Democrats have lost yet another touted recruit, this time in Kansas.
State Sen. Laura Kelly (D) just announced her withdrawal from the race to face Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Kan.). She becomes the fifth formidable recruit to bow out in recent weeks.
“I have been forced to make a decision between honoring the pledge I made to the people in my Senate district and my firm conviction that the people of the 2nd congressional district deserve a truly independent voice in Congress," Kelly said in a statement.
“This has been a very hard decision, but it is the right one.”
Laura Kelly was cited in a late October DCCC memo lauding the Democrats' recruiting success for the coming 2010 midterm elections. Must be like a cold bucket of water on the Speaker of the House who was willing to sacrifice some of her Blue Dogs in order to ram her left-wing agenda through the House. We'll be looking forward to taking her broom in surrender come November.
Daley Gator covers Barbara Boxer's campaign contribution shenanigans.
KFC Christmas - What's on the menu for Christmas Eve in Japan?
Lisa Graas, who works relentlessly to promote conservative bloggers and causes, launched Blogs for Johnson. The network of blogs supporting Bill Johnson for the GOP primary in Kentucky is growing, join Lisa in supporting this fine conservative candidate.
Carol's Closet wonders who is paying for sellout Ben Nelson's 30 second Holiday Bowl ad.
Washington Post reports General Motors got a fresh infusion of cash (that would be our cash) courtesy of the Obama administration. They're awfully generous with our money aren't they?
The government gave GMAC Financial Services another $3.8 billion in cash and took a majority stake in the auto lender, aiming to stabilize the company as it struggles with big losses in its home mortgage unit.
This gives the US Government majority ownership in General Motors, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The government now owns 56% of GM but not to worry they are going to stick to their promise of letting the executives run the company, except when it comes to pay:
Even with the government upping its stake, Treasury officials said the government intends to stick to its policy of leaving day-to-day business decisions about financing to GMAC management. Still, with the additional stake, the government will have the right to appoint two additional directors to the company's board, bringing the total to four of nine, Treasury officials said.
GMAC will continue to be subject to executive pay restrictions imposed by the government's pay czar.
"These slippery creepy bastards are jamming it to the sugarplummed sheeple during the Holly Jolly Holidays. Blank check to FNM/FRE on Xmas eve. Then another $3.8B to GMAC for some New Year kicker laughs.
You'd think after a whole year of government-induced fiscal insanity, they'd at least give us a week off before next year's round of insanity commences."
Amen to that, no rest for the weary pocketbooks of the American taxpayer.
Added note: to my regular reader and friend Janet - be sure to check out this comment
Times Online speculated yesterday a revolution may be nearing the tipping point in Iran. I pray for those courageous enough to stand against this brutal regime. The latest effort to squash the protesters comes in this form of vile persecution; they mow down their citizens with a plow:
Also: Hopeful reports the regime is readying a plane should the Ayatollah need to escape to Russia:
Reports from Iran indicate that the Supreme National Security Council has ordered a complete check-up of the jet which is on standby to fly Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei and his family to Russia should the situation in Iran spiral out of control. The order, to the Pasdaran Revolutionary Guard Corps, was dated on Sunday, 27 December. A fax containing the order was sent to Dutch-based Shahrzad News.
HuffPo notes that January 16 is the anniversary of the shah’s abdication, a date that’ll no doubt be targeted by organizers for a surge in direct action. But still: If Khamenei was going to show weakness this provocative — essentially an admission that he’s no longer sure he can hold the country together — wouldn’t he have tasked the plane check-up to only his most devoutly loyal underlings? The last thing he’d want is to risk a leak that might spook the security forces, who would suddenly fear that the balance of power was about to turn and would side with the protesters so that they didn’t end up hanging from lampposts. Seems much more likely that this is pro-protester propaganda than a genuine scoop, alas.
No, I am not kidding. The editorial in Politiken makes the comparison in the headline and then goes on to make the case in his opening:
He is provocative in insisting on an outstretched hand, where others only see animosity.
His tangible results in the short time that he has been active – are few and far between. His greatest results have been created with words and speeches – words that remain in the consciousness of their audience and have long-term effects.
He comes from humble beginnings and defends the weak and vulnerable, because he can identify himself with their conditions.
And no we are not thinking of Jesus Christ, whose birthday has just been celebrated - - but rather the President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama.
Whew, good thing they clarified it was Obama they intended to reference, not Jesus Christ. The two are virtually interchangeable right? Of course at this point it would have been appropriate to play down the comparison, make the case that Obama has not had 2000 or so years of impact on the world, etc. After all, comparing Obama to Jesus is laughable and at the same time incredibly offensive. None of this stops the Norweigan editorialist, however.
Instead the editorial goes on to make the case that Obama is, in fact greater than Jesus Christ largely because of his health care bill while Jesus only had a few miracles:
On the other hand, we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few. At the same time, we have the wonderful parables about his life and deeds that we know from the New Testament, but which have been interpreted so differently over the past 2000 years that it is impossible to give an unequivocal result of his work.
Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game. But it is probably more meaningful to insist that with today’s domestic triumph, that he has already assured himself a place in the history books – a space he has good chances of expanding considerably in coming years.
Without, however, ever attaining the heavens....
You can't make this up, no one would ever believe it. The Norwegians really need to bring Odin, Loki and Thor back from the Norse mythology graveyard. They sorely need someone or something substantive to ply with Nobel prizes and lavish absurd praise upon.
Politico reports Karl Rove and his wife of 24 years Darby obtained a divorce in Texas according to spokesperson Dana Perino:
“Karl Rove and his wife, Darby, were granted a divorce last week," said Perino. "The couple came to the decision mutually and amicably, and they maintain a close relationship and a strong friendship. There will be no further comment, and the family requests that its privacy be respected.”
The Roves were married in January 1986.
Stress and strain of the White House years was cited as a reason for the divorce according to a family friend. Naturally the lefty blogs went wild with the news. Rove, after all, is one of their favorite targets. Andrew Sullivan writes "The Marriage Defender ...gets a divorce." Sullivan tries to be fair(?) of course noting Rove's opposition to gay marriage was politically driven. Rove is not a homophobe in private according to Sullivan. Sullivan links to Glenn Greenwald's dissertation on Rove's apparent hypocrisy while suggesting that Greenwald's fury is in part provoked by the fact that his own partner can not reside in the US. I think I am missing the relevance of that point and have absolutely no clue how that relates to Rove, but I digress.
To be sure, Rove has defended traditional marriage and as Greenwald argues that certainly has included the idea of permanence depending on your religious background. Greenwald's suggests that if Rove, Rush Limbaugh and others who oppose gay marriage were forced to stay married to their wives they would change their tunes on "traditional marriage" quickly and give Greenwald and Sullivan the gay marriages they so desire. This argument is absurd. First, neither Rove nor Limbaugh have the power to stop the country from legalizing gay marriage. Gay marriage was overturned in California and Maine, two very liberal states, Rove and Limbaugh had nothing to do with it.
Second, here's a newsflash for Mr. Greenwald, gays divorce too. He best be prepared to force those in the gay community into permanent marriage once they are legally allowed to marry. Greenwald also presumes that it is Rove, not his wife, who wanted the divorce. Would forcing her to remain married give Greenwald some odd sense of satisfaction? If it does, he is not a rational human being. Blaming Rove and Limbaugh for the exile of Greenwald's partner is as irrational as demanding that anyone who believes marriage is between a man and woman be forced to stay married. The bottom line, Rove's divorce has nothing to do with gay marriage. Greenwald and Sullivan need better arguments.
Via Breitbart TV this video explains the challenges of detecting the explosive used in the recent terrorist attempt on Christmas day as well as the dangers posed by the explosivve PETN. ABC News explains:
A government test with 50 grams of PETN blew a hole in the side of an airliner. That was the amount in the bomb carried by the so-called shoe bomber Richard Reid over Christmas 2001.
The underpants bomb would have been one and a half times as powerful.
ABC News also has a group of photos showing how the explosives were sewn in the underpants as well as additional information on the detonator that failed to work. Here is one photo:
Obama's "likely" remarks on the Christmas attack on Northwest Airlines don't exactly inspire confidence. It's too bad his vacation in the multi-million dollar Hawaiian resort had to be interrupted to make a statement about an act of terror. There is not much news in this speech other than he gave it, but for those interested here is the clip:
UPDATE Ann Althouse wonders if he is losing the New York Times:
Analyzing this article in the Times which opens with this preposterous paragraph:
President Obamaemerged from Hawaiian seclusion on Monday to try to quell gathering criticism of his administration’s handling of the thwarted Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner as a branch of Al Qaeda claimed responsibility.
Althouse writes:
You will not rest? But you are in Hawaii. And you didn't even put on a tie.... You are resting. And you were resting when this happened. Is he losing the NYT?!
In my opinion it is too much to hope for the Times has turned on Obama but perhaps Althouse is correct at least in this instance. Reading a bit further in the article, I find this:
Pictures of passengers enduring tougher security screening at the airport were juxtaposed against images of the president soaking in the sun and surf of this tropical getaway.
Next we have "the governing is hard" lament from unnamed officials:
The episode has rejuvenated a debate that began after the 2001 attacks over the proper balance between security and privacy. The government has spent the last several years cutting the size of the watch list, after repeated criticism that too many people were being questioned at border crossings or checkpoints. Now it may be asked to expand it again.
“You are second-guessed one day and criticized on another,” said one Transportation Security Administration official, who asked not to be named because he was not authorized to discuss the matter.
It is far easier to give a speech in 2004 opposing the war on terror followed by a protracted run for President with a few occasional "present' votes in the Senate. Democrats spent years attacking Bush and Republicans over the Patriot Act but find themselves sniping at each other when tasked with renewing some provisions that are scheduled to expire this year. These same folks have absolutely no problem placing all our medical records and responsibility for 1/6th of the economy in the hands of the government but when it comes to wiretapping potential terrorists, somehow that takes government intervention just a bit too far. Go figure.
CNN Money reports stock prices of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac soared today after news came the GSE's would have a blank check from the government. Here's why it pays to follow the news, however, the bonus packages for the executives of Fannie and Freddie do not include any stock or options which is quite unusual for a shareholder owned companies.
All signs point to the fact that there will no longer be any pretense these GSE's are going to be privately run in the future:
The lack of stock and options for Fannie and Freddie executives suggests that when Congress and the Obama administration decide what to do with the mortgage firms, shareholders could be left with little or no equity.
The CNN report indicates other companies such as GM that received large bailouts were encouraged to give stock as part of executive compensation packages. Clearly there are plans for Fannie and Freddie we the taxpayers aren't entitled to know about, at least not yet anyway. Meanwhile, execs at Fannie and Freddie hit the bonus jackpot this year as you will see in the following report:
Politico reports The Center for Public Integrity disclosed a variety of new interests have been jockeying for a place at the climate debate table since the focus of legislation has moved from the House to the Senate. CPI notes the list of those joining the fray is growing curiouser and curiouser despite the fact the legislation has folded under weight of the 1160 organizations and companies already jockeying for favor or delay:
This occurred even though the issue and interests are already so complex that Congress failed to pass legislation this year as hoped, and even though the House more than doubled its draft bill to 1,428 pages to address an array of industry concerns and gain passage back in June.
The framework for Senate legislation developed by Lieberman, Kerry and Lindsay Graham acknowledges the number of expanded interests that will be affected by such a bill. Some obvious battles were already brewing such as off shore drilling and construction of nuclear power plants. Despite efforts to win some moderate and conservative votes by addressing these issues, a host of new interests have popped up which can only complicate the process of writing a successful bill. Among the new interests jockeying for favor are the food industry, natural gas lobby, venture capitalists and the clean tech industry.
The food sector, represented by the added presence of Campbell's Soup and Kellogg, Del Monte and the Alliance of Food Associations joined the debate after analyzing the House bill and realizing the bill would affect the food industry. The industry is looking for free "allowances" or CO2 permits companies like Campbell would have to bid for at auction.
The gas companies missed the boat on influencing the House legislation and now find themselves looking to influence any potential legislation in the Senate. The industry is diverse and had trouble organizing a cohesive political force but as a natural and abundant source of clean energy the group sees great potential in the declaration carbon emissions should be taxed:
“If they would say there should be a price on carbon, the fundamental change could be extraordinary,” Simpson said. He could see, for example, a scenario in which utilities were given a kind of Cash for Coal Clunkers credit in the carbon market for making the switch to natural gas.
The article clearly points out though that recent developments in technology have already increased the number of switches from coal to gas under free market forces. The threat of legislation, of course, will only disrupt free market forces already in motion and bring dollars and players to Washington to curry favor instead.
Venture capitalists and clean tech developers want to see coal prices escalate at a much higher rate sooner rather than later so they see a greater return on their investments in clean energy development. Obama has been clearly in this corner when he famously said that his energy plan would cause electricity rates to skyrocket. As prices skyrocketed the pressure on power producers to make the switch from coal to solar, nuclear or gas would also increase dramatically.
The venture capitalists and clean tech developers want the squeeze on middle class and poorer families to be the catalyst for a quicker return on their investments. Fortunately these folks are still outnumbered 5 to 1 by those looking for handouts or to slow the whole process down. The only winners here are the members of Congress who will have approximately 5 lobbyists a piece jockeying for their favor and contributing to their reelection coffers. The losers, well, that goes without saying doesn't it?
I am not sure if this is Best Drunk Dude Ever Tries to Buy More Beer Part II or if Baucus is punch drunk from all the kool aid the Democrats were forced to swallow to pass their health care bill. Could be he is totally sleep deprived after they worked for 24 days straight to pass the rotten lousy health care bill before Christmas. In any case this video is pretty pathetic as Baucus slurs and rambles through a rant against the Republicans who opposed the health care bill:
I am fairly certain the synapses are not firing as they should because Democrats seem to be under the mistaken impression those who say no to their drunken out of control spending binges are going to be in trouble with voters next year. Even their own pollsters are having a hard time believing the fauxtrage against Republicans has any hope of sticking:"
“People are angry and what Democrats are trying to do is channel that anger,” said Democratic pollster Doug Schoen. “You’ve got to displace the anger onto the Republicans. If they can do that, Democrats have some hope but right now things are looking increasingly bleak every day.”
Schoen was blunt about the challenge Democrats are facing next fall. “The Democrats are trying to stem the bleeding,” the former pollster for President Bill Clinton said. “Obama’s in a free fall and, unless they stem the bleeding, they’re going to face unprecedented losses.”
If I were a betting woman, I would think the odds might just favor anyone who stood up and opposed the health care debacle the drunken Democrats have tried to ram through without a single Republican vote. Baucus' rant is the epitome of delusional displaced anger because they know they are doing themselves in with their own legislation. I personally hope they continue to rant and rave about the party of no, ramp it up and keep it coming. Someone needs to announce the keg is tapped, we're out of beer.
Time Magazine posted a list of the top blogs of 2009. Darn, I didn't make the list. A quick glance at the list, however and I find I am in some very good company. See if you can spot a pattern for the choices of the top 25
Talking Points Memo
The Huffington Post
Lifehacker
Metafilter The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan Freakonomics BoingBoing
Got2BeGreen
Zen Habits
The Conscience of a Liberal: Paul Krugman
Crooks and Liars
Generación Y
Mashable
Slashfood
Official Google Blog
synthesis
bleat
/Film
Seth Godin's Blog
Deadspin: Sports News without Access, Favor, or Discretion
Dooce
Confessions of a Pioneer Woman
Said the Gramophone
Detention Slip
Bad Astronomy
The only consolation to the list, Daily KOS was listed as one of the 5 most overrated. Odd how, not a single conservative blog merited a mention either among the best or even among the most overrated. Time acts as thought conservative blogs do not even exist. Perhaps there was a server down the day they intended to look at the conservative blogs, surely Time wouldn't want to appear biased.
Gateway Pundit posted this shocking video of a group of Iranian protesters rescuing several men as they were being hung by the brutal Iranian regime. Doug Ross posted the graphic still photographs that capture the sheer brutality of a regime desperate to contain a rebellion that refuses to be contained:
Iran News Now has a lengthy live blog post filled with videos and still shots from the streets of Iran as the Iranian people protested on the Shia mourning day of Ashura. At the conclusion of the blog post, there is a summary of events leading up to the events in Iran on December 27, 2009. Could this be the tipping point:
This year’s Ashura proves to be a very potent one in Iran, with anticipation built-up over six months of protests since the rigged Iran election in which Ahmadinejad was declared the winner by the regime, with the blessing of the so-called Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei.
Protests for Ashura were already planned by the opposition in multiple cities, when last week, the dissendent cleric, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri passed away. Montazeri was positioned by the founder of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, to succeed Khomeini as Supreme Leader, but he had a falling out with Khomeini over the mass execution of dissidents in the late 80s. Khamenei (not the same as Khomeini!) became the Supreme Leader instead. But Khamenei lacked the religious credentials of Montazeri, so in an attempt to silence him, Khamenei had Montazeri placed under house arrest, and severely limited Montazeri’s ability to continue his religious teachings (though he managed to do so anyway). After the rigged elections, Montazeri was very vocal against the excesses of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, stating that the government of Ahmadinejad was illegitimate.
When Montazeri passed away last week, millions of people took to the streets in mourning, mixing chants of mourning with anti-governmnt slogans. The government was virtually helpless in stopping the processions. Khamenei made the mistake of issuing a half-assed statement of condolence over the passing of Montazeri, in which he said that Montazeri had paid for “failing an important test”, a reference to his moderate views and vocal dissent. This caused tremendous anger in Iran, where most people view Montazeri as a stalwart supporter of the opposition seeking more freedoms for the people, and as a staunch dissident against Khamenei.
The brutal government-sanctioned crackdowns since the elections in June, in which we saw Neda Agha Soltan shot to death by a Basiji, along with thousands savagely attacked by the regime, combined with atrocities such as beatings, rape, torture and murder of protesters was cause enough for people to unleash their angst against the regime during Ashura. Add to that the fact that it is the seventh day after Montazeri’s passing and you have an extremely potent mix. This could be the tipping point.
Aljazeera is reporting that the nephew of Mir Hussein Mousavi is among those killed in the protests. While the final count of those who died in protest of the Iranian regime widely believed to have been elected through fraudulent means. It is clear from the widespread coverage of the insurgency on the internet that Iranian police have lost control of the streets in at least some sections of Iran.
The Obama administration appears to have learned some lessons from the days of silence that followed the insurgency immediately following the election in June. Shortly after 3PM Eastern, the administration condemned the brutal repression of the protests by the Iranian thugs Obama had hoped to negotiate with:
"We strongly condemn the violent and unjust suppression of civilians in Iran seeking to exercise their universal rights," National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said in a statement.
"Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States.
"Governing through fear and violence is never just, and as President Obama said in Oslo -- it is telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation."
On June 15, Obama, who came to office vowing to engage the Islamic Republic, said he was "deeply troubled" by violence in Iran, but warned he did not want the United States to become a "political football" in the post-election crisis.
In subsequent days, Obama hardened the US line as violence escalated and critics accused him of giving insufficient backing to anti-government demonstrators.
Obama has given Iran until the end of this year to respond to an international offer to defuse the nuclear showdown or face tough new sanctions.
Will update with news as it develops. Follow developments at Memeorandum
Tis the season for political parodies. First there was Roland Burris' parody of Twas the Night Before Christmas that read more like a nightmare. Moe Lane advised Burris to fire his speechwriter and then showed him how it is done in his conservative take on the poem. Chris Wysocki at Wyblog created the bloggers version of the same poem when The TrogloPundit came down with a case of writer's block on Christmas Eve. I will admit I am partial to the Wyblog version because it is very very clever... oh and I get a mention and a link YEAH!
Moving from poetry to songs, here is a clever and humorous parody of the Eartha Kitt rendition of "Santa Baby." I am not sure this is what we could call the conservatives version but it's close enough. Perhaps we can convince Pundette or Obi's Sister to give us the bloggers version? YES WE CAN! Lyrics are included after the video just in case anyone is up for the challenge.
Obama Baby, I just graduated from college with knowledge
But I can't find a job Obama darling
Help me pay my loans off tonight
Obama honey, I'd like a piece of that stimulus - get the gist
I could make it worthwhile Obama sweetie
I really need a bailout tonight
Cash for clunkers didn't help a bit
A couple of bucks for my Schwinn bike was all I could get
and you know I need a couple of mill
just to help me pay for my Iphone bill
Obama darling you chanted "yes we can" and "change to believe in"
Well baby I've got a plan - Obama listen
How about a few Grants and Benjamins?
Obama save, an eight figure bailout would be a start - have a heart
Slip me something under the TARP do be brief
My troubled assets do need some relief
Obama baby, remember who it is who you've taxed
here's the facts
Don't let me get stuck flipping Big Macs Obama help me
and bonus me like I'm Goldman Sachs
You said you'd take us in a new direction
So remember who helped stimulate your election
After all I could have voted McCain
but now it's time for me to start my collection
Obama baby, no jobs, no money and now a Nobel- what the hell
Your hope and change ain't going to well - Obama watchout
cause it looks like the health care bill might fail
and then I'm going to have to bid you farewell
Cause I'm voting Oprah 2012
Consider yourself Santa Claus for the formerly quasi-governmental institutions known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The White House announced on Christmas Eve they would eliminate the caps on bailouts for the "zombie" Government Sponsored Enterprises removing all doubt there was anything private about the institutions:
As some observers have pointed out, all the move really did was formalize what everyone has figured for decades, that the two zombie GSEs were truly organs of the federal government, and that their debts would be backed up ad infinitum.
There can be little doubt the news was released after markets closed Christmas Eve and presented as an update in order to minimize the impact of the news. Ed Morrissey writes:
The announcement was designed to put them out of reach, just as it was designed to keep the news out of reach from the general public. No one can seriously argue that Treasury and the White House woke up early on Christmas Eve and suddenly discovered a reason to lift the caps on the Fannie/Freddie bailout, after all. This had to be in the works for weeks.
This leads to the larger question of why the White House chose to act unilaterally and why now. Joe Weisenthal asked credit analyst Edward Pinto for his theories. Pinto lists five possible reasons for the move and all portend greater involvement and control over the mortgage market:
The above actions would preserve and strengthen the government’s involvement and control over the country’s housing finance system and make it harder to reintroduce substantial private sector involvement later on. They would also continue distortions in the marketplace leading to who knows what unintended consequences. Finally these steps would do nothing to deleverage the housing finance system, a key step in returning it to any degree of normality.
As if the lessons of government intervention in this market haven't been clear enough already, the Obama administration plunges ahead full throttle for greater involvement and control. Prepare yourself for a little social engineering Obama-style. The $400 billion set aside for the mortgage market from the previous bailout still had slightly less than $300 billion available for further assistance. As Ed Morrissey pointed out if a larger amount had been needed the administration could have merely raised the limit instead of removing all caps. Weisenthal sees no scenario where the move restores the market to any semblance of normality and makes it more difficult to restore greater private market involvement. There is no other conclusion but that the Obama administration has effectively taken control of the GSE's for some future purpose.
I am betting Ed Morrissey is correct in this prediction:
I’d bet that the Obama administration retools its foreclosure prevention programs to have Fannie and Freddie buy up the paper and forgive parts of the principal on the loans, and have taxpayers eat the losses on a massive basis.
I will gladly listen to the Obama administration offer an alternate rationale for the move but I am not holding my breath waiting for it either.
NBC News chartered a jet to take the long-separated father and son Sean and David Goldman from Brazil to Disney World after their emotional reunion. Today has the exclusive video of the earliest hours of the time with father and son aboard the jet:
Keeping with the theme of the blog, here is Judy Garland singing "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas." I am in the midst of getting prepared for my annual Christmas dinner extravaganza and will post when the dust settles. In the mean time, I wish all those who have come to read here my sincere thanks and wishes for a joyous Christmas celebration.
This is a great video, breaking down in humorous and easy to understand terms, how the Democrats gamed the CBO score to produce their magical savings from health care. Megan McArdle gets a little further in the weeds with Medicare but concludes:
It's a little disappointing, really. At the rate that Democratic politicians were generating ever-more-spectacular budget savings from the same old set of health care proposals, I had expected our looming fiscal problems to be permanently resolved by this time next week.
Politico is reporting the White House is secretly planning for the health care debate to slip into February citing tough agreements yet to be reached on abortion and a tight schedule in the Senate. The push to get health care done by the State of the Union speech appears to be out of reach. Break my heart.
Falling poll numbers and the recent defection of Parker Griffiths to the Republicans appears to have the Dems nervous about having their members taking tough votes and plan to pivot to job creation and create a "conversation" about deficit reduction.
Internally, White House aides are plunging into a 2010 plan calling for an early focus on creating jobs, especially in the energy sector, along with starting a conversation about deficit reduction measures, the administration officials said.
Both will be major themes for his first State of the Union speech, which will most likely take place on Jan. 26 or Feb. 2. White House aides are in the early stages of planning for the national address, but Obama will not only trumpet what he has described as his “B-plus” performance in 2009 but also set the stage for the 2010 congressional campaigns.
Obama and Democrats seem in agreement that they want to minimize the number of tough votes moderates in their party must take in the aftermath of the health care debate. They also seem in agreement that a jobs bill is a must — and that they need to show a serious commitment to reducing the deficit, a very difficult task after racking up record spending in Obama’s first year.
The White House also seems to have discovered House Democrats aren't exactly willing to swallow the Senate Reid bill without a fight for a few key items:
House Democrats insisted Tuesday they have no plans to roll over for the Senate in upcoming negotiations on a health reform bill, even as they acknowledged it would be all but impossible to reinsert a public insurance option or force the so-called millionaire's tax on the Senate.
Either move would disrupt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s no-margin-for-error 60-vote majority. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team seem to have their sights set on lower-profile - but no-less important differences, like boosting affordability credits in the final bill and starting the insurance exchange a year earlier, which they did in the House.
On a conference call Tuesday, Pelosi (D-Calif.) walked the party’s leadership team through differences in the two bills.
Other differences the speaker mentioned Tuesday include: replacing the Senate’s state-run exchanges with a national exchange established under the House bill, adding tougher mandates to make sure everyone secures health coverage and closing a gap in prescription-drug coverage next year. Senate negotiators have agreed to close the so-called “donut hole,” but they haven’t agreed on a time to implement those changes.
As Ed Morrissey notes these are not issues that will be easily overcome:
Forget Raul Grijalva’s note of encouragement. These issues will be too tough to overcome without the House reworking the bill. That will either require a conference committee to resolve the two bills or an attempt by Harry Reid to get the Senate to buy a House version (the “ping-pong” strategy), either of which would be subject to cloture votes and unlikely to succeed to a floor vote.
My take, the longer the health care bill goes on the less likely it is to finally pass. This decision to pivot to jobs and deficit reduction will be hampered by the unfinished health care legislation that looms over the heads of small business owners who are the real job creation engine in the country. Small business owners need to know how much it will cost them to hire and health care plays a huge role in that decision. The odds of Democrats shelving the year long health care debate just went up dramatically.
Certainly whatever comes from the White House in terms of job creation is unlikely to do much to make a dent in the spiraling unemployment rates as we saw with the stimulus. In the end what we will have from the White House is a lot of conversation and little in the way of solid action. As the President is fond of saying, "the time for talk is over."
Rasmussen's daily tracking poll has shown the strongest levels of disapproval for President Obama since he has taken office for two days in a row:
The passion index between those who strongly approve (21%) and those who strongly disapprove (46%) is now at a negative 21. Obama's strong approval level is the lowest he has had to date. Overall 44% at least somewhat approve while 56% at least somewhat disapprove. The numbers include two days of polling taken during the Senate under cover voting sessions this weekend. I would expect to see the divide grow over the next few days.
Verum Serum has an excellent post and video that shows Kathleen Sebelius explaining the accounting tricks in the Reid bill to fund abortion through the insurance exchanges proposed in the legislation. Sebelius is lauding the maneuver as a positive step from the restrictions in the House bill introduced by Stupak. Here is the clip:
The compromise between the Stupak amendment and the much weaker language agreed to by Senator Ben Nelson in the Senate requires all participants in the insurance exchanges, regardless of age or sex or circumstance to contribute an additional fee that will be held strictly for the funding of abortions. As Morgen at Verum Serum writes this is extremely offensive:
As far as I’m concerned all they’ve done is cut out the middle man. In fact, I find this compromise arrangement even more offensive since whereas tax dollars are pooled to pay for innumerable government goods and services, without any specific accounting, under this new arrangement participants in the insurance exchange will know beyond a doubt that their financial contributions are being used to terminate the lives of unborn children.
Senator Nelson and I must define the term pro-life quite differently. I can't imagine how anyone who considers themselves pro-life would agree to such a provision. I suppose the saving grace in Nelson's mind is that state exchanges have the ability to opt out of the requirement. But as Morgen astutely points out this opt out clause will merely set off an endless round of battles between pro-life and pro-abortion activists.
The politically correct crew on the left is notoriously conscious of the slightest offenses toward the beliefs of nearly every group but the Christians and the right. I would not expect there to be some exception for those who morally object to abortion as a Christian and as a matter of principle. I wonder, however, if they stopped to consider that other religious groups consider abortion equally offensive as the Christians. Muslim teaching falls strongly on the side of life with the single exception being when the life of the mother is threatened. Those who morally object to abortion must either deny their religious objections and contribute to a fund devoted solely for the purpose of abortion or refrain from participating the exchanges.
In light of the mandate to purchase insurance included in the bill, those who object to abortion would be required to find insurance elsewhere though the exchanges are intended to obtain better prices for individuals. The Democrats refused to lift restrictions that prevent insurers from selling across state lines so in many cases those who find abortion morally objectionable would be left with few other choices other than the exchange to purchase the insurance they are required under law to buy. I would expect that none of this was discussed during the session negotiating the price for Senator Nelson's vote.
Though I strongly doubt that Nelson would change his mind and vote against the bill when the final vote in the Senate takes place, I hope that he becomes increasingly aware of how his little deal with Harry Reid will affect the life of the unborn he claimed to protect. If he does not, he should never campaing again while claiming to be pro-life, his concession mocks the title.
I'm starting a campaign to send retirement cards to every single one of the cheatin', connivin', corrupt scumbags that voted to inflict Obamacare on Americans and not on themselves.
I have the honor of sending a card to Arlen Specter. I am so looking forward to his retirement. Pat has a link to the addresses for all who voted for this rotten legislation.
Where else but at the The Huffington Post would you see articles calling for the defeat of the Reid health care bill and a vicious attack against a Republican for doing the very same thing? As you will see in the video below Coburn's statement was a long way away from a wish for the death of Senator Byrd (D WV). Coburn's statement is as follows:
What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight," "That's what they ought to pray."
Never mind the fact that the Dems drag a 92 year old Byrd, who has been in and out of hospitals, out in the snow in the middle of the night so they can ram through an unpopular takeover of our health care system, it's Coburn who is somehow evil for hoping the American people might be spared the travesty because he is praying for a miracle to stop it. Senator Durbin took to the floor to make a spectacle of Coburn's statement:
As Dana Milbank points out in the Washington Post Dems were hardly in a position to take the high road after one of their own Senator Whitehouse, "had just delivered an overwrought jeremiad comparing the Republicans to Nazis on Kristallnacht, lynch mobs of the South, and bloodthirsty crowds of the French Revolution." Milbank was not exaggerating, the bizarre references are clearly there in Whitehouse's statement:
"Too many colleagues are embarked on a desperate, no-holds-barred mission of propaganda, obstruction and fear," he said. "History cautions us of the excesses to which these malignant, vindictive passions can ultimately lead. Tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds. Broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets. Strange fruit has hung from southern trees." Assuming the role of Old Testament prophet, Whitehouse promised a "day of judgment" and a "day of reckoning" for Republicans.
The day of judgment seems to loom over the head of the Democrats for this debacle yet somehow Whitehouse sees the day of reckoning for Republicans? It's time they all went home, clearly the fact they have been cooped up in the Senate for 22 days straight has damaged the synapses of the politically suicidal Democrats. The 22 day stint to ram health care through before Christmas is coming close to breaking the record for the longest straight debate in the Senate. The current record is 25 days when the Senate met continuously in the early days of World War I.
UPDATE: Legal Insurrection has video and links to transcripts from Whitehouse's speech. It's vile. Milbank should not have equated the Coburn statement with the insane rantings from Whitehouse, there's no comparison.
Harvard Econ professor, Greg Mankiw, linked this article from Medical Progress Today on the constitutionality of the Reid health care bill. It seems the author Richard Epstein concludes there are serious constitutional issues in the bill and the constitutionality should be tested before the program is implemented. Here is an excerpt:
The health of the American people should not be held hostage to such unwise legislation. The Senate should reject the Reid Bill because of the unsustainability of the statutory scheme regulating health-insurance markets. But there is also little doubt that its central arrangements are unconstitutional, and will face serious legal challenge for years to come. Rather than embarking on a fundamentally flawed course of action, sure to spark litigation, the Senate should start over with other reforms that go in the opposite direction: simplify the system so that market forces can increase both quality and access in ways that no system of government mandates can hope to do. Deregulation is a word that has been forgotten in the current debate. It should be returned to center stage.[4]
Since the bill will not be implemented for four years, there is sure to be a constitutional challenge to this bill. Watching the Senate Democrats commit political suicide this morning with their vote convinced me that the bill will pass barring some miracle taking place to stop it. At least the question of constitutionality can be explored, a point Epstein makes with certainty. Epstein's credentials are impeccable, by the way:
Richard A. Epstein is the James Parker Hall Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago, the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, a visiting professor at the NYU Law School, and a visiting scholar at the Manhattan Institute.
No one has been more vocally opposed to mandates in health care than Barack Obama. During his numerous campaign debates with Hillary Clinton he repeatedly argued against them and challenged Hillary on what her proposed punishments for those who failed to purchase health insurance would be. Under his leadership the Senate and House have proposed mandatory fines and jail time for those who fail to purchase health insurance.
Under the current Senate health care proposal premiums will go up according to the CBO. Despite Obama's protestations about making health care affordable instead of mandating coverage, the bill will make it harder for people to afford health care while they will face increasingly larger fines. The Baucus Senate Finance Committee bill also included jail time for failing to purchase health care insurance. I wonder how he would have responded had Hillary Clinton answered any of the following questions the way Obama has as President of the United States.
What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it.
Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don't have health insurance to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a lot of people who don't get it.
OBAMA: I don't see those folks. And I think that it is important for us to recognize that if, in fact, you are going to mandate the purchase of insurance and it's not affordable, then there's going to have to be some enforcement mechanism that the government uses. And they may charge people who already don't have health care fines, or have to take it out of their paychecks. And that, I don't think, is helping those without health insurance. That is a genuine difference.
OBAMA: Now, under any mandate, you are going to have problems with people who don't end up having health coverage. Massachusetts right now embarked on an experiment where they mandated coverage.
And, by the way, I want to congratulate Governor Schwarzenegger and the speaker and others who have been trying to do this in California, but I know that those who have looked at it understand, you can mandate it, but there's still going to be people who can't afford it. And if they cannot afford it, then the question is, what are you going to do about it?
Are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?
You know, those are questions that Senator Clinton has not answered with respect to her plan, but I think we can anticipate that there would also be people potentially who are not covered and are actually hurt if they have a mandate imposed on them.
The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.
And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care.
If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.
Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable.
SEN. OBAMA: And the last point I would make is, the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don't mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That's not something they're objecting to. The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that's my goal when I'm president of the United States.
But it has to do with how we are going to achieve universal health care. That is an area where I believe that if we make it affordable, people will purchase it. In fact, Medicare Part B is not mandated, it is voluntary. And yet people over 65 choose to purchase it, Hillary, and the reason they choose to purchase it is because it's a good deal. And if people in Cleveland or anywhere in Ohio end up seeing a plan that is affordable for them, I promise you they are snatching it up because they are desperate to get health care. And that's what I intend to provide as president of the United States.
Under cover of darkness, in just a bit over two hours, the Senate will vote for cloture on this travesty of health care legislation. As others have said, only criminals need to operate like this -hiding in the dark in the middle of the night. While children are nestled all snug in their beds the Senate is coming to take away their liberty. Watch the kabuki theater unfold as they pat themselves on the back for covering an additional 30 million people. They cover them largely by threatening the IRS will be the collection agency for health insurers. If that doesn't work they'll put them in jail.
Bill Kristol writes in The Weekly Standard there are ten key words to remember from page 19 of the CBO letter on the Manager's Amendment to the Senate health care bill. These 10 words are highlighted in bold below:
Based on the extrapolation described above, CBO expects that Medicare spending under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of roughly 6 percent during the next two decades--well below the roughly 8 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades (excluding the effect of establishing the Medicare prescription drug benefit). Adjusting for inflation, Medicare spending per beneficiary under the legislation would increase at an average annual rate of less than 2 percent during the next two decades--about half of the roughly 4 percent annual growth rate of the past two decades. It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."
While the CBO analysis has been touted as proof of the fiscal soundness of the health care legislation, a claim that is demonstrably false by the way, achieving those goals absent greater efficiencies in the delivery of care will likely result in diminished quality of care and/or reduced access to care. James Capretta elaborates:
Similarly, the Medicare cuts assume that hospitals, nursing homes, home health agencies and others can survive with a permanent annual cut in their payment rates for presumed productivity gains. Medicare’s chief actuaryhas already signaledthat this reduction could push one in five hospitals into insolvency, thus forcing them out of the Medicare program.
I recommend reading Capretta's analysis of the budget gimmicks and tricks included in the amendment which were likely written solely to get a better "score" from the CBO. Director Elmendorf of the CBO had a seat at the grownup table, you may recall, where the much anticipated Baucus bill was written. Clearly, over time, the Senate has learned how to write or propose legislation that scores well at least theoretically. Practical application of the savings and cuts have always had a caveat in the CBO analysis. It is quite likely the smoke and mirror savings may never materialize, the reduced access or diminished quality of care almost certainly will materialize as millions are added to an unreformed system.
From the Washington Post:
The last best hope to prevent Democrats from passing this train wreck, Senator Nelson, discovered his vote could be bought after all:
"We're there," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to outline the deal.
Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with him on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.
Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in insurance exchanges the bill would set up to serve individuals who don't have employer coverage. Plus, enrollees in plans that do cover abortion procedures would pay for the coverage with separate checks - one for abortion, one for rest of health-care services.
Nelson secured full federal funding for his state to expand Medicaid coverage to all individuals below 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Other states must pay a small portion of the additional cost. He won concessions for qualifying nonprofit insurers and for Medigap providers from a new insurance tax. He also was able to roll back cuts to health savings accounts.
The Other McCain notes this may be the first time the term "30 pieces of silver" appears in federal legislation. How true. Nelson received a letter earlier in the week from the Governor of Nebraska asking Nelson not to vote for the bill as the state was unable to afford its portion of the Medicaid expansion in coverage. Nelson's pretense he was holding out for stricter language on abortion appears to have been nothing more than elaborate kabuki waiting for the desperate Democrats to come up what will likely be hundreds of millions for his state. As Ed Morrissey notes:
After that, Nebraskans get as screwed as the rest of the country.
CSpan 2 is currently covering a full reading of the amendment which is expected to take until 3 PM this afternoon. It's looks as though there is not much left in the arsenal to stop this awful legislation from being passed out of the Senate on Christmas eve of all days. As Sean Trende writes in "Real Clear Politics" this bill is political suicide for the Democrats though they continue to delude themselves they have found their Holy Grail:
I don't think they're close to finding their Grail. I think the better analogy is probably that they're close to their Moby Dick. And we all know what happens to Captain Ahab once he finally harpoons his white whale.
Keith Hennessey looked into his legislative crystal ball and found it foggy. He notes:
A friend astutely observed, “The proponents of this thing are simultaneously closer to final success – and to a complete collapse – than they have been for months.”
The potential for complete collapse comes largely from the increased opposition from the progressives who are outraged the absence of a public option to "compete" with private insurers have handed insurers a monopoly with a directive from the government that all must buy health insurance. The notion that a government run insurance program can compete fairly has been one of my arguments against the public option all along. Progressives, however, seem to have been banking on the absence of fair competition to keep the reviled private insurers in their place. I guess lagging the poorly performing S&P 500 since 2007 is not enough of a punishment for insurers in the mind of progressives.
Hennessey notes the same intense hatred for insurers in the sudden outrage over the mandate from the progressives:
Some on the Left now oppose the individual mandate. (See both parts of Keith Olbermann’s commentary.) This surprised me before I understood the logic. Mandating coverage in which the government can “keep prices down” through fiat is a good thing, they argue, while mandates without “cost controls” is bad. This appears to hinge on an intense hatred for a private insurance industry. So now both ends of the policy spectrum oppose the individual mandate within the Reid bill, albeit for different reasons. It would be interesting to see how a vote to strike the mandate turned out in one of the post-cloture voting periods.
Advocates on the Left are correct that health insurers would be big financial winners in this bill. The government would be forcing everyone to buy their product, under penalty of punitive taxation for those who did not. Continued support (or at least non-opposition) from the insurers tells me they believe these guaranteed customers are worth the downsides of community rating and premium taxes.
Dylan Ratigan has noted the increase in stock prices spurred by the many new customers the insurers will gain if the health care reform is passed. It is also plausible the prices are rising on the possibility the entire reform will collapse but Wasserman Schultz is not about to make that case in response. Wasserman Schultz instead is left talking over the growing fury of Ratigan arguing "he could be his own guest." Consider this clip a scene from the battlefield in the growing civil war on the left over health care.
ADDED: It will come as no surprise to Paul Krugman that the mandate issue would be the downfall of health care reform. Krugman looked into his crystal ball as far back as February 2008 and saw nothing but despair:
If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.
If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.
So it is written, so it shall be done. There won't be any parting seas or healing the planet, Obama's visit to Copenhagen was a bust. Obama was described as visibly angry as he challenged the congregation of climate change worshipers and some obvious skeptics from China and India the time had come "not to talk but to act" on climate change.
"Friends of the Earth said in a statement, "Obama has deeply disappointed not only those listening to his speech at the UN talks, he has disappointed the whole world."
The World Wildlife Fund said Obama had let down the international community by failing to commit to pushing for action in Congress: "The only way the world can be sure the US is standing behind its commitments is for the president to clearly state that climate change will be his next top legislative priority."
Obama has obviously failed to learn from his own recent history with the Olympics, his glorious last minute arrivals timed to save the day and produce a win are not working for him. Coming home from Copenhagen with a binding agreement would have been a disaster for this country economically but would have given Obama a much needed victory to call his own. It was not to be. The handwriting has been on the wall that Copenhagen was not going to produce that much needed Obama victory. While the leaked emails have cast doubt on the "settled science" on a growing global stage, it has become increasingly clear the country didn't see this issue as a priority here at home.
Politico has a preview of a book by author Ken Gormley, "The Death of Virtue," which is due out in February. Politico highlights many of the books surprising revelations about the scandal that led to Clinton's impeachment. Politico notes the book focuses on both Clinton and Kenneth Star and claims neither man is likely to be pleased with their portrayal in a book purported to be the definitive history of the Clinton scandal.
While I haven't read the book Politico doesn't make that case in the 5 page preview. The revelations about Clinton seem far more damaging. Starr is portrayed as unwilling or unable to trust his own instincts on occasion and having made a few decisions that went against his better judgement. Clinton comes across as a self-indulgent liar who will continue lying about the entire scandal until he dies. This sentiment was expressed in a quote from Kenneth Star:
Everybody’s been saying, ‘Stop it. Stop it. Admit it. Get it behind you.’ And he will not do it,” Starr said in the book. “It is shocking that the president of the United States would conduct himself as a witness in such a way to essentially ‘lie till he dies.’ We all know the truth. And yet here he is [still] mocking the system.”
Still Gormley hopes that his account of the scandal is even handed and wants readers to decide for themselves whose actions, Clinton's or Starr's led to the "Death of Virtue:"
The author, Gormley, said the title and cover art are deliberately ambiguous, allowing readers to decide whether Clinton or Starr did more to besmirch American values.
By and large, Gormley avoids sweeping judgments about the central figures but he occasionally tips his hand as he tackles specific issues. The author calls the prosecutors’ approach to Lewinsky “botched” and says Starr should have begged off of the Lewinsky inquiry. The professor also scores Clinton for “blatant violations” of Wright’s orders in Jones case and scoffs at claims that the president never lied to the grand jury.
The problem, in my estimation, comes from an assumption that the mistakes of a special prosecutor can be equated with the actions of the President of the United States widely believed to have lied under oath after having a sexual relationship that would have been classified sexual harassment had he been the CEO of any corporation. While I am sure Starr has regrets about some of his decisions as prosecutor he seems to be capable of honest introspection. Clinton is clearly not capable of such honesty or introspection.
Politico's article piqued my interest in the book, however. Here are a few more of the revelations found in the preview:
Confirmation of a long-rumored romantic affair between Clinton and McDougal, an Arkansas woman who spent 18 months in jail for refusing to answer questions from Starr’s prosecutors before a grand jury, and later received a presidential pardon from Clinton. Gormley writes he is now certain “some intimate involvement did occur,” though he will not say precisely how he knows it to be true.
Lewinsky now believes Bill Clinton lied about their relationship during his grand jury testimony. “There was no leeway [there] on the veracity of his statements because they asked him detailed and specific questions to which he answered untruthfully,” she wrote to Gormley earlier this year. Longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall declined to comment.
Starr’s successor Robert Ray was prepared to indict Clinton soon after he left office if he did not agree to admit that he made false statements about Lewinsky under oath and accept disbarment. Ray “was ready to ‘pull the trigger’ if the conditions he imposed were not satisfied,” Gormley writes, and had to be “cajoled” by a colleague into signing off on the final deal.
Prosecutors on the case clashed with a special counsel who sharply criticized them for questioning Lewinsky without her attorney present during a pivotal January 16, 1998, interview at a Pentagon City hotel.
While Bill Clinton was steaming mad about Judge Susan Webber Wright’s decision to cite him for civil contempt in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case and accused her of political bias, Clinton and his defenders failed to acknowledge that Wright “could have ended his presidency with the stroke of a pen” by initiating criminal contempt proceedings against him while the impeachment case was still pending. Gormley cites a source that said she weighed a criminal citation against Clinton but decided against it.
There is more in the article at Politico. H/T: Memeorandum
Anyone Joining Me at CPAC?
-
I am a little under the weather, but I hope to rally and make it to CPAC
next week. Anyone joining me? Here is the most update list of events.
Looks l...
