Joust The Facts

The President At Fort Hood, And Inescapable Conclusions

In times of epic sadness it is often the gift of somber eloquence that helps to buoy the spirits of the throng. To reassure, to comfort, to join in dispair, and to raise up from the same.  As Marc Ambinder points out, the President surely did that today.  You can read the full text of his remarks there.

Theirs are tales of American men and women answering an extraordinary call - the call to serve their comrades, their communities, and their country. In an age of selfishness, they embody responsibility. In an era of division, they call upon us to come together. In a time of cynicism, they remind us of who we are as Americans.

We are a nation that endures because of the courage of those who defend it. We saw that valor in those who braved bullets here at Fort Hood, just as surely as we see it in those who signed up knowing that they would serve in harm's way.

Absolutely.  I'd like to have a look at another paragraph, however.

It may be hard to comprehend the twisted logic that led to this tragedy.  But this much we do know - no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice - in this world, and the next.

While it would have been completely inappropriate on this solemn occasion for the President to point out that, yes, there does seem to be one faith in particular where it is more commonplace for its adherents to justify such murderous and craven acts, it will be appropriate and also justifiable to do so in the future.  In particular, it will be helpful for him to do so in reference to Major Hasan.  In doing so he'll help the large number of journalists and observers struggling to avoid drawing - not jumping to - that inescapable and supported conclusion.

"We don't know all the answers yet," the Associated Press quotes President Obama as saying Friday about the Fort Hood massacre. "And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

Not only is the president right, his advice is tautological. Premature judgment is ill-advised by definition. But one senses in much of the commentary about suspect Nidal Malik Hasan a desire to avoid considered judgment as well--not just a reluctance to jump to conclusions, but a drive to go far out of one's way to avoid ever reaching one particular conclusion.

If a physician were to spend an inordinate amount of time, effort and money desperately searching for an alternative diagnosis when the obvious and well-supported one is uncomfortable then ultimately he or she would be committing malpractice.  Journalistic - and political - malpractice is no less objectionable.

11/11/09 0625: Dan Riehl makes the point that the speech thing is the one thing that Mr. Obama happens to do very well, so let's not get too excited.  Well, yeah.

It's simply embarrassing. But the fact is, this is all they've got. And it's the same thing we saw day after day on the campaign trail. So what? His stimulus package was a dismal failure, his health care bail will likely crash into the Senate and burn, and his popularity ratings are beginning to sag while his policy ratings suck.

However, man, he gave a heck of a speech. How awesome is that?

Honesty Is The Best Policy?

The politics and financial considerations of the Democratic health care reform proposals have become almost mind-numbing, and the people may be right to feel overwrought by the onslaught of plans, amendments, CBO calculation, public options, mandates, triggers, opt-ins and opt-outs, and new taxes in trying to understand what is being handed them.  In situations like this it's often helpful to have a proponent of the effort provide a certain clarity, as the Wall Street Journal points out today.

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

John Cassidy writes for New Yorker magazine, and his article can be read here.  Here we find some other gems, such as this:

The future cost savings that the Administration and its congressional allies are promising to deliver are based on wishful thinking and sleight of hand. Over time, the reform, as proposed, would almost certainly add substantially to the budget deficit, thereby worsening the long-term fiscal crisis that the country faces.

And this:

The Pelosi bill, in particular, wouldn’t do much, if anything, to address the overall escalation in health-care costs...

And about the IMAC, the Independent Medical Advisory Council that would be tasked with restraining costs, he writes:

“By removing some of the political pressure around such reforms,” Romer said in the same speech, “the IMAC would make it easier for improvements to be made year after year.” This statement can only be described as wishful thinking. I hope it will be proved right, but Washington is replete with now-defunct independent bodies and commissions that toiled dutifully, did good work, and made little difference.

Read both, then tell me that the proponents have been completely honest.  It doesn't seem that the reform will magically expand coverage to an eighth of the populace while lowering costs and reducing paperwork, all without restricting the freedom of Americans.

The Fall Of The Wall, And Speeches Thereof

I don't have transcripts or videos, so certainly I could be wrong.  But I did listen to most of the speech of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, who then introduced a taped message from President Obama, which I heard in it's entirety while driving back to my office this afternoon.  I found it strange, eerie almost, as if everyone knew there was something missing.  Did neither of them mention former President Ronald Reagan at all?  I heard Mr. Obama mention President Kennedy.  But no "shout outs" to Reagan?

CNN this afternoon?  Nope.

The more extensive collection of stories in CNN's Autumn of Change?  Not that I can tell, based on the links listed.

The NY Times does, though it does so more in the context of discussing the disagreement over who should get the lion's share of the credit.

While think it would have been a harmless and yet appropriate way for the current President to credit one of his predecessors from the other side of the aisle, and for once to set aside his hyper-partisan instincts, it is necessary really only to recognize that millions of Eastern Europeans freed from the oppression of communist governance was and is a good thing.  Still, it should have happened.

Perspective, And Appropriateness

I spent today at a medical education conference, reviewing and updating my knowledge base on low back pain, workman's compensation, and behavioral signs related to musculoskeletal issues.  I know, sounds like a hoot.  But as the opening salvo of lectures was ending the moderator called for questions from the audience, and one of the more well known attendees stepped up to the microphone.

He didn't ask a question, rather, he solemnly informed everyone in attendance, in case they were unaware, of the terrible events at Fort Hood of November 5th.  He gave the tally as 13 dead, 38 wounded, and then asked for a moment of silence for those who lost their lives.  The room fell fully silent.  When he was much younger this physician had been a military doctor, and he obviously felt a strong bond, an affinity, for those in uniform and for what this meant.

The President also spoke yesterday about the shootings at Fort Hood.  Compare, and contrast.

Obama's Frightening Insensitivity Following Shooting

The White House was notified immediately and by late afternoon, word went out that the president would speak about the incident prior to a previously scheduled appearance. At about 5 p.m., cable stations went to the president. The situation called for not only his trademark eloquence, but also grace and perspective.

But instead of a somber chief executive offering reassuring words and expressions of sympathy and compassion, viewers saw a wildly disconnected and inappropriately light president making introductory remarks [video]. At the event, a Tribal Nations Conference hosted by the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian affairs, the president thanked various staffers and offered a "shout-out" to "Dr. Joe Medicine Crow -- that Congressional Medal of Honor winner."  Three minutes in, the president spoke about the shooting, in measured and appropriate terms. Who is advising him?

Anyone at home aware of the major news story of the previous hours had to have been stunned. An incident like this requires a scrapping of the early light banter. The president should apologize for the tone of his remarks, explain what has happened, express sympathy for those slain and appeal for calm and patience until all the facts are in. That's the least that should occur.

The real question isn't who is advising him.  Rather, I believe we should wonder why this man should need such advice. 

11/7/09 1335: Oh, and the Congressional Medal Of Honor winner mentioned by the President?  Not.

This is not a mistake the TOTUS would have made. ... Maybe next time he won't just wing it.  And as Newsbusters notes, if Bush had been this inappropriate and poorly prepared we would have heard of nothing else.

Add it to the list.

Anyone Can Write For The NY Times, Really

Because intelligence is obviously not one of the requirements.  Gail Collins demonstrates that today (although Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and, yes, Paul Krugman may well do so on other days. YMMV).  How?  Just check out this opening paragraph.

In Ohio, citizens marched to the polls on Tuesday and voted to allow gambling casinos in the state. This was obviously a message to President Obama that independent voters are not happy with the way the health care bill is going.

Yes, I know, sarcasm and all that.  Her larger point, though, is nonsense.  Of course a local issue such as casino authorization doesn't reflect on Mr. Obama's presidency, and, unless she's going to present exit poll data no one knows whether independents like blackjack and slots.  But her farcical analysis here reflects not at all on the meaning of the other results, and obviously so.

It's apparent to anyone with a rudimentary education that certain of the election results could be interpreted as relevant to Mr. Obama's presidency, while others can't.  Whether that interpretation is right is another argument entirely.  But to use one - or two or three - that obviously can't to argue against all of them is laughable.

And would be, if it weren't on the pages of America's Paper of Record.

Desperate Times Call For Desperate Measures

You've passed a $787B 'stimulus', and no one is seeing any results from all those dollars.  Unemployment is 2% higher (or more) than you predicted it would be with the 'stimulus'.  Before anyone sees the wool over their eyes it's vital to get the word out that, yes, indeed, the 'stimulus' really is stimulating, and the flood of jobs created (or saved) is simply astonishing.  Why, look, the preposterously precise number is 640,239!   The astonished populace sinks back, mouth agape, and praises the wonderful job being done on their behalf.

It all seems so easy.  Until...

Until someone starts looking at the tabulation for all of those jobs.  There we find this.

[O]fficials defended the practice of counting raises as saved jobs.

“If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job,” HHS spokesman Luis Rosero said.

Which is, of course, garbage.

The latest stimulus report, released Friday, significantly overstates the number of jobs spared with money from programs serving families and children, mostly the Head Start preschool program. The report shows hundreds of the programs used nearly $323 million to provide pay raises and other benefits to their existing employees.

The raises themselves were appropriate — the stimulus law set aside money for Head Start salary increases — but converting that number into jobs proved difficult. The Obama administration told Head Start officials to consider a fraction of each employee as a job saved.

That's desperation.  "Nothing is happening.  We've got to show results, darn it!"  And considering the organization involved is Head Start, even if you grant the administration this ridiculous manipulation of the data, a little remedial math might be in order.

At Southwest Georgia Community Action Council in Moultrie, Ga., director Myrtis Mulkey-Ndawula said she followed the guidelines the Obama administration provided. She said she multiplied the 508 employees by 1.84 — the percentage pay raise they received — and came up with 935 jobs saved.

“I would say it’s confusing at best,” she said. “But we followed the instructions we were given.”

Confusing?  No, rather it's pathetic that this person didn't know how to multiply by a percentage.  Instead of multiplying by 1.84, the raise percentage, she should have multiplied by 0.0184, the decimal conversion of that percentage.  This changes the jobs "saved" to 9.35.

Can we send those running Head Start back to school?

11/5/09 1700: It looks like more of the same with Wisconsin's numbers.

You have to love the example of the Parkland Sanitary District data being part of the White House claims.  They took credit for 100 jobs that don’t even exist, at least 95 of which they overstated when the jobs really do begin.  They took a 1900% markup on five phantom jobs — for a sewage project.  If anyone doubted that the White House numbers were crap, this should utterly convince them.

More phantom jobs exist in Wisconsin’s data, all of it from contracts given directly from the federal government.  One contractor claimed to have saved 24 jobs without receiving any money at all for that project, which may be the most efficient use of government funds in US history.

I think we can all agree on at least one thing: the number of jobs "saved or created" via the $787B 'stimulus' is somewhat less than 640,239.  A lot less. If the number is not an out and out fabrication, it's certainly close.

Name That Party, Alcohol Violation Edition

A New Hampshire State Rep was arrested for underage drinking. (hat tip, Patrick Hynes)

Bedford – Brian Poznanski, a Nashua state representative and St. Anselm College junior, was arrested Friday morning by Bedford police for underage drinking.

Poznansk was one of 22 people arrested at a party at [redacted], and charged with alcohol violations after police were called at 12:30 a.m. for a large fight on the front lawn of the home.

Following the town's new policy, all underage drinkers were arrested, including Poznanski, who is 20 years old.

But this is the Union-Leader reporting, so we find out in Paragraph 6:

Poznanski, a Democrat, was elected to his first term in the House in November 2008 as one of the 10 Hillsborough District 26 representatives from Nashua's Wards 5, 8 and 9.

He has the lingo down pat, I'll give him that.

Yesterday Poznanski said he hopes his arrest will not "get in the way" of future political activity on his part.

"I want to put this aside and continue working. I realize it may pose a small speed bump, and if so, I hope to work through that," Poznanski said.

In other words, moveon.org.  Don't worry, kid.  It's only career-threatening for Republicans.  Look, for example, at a certain RI congressman.

The JTF "Quote Of The Day"

From Glenn Harlan Reynolds, exactly one year after the election that brought us the Obama presidency, discussing faded Obama magic.

The truth is, Obama wasn’t ready to be president when he ran in 2008. When he started, he probably thought he had no real chance — he himself admitted upon entering the Senate that he wasn’t qualified to be president — and that his first run would simply be a PR effort that would lift him to the top ranks of Senate Democrats.

When, to everyone’s surprise, resentment of the Clinton machine crystallized around him, he wound up beating Hillary for the nomination, and found himself riding an out-of-control express train. He rode it to victory, with some help from erratic McCain actions.

But he was right the first time about not being ready for the Oval Office. As president, he seems confused and a bit distant on the issues, leaving the details to congressional Democrats and an ever-growing number of "czars" while he golfs and launches attacks at Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

The Instapundit has a point.  The magic does seem to have magically disappeared.  Massively increased deficits, marxist czars, wilted will in Afghanistan, bigger government with even bigger taxes, non-stimulating 'stimulus', warring with adversarial press entities to the point of demonizing all opposition, and drives to make health care worse for all Americans will do that.

11/4/09 0930: Here's another, from John Steele Gordon in the Wall Street Journal, discussing the liberal paradigm:

Not only does the liberal paradigm not even come close to agreeing with the social and economic reality on the ground today, worse, it has largely congealed into a political religion, especially in the nearly 30 years since Ronald Reagan shifted the nation's political center of gravity, just as FDR had done 48 years earlier. Since liberals care about the sheep, all who disagree with liberalism must not, making them morally inferior if not downright immoral. Thus the nastiness in American politics is largely on the left. Whatever you think of Sarah Palin, her treatment in the liberal press was ugliness personified.

The conservatives of today bear little resemblance to those of the 1930s that cartoonist Peter Arno immortalized heading down to Manhattan's Trans-Lux theater to hiss newsreels of FDR. They are instead abubble with ideas to reform aspects of American politics and economics that badly need reform, such as the tax and legal systems, and the impending entitlements crisis. They want to utilize the great power of markets to force efficiency, drive down costs, and drive up yields. But liberals refuse to engage those ideas, simply because they are not liberal ideas and must, therefore, be wrong if not the latest plot by the wolves to exploit the sheep.

Sarah Palin's treatemtn in the liberal press was ugliness personified ...and still is.  All conservatives are seen as evil, primarily because they are not liberals.  The ideas of conservatives, therefore, are not just wrong but a dirty trick to steal back power from an unsuspecting populace, and a way to re-oppress blacks/gays/women/etc.  And protesting that characterization to a liberal merely proves to them that they're right.

I Wonder When This Will Be Changed?

Liz Sidoti of Associated Press, on the large Republican tide in today's off-year elections:

WASHINGTON – Republicans wrested Virginia from the Democrats Tuesday in a one-sided sweep of top offices, and New Jersey's unpopular Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine fought for his political life as independent voters swung behind the GOP in elections in both states. It was a troubling sign for President Barack Obama and his party heading into an important midterm election year...

The president had personally campaigned for Deeds and Corzine, raising the stakes in low-energy off-year elections. Thus, even one Democratic loss was a blot on Obama's political standing to a certain degree and signaled potential problems ahead as he seeks to achieve his policy goals, protect Democratic majorities in Congress and expand his party's grip on governors' seats next fall.

Oops.  Looks like someone didn't read the memo.

11/3/09 2215: The President isn't interested in the returns tonight?  Yeah, right.

A few hours after telling reporters they shouldn't expect "any great insight" into 2010 based on the outcome of Tuesday night's elections, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told POLITICO the president wasn't even following the results.

"He's not watching returns," Gibbs said.

I'm sure that's true.  I mean, why go to bed with a sour stomach?

11/3/09 2225: And according to the AP, it's over in NJ.  For Gov. Christie it's "winner, winner, chicken dinner."  Or, as Mel Allen would've said, how about that?

11/3/09 2230: See, CBS has the "right" approach.

A majority of voters in both states said they are worried about the direction of the nation’s economy over the next year. 85 percent of Virginia voters said they are worried, as are 90 percent of voters in New Jersey. These percentages were similar on Election Day in 2008.

In both states the economy topped the list of issues that mattered most to voters in their choice for governor – in Virginia health care was second, while in New Jersey the second choice was property taxes.

And what about the Obama factor? President Obama campaigned for both the Democratic gubernatorial candidates, even visiting New Jersey as recently as Sunday to stump for Jon Corzine.

Still, majorities of voters in both states (55 percent in Virginia and 60 percent in New Jersey) said President Obama was not a factor in their vote today.

So let's see if I understand this.  Fully 90% of the voters in NJ and 85% of those in VA are concerned about the economy, primarily.  And yet, the gentleman and his team that a)quadrupled the deficit, b) have us racking up $9+ trillion in unpaid bills over the next ten years, c) are trying to push through a multi-trillion dollar unfunded entitlement and d) are raising and will raise taxes further are "not a factor?."  I'm not sure that makes much sense.

11/3/09 2255: Michelle Malkin has the election nite roundup going.

Another Echo, At 'Big Government'

Mike Flynn at Big Government tells us that, in the case of Dede Scozzafava and other DIABLOs and RINOs, it's not the social issues that were the problem.  Rather, there also were no Republican/conservative principles as well in spending, governance, or taxation.

The media and the national Republicans who backed Dede are furiously spinning her withdrawal as meaning that pro-choice and pro-gay marriage candidates ‘need not apply’ for the GOP ticket. The media is warning that, unless the GOP nominates, ‘moderates’ the public will reject the party’s candidates and condemn it to perpetual minority status. Right, the media is worried about this.  I find it is generally wise to be skeptical of advice given me by my opponents.

Both the media and national Republicans are overstating the relevance of social issues at a time when most voters are fearful about keeping their jobs. Many people may care about these issues, but they aren’t driving their political activism. An highly-energized large block of voters are actually really concerned that government has grown too big, too fast. They’re not clinging to ‘gods and guns’, as candidate Obama famously sneered opined; they’re clinging to their wallets.

Joust The Facts, November 1:

I'm quite sure that Mr. Rich would have been happy to have a stealth Democrat added to the Congress, but that wouldn't help Republicans as a party in Washington at all.  There you do battle with votes, and hers was not clearly a vote upon which the GOP caucus could count.  The key issues, I think, are the economic and limited government principles.  Keep taxes low, work to reduce government's intrusiveness be reluctant to undermine the capitalist principles that made America's economy the envy of the world.  It's clear that there were questions about Ms. Scozzafava on all of those fronts.  I mean, card check?  Whiile Mr. Hoffman has his own weaknesses, as all Congressfolk and candidates certainly do, at least that's not one of them.

As for the social issues, As the Wall Street Journal noted, "Conservative stands won't always fit in the Northeast the way they might in the South. Single-issue litmus tests can be self-defeating," so I think GOP conservatives would have understood, and supported, a fiscal conservative/social moderate running in upstate NY.  But even more self-defeating is hand-picking candidates who don't represent Republicans in the least.

Mr. Flynn points out that, in an annual poll of CPAC attendees on protecting traditional values vs. limiting the size and scope of government, the activist cons this year voted 75% for the latter.  This is Mr. Corzine's problem in New Jersey, and Mr. Deeds' problem in Virginia.

And Mr. Obama's problem in Washington as well.

Thomas Sowell Echoes Joust The Facts

First Mr. Sowell today, on the "costs" of healthcare:

There is a fundamental difference between reducing costs and simply shifting costs around, like a pea in a shell game at a carnival. Costs are not reduced simply because you pay less at a doctor's office and more in taxes-- or more in insurance premiums, or more in higher prices for other goods and services that you buy, because the government has put the costs on businesses that pass those costs on to you.

Joust The Facts, October 29, "Creating Scarcity In Medicine The Easy Way":

As a provider, out there trying to keep my own practice alive, pay my employees appropriately and have their own pay keep up with inflation (at a minimum), deal with rising supply costs, rising bureaucracy costs, rising health care costs, and rising overhead, Medicare and Medicaid don't cut it.  Doctors drop Medicare because they can't pay the bills on Medicare patients, and Medicaid pays significantly less.  Scarecrow looks at the governmental macroeconomics of health care reform rather than the effects on medical practices, seeing the forest but missing the trees.  And I think that is what a lot of legislators in Washington are doing, and they're missing the individual trees.  This isn't just a game where if you shift dollars around from pocket to pocket they multiply miraculously.

Mr. Sowell, on physicians in the future:

If doctors' incomes were cut in half, that would not lower the cost of producing doctors through years of expensive training in medical schools and hospitals, nor the overhead costs of running doctors' offices.

What it would do is reduce the number of very able people who are willing to take on the high costs of a medical education when the return on that investment is greatly reduced and the aggravations of dealing with government bureaucrats are added to the burdens of the work.

Joust The Facts, op. cit.:

It's difficult enough to become a doctor, what with an extra four years of school, an extra 3 to 6 years of residency and then fellowship training, and then face the gradual buildup of a practice as your community slowly becomes comfortable with you as the go-to person when they find themselves in need.  If the payoff after all that effort is that you'll annually be at risk of bankruptcy based on which way the country's breezes are blowing, then fewer and fewer bright, motivated individuals will make the effort - and delay their gratification - to get there.

It's good to hear others join my voice in making a chorus.

The Wall Street Journal Echoes Joust The Facts

Today's WSJ editorial: "The Worst Bill Ever"

All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.

As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine. 

Joust The Facts, Oct. 31, "Feigned Disappointment, Thinly Disguised"

The public option doesn't represent "consumer choice" or "competition."  It represents yet another government intrusion in the private market designed to distort and eventually eliminate the private market.  It's 1990 pages of smoke and mirrors, strobe lights, and special effects.  The progressives are feigning disappointment at something that they know isn't the least that could be passed, but the most, and something that they know can later be transformed into what they're after.  Single payer.

Joust The Facts, Oct. 29: "Creating Scarcity In Medicine The Easy Way"

So keep arguing about Medicaid rates, maybe moving them closer to Medicare (gasp!), and shifting costs onto the states by expanding Medicaid (the states love this), or "public options" dictating Medicare rates, or maybe (gasp!) Medicare +5.  In twenty years there'll be a tremendous wait for physician appointments, particularly for specialists, waits for elective surgery like hip replacement, and waits for testing like MRI.  The engineering world may develop some marvelous breakthroughs but nobody will be able to afford them.

Is this the "worst bill ever?"  I don't know.  Read the editorial and see what you think.  There's a lot of competition for the top spot.  Let's just say it'll be the worst bill ever, until the next one.

A Halloween Tragedy

Most parents worry about their kids on Halloween night, but they worry about other adults with not-so-innocent motives, or cars, or pets that should have been chained, or what their kids might do themselves.  They don't usually worry about the wind.

A 10-year-old boy was killed when he was hit by a falling tree while trick-or-treating last night...

[T]he windy weather caused a birch tree to snap off about 4 feet from its base and fall on the boy, who was out trick-or-treating with other children.

The boy, whose name has not been released, was transported by the Pelham Fire Department to Saints Memorial Hospital in Lowell, where he was pronounced dead...

The weather was extremely windy throughout the region last night, with gusts as high as 40 miles per hour at times, according to the National Weather Service.

My heart goes out to the family.  This is something no one should have to endure, particularly on a night that brings such joy to children of all ages.  I hope they can find the strength to deal with their grief.

It's Past Time To Weigh In On NY-23

We all know what happened.  A conservative third party candidate captured the imagination of the conservatives in the Republican party, and support was pulled from the actual Republican candidate to the point that, clear that she would lose, she pulled out of the race yesterday.  This leaves it a two-horse race between a Democrat and the conservative candidate, Doug Hoffman.  I've been occupied with a boatload of business and home activities and responsibilities, and I've had plenty to blog about in health care, which is more up my alley.  Still, this morning it seems a look with perspective is in order.

Frank Rich goes off the rails this morning in the NY Times, as he usually does, about the "Stalinism" of Republican activists who caused the tumult.

The battle for upstate New York confirms just how swiftly the right has devolved into a wacky, paranoid cult that is as eager to eat its own as it is to destroy Obama. The movement’s undisputed leaders, Palin and Beck, neither of whom has what Palin once called the “actual responsibilities” of public office, would gladly see the Republican Party die on the cross of right-wing ideological purity. Over the short term, at least, their wish could come true.

Mr. Rich's column merits a full fisking, as it plays loose and fast with the facts, but I don't have the time for it this morning.  Leaving aside the fact that at the time Mrs. Palin used the term "actual repsonsibilities" she actually did have them and then-Senator Obama didn't, this isn't so much a purging of non-purists as it is a statement of minimal requirements.  Dede Scozzafava's problem wasn't that she wasn't a staunch conservative, but rather that she wasn't much of a Republican at all.

Democrats want to portray this race as a familiar moderate-conservative GOP split, but the real issue is why Ms. Scozzafava is a Republican at all. She has voted for so many tax increases that the Democrat is attacking her as a tax raiser. She supported the Obama stimulus, and she favors "card check" to make union organizing easier, or at least she did until a recent flip-flop.She has run more than once on the line of the Working Families Party, which is aligned with Acorn. Her voting record in Albany puts her to the left of nearly half of the Democrats in the assembly. She also favors gay marriage, which is to the left of Mr. Obama...

Our sources tell us the backroom boys picked Ms. Scozzafava because she is a woman with high name recognition who could appeal to Democrats. Too bad she doesn't appeal to Republicans...

But GOP candidates ought to at least agree on some core principles, such as limited government and limits on the power of unions that have done so much to bust New York's budget and drive jobs from the state. Some Republicans think Ms. Scozzafava might even switch parties if she wins and faces the prospect of a tough GOP primary next year.

I'm quite sure that Mr. Rich would have been happy to have a stealth Democrat added to the Congress, but that wouldn't help Republicans as a party in Washington at all.  There you do battle with votes, and hers was not clearly a vote upon which the GOP caucus could count.  The key issues, I think, are the economic and limited government principles.  Keep taxes low, work to reduce government's intrusiveness be reluctant to undermine the capitalist principles that made America's economy the envy of the world.  It's clear that there were questions about Ms. Scozzafava on all of those fronts.  I mean, card check?  Whiile Mr. Hoffman has his own weaknesses, as all Congressfolk and candidates certainly do, at least that's not one of them.

As for the social issues, As the Wall Street Journal noted, "Conservative stands won't always fit in the Northeast the way they might in the South. Single-issue litmus tests can be self-defeating," so I think GOP conservatives would have understood, and supported, a fiscal conservative/social moderate running in upstate NY.  But even more self-defeating is hand-picking candidates who don't represent Republicans in the least.  That will exacerbate, and highlight, divisions in Washington.

11/1/09 0840: Ace of Spades lists the reasons, and analyzes.

11/1/09 1540: "This isn't so much a purging as a statement of minimum requirements."  Guess whom Ms. Scozzafava is supporting in the special election?  DIABLO* indeed.

And here's R.S. McCain:

If Dede keeps up the good work, she's a shoo-in for the Arlen Specter Award for Deeply Held Principles.

"Trojan horse" can apply to people, and not just public options.

11/1/09 2220: Betsy's Page provides a partial Rich fisking.

Funny, but ol' Frank was nowhere as upset when liberal Moveon types excommunicated Joe Lieberman from the Democratic Party in 2006. In fact, he was quite happy to give Ned Lamont his seal of approval for Lamont's opposition to the Iraq War. Indeed, he was happy that liberal bloggers had forced through Lieberman's defeat in the Democratic primary.

Their generalizations about the blogosphere are overheated; the shrillest left-wing voices on the Internet are no more representative of the whole than those of the far right. This country remains a country of the center, and opposition to the war in Iraq is now the center and (if you listen to Chuck Hagel and George Will, among other non-neoconservatives) even the center right.

See, when liberal bloggers work in a party primary to oust the party's incumbent that is just representative of the voters following the center. When conservative bloggers band together to oppose a liberal candidate in a special election that is Stalinist.

That's the "wherever I am is where everyone should be" narcissism that comes with being a liberal opinion columnist at the Paper Of (Democratic) Record.

*DIABLO - democrat in all but label only.

What About The "Promise" Of Tort Reform?

From President Obama's speech to Congress on health care reform:

Now, finally, many in this chamber -- particularly on the Republican side of the aisle -- have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. (Applause.) Now -- there you go. There you go. Now, I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. (Applause.) So I'm proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. (Applause.) I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today. (Applause.)

That was, at the time, all theater as well.  He doesn't really commit to anything except "moving forward on a range of ideas."  Everyone watching, everyone in the room, knew he had no intention of allowing true tort reform, the kind that's been shown to work in, for example, Texas, including caps on non-economic damages.  The wording was designed for people to feel like he understood the problem and addressed the issue, but not to commit to actually doing anything about it.  Sure enough, this is exactly what we have in the House bill.

The health care bill recently unveiled by Speaker Nancy Pelosi is over 1,900 pages for a reason. It is much easier to dispense goodies to favored interest groups if they are surrounded by a lot of legislative legalese. For example, check out this juicy morsel to the trial lawyers (page 1431-1433 of the bill):

Section 2531, entitled “Medical Liability Alternatives,” establishes an incentive program for states to adopt and implement alternatives to medical liability litigation. [But]…… a state is not eligible for the incentive payments if that state puts a law on the books that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages.

Must.  Help.  Poor.  Attorneys.

10/31/09 1350: A good line from Ed Morrissey:

No one should be the least bit surprised that the same Democratic Party that takes in over 80% of political donations from trial lawyers has attempted to kneecap tort-reform pilot programs in ObamaCare ... Maybe they should just call themselves the Ambulance Chasers Party and be done with it.