Joust The Facts

Dowdifying Obama

Maureen Dowd of the NY Times took on the controversy over the arrest of Harvard's Skip Gates for disorderly conduct in her most recent column.  Ms. Dowd is famous for modifying a quote from President Bush back in 2003 in a way that completely changed the meaning of the quote, the better to beat Mr. Bush over the head with it.  James Taranto, who pens the Wall Street Journal's 'Best of the Web' column, noted the story in this BOW posting from May 28, 2003, then was, I believe, the first to call it 'Dowdification' in a subsequent BOW on May 30.

Ms. Dowd is at it again, this time basing her column around her own interpretation of Mr. Obama's initial response to the Gates question in his press conference.   Here's her take:

President Obama was right the first time, that the encounter had a stupid ending, and the second time, that both Gates and Crowley overreacted. His soothing assessment that two good people got snared in a bad moment seems on target.

Except that's not what Mr. Obama said the first time.  He didn't point out that the episode had a "stupid ending," and his initial assessment was far from soothing - which was why he needed a second and third shot at it.  Here's his exact quote.

Now, I've -- I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. [ed: he should have stopped right here] But I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.

And number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcing disproportion ately. That's just a fact.

I don't need to "dowdify" the quote to show that Ms. Dowd is wrong here.  Mr. Obama would have been correct to say that it had a "stupid ending," and such a conclusion, given that he admitted not knowing all the facts, would have been appropriately non-accusative.  Either party could be wrong in such a "stupid ending," and without all the facts that's about all he could really say.

However, that's not what Mr. Obama said.  The President said that "the Cambridge police acted stupidly."  That's not the comment of an informed neutral observer.  That's advocating for one side, that of his friend, in a situation where, as he just stated, he doesn't have all the facts.  Frankly, that's just stupid.  Adding insult to injury, he implied in his point three that he believed the episode represented racial profiling by even bringing up that history.

Ms. Dowd's column has a lot of other problems, such as talking to Professor Gates to get his side but not to Sgt. Crowley.  And, after asserting that "two good people got snared in a bad moment" she allows the one party she interviews - Gates - to repeatedly smear Crowley while playing for sympathy.  It's sad, because the NY Times and Maureen Dowd can and should do better.  She needs to stop making the facts fit the point she wishes to drive home, and instead assess honestly the facts, and draw her conclusions from them.

7/27/09 0615: Mr. Taranto stopped by to point out that this is not, in fact, an example of 'dowdification'.  That's true, and I know it to be true, but I was at a loss for another term directly referencing Ms. Dowd which would refer to a deliberate and convenient misinterpretation of the meaning of a quote (as opposed to to true 'dowdification,' editing out selected material in a quote by which the meaning is altered).  Perhaps I've done this to the term 'dowdification' itself?

Implicit In The Words - Gates, Crowley, and Obama

By now everyone is aware that President Obama stuck his foot in it the other night.  He was asked a question about the arrest of a friend, Henry Louis (Skip) Gates of Harvard, for disorderly conduct after policemen were called to Prof. Gates' home when a woman saw two men jimmying the door to get in.  It turned out that the men were Gates himself and another man, and it was his home.  A disturbance ensued when, it appears, Gates (who is black) accused Sgt. James Crowley (who is white) of racist intent.  Here's Pres. Obama answering the question at his press conference.

The Sgt. Crowley was accompanied by a black officer, who supported the arrest.  In the Washington Post Mr. Obama tries to clean up the mess he made by saying that the cops "acted stupidly."

"Because of our history, because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African Americans are sensitive to these issues," said Obama, who sponsored legislation to track the racial breakdown of drivers stopped by police when he was an Illinois state senator. "And even when you've got a police officer who has a fine track record on racial sensitivity, interactions between police officers and the African American community can sometimes be fraught with misunderstanding."

Allow me to translate.  Mr. Obama is insisting that it's natural for African Americans to assume police are racist a priori ("fraught with misunderstanding") because there have been some racial issues with cops in the past, even if they have not been subject to such racist actions themselves.  Patterico, rightly I believe, asserts that Professor Gates was stereotyping the cop in this way.  Implicit in Mr. Obama's words is that he believes that stereotyping the police in that way by an African American is appriopriate.

It is not appropriate.  When is the post-racial president going to start acting post-racial?

7/25/09 1420: Mark Steyn on "boundless elasticity"

A black president, a black governor and a black mayor all agree with a black Harvard professor that he was racially profiled by a white-Latino-black police team, headed by a cop who teaches courses in how to avoid racial profiling. The boundless elasticity of such endemic racism suggests that the "post-racial America" will be living with blowhard grievance-mongers like professor Gates unto the end of time.

A Senator Kennedy Guest Editorial, from Iowahawk

So, yes, of course it's brilliant, excruciatingly funny, and yes, it does involve water.

Previously, in Senator Kennedy's series.

My hat's off to you, David.

A Liberal In Centrist's Clothes

Sean Trende has a very good article over at Real Clear Politics, answering the question of why the "centrist" candidate Barack Obama is governing as a far-left liberal.  He advances two theories, and neither is terribly complimentary.

The first is that Obama isn't governing as a centrist because he isn't a centrist.  If you accept this as true, the Obama Administration makes perfect sense.  If you don't, then I admit it can be confusing.

It was amazing that Obama was able to maintain his stature as a Rohrschach candidate throughout the campaign. Liberals, moderates, and even some conservatives were able to see whatever they wanted to see in him, and were convinced that everyone else was going to be disappointed once he started governing...

The other possibility – and like I said, these aren’t mutually exclusive -- is that Obama is just a bad executive. This doesn’t mean he’s a bad President. Being a good President in part involves giving good speeches and serving as the head of state. Obama excels at this aspect of the job.

But being President also means that you run the executive branch, set the agenda, and try to drive through legislation... [W]ith Obama, there’s speculation that when it comes to the nitty gritty of running the executive branch, he has tuned out. Hence we see the criticism that he has delegated too much of the bill writing process to Congress, and that he has provided insufficient guidance to Congress beyond “I’m not taking anything off the table.” If Obama really is uninterested in the legislative process – or worse, is lacking in the skills to manage that process – it leaves the creation of legislation in the hands of some very liberal committee chairs. The tone of the agenda therefore lurches leftward.

Both are certainly plausible.  He likely is just as liberal as his ratings indicated him to be prior to his election, and simply adopted the language of centrism to win.  Recall, he ran to the left of Hillary Clinton during the primaries, particularly on the war, then tacked back to the center when up against John McCain.  As soon as a politician starts tacking during a campaign you know that they're not being honest with the voters.

And he had no executive experience to begin with, and little if any legislative achievements.  George W. Bush had governed Texas, Bill Clinton Arkansas, Ronald Reagan California, and Jimmy Carter Georgia.  George H.W. Bush had been vice president and CIA director.  It's no crime to be a bad executive.  Unless you get yourself elected president.

So This Is What It's Come To, Eh?

Thanks for the link, Donald.  And if your're here on your own, be sure to check out his American Power roundup on the topic

Pardon me for being a bit insulted, but according to President Obama I am the problem.  No, really.  It's my fault.  After 10 years of higher education after college; after internship rotations that required up to 140 hours in the hospital in one week (cardiothoracic surgery: do the math - there are only 168 hours in a week); after 18 years of medical practice during which I've successfully treated thousands of people for their life, limb, and livelihood threatening injuries; after years of dedication to the profession of medicine that saw me attend hundreds of hours of continuing education to maintain and improve my skills and knowledge and that made me accept substandard payments from Medicare, Medicaid and HMOs, it's come to this.  It's my fault.

The President supports, if he knows what's in the bill,

• paying for it by taxing only "the wealthy"
• reducing payments to physicians by having the government dictate rates which, because of the future structural deficits, must be reduced
• giving the government further ability to hamstring my practice by controlling access to procedures
• leaving loose the dogs of law to sue willy-nilly looking for jackpot justice

All of those provisions leave doctors as the villains.  I have never performed a procedure or ordered a test that was not medically indicated.  I don't do procedures to line my pockets.  I offer every patient who needs PT the opportunity to attend therapy wherever they want, not just in the PT practice that my group opened last year.  I've had one knee arthroscopy temporarily denied by the insurer, only to have it approved 8 weeks later when their suggested management didn't work.  I've never had a mark against either my license or my hospital privileges, and I've never failed to achieve certification at any level.  I do admit to - rarely - ordering the occasional test to insulate myself with litigious patients.  And, after hundreds of thousands of dollars in malpractice premiums, in 18 years I have never been sued. (I hope I didn't jinx myself.)  But apparently the government needs to watch over every move I make, and the tort bar to hold my feet to the fire or I'd go on bilking the system and harming patients.  Thank you.  I feel so much better now.

Oh, and I get to pay for this "reform" because, apparently, being a successful physician must not be simply demonized, but also punished.  I have no earthly idea why smart, talented young people would want to go into medicine in a future where they'll have to answer to the federal government at every step of the way, work for less-than-plumbers' wages, and have tort lawyers circling their patient care like vultures.

7/22/09 2320: Oh, and about those 45 47 50 million uninsured.

Journalists’ failure to question that high figure has furthered the cause of nationalized care.    

“Proponents of universal health care often use the 46-million figure -- without context or qualification. It creates the false impression that a huge percentage of the population has fallen through the cracks,” Gratzer told BMI. “Again, that’s not to suggest that there is no problem, but it's very different than the universal-care crowd describes.”

7/22/09  2350:  You think I'm joking?

1. Doctors Want to Take Your Kids' Tonsils For Profit

Again, another answer unrelated to any question asked: "Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."

In all, he had some very clear villains in tonight's performance: doctors, insurers, Republicans, and the Cambridge police department. A full transcript of the press conference is available here.

All I know is, at least I can throw a baseball and hit the broad side of a barn.  Oh, and if you'd rather play basketball, I gotta tell you I'm game for that also.  Let's make it a decathlon.  You pick five, I'll pick five.  Bring it on, Barack.

7/23/09 1115: More from Slublog on the demonization of physicians.

My wife works in the healthcare industry, and when I showed her the video of Obama’s statement, she reacted with incredulity, because she knows the truth - those in healthcare work hard to earn the RN behind their name or the Dr. in front of it. The vast majority of them do not do so because of the paycheck they’ll earn, but because they know their work will help save or improve the lives of others. When the president suggested otherwise, he slandered the motives of every doctor and nurse who treats patients on a daily basis.

Precisely

7,23,09 2140: Righwing Czar

But the President might have accidently revealed his hand last night when he started talking about doctors trying to make money. He is clearly saying that he does not want doctors making decisions about patient care because they are only interested in profit. If Obama believes that doctors can’t be trusted to make good decisions about what a patient really needs, then why should we believe him when he says he wants to make sure that it is doctors who make those decisions?

Of course, the truth is that Obama’s speeches about letting doctors and patients decide what’s best is just another one of his noble myths. Sure, he wants them to make their decisions together – as long as they are deciding between the treatment options that the federal government has said they can choose from.

“Here in Soviet Russia, you can buy any color car you want, just as long as it’s black!”

Race To The Bottom

And the category is, The Worst Piece of Legislation Ever.  First up, Democratic Rep. Dan Boren on Cap and Trade:

“The cap and trade bill is really the worst piece of legislation I’ve seen since I’ve been there,” Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) told the Tulsa Metro Chamber of Commerce. “It raises energy prices on businesses, raises electric bills on families, and it even raises gasoline prices in the middle of a recession. And, it makes America less competitive in the global economy.”

He's none too keen on the health care bill, either.  The Wall Street Journal summed that effort up in a Review & Outlook piece today:

So when Mr. Obama says that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what,” he’s wrong. Period. ... The more we inspect the House bill, the more it looks to be one of the worst pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress.

Your Democratic congress at work.

Old Tom Watson

The legendary Scot "Old Tom" Morris was born in St. Andrews and designed some of the legendary golf courses in the British Isles, like Muirfield and Carnoustie.  He won four Open Championships (known by non-golfers on this side of the pond as "The British Open"), including one by a record 13 strokes in 1862.  That record for a major championship lasted until it was broken by Tiger Woods at the U.S. Open in 2000 at Pebble Beach.

Golf has a new "Old Tom."  Tom Watson, all 59 years of him, and with an artificial hip placed last fall, spent four rounds at the top of the leaderboard of The Open, 34 years after his first Open win in 1975 and 26 years after his last,in 1983.  But the steady hands with the putter that younger golfers possess failed him on the 72nd hole of the tournament, and he fell into a playoff with Stewart Cink, 36.  Fatigue makes cowards of us all, and Watson had little fuel in the tank during the four hole playoff, and Cink won the playoff wire-to- wire.

Last year Greg Norman, at 53, challenged in The Open, holding the 3rd round lead before fading on Sunday.  Watson dueled today with young Aussie Matthew Goggin and England's Lee Westwood.  He stared down all of the challenges, keeping his game and his emotions under control. Until the putts at 18.

I've always loved Watson's game, the solid balanced swing mechanics and crisp irons, and particularly his ability to scramble, something I often need to do.  In the duel with Jack Nicklaus in the '77 Open, also at Turnberry, Watson finished 65-65 to Nicklaus' 65-66, as the two played head-to-head on the final two days.

Scotland ought to adopt him.  The guy sure can handle firm fairways and greens, long rough, chilly temps.  Oh, and wind.  Lots of wind.  Today he found himself one stroke short of history, but his performance is still worth celebrating.

Freedom As A Relative Term

The public plan option in the health care reform bill was designed, according to the Obama administration, to offer "competition" to private sector insurance options, to make them perform better.  Investor's Business Daily had a look at the Democratic Health Care Reform bill, and found that the bill's authors don't want to compete without rigging the outcome.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

You have individual freedom, and America is a free-market economy.  Except for looking out for your own best interests regarding your health.  Sure you can keep your current plan, but don't ever find yourself considering changing to your own insurance plan.  It'll be illegal, and you'll be forced into the government plan.  I wonder what threat is contained in the bill to deal with insurers and individuals who try to voluntarily enter into private economic agreements?

7/16/09 1600: Karl at Patterico's Pontifications tells it like it is.

When discussing his proposed government takeover of the US healthcare system, Pres. Obama always hastens to assure people that if you like your current coverage (as the overwhelming majority of people routinely tell pollsters they do), you will be able to keep it. However, if you lose your individual coverage, you will be unable to buy new insurance. And the mentality that outlaws new individual insurance may be inclined to do the same for employer-provided insurance in the future. Not that the Left will have to resort to that. If Obamacare passes, insurance will generally become a function of government. And any “public option” that passes will unfairly compete with private insurers — bypassing the laws that apply to private insurers, sticking taxpayers with hidden administrative costs, paying below-market Medicare rates (which in turn inflate private costs), and so on, until they have crowded competition out of the market.

And over at Instapundit Glenn Reynolds is concerned.  He's reassured by a reader that, oh, you still can go buy your own insurance, but only if the insurance is run through "The Exchange."  Which isn't all that reassuring, as it still means it would be illegal to contract consumer to insurance company directly.  In other words, private companies will have to have their programs reviewed and approved by the government before being allowed to establish a government-supervised relationship with a consumer.  Yecch!

The Piranha Brothers Presidency

Is this any way to run a White House?  The Obama Administration, I've noticed, seems to issue an awful lot of threats to get what they want, much like the schoolyard bully ... or the Chicago machine pol.  Well, the whole Al Capone history can be a teaching point from one perspective or another.  Yesterday Arizona was threatened with denial of "stimulus" funds after Senator John Kyl publicly questioned the results of said "stimulus."  (Easy enough to question - with Innocent Bystanders' now-famous graph.)

Via Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com, with the meat coming from Jake Tapper at ABC.

Kyl said that “It’s unfortunate that President Obama and his administration seem unwilling to debate the merits of the stimulus bill and acknowledge its shortcomings. Instead, they have resorted to coordinated political attacks with the Democratic National Committee and the politicization of departments of government by using cabinet secretaries to issue thinly veiled threats to the governor and the people of Arizona."

Added the governor's spokesman, "the governor is hopeful that these federal Cabinet officials are not threatening to deny Arizona citizens the portion of federal stimulus funds to which they are entitled. She believes that would be a tremendous mistake by the administration. And the governor is grateful for the strong leadership and representation that Arizonans enjoy in the United States Senate."

So what else is or has been "threatened." Well ...

• TV stations that thought about running a campaign ad during the election run-up.
• TV stations that thought about running another campaign ad during the election run-up.
• The Tennessee GOP over a campaign ad.
• California, in an effort to protect California's unions, again using denial of "stimulus" funds
• Bankers, offering "protection" from the "pitchforks" of angry consumers. (great photoshop by Slublog at the link)
• Israel's ability to defend herself and deter attacks.
• His own congressional Democrats
• The job of CEO at GM for Rick Wagoner.
• Chrysler's creditors, before transferring 55% ownership to the UAW.
• Honduras, to restore Zelaya, but not Iran, to clean up a rigged election.
• Unilateral action in sovereign Pakistan.
• Remember, "I won."
• And with direct reference to the Chicago way, Pres. Obama threatened to "bring a gun."

But he's only practicing what he's learned.  After all, Democrats as a group threaten all the time.

• AIG, over bonuses that one of their own added to the bill at the behest of Pres. Obama
• ABC's broadcast license over their 9/11 two part docudrama, The Path to 9/11, which still hasn't been released on DVD.
• Dick Cheney
• Columbia, over trade, for the benefit of unions
• The tax-exempt status of a group for the temerity to allow a vice-Presidential candidate to speak.
• Former Pres. Bush, over signing statements
• Saudi Arabia's arms contracts, for more oil.
• The GOP over earmarks
• Lobbyists who might look to work with both sides of the aisle.

among others. 

Dissent in the era of La Cosa Obama is not only no longer patriotic, it's punishable.  I guess the only other question is, who's Doug, and who's Dinsdale.

(editors note: henceforth the word "stimulus," when it's used to reference the $787B of government borrowing that was allegedly going to keep unemployment under 8% will always appear on this blog in scare quotes.)

Politico Misleads On Support For Health Care Reform

Politico reports that President Obama will have a public statement on health care from the Rose Garden this afternoon at about 1 PM.  They mention in an update that

At 1:05 p.m. in the Rose Garden, THE PRESIDENT delivers remarks on health care reform surrounded by AMERICAN NURSES ASSOCIATION, which represents the nation's 2.9 million registered nurses [ed: my emphasis]. The nurses are there to show their strong support for health reform. Nurses are on the front lines of the battle against rising health-care costs and the anguish of health-care insecurity. They see the people in the emergency rooms who don’t have enough money to pay for health care, and throw themselves on the mercy of hospital, and people who didn’t get care until it was too late, because they couldn’t afford it.

No.  The American Nurses Association doesn't represent fully the interests of the nation's 2.9 million registered nurses, at least not the non-union ones.  (I work primarily at a non-union hospital).  The ANA is, rather, an umbrella organization for various state nurses unions.

Gee, I can't imagine why an organization that represents primarily unionized workers might support the socialized medicine aims of the Democratic president the unions helped to elect, can you?  And doesn't this Politico report read like it was written by the ANA themselves?

JTF Quote Of The Day

From the Wall Street Journal this morning, psychiatrist Dr. Thomas Szasz on "health care" reform:

Our national conversation about curbing the cost of health care is crippled by the vocabulary in which we conduct it. We must stop talking about "health care" as if it were some kind of collective public service, like fire protection, provided equally to everyone who needs it. No government can provide the same high quality body repair services to everyone. Not all doctors are equally good physicians, and not all sick persons are equally good patients.

If we persevere in our quixotic quest for a fetishized medical equality we will sacrifice personal freedom as its price. We will become the voluntary slaves of a "compassionate" government that will provide the same low quality health care to everyone.

Except, of course, for the congress-folk (the aristocracy) who pass such a system for the common-folk (you and me).

I Would Hope So

From this morning's Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- A secret Central Intelligence Agency initiative terminated by Director Leon Panetta was an attempt to carry out a 2001 presidential authorization to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives, according to former intelligence officials familiar with the matter.

The precise nature of the highly classified effort isn't clear, and the CIA won't comment on its substance.

According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

In 2001, the CIA also examined the subject of targeted assassinations of al Qaeda leaders, according to three former intelligence officials. It appears that those discussions tapered off within six months. It isn't clear whether they were an early part of the CIA initiative that Mr. Panetta stopped.

Back in the day "they" hoped so too.  Who are "they?"  Let's have a look at a few examples.

• Former Senator Tom Daschle: 
  
  Now, addressing the "Where's Osama?" question, Daschle (D-S.D.) wonders "whether or not we are winning the war" on terror.
  
  "We can't find Bin Laden" and "we haven't made real progress in finding key elements of Al Qaeda [either]," Daschle said yesterday.

• 2004 Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry:
  
  Kerry has asserted throughout the campaign that U.S. forces could have run down bin Laden in the Tora Bora mountains in late 2001 if they had gone after him on the ground, and he has blamed Bush for the decision to let Afghan forces lead that chase.
  
  "He didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down Osama bin Laden," Kerry said in an interview with WISN in Milwaukee. "He outsourced the job."

• Senator Harry Reid:
  

  WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House denied on Wednesday that the U.S. hunt for Osama bin Laden has been downgraded after the CIA disbanded a unit set up in the 1990s to oversee the search for the al Qaeda leader.

  Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada had cited the disbanding of the CIA unit as an example of what he called misplaced priorities in the Bush administration.

  Democrats are trying to raise questions about President George W. Bush's national security policies in a bid to overturn Republican control of the U.S. Congress in November elections.

• House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:
  
  "The fact of the matter is that Osama bin Laden is still at large, able to taunt and instill fear," Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, said Sunday on ABC. "That is a failure of the Bush administration.["]
• Oh, and also then-Senator and candidate-for-President Barack Obama:
  

  So how he describes the toughest security struggle he will face is important.

  "I think it is a top priority for us to stamp out al-Qaeda once and for all," Obama told "60 Minutes" recently. "And I think capturing or killing bin Laden is a critical aspect of stamping out al-Qaeda. He is not just a symbol; he's also the operational leader of an organization that is planning attacks against U.S. targets."

  This warning followed Obama's pledge in the Oct. 7 presidential debate: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national-security priority."

Congressional Democrats are up in arms because they hadn't been fully informed of the program.  But here's the key phrase, from paragraph three in the first excerpt:

The initiative hadn't become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.

That's CIA director Leon Panetta, who became director in 2009.  Also, there's this:

Senior CIA leaders were briefed two or three times on the most recent iteration of the initiative, the last time in the spring of 2008. At that time, CIA brass said that the effort should be narrowed and that Congress should be briefed if the preparations reached a critical stage, a former senior intelligence official said.

So, as I understand it, congressional Democrats are upset at not being fully informed about a secret CIA program that was not operational and which was designed to do exactly what almost all of them publicly espoused.

Have I got that right?

7/13/09 1235: DrewM. at Ace of Spades -

This seems like nothing more than a minor skirmish in the ongoing war between CIA and people like Nancy Pelosi. The thing is by over playing this, it seems like Panetta is taking Pelosi's side.

CIA spend a lot of time and energy warring with the Bush administration. Now it looks like they are going to be fighting it out with the Democrats and their own director.

Good think we aren't at war or facing a terrorist threat or anything so we have time for this crap.

How Evil Are Democrats?

This evil.

*  Alberto Gonzales did not attempt to mislead Congress in 2007 when he testified that the controversy that erupted at the Justice Department in 2004 was not over what was popularly known as the "terrorist surveillance program" (i.e., the NSA's warrantless surveillance program to intercept suspected terrorist communications that crossed U.S. borders — the effort the Left smeared as "domestic spying").  In fact, as Gonzales told the Senate judiciary Committee, the controversy was about other intelligence activities.

*  When congressional Democrats rolled their eyes, suggested that Gonzales was lying, and groused that a special prosecutor should be appointed, they well knew he wasn't lying — but they also knew he couldn't discuss the intellligence activities at the center of the controversy because those activities were (and remain) highly classified. That is, they knowingly badgered the Attorney General of the United States at a hearing in a calculated effort to make him look dishonest and to intimate something they knew to be untrue: namely, that the dispute at DOJ arose because senior officials believed warrantless surveillance was illegal.

There's more from Andy McCarthy at the link, including information about the false Democrat/media presentation of Mr. Gonzales' famous visit to AG John Ashcroft's bedside.  To summarize, congressional Democrats smeared the Attorney General of the United States as a liar, suggesting that he be prosecuted for perjury, when they knew full well that he was telling the truth, simply because they also knew that he couldn't defend himself against the charges, as the information that would do so was classified.

That is, given the choice between accepting truth that Mr. Gonzales gave them or beating up a handcuffed man by lying about him for political gain they chose the latter.  Harming national security?  Hey, sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an Obamalet, right?

Meanwhile, the Obama administration thinks bloggers need adult supervision.

Sunstein calls for a "notice and take down" law that would require bloggers and service providers to "take down falsehoods upon notice," even those made by commenters - but without apparent penalty.

Consider how well this nudge would work. You blog about Obama-Ayers. You get a letter claiming that your facts are wrong so you should remove your post. You refuse. If, after a court proceeding proves simply that you are wrong (but not that you committed libel, which when a public figure is the target is almost impossible), you lose, the penalty is . . . you must take down your post.

How long would it take for a court to sort out the truth? Sasha and Malia will be running for president by then. Nobody will care anymore. But it will give politicians the ability to tie up their online critics in court.

Guess which side of the political spectrum would use such a law most aggressively?  One might suggest that a far more necessary use for such supervision would be to address the falsehoods and smears coming from the mouths of our illustrious congressfolk.

Why I Don't Read Andrew Sullivan's 'Daily Dish'

Exhibit 1:  The Palin-hating Trig-truther puts together a compendium of "The lies of Sarah Palin," and the first one he lists, the very first one, the one which should be his strongest, turns out to be false.  Mr. Sullivan writes:

Palin lied when she said the dismissal of her public safety commissioner, Walt Monegan, had nothing to do with his refusal to fire state trooper Mike Wooten; in fact, the Branchflower Report concluded that she repeatedly abused her power when dealing with both men.

Interestingly, the link he uses is to his own blog post on the topic.  Had he chosen to go outside of his own writing, he might have found this.

The report says Palin failed to reign in her husband's inappropriate efforts to use the governor's office to contact trooper employees in his attempts to have Wooten fired.

"Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda ... to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired," Branchflower's report says.

"Compliance with the code of ethics is not optional. It is an individual responsibility imposed by law, and any effort to benefit a personal interest through official action is a violation of that trust. ... The term ‘benefit' is very broadly defined, and includes anything that is to the person's advantage or personal self-interest."

In the second finding, Branchflower says Monegan's refusal to fire Wooten was not the sole reason for his dismissal but that it was a "contributing factor." Still, he said, Palin's firing of Monegan was "a proper and lawful exercise" of the governor's authority.

So there was a finding by a partisan investigator in an ethics complaint lodged to influence a presidential election, and even with that backdrop the finding is of a "proper and lawful exercise" of the governor's authority in the firing of Mr. Monegan.

Still, you could claim that Gov. Palin was still found to have violated the code of ethics, and was found to have placed "impermissable pressure" on subordinates.  And you might be right, as of Oct. 10, 2008 when this story was written.  But as of Nov. 4, 2008 not so much.

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - Alaska Gov. and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was cleared on Monday of wrongdoing in an abuse-of-power investigation into the firing of the state's public safety commissioner.

The Alaska Personnel Board report, issued on the eve of the U.S. presidential election, ran contrary to findings from a legislative inquiry that concluded in October that Palin had abused the power of her office by pressuring subordinates to fire a state trooper involved in a feud with her family.

Palin, who is Republican presidential candidate John McCain's running mate, brought the issue to the personnel board herself after complaining the legislative probe was a partisan effort led by Democrats.

The board, a three-member panel under Palin's authority, was responsible for determining if she had broken any laws.

The investigation concluded there was no "probable cause" that Palin violated the state's executive ethics act in dismissing Walt Monegan as public safety commissioner.

It also cleared her of ethics violations in respect to her dealings regarding Michael Wooten, the trooper involved in a contentious divorce and custody battle with the governor's sister.

This isn't a lie, simply a matter of who Mr. Sullivan chooses to believe.  Given his obsession with the origins of her youngest son this take is unsurprising.  So why bother to read the rest.  You'd think Mr. Sullivan would lead with a winner.  You'd be wrong.

Hmmmm.   She was exonerated on November 4th ... something else happened on that day, I think.  And although the complaints were dismissed as without merit, the damage was done.

Rest Assured, Many Of Us Had Little Doubt

Members of the mainstream press, however, have not seen any flaws to this point, though it's not due to the absence of such flaws.  "57 States?"

Husbands of the world rejoice!

President Barack Obama, who has seemed to set an impossibly high bar for many men when it comes to dealing with their wives, has finally stumbled — and in a very public way.

“I don’t know if anybody else will meet their future wife or husband in class like I did, but I’m sure that you’re all going to have wonderful careers,” he said as he warmed up the audience before delivering a commencement speech at an economics school in Moscow Tuesday.

Obama seemed to be playing off an introduction that referred to him meeting his future wife, Michelle Robinson, while he was a student. But the truth is that the couple met not “in class” but at a law firm in Chicago, Sidley Austin, in 1989.

The reverence is palpable, isn't it?  Mr. Gerstein is certainly full of ... something.  "Impossibly high bar for many men?"  Not for this blogger.  I doubt Gwendolyn is in such awe of their relationship.  Maybe we should coin a neologism to signify such worship?  Call it an "Obasm."

Someone Finally Read The Bill

None of the 219 Representatives who voted for Waxman-Markey actually read the bill before the vote, as it was still being assembled - with its 300 page last minute amendment - at the podium as the debate and vote were occurring.  The fine folks at National Review have gone through it now, however, in advance of Senate debate on the measure, and have discovered 50 things wrong with the bill.  Some are amusing, most are sad, and all are worth a look.  By the way, I think it's likely that the number 50 is a low estimate.  Here's a taste.

5. In addition to the permits, the bill also allows for the creation of “offsets” — the medieval-style indulgences of the carbon-footprint world. In fact, nearly all of Waxman-Markey’s carbon-reduction targets can be met with offsets alone through 2050, meaning decades before any actual reduction of greenhouse gases is required. That means huge new expenses for small businesses and consumers in return for basically zero environmental improvement.

This is, in fact, the best evidence yet that CO2 producing a large global warming effect is nonsense.  For if it were the case then this bill, as onerous as it is in terms of cost yet doing nothing to reduce emissions, would be howled at, not lauded, by the administration and other true believers.  Mr. Krugman instead took the opportunity to attack those who voted against it.  And if that wasn't enough evidence,

9. Waxman-Markey directs the EPA to ignore the real environmental impact of ethanol and other biofuels. The gigantic subsidies lavished on the farm lobby through the ethanol program encourage farmers to clear forest land to plant corn — a net environmental loss that the use of ethanol does nothing to offset.

It wouldn't be a Democrat-authored bill without union protectionism.  Here are two items that do just that.

12. Waxman-Markey provides an excuse for trade protectionism. The bill will give the Obama administration broad new powers to enact tariffs on imports from jurisdictions that have not had the poor sense to enact similar legislation, meaning that it invites both politically driven trade protectionism and retaliatory measures from abroad in the service of an empty green dream.

14. Naturally, Big Labor gets its piece of the pie, too. Projects receiving grants and financing under Waxman-Markey provisions will be required to implement Davis-Bacon union-wage rules, making it hard for non-union firms to compete — and ensuring that these “investments” pay out inflated union wages.

The former increase the cost of foreign competition once these green tariffs are applied, the latter increases the cost of doing business for non-union businesses by unilaterally ordering pay raises.  And if those cost increases weren't enough, there's this.

18. The legislation calls for the establishment of a Carbon Storage Research Corporation (CSRC) to steer $1 billion annually into the development of carbon-capture technologies. The CSRC would be funded via assessments on utility companies. Hear that? It’s the sound of another charge being added to your bill.

And, of course, ACORN gets a cut.  Another payoff to loyal Democrats.

42. Another Obama constituency, the community-organizing gang — i.e., ACORN — will be eligible to receive billions in funding as the bill “authorizes the Secretary [of Energy] to make grants to community development organizations to provide financing to businesses and projects that improve energy efficiency.” Think federally subsidized consultants paid $55 an hour to tell businesses to turn down their AC in the summer.

A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.  Have a look at the whole list for the complete picture.  Then call your senator, particularly those of you in Maine, Nebraska, Louisiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.  My own senators (NH), unfortunately, are set on this.  One will vote for, one against.

7/3/09 0910:  Meanwhile, why so afraid of dissenting views?  And "the largest corporate welfare program" ever?

Why ABC's John Stossel Wasn't Invited To Participate In ABC's ObamaCare Infomercial

No, I don't have inside information.  But it should be obvious.

"The more time I spent in the Canadian system, the more I came across people waiting for radiation therapy, waiting for the knee replacement so they could finally walk up to the second floor of their house." "You want to see your neurologist because of your stress headache? No problem! Just wait six months. You want an MRI? No problem! Free as the air! Just wait six months."

Polls show most Canadians like their free health care, but most people aren't sick when the poll-taker calls.

[...]

We saw this in Canada, where we did find one area of medicine that offers easy access to cutting-edge technology -- CT scan, endoscopy, thoracoscopy, laparoscopy, etc. It was open 24/7. Patients didn't have to wait.

But you have to bark or meow to get that kind of treatment. Animal care is the one area of medicine that hasn't been taken over by the government. Dogs can get a CT scan in one day. For people, the waiting list is a month.

Mr. Stossel's absence from the program is the biggest sign that the Obama White House and not ABC was calling the shots.  And despite that Mr. Obama tanked on a number of the questions, including this one:

DR. ORRIN DEVINSKY, EPILEPSY SPECIALIST: Yes, in the past, politicians who have sought to reform health care have tried to limit costs by reducing tests, access to specialists, but they've not been good at taking their own medicine. When they or their family members get sick, they often get extremely expensive evaluations and expert care.

If a national health plan was approved and your family participated, and, President Obama, if your wife or your doctor became seriously ill, and things were not going well, and the plan physicians told you they were doing everything that reasonably could be done, and you sought out opinions from some medical leaders and major centers, and they said there's another option that you should -- should pursue, but it was not covered in the plan, would you potentially sacrifice the health of your family for the greater good of insuring millions? Or would you do everything you possibly could as a father and husband to get the best health care and outcome for your family?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, Doctor, I think it's a terrific question, and it's something that touches us all personally, especially when you start talking about end-of-life care. As some of you know, my grandmother recently passed away, which was a very painful thing for me. She's somebody who helped raise me.

But she's somebody who contracted what was diagnosed as terminal cancer. There was unanimity about that. They expected that she'd have six to nine months to live. She fell and broke her hip. And then the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough that they weren't sure how long she would last, whether she could get through the surgery. I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time. And you're absolutely right that, if it's my family member, it's my wife, if it's my children, if it's my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.

But here's the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that's being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.

Note that Mr. Obama transformed a straightforward question about whether he and his family should be subjected to the same restrictions as the ones he would impose on America into a question of complex medical decision making.  The question wasn't whether surgery was the correct care for his grandmother.  The question was, what would he want if it was the right thing to do but disallowed by the government. 

The folks at the libertarian Cato Institute have some responses for Mr. Obama.

As Aretha sang, you better think.

7/2/09 0900: Speaking of infomercials ... (more details here)