New ideas are as valuable as any others, but they should not be adopted simply because they are new.
Robert Heller
Election Watch
Let's start with the Senate races, which have become very interesting. The California race where Boxer seemed to be opening up a small lead has tightened, with RCP putting it back in the toss up category, shortening the Dem lead to 48-45. The Connecticut Senate race also has come back into play (and interestingly enough, the Republican candidate for governor (Foley) has taken a small lead).
Most interestingly, Lisa Murkowski, as Republican write-in, has taken an improbable 10-point lead in the Alaska race. This is interesting if nothing else but for its symbolic value: it is no wonder Sarah Palin, after the earlier freeze in response to Miller's sidestep of the Palin for President question, has gone back stumping for Miller; I think this poll probably reflects relatively late breaking disclosures in Miller's work background. If Lisa Murkowski wins, for only the second write-in win in 50 years, it will be a telling rebuke, not only of the Tea Party Express but to Sarah Palin's credentials in her own home state. Sarah Palin's battle probably has more to do with the intrastate rivalry for political influence with the Murkowski clan, in particular, former Senator/Governor Frank Murkowski.
The Democrats got some breathing room as the GOP lean/likely/safe shrank by 3: 221-171 with 3 more added to toss-ups, raising the toss up total to 43. (There were also offsetting switches between lean-Dem and toss up.) Some tightening is to be expected as we close into the election. But if you look at the cumulative lean/likely/safe's, the highest the Dems have achieved in the last 2 weeks are 2 points where they briefly rallied up to 180 seats and then fell back.
There are some regional/state stories I'm following, besides a possible GOP beachhead back into New England; I'm especially interested in a possible flip of the at-large seats in the Dakotas, and a resurgence of the GOP in New Mexico since they lost the governor's race and a couple of congressional seats a few weeks back. It looks likely that New Mexico, after two terms of Bill Richardson, will pick a Republican as governor, and Republicans have tentative leads in two Congressional races.
Obama Asserts that Conservatives Are Enemies of Latinos...
Ted Sorenson, JFK's former speechwriter who died today, may have had a hand in writing the late President's signature line:
Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.President Obama, the post-partisan president, the unifier, has his own signature line of bringing the country together:
If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us’ … then I think it’s gonna be harder. - Barack Obama
Let me be clear: Ronald Reagan nominated the first Latino (Linda Chavez) to a US Cabinet (whom also ran as the GOP Senate candidate against Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski in 1986), former Florida Governor Jeb Bush married a Latina decades ago, George W. Bush nominated Miguel Estrada (a first-generation Honduran-American) to the US Court of Appeals (the Democrats scotched the nomination in part due to fears that Bush was grooming him as the first Latino to the Supreme Court) and the first Latino Attorney General (Albert Gonzales). Republican Latinos have served as mayor, governor, in Congress and state legislatures, multiple subsequent Cabinet positions and sub-Cabinet positions (e.g., US Treasurer), ambassadors, and chair of the California Republican Party; Latino Republicans also include well-known actors, singers, and television reporters.
Why would Latinos be interested in being part of the Republican Party, the party of Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., the minority party that provided critical support for landmark civil rights legislation? Consider this essay extraction from Congresslink.org:
The Republican Party was not so badly split as the Democrats by the civil rights issue. Only one Republican senator participated in the filibuster against the bill. In fact, since 1933, Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.Now I'm not writing this as a Republican shill; the GOP can speak for itself. But, Mr. Obama, what you have done is engage in a political smear; it's pathetic and brings dishonor on the Office of the President.
In addition to the historical sensitivity and inclusiveness of Republicans, Latinos have other reasons to support the GOP: for example, a large plurality/majority of Latinos are Roman Catholic, hold social conservative views (e.g., abortion, traditional marriage, etc.) and share a number of traditional values, including hard work, integrity and self-reliance. I am not speaking on behalf of Latinos; Linda Chavez and others can speak from the authenticity of their experiences. But I attended high school in a Laredo suburban high school, and all 4 of my university degrees came from Texas colleges (in fact, OLLU is located in the southwestern/barrio section of San Antonio). Some of my best friends were Latinos, and I asked out multiple Latinas.
Quite frankly, Mr. Obama, I am strongly pro-immigration, and I backed the 2007 compromise that you yourself sabotaged by helping kick out key Democratic concessions. I am well-aware of how certain Republican politicians (e.g., Pete Wilson and Tom Tancredo), supported by similarly irresponsible media conservatives, have alienated immigrant Americans; I understand that we have a broken-down temporary worker program. I'm wondering when Latino Democrats will come to realize that union opposition to the worker quotas is part of the problem (i.e., they believe low-skill immigrant labor undermines wages).
The second issue is more complex and to a degree I argue against many immigrants. Currently the law is biased towards chained immigration, i.e., relatives, regardless of their skill sets, education or ability to speak English, are given preferential treatment over more qualified applicants. I understand many immigrants want their extended families to be on the fast track towards citizenship; we need to balance that with our need to recruit our fair share of entrepreneurs and other professionals with the knowledge, experience and skill sets to expand the production of products and services, including related well-paying, tax-generating income. Just like many people may reject nepotism as an unfair management practice, we economic libertarians see chained immigration as unfair to other applicants eager for a shot at the American dream.
The border protection issue has become an issue, not so much about barring farmers, gardeners, maids or construction workers from existing vacant positions, but the need to address the growing involvement of organized crime in human smuggling (including prospective terrorists looking for workarounds to security-enhanced entry points).
Going back to a desperate President who seems confused about Latinos as he was about gun- and Bible-clinging small town Americans in Pennsylvania: don't they similarly realize it's in their best interests to vote for Democrats? Well, let's think about it for a minute. Businesses and high-income people who hire (say, gardeners, maids or construction workers) don't generate as many jobs in a tough economy; so if, say, immigrants want to work but can't find a job because of a clueless progressive President and Congress whom don't understand fundamental business and economics, why do they think another 2 years will turn out any better? And Obama thinks all he needs to tap a flood of Latino votes is to pay lip service to "immigration reform". The "enemy"? The GOP... never mind the fact that a Republican President, George W. Bush, put up more of an effort to pass immigration reform, with a Democratic-controlled Congress, than Obama did with a super-majority in both the House and the Senate.
If I was Latino, I would find the President's condescending, over-simplifying rhetoric insulting. Latinos know better than Obama does about what they should consider in the election; they don't need paternalistic liberals telling them what they should consider. What does he know about the Latino community? Latinos have concerns over and beyond immigration legislation; for example, a number of them are small business owners, affected by Draconian business health care mandate penalties, federal paperwork requirements, possible higher tax rate increases, etc. Democrats need to deliver for their support, not pay attention to them a week or two before election day with lip service on immigration reform, thinking that's the password that delivers the predictable bank of Latino votes.
Barbara Mikulski: Knock Off the Feminist Ideology on Health Care Issues
Ideological feminists are very predictable; so let me get a few points out of the way. First, I am aware of our impasse on the issue of abortion. A baby has different DNA than her mother from the point of conception; this has nothing to do with my religious upbringing--it's a scientific fact. And I believe that society has an interest in protecting young lives without bias in terms of stage of development, before or after birth. I also believe that woman who engage in sex, with the possibility of pregnancy, should take responsibility for their decisions, taking into account risks (including STD's) and relative effectiveness of various contraceptive methods and technologies. I also believe that males themselves should accept full responsibility for their own role in sex, including a shared responsibility in pregnancy and child rearing.
As a conservative/libertarian, I am not comfortable with Big Nanny deciding or mandating preventive measures. For example, it may be prudent for someone over the age of 50 to have a colonoscopy as a preventive measure. If the argument is that the public picks up the dime for the high costs of undiagnosed colon cancer, aren't we just a slippery slope away from Big Nanny prescribing penalties to someone not having a colonoscopy? I don't want to write a full post on this time on this issue, but let's point out there are costs and risks associated with colonscopies (not to mention complications, e.g., the doctor makes a procedural mistake on someone with a healthy colon).
I have a philosophical difference with progressives, like Pelosi and Mikulski, whom prescribe "free" colonoscopies, mammograms, etc. First of all, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Professionals' time is money; diagnostic tests are not free, etc. You can certain argue that treating a disease in its earlier stages is more cost-effective and humane. Again, I don't want to go to excessive detail here, but ultimately you have to balance the costs and benefits, including the risks of unintended consequences, medical errors, side effects in treatment, etc. This often involves an understanding of context--say, for example, what's magic about one year between mammograms? Maybe it should be 6 months, 18 months or every other year for most women, assuming women with genetic or correlated factors are tested more frequently and/or women report any interim unusual symptoms promptly. I really don't want Big Nanny telling doctors how to treat their patients.
Mikulski, in her recent TV ad brag sheet, starts talking about discriminatory pricing towards female patients. I don't want to get too much in the weeds in discussing this issue, but I would expect there are some intrinsic gender-based differences in terms of certain conditions (e.g., pregnancy), longer lifespans for women, etc. The only reason that doctors would charge women more is because of related cost factors. Just for the sake of argument, let's say a male exam takes 15 minutes and a female exam takes 20 minutes. Why should a male pay the same as a female? The doctor spends 33% more time with the woman; if I'm told I have to charge the same, then it makes more sense for me to see only male patients to maximize my revenues. Perhaps strident feminists believe that the self-actualized women should demand that men pick up part of her health bill tab, just like they should share the cost of her dinner...
But of course, life isn't fair. That's why Big Health Insurance wants insurance mandates, e.g., relatively healthy younger people having to pay into the system at a cost higher than their real costs, to subsidize more costly, older people.... (Let me point out, though, that it costs me more to buy life or health insurance than it did 20 years ago.)
What got me on this topic was an AP news story of whether contraceptives should be included as "free" preventive care. For those of us who are social conservatives, there are a number of relevant issues, e.g., federal payment for the "morning after" pill, which we regard as abortion, not contraceptive, or conscience exceptions for pharmacists and medical professionals (the ones that still believe in the Hippocratic Oath's prohibitions against aiding and abetting the termination of unborn lives). Barbara Mikulski insists that her amendment to the Democratic Party Health Care Bill clearly implies female contraceptives should be "free".
There are so many things wrong here one hardly knows where to start. The first one that immediately comes to mind is why the American taxpayer should be subsidizing the costs of voluntary, extramarital sex acts. Second, as the article also notes, it implies that the unborn child is a DISEASE, not a blessing from God, not to mention a future taxpayer. It may be preventive in terms of pregnancy and/or STD's, but guess what? There is one foolproof method to avoid pregnancy or STD's: not to engage in risky sex behavior. If you engage in risky sex behavior, covering the cost of that risk should come out of your pocket. As to the guys, do you want to avoid the costs of raising a child to the age of 18? Weigh the costs of condoms or better yet, a vasectomy. None of this "I'll have a vasectomy if Uncle Sam pays for it." Uncle Sam shouldn't pay for a number of things, including breast augmentations, facelifts and vasectomies.
Quiz of the Day
What song will they play to introduce Sharron Angle on her first visit to The View? Click here.
Political Humor
A few originals:
- This year's Halloween costume party at the White House was unbelievable: Donald Trump came dressed as Jimmy McMillan of "The Rent is Too Damn High" Party; ICE Director John Morton pretended to be Sheriff Joe Arpaio; and President Barack Obama showed up as 2008 Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
- Fox News also had a Halloween party with the theme of "come as someone whom you personally admire". Sean Hannity came as Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin dressed up like Hillary Clinton--and even Barack Obama showed up, as himself.
Musical Interlude: Instrumentals/One-Hit Wonders
Ferrante & Teicher, "Exodus"
