead.

In short, the beltway elites were embarrassed by Palin and they denied her far more often than they defended her. This is the real underlying message of the NRO editorial, they still deny her, despite the rather obvious Palin victory in the messaging war on health care thus far. McCarthy notes this same rush to deny from the elites with Reagan:

Many of those same elites didn't like Ronald Reagan's jarring "evil empire" rhetoric. But "death panels" caught on with the public just like "evil empire" did because, for all their "heat rather than light" tut-tutting, critics could never quite discredit it.

Palin managed a rarity for Republican politicians these days, she bypassed the media elites and spoke directly to the people.

Palin delivered a message that resonated with broad sketches of the values espoused by each party formed and reaffirmed over time. The Democrats promote "choice," a candy-coated euphemism for unrestricted abortions for all. In the minds of a majority of Americans, "choice" does not equal "life." Obama is so fundamentally tied to unrestricted abortion, Pundette aptly names him "our abortion President." Abortion is not always a driving factor in voters' choice of candidates unfortunately. While Obama's support for FOCA and voting record on partial birth abortion in the Illinois Senate may not have hurt him with some voters in November, it is likely Palin's pro-life profile elevates those issues for those who ignored them when they went to the polls.

The abortion debate comes at an entirely different end of the lifespan spectrum than the "death panels" and rationing discussion however. Palin moves the debate a bit further down the spectrum raising concerns for the potential effects of rationing on children with disabilities in a way that few others in the political arena could. Dan McLaughlin wrote in the New Ledger last week, Palin's invocation of Trig created a flashpoint in the collective memory of the public about the left:

it is the Left that insists that it is appropriate to abort a child when prenatal testing reveals such a condition, and it was from the Left that we heard crude jibes suggesting that Palin should have done just that.

It is hard to imagine this same group would suddenly protect with passion access to care for a child they believe would have been better off had he not been born.

McLaughlin's piece makes another rather brilliant point that seems to have been missed in the discussion to a degree. McLaughlin suggests the Schiavo case may well be another memory flashpoint contributing to the association with death for the left:

But little attention was paid to the fact that the Right vs Left narrative of the Schiavo episode - one willingly stoked by Democrats eager to capitalize on precisely the “Religious Right overreach” angle - painted the Left as the advocates of ‘pulling the plug’ on Terri Schiavo.

While some on the left have attempted to "resurrect" Schiavo's case in an effort to point to more "Religious Right overreach," they may have done this at their peril. As McLaughlin correctly argues, "the American people know that the same people who wanted to pull the tube from Terri Schiavo want to be trusted not to pull the plug on grandma."

Palin personifies a stark contrast to the death association formed in the public's collective memory of the left. This gave undeniable resonance to her choice of words "death panel." Her words hit a simmering nerve of truth that forced an extraction of the contentious end of life counseling and brought the harsh reality of rationing to the fore. Perhaps the beltway elite will think twice before they run from her in the future, though truthfully, I doubt it. They seem to prefer strategies that allow Democrats' vulnerabilities to fester in hopes of gaining some meaningless absolution from main stream media elites. Will they ever learn?

Boehner to PhRMA: Stop Being Sheep

Last week HuffPo had an internal memo dated July 7, outlining details of the White House deal with PhRMA on health care reform:


Both the White House and PhRMA have issued denials that the memo above represented an accurate reflection of a deal between the two. The Wall Street Journal notes today, 3 of 4 major points deal have been confirmed by one party or the other. WSJ links a memo dated July 8 sent by Barclay Capital Advisors of NY, confirming the same details. The memo to investors is summarized as follows:

We understand from our consultants in Washington that yesterday PhRMA has struck a deal with the White House which is similar to the senate version. This deal underscores that the Obama Administration is open to negotiations/deals with stakeholders involved in order to steer the healthcare reform bill with
bipartisan support and within the aggressive timeframe set. It also reinforces our view that healthcare reforms may not be as bad as previously expected by many investors.

The managing director for Barclays Capital confirms the memo's importance saying:

“It all holds together,” Butler said, detailing why industry wants to avoid the issues listed on the memo, one of which is an “expensive Pandora’s box.” He said he has been told Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, is on board with the memo contents.

Butler said the deal outlined in the memo provides more evidence that “the probability of health care reform significantly hurting the drug industry is diminishing each day.”

Former Republican Congressman Billy Tauzin, Chief Lobbyist for PhRMA is currently underwriting an expensive advertising campaign touting the benefits of health care legislation. Tauzin has also been to the White House on numerous occasions and has been a key figure in negotiations that Tauzin believes beneficial to the pharmaceutical industrymay or may not end up being "as bad as previously expected." John Boehner, clearly sees Tauzin being bullied by the Obama administration and sent the following letter as warning: (link to Huffington Post)

Dear Billy,

Appeasement rarely works as a conflict resolution strategy. This is as true in the arena of policymaking as it is in schoolyards across America. When a bully asks for your lunch money, you may have no choice but to fork it over. But cutting a deal with the bully is a different story, particularly if the "deal" means helping him steal others' money as the price of protecting your own.

The simple truth is, two wrongs don't make a right. And the short-sighted health care deal PhRMA struck with the Obama Administration at your urging provides confirmation of this time-tested maxim on an epic and tragic scale.

The "bully" in this case is Big Government. At your behest, PhRMA has chosen to accommodate a Washington takeover of health care at the expense of the American people in hopes of securing favorable treatment and future profits. It's a short-sighted bargain that leaves your own customers and employees behind. And it now has all the markings of a deal gone sour.

The Obama Administration tacitly acknowledged last week that the President will not be bound by the $80 billion limit PhRMA and its board of directors were led to believe had been secured in exchange for your organization's support of the Administration's health care takeover, and key Democrats in Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Energy & Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), have said explicitly they will not honor the agreement. In other words, now that the deal is publicly known and would be messy for you to reverse, Big Government is changing the terms. . .because it can. Consequently, the jobs of PhRMA workers are no more secure than they were before, the threat to PhRMA's groundbreaking medical research remains, and the American people - including PhRMA's customers and the families of PhRMA employees - face the prospect of higher costs and reduced quality in health care.

You will inevitably object to this letter and quarrel with its premise. You'll no doubt argue PhRMA has publicly opposed the version of the bill backed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). But the simple press release your organization issued objecting to the House bill is dwarfed by the $150 million advertising campaign your organization has launched in support of ObamaCare with the assistance of well-funded political organizations on the Left.

PhRMA would do well to halt this short-sighted, misguided campaign and listen to the American people, rather than continue to collaborate on an effort to spin them.

Republicans across the nation have listened, and here's what we've learned: Americans are frustrated with their government in Washington and skeptical of those who run it. They want health care reform that lowers costs and increases choice - not government-run health care that increases costs and limits options. They want legislation that helps families and small businesses with their problems, not legislation that adds to their problems while empowering an elite few. They're worried about the debt being piled on our children and grandchildren, and they want the spending and borrowing spree in Washington to stop. They want policies that support job creation and protect freedom, not bills that force responsible citizens to subsidize bad behavior from those who insist on being irresponsible.

The millions of American families who are PhRMA customers and the hard-working professionals who work for PhRMA companies deserve better than the government takeover of health care being forced upon them. I urge you to rethink your organization's stance, listen to the American people, and join the call for responsible bipartisan health care solutions that truly reflect their priorities.

Sincerely,

John Boehner

Keith Hennessey has sent similar warnings as well:

Even after 15 years of working in economic policymaking, I continue to be surprised at the naivete of some American business leaders. Almost three weeks ago I sounded an initial warning:

Hospitals: You’re the deep pockets. Insurers, Business and Pharma: They can make you villains again if they need to cut you more to make the budget numbers work.

Anyone who thinks they have a deal should be careful. If these bills implode, all bets are off, and the probability escalates that prior promises are re-opened or ignored. (Hospitals: You’re the deep pockets. Insurers, Business and Pharma: They can make you villains again if they need to cut you more to make the budget numbers work.)

Words to the wise!

Patrick Murphy has no Time for a Health Care Town Hall but "Netroots Nation" Conference Not a Problem

For those who have been following my posts here here and here, on Patrick Murphy (PA 8) you might recall the editorial in "The Intelligencer" that issued a none-too-subtle call for Murphy to schedule a large forum in order to address constituents' concerns on health care reform. Murphy has not scheduled that forum and repeated calls to his office have proven less than fruitful. Hey, Murphy is a busy guy.

This weekend, however, he managed to make time to appear at the far-left-leaning conference in Pittsburgh "Netroots Nation." He was interviewed there on whether he has received "death threats" from crazed Republicans. Here is the interview:


At :28 he has the audacity to say he lets people talk about their concerns one-on-one or in a larger setting. Was that the larger setting where only some were invited by robocall? Who has met with him one-on-one? Evidently clearing the air over confusion related to the bill is a priority, who knew? Presumably he thought he was going to find loads of Bucks County constituents, who are by and large moderate to right-leaning, at the leftist conference in Pittsburgh? Get the man a compass.

It should be noted The Intelligencer had a front page article today discussing the challenge the GOP might face trying to unseat Murphy:

Perhaps even Republicans feel that way. Earlier this month the National Republican Campaign Committee released a target list of 70 Dem-held House districts they hope to put into play next year. The list includes six in Pennsylvania, but the 8th is not among them.

"You noticed that," said Neil Samuels, deputy chairman of the Bucks County Democratic Committee. "It's an acceptance of the reality that he's doing a terrific job and won the last election by 50,000 votes. That's a significant margin."

No, I don't think so Mr. Samuels, though I have to wonder what the NRCC could be thinking sending Congressman Murphy the all's clear sign to continue to vote with Speaker Pelosi almost exclusively. As the article notes, his voting record speaks volumes:

Though he often refers to himself as a "fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrat," Murphy has voted for all government bailouts, under both President George Bush and Obama, the $778 billion stimulus package and Obama's $3.5 trillion budget. He has also broken from the Blue Dogs in favor of a government run health care option. And he was one of 22 Blue Dogs (there are 52) to vote for the Cap and Trade bill that threatens to impose costs on American households and businesses.

According to opencongress.org, Murphy votes with his party 96 percent of the time and "most often votes with" Schwartz. He "least often votes with" fellow Blue Dog Gene Taylor, according to the site, which tracks congressional votes.

Murphy has been tied to Murtha's tainted association with Kuchera Industries and been forced to donate tainted campaign funds in the midst of the federal probe of Kuchera and PMA. Evidently Murphy and Schwartz share more in common than their voting record as both were among those to donate tainted campaign funds. I don't know that Schwartz has declared Murtha her role model as Murphy has.

While the article notes The Cook Political Report characterizes the 8th as "solid D," Murphy unseated a Republican, Mike Fitzpatrick, in 2006. The seat was held by a Republican since 1993 before Murphy took office in 2006. Murphy however, ran when the tide was clearly turning against Republicans and he was able to raise $2.6 million in finance contributions as an unknown. Murphy is quite the fundraiser; he spent $4 million to defeat Tom Manion, the father of slain Iraq war hero Travis Manion in 2008. Murphy has already raised $838,752 for the 2010 election cycle. The NRCC is promising a challenger:

"It is laughable that Murphy continues to say he is 'committed to fiscal responsibility' when he voted for the massive debt that will burden future generations and has yet to produce jobs," said Lindsay of the NRCC. "Murphy will face a strong and credible challenge next year, and he will need every last cent of his campaign cash to defend his record of voting with Nancy Pelosi over 96 percent of the time."

I am glad they are at aware at the NRCC of Murphy's obvious vulnerabilities despite having left him off the "most targeted" list. It's time for the NRCC to name a viable candidate to take full advantage of Murphy's vulnerability and allow ample time for fund raising. Those who share this concern might consider sending a reminder to the NRCC here or when they call looking for donations.