All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
Albert Einstein
Sunday Talk Soup and Politics
Christine O'Donnell's campaign is busy doing damage control and pulled her from Fox News Sunday and Face the Nation. Karl Rove was on Fox News Sunday, with Chris Wallace probing the current dispute in the GOP over the Tea Party invasion of several Republican primaries. Karl Rove was once more on the defensive over his critique of surprise Delaware US Senate nominee, Christine O'Donnell.
Christine O'Donnell has been playing what I call the Sarah Palin sympathy card... Remember when some anonymous McCain staffers leaked some unflattering stories about Ms. Palin's alleged diva behavior? Bill O'Reilly and all of the FNC commentators accepted at face value the ludicrous assertion that the McCain staffers were scapegoating Palin for the losing campaign and outrageously demanded that McCain be a man and denounce the personal opinions of his staffers. There was never any serious consideration that the stories just may have accurately reflected the feedback of people. The chivalrous populist Bill O'Reilly angrily denounced the anonymous staffers (although his real target was McCain personally); it's not clear why--after all, the Angry Left brutally went after Palin which barely raised O'Reilly's eyebrows. No, in Bill O'Reilly's experience as a news reporter and anchor, he knew these anonymous staffers, who have to make a living and may have been blacklisted or targeted for harassment by misguided Palin supporters, were doing something far worse than the Angry Left bloggers: they were ruthlessly trying to destroy a helpless sitting governor with the highest approval rating among the party base. After all, weren't there scapegoating vendettas against Mondale, Ferraro, Bentsen, and Edwards for their roles in losing campaigns?
I'm sure that some may regard what I'm about to say as "sexist", but Hillary Clinton skillfully played Bill Clinton's infidelity with Ms. Lewinsky for maximum political effect. It's not like she should have been surprised by Bill Clinton's dalliances with other women; in fact, the rumors of infidelities came up during the 1992 campaign. Sarah Palin has often used feminist rhetoric to describe Hillary Clinton's historic 2008 campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination and reacted to a bad Letterman monologue joke last year aimed at Sarah's adult daughter, Bristol. (Letterman's staffers made a fact check error. They assumed the Palin daughter attending a New York baseball game with Sarah was Bristol, and Dave said that he had double-checked Bristol was 18 before making the joke.) Sarah Palin noted that it was then 13-year-old Willow attending the game and made the ludicrous assertion, once again widely repeated by FNC, that Letterman intended the joke to be about a largely unknown Palin daughter, not the one whom was of age, unwed, already a mother, and was fronting a high-profile abstinence campaign. David Letterman repeatedly apologized, and her response was to explicitly suggest that she wouldn't trust Letterman around her younger daughters. Even in "accepting" his apology, she engaged in victimization rhetoric--she wasn't accepting on a personal level, she was accepted for all those whom are victimized by people like David Letterman, essentially repeating her disingenuous allegation that Willow was the target of the joke.
I wrote a series of commentaries on the incident last year, and I still regard what she did as unprofessional and characteristic of a temperament unsuitable for higher office; this one admittedly bad taste joke became a news story for a full week or so. There have been personal attacks against politicians and their loved ones since the early days of the republic; most politicians develop thicker skin than Sarah Palin. The idea of a President or Vice President holding up the business of the nation because his or her feelings have been hurt by a bad joke is unthinkable. As I pointed out at the time, Sarah Palin hadn't said anything about late-night jokes a year earlier that surfaced about a pregnant 17-year-old Bristol.
This commentary wasn't meant to be a reprise about Sarah Palin, except I find it laughable for people to buy into her "common sense conservative" nonsense and ties to the Tea Party. The fact of the matter is--the Sarah Palin before the 2008 campaign would probably have been a target of the Tea Party this year. People seem to forget that Sarah Palin was a big-spending, windfall-profits tax raiser whom supported construction of the Bridge to Nowhere, grabbed her fair share of federal earmarks, and didn't get along with the majority GOP leadership in the legislature. She prides herself as a reformer, but in fact she and her husband were putting implicit pressure to get a former relative fired as a state trooper, which materially violates professional ethics (if not the law).
[The reason I'm bringing up Sarah Palin in this commentary is because of a high-profile visit to Iowa, the traditional kickoff state to the 2012 Presidential campaign. Other media this weekend were putting up her wins (and losses) in supporting candidates in primaries this spring and summer. Another interesting note is her distant fifth-place finish in the Values Voter straw poll, behind Congressman Pence, Huckabee, Romney, and Gingrich. (Keep in mind that Sarah Palin's wildly enthusiastic reception on nomination was from social conservatives, applauding her decision to carry her youngest child Trig , a Down Syndrome child, to term.)]
Christine O'Donnell has similarly played the Karl Rove critique of her candidacy for public sympathy. Sean Hannity, as usual, was satisfied with her explanation that all the troubling questions about her college degree (she finally got her degree this summer after finishing up coursework, but she claims it was all about the $5000 she owed the university) , the limited income, the mortgage failure, the lawsuit she filed against a former employer the IRS lien, etc., were answered on her website; suffice it to say that all of her financial problems suddenly cleared up this summer raises more questions than answers.. I'm not interested in how O'Donnell's campaign and legal advisors have rationalized the situation for public consumption without full, direct communications with the candidate herself. I suspect, that her handlers, seeing that Rand Paul has regained the lead in Kentucky after an unforced error regarding the 1964 Civil Rights Act and keeping the nominee out of public sight for a while, may try a similar strategy, but the election is less than 2 months away. She even pointed out one poll a month ago actually had her in the lead against Chris Coons (but within the margin of error, versus Castle's overwhelming leads against Coons). Oddly enough, I think Christine O'Donnell's best opportunity would be for Mike Castle to run independent where he could draw moderate/independent support from Chris Coons.
I think the Tea Party candidates' and Sarah Palin's pleas for Republicans and conservatives to unite behind after their outrageous meddling in what should have been a historic swing in the Senate is audacious.and laughable. I have more of a meritocratic approach to national, statewide or district public service; I would like to see more of a track record of votes, which we clearly don't have from political novices like Joe Miller, Rand Paul, and Christine O'Donnell, whom would be cutting their baby teeth in the US Senate. I would like to see more evidence of problem solving ability and politicians willing to come to pragmatic compromises. I don't think there are many people whom could handle the job as a political novice.
[I believe I could, but that is based on a record of productivity in multiple troubled information technology projects and operations; I rarely have direct line authority over a client or fellow colleagues or consultants. Sometimes I've had to jawbone clients; I've also had to deal with very difficult people. One has to earn credibility and influence, but it's never been about me: it's about the business. As an IT professional, I am well-aware there are business reasons underlying companies and organizations spending millions of dollars in hardware, software and personnel.
When I admire Governor Mitch Daniels' focus on service criteria (e.g., wait times in DMV's), it's not by accident but a personal passion since my dissertation research. Whereas I agree with maintaining a small government footprint, a key conservative principle, I have a laser-beam focus on effectiveness (i.e., whether government achieves common needs and guarantees individual rights) and efficiency (how well the government achieves those ends, given limited resources). These include objective and subjective criteria: for example, did usable intelligence about potential Islamic radicals reach international airport security in a timely fashion? How well do voters believe that the President and Congress are addressing their policy priorities?
This fixation, among other things, affects what I regard as inconsistencies of the parties on issues like social programs and the defense budget. As a fiscal conservative, there are no sacred cows; the burden of spending cuts occurs across the board.
One of the politicians I admired, even after I no longer agreed with his political agenda, was Ted Kennedy. He always had a passion for health care, education, and immigration. One example illustrates the political intelligence and integrity of Ted Kennedy (vs. Barack Obama): during the failed 2007 immigration compromise, Kennedy, unlike a current President, stood by the compromises he made, in particular, towards a temporary worker program, which organized labor opposed, just like McCain and others stood by their compromises dealing with the status of existing undocumented workers, despite vehement opposition by media conservatives. It almost cost McCain his 2008 Presidential nomination.]
What I passionately hate about the Tea Party invasion of the GOP primaries is that they have declared war on the wrong people. The Senate GOP have time and again foiled majoritarian attempts to steamroll them with partisan legislation. Bob Bennett, Lisa Murkowski, Mike Castle, Sue Lowden, Kelly Ayotte and Charlie Crist were not the problem; they all had a lock on election or reelection until the insurgency attacks. Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other media conservatives are congratulating themselves on purging the party of so-called RINO's (they had also hoped to derail McCain's renomination), but they have sent a chilling message that pragmatic conservatives are not welcome in the party.
This may not mean much in this election, because the American voters are likely to use the election more as a protest against the Democrats' lack of performance in the post-tsunami economy with sticky high unemployment, low economic growth, and unprecedented deficits--and a politically unwise in-your-face passage of highly unpopular health care legislation. If the GOP and/or the Tea Party attempts to read a validation of a more ideologically pure message as the reason for their victory, it will be same as with the Democrats whom misread a change election as a validation of an aggressive progressive agenda.
I share John Adams' deep distrust of populists, and it's clear that what swept Joe Miller, Mike Lee, Sharron Angle, Marco Rubio and Christine O'Donnell to their nominations was not the issues, but populist anger at incumbents or candidates willing to negotiate with Democrats. In some cases, e.g., Alvin Greene (D-SC), it was clear that the election was not based on his platform at all, but surname recognition. In fact, I reviewed Joe Miller's platform before writing this commentary, and I find his positions closer to mine than Lisa Murkowski's. Why, then, do I support Lisa's pursuit of a write-in candidacy? Joe Miller barely won the nomination under circumstances I believe constitute abuse of process; he also is more conservative than the current Alaskan Congressional delegation, which suggests Murkowski might be more effective in the general campaign. It's a different case in the Florida race where Marco Rubio had a leadership position in the Florida legislature and had taken an overwhelming lead months before the primary. (I still think Rubio's flip of the lead had more to do with Tea Party anger at Charlie Crist's embrace of the stimulus bill and Obama.)
It's still possible that Miller and Angle will win their races; Christine O'Donnell is improbable, although it could happen under the right conditions (e.g., comparative turnout rates). But I think this is a unique moment in time, like when Ross Perot briefly caught the nation's attention in 1992 and actually led in some polls earlier in the campaign. However, by 1996, it was clear his moment had passed, attracting a mere fraction of his 1992 vote. Both statewide races, including Castle's at large Congressional seat, currently have Dems with double-digit leads in a blue state.
Not a single Senate Democrat has a lifetime ACU rating of 50%; in fact, many of name Democrats rate at less than 10%. Sending in more ideological candidates in blue or purple states with currently at least one Senate Democrat (e.g., Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Florida), when the more pragmatic candidate is a lock is nothing short of a kamikaze mission. Even if Castle simply maintains a 50% ACU rating, that's at least 5 times the rating of Chris Coons.
Bill Clinton: Still Crazy After All These Years
I was watching a video podcast of ABC This Week with Christiane Amanpour including an interview with former Prime Minister Tony Blair; among other things, Blair rated Clinton as the smartest American President he ever met...
I feel like doing a rant on this Sunday's Meet the Press interview where David Gregory's hair interviewed Bill Clinton, but this post is already long-winded. Maybe I'll do additional segments later this week. I am so tired of progressive political spin, particularly about Clinton's magical tax increase which somehow stimulated the economy and resulted in a budget surplus (can you hear my eyes roll?); let's ignore, for the time being, that the CBO early in Clinton's presidency (under a Democratic-controlled Congress) projected a large federal deficit, not a surplus, that the defeat of Clinton's health plan, which would have vastly increased federal spending, and GOP Congressional fiscal discipline were significant factors, not to mention huge infusions of cash by the Federal Reserve, and unsustainable capital gains in a bubble stock market also played a role.
But let me focus on this clip:
PRES. CLINTON: I'm telling you, I don't care how low they drive support for this with misinformation, the minute the president signs the healthcare reform bill, approval will go up because Americans are inherently optimistic. The minute. (End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: The White House said the same thing, Mr. President, but it hasn't happened yet.
PRES. CLINTON: Well, I was wrong about that for two reasons. First of all, the benefits of the bill are spread out over three or four years. It takes a long time to implement it. And secondly, there was--there's been an enormous and highly effective attack on it. But I think it's important. Let's--forget about the politics. Let's talk about the facts here. The real reason that the interest groups want to repeal, not fix health care, is that they like the way it's going now. They're dumping people every year and making the government pick them up. We are spending 17.2 percent of our income on health care. None of our wealthy competitors spend more than 10 1/2. Yet our infant mortality rate is higher than theirs, our overall mortal--age expectancy is lower than theirs. We don't have a better health system than they do. What's happened? That's a trillion dollars we spot our competitors every year for a health system that doesn't work as well. The people that are getting a trillion dollars have a lot of money to spread all this information--misinformation.Anyone who has read my posts during the health care legislative debate knows the response to these points. Let's dismiss, at the start, Clinton's disingenuous, misleading statistics. Our infant mortality rate is due, not to worse medical care of infants, which progressives want you to infer, but because we count classes of at-risk infants other countries don't. Our shorter mortality is not due to health care, but because of significantly higher homicide and auto fatality rates. Why do we spend more on health care than many other countries? There are a number of reasons, including a quality vs. cost trade-off, the fact that we do not ration health care as is done in many other countries, the extraordinary costs of defensive medicine, the fact that Americans subsidize the development of many new prescription drugs, etc. Let's put it this way, Mr. Clinton--why don't you have your next heart surgery done in England or other European health care systems you seem to think are superior?
Conservatives "like the way things are"? Mr. Clinton, which story do you want the American people to believe--that conservatives want high rates for health care insurance and they want to foot the bill of more Medicare/Medicaid. If Clinton really believes this, he is, at best, misinformed or delusional. Conservatives have been advocating reforms for years: allow small businesses that do not have the scale to attract more attractive rates to join together across states and self-insure like many large companies do (i.e., at nearly a third of the administrative costs); allow basic (versus ultra-expensive state-mandated gold-plated plans) health care insurance to be marketed across states; allow equal protection in tax advantaged plans (say, families buying their own insurance right now with after-tax dollars); medical malpractice tort reform; expand on state/region assigned risk plans, etc. These proposals have been discussed for years, but Democrats have vetoed them repeatedly over the past several years. (For example, Democrats argue that interstate marketing will introduce "a race to the bottom" of benefits.) I've mentioned before--let insurance be insurance. We should not be treating ordinary expenses like a routine visit to the doctor's office or prescriptions for Viagra to be covered as "insurance" costs. That raises costs immensely, and the insured have no incident to cut costs.
But once again, let's look at how Bill Clinton misleads the uninformed reader. He wants to focus on "windfall profits" for health insurance and huge rate increases. A few salient facts: first, many young people in a tough economy decide to drop their high cost insurance, and the policies of other customers are effectively subsidized by younger people with lower health costs. When you lose those customers, the health insurers have to redistribute the lost subsidies among their remaining older/sicker customers. You don't have to engage in any kind of conspiracy theory of "windfall profits". Among other things, insurance companies are REQUIRED by regulators to establish reserves or other forms of risk management. Past costs are irrelevant--insurance companies have to plan for the future.
Insurance companies know they are in a vicious cycle; part of the reason why they were receptive to the progressive Democrats' plans is because of the promise to recapture (by individual mandate) those profitable younger people. But the Democrats also want you to ignore that older children in their middle 20's can piggyback off their parents' family coverage. So those young people who decided to pay as they go now are guaranteed coverage through their folks'--but there's no such thing as a free lunch. Instead, the parents' provider now has to pass on expanded costs, which they aren't currently covering.
Insurance companies that charge higher prices face the same supply/demand curve as any other business. It's just like progressive politicians whom try to raise taxes. (I'm sure Bill Clinton, of all people, will not make that connection.) There's an economic as well as arithmetic effect. People currently don't have to buy insurance; raise the costs high enough, they'll simply decide they can save money by cutting out the middleman and assuming the risks. So, enough of Bill Clinton's ludicrous industry conspiracies....
Political Humor
More originals:
- Michelle Obama has been quoted as saying life in the White House has been hell. We conservatives have finally found grounds for bipartisan agreement: living with Barack Obama in the White House has indeed been hell.
- More than $800K in stimulus NIH funding last year went to teach uncircumcised African men how to bathe themselves properly after sex to minimize the risk of spreading sexual diseases. Here's a different perspective: how about teaching African men to take cold showers before they have sex?
Kay Starr, "I've Got My Love To Keep Me Warm"
