We all have our memories of that horrible, devasting day - I certainly do. The shock, the horror, the anger, the Towers collapsing, the sirens, the F-16s circling over Manhattan, the smoke and smells I experienced 6 miles away, the quiet in the streets, the quiet in Central Park, the spontaneous candlelight gathering at Lincoln Center in the plaza, Giuliani's leadership that day, the way people came together.
Below are a few columns I read over the past couple of days that I think are worth sharing about Sept 11.
Ralph Peters -- Betraying Our Dead
UpsideTrader -- My Remembrance
Steve Serby -- ON SEPT. 11, 2001, COUGHLIN COACHED HIS SON TO SAFETY
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/betraying_our_dead_H6T95r1BTCnkC1UbEdUfsO
http://www.upsidetrader.com/2009/09/my-remeberence/
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10058196/A-DAY-TO-REMEMBER---ON-SEPT.-11,-2001,-COUGHLIN-COACHED-HIS-SON-TO-SAFETY-
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
ObamaCare: Plan, what Plan ? (aka Where's the Beef ?)
What Plan? [Yuval Levin]
The most peculiar feature of President Obama’s rhetoric in Wednesday night’s health care speech was his repeated use of terms like “my plan,” “this plan,” or “our plan.” It was not at all clear what plan he had in mind specifically — especially since a significant amount of what he outlined is not in the House or Senate bills at the moment. Was he suggesting the White House would produce its own plan?
A front-page story in today’s Washington Post clarifies the issue — or rather makes clear that there is no clarity. “One day after President Obama pitched his plan for comprehensive health-care reform to a joint session of Congress, administration officials struggled Thursday to detail how he would achieve his goal of extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans without increasing the deficit,” Post reporter Ceci Connolly writes.
The best summary of the White House approach in the story comes from the White House itself:
“His speech was very specific and, as promised, answered the big questions about how we should proceed on providing a secure and stable health system for all Americans,” White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said. “Many of the details will be worked out in the legislative process.”
Very specific, but the details haven’t been worked out. Not a bad description of the speech, and the administration’s approach to the health-care debate. If you had made specific promises to cover the uninsured, reduce costs, leave everyone who is happy with his existing arrangements alone, and spend $900 billion without raising middle class taxes, cutting benefits to the elderly, or adding a dime to the deficit you would probably steer clear of details too.
Washington Post: Details Lacking on Obama Plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091004365.html?hpid=topnews
The most peculiar feature of President Obama’s rhetoric in Wednesday night’s health care speech was his repeated use of terms like “my plan,” “this plan,” or “our plan.” It was not at all clear what plan he had in mind specifically — especially since a significant amount of what he outlined is not in the House or Senate bills at the moment. Was he suggesting the White House would produce its own plan?
A front-page story in today’s Washington Post clarifies the issue — or rather makes clear that there is no clarity. “One day after President Obama pitched his plan for comprehensive health-care reform to a joint session of Congress, administration officials struggled Thursday to detail how he would achieve his goal of extending coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans without increasing the deficit,” Post reporter Ceci Connolly writes.
The best summary of the White House approach in the story comes from the White House itself:
“His speech was very specific and, as promised, answered the big questions about how we should proceed on providing a secure and stable health system for all Americans,” White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said. “Many of the details will be worked out in the legislative process.”
Very specific, but the details haven’t been worked out. Not a bad description of the speech, and the administration’s approach to the health-care debate. If you had made specific promises to cover the uninsured, reduce costs, leave everyone who is happy with his existing arrangements alone, and spend $900 billion without raising middle class taxes, cutting benefits to the elderly, or adding a dime to the deficit you would probably steer clear of details too.
Washington Post: Details Lacking on Obama Plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/10/AR2009091004365.html?hpid=topnews
Remembering Sept. 11, 2001 -- and some relevant commentary
The Obama White House -- It was a "crime" ?!?!?!?
From the 2009 presidential 9/11 proclamation:
We must apprehend all those who perpetrated these heinous crimes, seek justice for those who were killed, and defend against all threats to our national security.
Re: It's a Crime [Andy McCarthy]
No, Mr. President, these are acts of war. What's "heinous" is not to see that. And these acts of war, we have learned, happen when we treat such atrocities as if they were mere crimes. It emboldens our enemies to know that we won't defend ourselves vigorously. How shameful to pick today of all days to display for all to see — including our enemies — that we've forgotten that lesson. I shudder to think what it will take to relearn it.
The CIA: "War against Al-Qaeda"
Leon Panetta e-mails CIA staff:
The information the CIA gathers and the actions it takes, crucial as they are, will not by themselves defeat terrorists determined to strike again. Al-Qa’ida’s own vicious ideology, founded on the murder of innocent people, has proven to be a major weakness. But we cannot wait for popular disgust to isolate and overcome the extremists. We and our allies must continue to press the offensive, eroding their ability to plot and kill. It is difficult, hazardous work. But your skill, dedication, and valor make good on our responsibility not only to the memory of those who perished on September 11th, but to their families and to all Americans. We will never forget their sacrifice and we will never rest until we have brought those responsible for this tragedy to justice. The President has made clear that our mission is to disrupt, defeat, and destroy al-Qa’ida—and that’s exactly what we intend to do. It is a privilege for me to work with men and women worthy of so vital a mission. Thank you for serving so well in this fight—and for helping the United States guarantee that no life lost in this attack or battle shall be lost in vain. That is our pledge and our prayer on this September 11th.
Victor Davis Hanson: Our National 9-11 Schizoprhenia
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2ZWM2YzI5MzkxMjhjOTVhYWU1ZTZlZGM5ZGY0Y2U=
From the 2009 presidential 9/11 proclamation:
We must apprehend all those who perpetrated these heinous crimes, seek justice for those who were killed, and defend against all threats to our national security.
Re: It's a Crime [Andy McCarthy]
No, Mr. President, these are acts of war. What's "heinous" is not to see that. And these acts of war, we have learned, happen when we treat such atrocities as if they were mere crimes. It emboldens our enemies to know that we won't defend ourselves vigorously. How shameful to pick today of all days to display for all to see — including our enemies — that we've forgotten that lesson. I shudder to think what it will take to relearn it.
The CIA: "War against Al-Qaeda"
Leon Panetta e-mails CIA staff:
The information the CIA gathers and the actions it takes, crucial as they are, will not by themselves defeat terrorists determined to strike again. Al-Qa’ida’s own vicious ideology, founded on the murder of innocent people, has proven to be a major weakness. But we cannot wait for popular disgust to isolate and overcome the extremists. We and our allies must continue to press the offensive, eroding their ability to plot and kill. It is difficult, hazardous work. But your skill, dedication, and valor make good on our responsibility not only to the memory of those who perished on September 11th, but to their families and to all Americans. We will never forget their sacrifice and we will never rest until we have brought those responsible for this tragedy to justice. The President has made clear that our mission is to disrupt, defeat, and destroy al-Qa’ida—and that’s exactly what we intend to do. It is a privilege for me to work with men and women worthy of so vital a mission. Thank you for serving so well in this fight—and for helping the United States guarantee that no life lost in this attack or battle shall be lost in vain. That is our pledge and our prayer on this September 11th.
Victor Davis Hanson: Our National 9-11 Schizoprhenia
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NGU2ZWM2YzI5MzkxMjhjOTVhYWU1ZTZlZGM5ZGY0Y2U=
Thursday, September 10, 2009
ObamaCare - well articulated, critical opinion pieces today
Rich Lowry: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/dandy_speech_if_truth_doesn_matter_cGBDsDBdVH3RZ3nqnTNK6K
Charles Hurt:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/outsider_turns_to_dc_snake_oil_salesman_2bVTuygXdgN5d9GIjNgB4H
Michael Tanner:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_sizzle_no_substance_YCmYbWLLsBfaMNaXgSs0UP
Excerpt:
Charles Hurt (usually pro-Dem and Obama):
Outsider turns to DC snake-oil salesman
WASHINGTON -- Mark last night's address to Congress as the moment President Obama officially went completely Washington on us.
With universal health care, the centerpiece of his historic campaign, unraveling before him, Obama returned to those familiar waters of his greatest strength: that of an orator giving a great address that moves mountains.
The speech was said to be the most important speech of his young presidency.
Although Democrats run every game in town, their dreams of government health care -- and the massive infusion of new tax money that would flow with it into their hands -- looked to be dying.
This was the canvas for Obama's speech last night:
He needed to scrap the dumbest Democratic ideas and include new approaches that will actually lower health-care costs.
And, of course, he needed to sell this whole new program to an increasingly skeptical public.
But instead of offering anything new, Obama made a desperate stab at bipartisanship by offering tort reform.
We just lived through a month of angry protests against a rogue federal government and palpable rage against a Congress that blindly approves unread legislation.
While it may have pleased some Republicans who cheered tort reform last night, it is safe to say that not a single American will suddenly drop his or her opposition to government medicine just because Obama acknowledges that needless lawsuits drive up medical costs.
Only in Washington would tort reform serve as the grease with which to ram through death panels and government medicine.
That's because Washington is a phony stage where lobbyists are the only real actors. And in the biggest showdown between these sellouts, you have lobbyists for doctors and insurance companies on one side and lobbyists for trial lawyers on the other. In this sick world, if you make the lawyers bleed, you get the others on board.
And that's the cynical ploy Obama offered last night.
The man who won as a Washington outsider has officially become the ultimate insider.
No wonder people have quit buying what he's selling.
Charles Hurt:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/outsider_turns_to_dc_snake_oil_salesman_2bVTuygXdgN5d9GIjNgB4H
Michael Tanner:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/all_sizzle_no_substance_YCmYbWLLsBfaMNaXgSs0UP
Excerpt:
Charles Hurt (usually pro-Dem and Obama):
Outsider turns to DC snake-oil salesman
WASHINGTON -- Mark last night's address to Congress as the moment President Obama officially went completely Washington on us.
With universal health care, the centerpiece of his historic campaign, unraveling before him, Obama returned to those familiar waters of his greatest strength: that of an orator giving a great address that moves mountains.
The speech was said to be the most important speech of his young presidency.
Although Democrats run every game in town, their dreams of government health care -- and the massive infusion of new tax money that would flow with it into their hands -- looked to be dying.
This was the canvas for Obama's speech last night:
He needed to scrap the dumbest Democratic ideas and include new approaches that will actually lower health-care costs.
And, of course, he needed to sell this whole new program to an increasingly skeptical public.
But instead of offering anything new, Obama made a desperate stab at bipartisanship by offering tort reform.
We just lived through a month of angry protests against a rogue federal government and palpable rage against a Congress that blindly approves unread legislation.
While it may have pleased some Republicans who cheered tort reform last night, it is safe to say that not a single American will suddenly drop his or her opposition to government medicine just because Obama acknowledges that needless lawsuits drive up medical costs.
Only in Washington would tort reform serve as the grease with which to ram through death panels and government medicine.
That's because Washington is a phony stage where lobbyists are the only real actors. And in the biggest showdown between these sellouts, you have lobbyists for doctors and insurance companies on one side and lobbyists for trial lawyers on the other. In this sick world, if you make the lawyers bleed, you get the others on board.
And that's the cynical ploy Obama offered last night.
The man who won as a Washington outsider has officially become the ultimate insider.
No wonder people have quit buying what he's selling.
Obama's upcoming UN coming out party ...
It may look good for the cameras, but the reality likely will not be pretty:Obama at the UN:
Hazards Large and Small [Anne Bayefsky]
President Obama’s UN debut is fast approaching. But as he looks forward to his makeover as global conciliator and potentate, all the signs point to a train wreck that has the potential of making health-care reform look easy.
Two problems are putting a wrench in his plans: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Libyan president Col. Moammar Qaddafi. Both are coming to the UN’s New York headquarters in less than two weeks with to-do lists that don’t include improving Obama’s poll numbers.
Yesterday, Ahmadinejad called the president’s bluff. In mid-summer Obama decided that when the UN met in September, he would become the first American president to preside over a session of the Security Council (the council’s presidency rotates among its members, and this month is the United States’s turn). Before Obama’s move, the council’s agenda items for September had included “nuclear non-proliferation — Iran” and “nuclear non-proliferation — North Korea.” But upon inviting heads of state and government to join him, Obama chose a different agenda for his get-together, described by Amb. Susan Rice as “focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.” The Iranian president saw his opportunity, and yesterday he announced that Iran is ready for talks about “worldwide nuclear non-proliferation” and “global nuclear disarmament.”
Obama undoubtedly added “disarmament” to his council moment to impress a non-American audience. He didn’t care that in UN circles it would be used to change the subject from preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to disarming Israel and the United States. Fine and dandy with Ahmadinejad.
Furthermore, on Monday the Iranian president said he has no intention of halting uranium enrichment or negotiating over his country’s nuclear “rights.” With Obama running away from naming specific troublesome countries — at a summit of world leaders, at the Security Council, in the middle of New York City — why shouldn’t Ahmadinejad treat Americans as airheads who prefer photo ops too: “Nuclear proliferation — who, me?”
Meanwhile, the Qaddafi problem is getting more “sensitive,” as Ambassador Rice has so delicately put it. Obama’s idea for a summit meeting, which seemed like a harmless international diversionary tactic in the midst of a domestic mess, has the potential to become an image maker’s worst nightmare. Libya is a member of the Security Council, and Qaddafi is looking for a hug (literally). So now Obama’s people are worrying about how to avoid him, or at least how to keep the cameras away when Obama embraces a man whom Americans understand to be a human-rights low-life extraordinaire. The irony is that it was Obama himself who issued Qaddafi the invitation to the council summit.
The president may also run into the colonel at the General Assembly podium the day before. On September 23 Obama will assume the dais and wax eloquent about the glories of the United Nations. The fantasy won’t last long, though. Libya is the president of this year’s General Assembly, resulting in a speaker order that makes Obama into Qaddafi’s warm-up act.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices
Hazards Large and Small [Anne Bayefsky]
President Obama’s UN debut is fast approaching. But as he looks forward to his makeover as global conciliator and potentate, all the signs point to a train wreck that has the potential of making health-care reform look easy.
Two problems are putting a wrench in his plans: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Libyan president Col. Moammar Qaddafi. Both are coming to the UN’s New York headquarters in less than two weeks with to-do lists that don’t include improving Obama’s poll numbers.
Yesterday, Ahmadinejad called the president’s bluff. In mid-summer Obama decided that when the UN met in September, he would become the first American president to preside over a session of the Security Council (the council’s presidency rotates among its members, and this month is the United States’s turn). Before Obama’s move, the council’s agenda items for September had included “nuclear non-proliferation — Iran” and “nuclear non-proliferation — North Korea.” But upon inviting heads of state and government to join him, Obama chose a different agenda for his get-together, described by Amb. Susan Rice as “focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries.” The Iranian president saw his opportunity, and yesterday he announced that Iran is ready for talks about “worldwide nuclear non-proliferation” and “global nuclear disarmament.”
Obama undoubtedly added “disarmament” to his council moment to impress a non-American audience. He didn’t care that in UN circles it would be used to change the subject from preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons to disarming Israel and the United States. Fine and dandy with Ahmadinejad.
Furthermore, on Monday the Iranian president said he has no intention of halting uranium enrichment or negotiating over his country’s nuclear “rights.” With Obama running away from naming specific troublesome countries — at a summit of world leaders, at the Security Council, in the middle of New York City — why shouldn’t Ahmadinejad treat Americans as airheads who prefer photo ops too: “Nuclear proliferation — who, me?”
Meanwhile, the Qaddafi problem is getting more “sensitive,” as Ambassador Rice has so delicately put it. Obama’s idea for a summit meeting, which seemed like a harmless international diversionary tactic in the midst of a domestic mess, has the potential to become an image maker’s worst nightmare. Libya is a member of the Security Council, and Qaddafi is looking for a hug (literally). So now Obama’s people are worrying about how to avoid him, or at least how to keep the cameras away when Obama embraces a man whom Americans understand to be a human-rights low-life extraordinaire. The irony is that it was Obama himself who issued Qaddafi the invitation to the council summit.
The president may also run into the colonel at the General Assembly podium the day before. On September 23 Obama will assume the dais and wax eloquent about the glories of the United Nations. The fantasy won’t last long, though. Libya is the president of this year’s General Assembly, resulting in a speaker order that makes Obama into Qaddafi’s warm-up act.
— Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices
ObamaCare update ... aftermath of Congressional speech
So, a Congressman called O a liar. That's nothing compared to what they did to GWB.
Obama's Lies Matter, Too [Jonah Goldberg]
Matt Welch:
“It is telling that so many people who claim to be speaking on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Journalism have consistently focused their outrage-o-meters at individual townhall attendees, political broadcast entertainers, and the lesser lights of a lame (if resurgent-by-default) opposition party, while letting walk nearly fact-check-free the non-irrelevant occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If calling out lies and misrepresentations about a significant policy proposal is such pressing journalistic business—and it should be!—you’d think the watchdogs might start with the guy doing the proposing.”
Ramesh's extended dissection of the president's dishonesty can be found here.
Obama Poisoning the Well [Jonah Goldberg]
From Outside the Beltway:
The president was deliberately poisoning the well, claiming that his opponents are dishonorable and ill-intentioned. And, as AllahPundit and Mark Tapscott point out, the bill will of course cover illegal aliens. Even the Congressional Research Service says so.
“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship.Indeed, as an Obama official interviewed on NPR this morning admits, the administration has moved the ball in the other direction, removing existing restrictions requiring people to provide proof of citizenship to get various federal benefits on the grounds that they were too onerous and causing those legitimately eligible to give up or be denied. That may well be the right thing to do (I don’t know the specifics well enough to render definitive judgment) but it nonetheless vitiates the claim that there’s some magic wall to prevent the twelve million-odd illegal aliens from gaining access.Beyond that, simple logic tells you that illegal aliens will be covered under any system of universal coverage. Aside from the plain meaning of the word universal, we have laws in this country requiring unquestioned treatment at emergency rooms for anyone who shows up. The Supreme Court ruled more than a quarter century ago in Pyler v. Doe that the Equal Protection Clause requires that children of known illegal aliens be given free elementary and secondary education in public schools. It’s hard to justify a rationale that requires paying to educate children while denying them health care.
On to the Next Speech [Mark Steyn]
For what it's worth, I didn't think the president helped himself last night. He reminded me of the smart kid who feels he doesn't need to prepare. The speech was very inconsistent in tone, from don't-frighten-the-horses utilitarianism to the grandiosity he finds so hard to resist (the this-is-the-moment stuff*) to the petulant imputations of bad faith to anyone who disagrees with him (which is at least as unbecoming as what that no-name Congressman did).
I don't think he was served by the setting and the unearned ovations that come with it: There's a reason why joint sessions have mostly been reserved for foreign policy. The ritual suits affairs of state. But health care is an affair of you and your body — that's why his numbers tanked over August, as people realized it wasn't just about helping "the uninsured" but about potentially dramatic changes to their own health care. The parliamentary frippery subliminally underlines what increasing numbers of voters don't like about it — that your hip replacement is now in the care of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.
So I don't think it'll help. On the other hand, how much help does he need? If I were Obama, I'd be planning on ramming something — anything — through and relying on my charisma, the media, and GOP clubfootedness to see me over the rough patch. Not saying that'll work, but, given the extraordinary complacency of the speech, evidently the president and his courtiers still feel they've got it all over anybody else.
Obama's Lies Matter, Too [Jonah Goldberg]
Matt Welch:
“It is telling that so many people who claim to be speaking on the side of Truth, Justice, and the American Way of Journalism have consistently focused their outrage-o-meters at individual townhall attendees, political broadcast entertainers, and the lesser lights of a lame (if resurgent-by-default) opposition party, while letting walk nearly fact-check-free the non-irrelevant occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. If calling out lies and misrepresentations about a significant policy proposal is such pressing journalistic business—and it should be!—you’d think the watchdogs might start with the guy doing the proposing.”
Ramesh's extended dissection of the president's dishonesty can be found here.
Obama Poisoning the Well [Jonah Goldberg]
From Outside the Beltway:
The president was deliberately poisoning the well, claiming that his opponents are dishonorable and ill-intentioned. And, as AllahPundit and Mark Tapscott point out, the bill will of course cover illegal aliens. Even the Congressional Research Service says so.
“Under H.R. 3200, a ‘Health Insurance Exchange’ would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside a public option…H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitzens—whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently—participating in the Exchange.”
CRS also notes that the bill has no provision for requiring those seeking coverage or services to provided proof of citizenship.Indeed, as an Obama official interviewed on NPR this morning admits, the administration has moved the ball in the other direction, removing existing restrictions requiring people to provide proof of citizenship to get various federal benefits on the grounds that they were too onerous and causing those legitimately eligible to give up or be denied. That may well be the right thing to do (I don’t know the specifics well enough to render definitive judgment) but it nonetheless vitiates the claim that there’s some magic wall to prevent the twelve million-odd illegal aliens from gaining access.Beyond that, simple logic tells you that illegal aliens will be covered under any system of universal coverage. Aside from the plain meaning of the word universal, we have laws in this country requiring unquestioned treatment at emergency rooms for anyone who shows up. The Supreme Court ruled more than a quarter century ago in Pyler v. Doe that the Equal Protection Clause requires that children of known illegal aliens be given free elementary and secondary education in public schools. It’s hard to justify a rationale that requires paying to educate children while denying them health care.
On to the Next Speech [Mark Steyn]
For what it's worth, I didn't think the president helped himself last night. He reminded me of the smart kid who feels he doesn't need to prepare. The speech was very inconsistent in tone, from don't-frighten-the-horses utilitarianism to the grandiosity he finds so hard to resist (the this-is-the-moment stuff*) to the petulant imputations of bad faith to anyone who disagrees with him (which is at least as unbecoming as what that no-name Congressman did).
I don't think he was served by the setting and the unearned ovations that come with it: There's a reason why joint sessions have mostly been reserved for foreign policy. The ritual suits affairs of state. But health care is an affair of you and your body — that's why his numbers tanked over August, as people realized it wasn't just about helping "the uninsured" but about potentially dramatic changes to their own health care. The parliamentary frippery subliminally underlines what increasing numbers of voters don't like about it — that your hip replacement is now in the care of Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank.
So I don't think it'll help. On the other hand, how much help does he need? If I were Obama, I'd be planning on ramming something — anything — through and relying on my charisma, the media, and GOP clubfootedness to see me over the rough patch. Not saying that'll work, but, given the extraordinary complacency of the speech, evidently the president and his courtiers still feel they've got it all over anybody else.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Van "the man" Jones
Krauthammer: On Van Jones’s resignation:
It's clear that what did him in was the Truther's statement.
All the other stuff? You know, you can have a communist or two in the White House. You can have a guy who uses expletives about the opposition. But you can't have somebody in government that believes there was a Bush conspiracy to allow — to deliberately allow — 9/11. That is beyond the pale. It is a rancid paranoid politics that is beyond radicalism.
If that hadn't happened, I suspect he would still be in office. So that is what did him in.
And here he is protesting it was a smear campaign and lies. If they were all lies, why did he apologize twice?
And then secondly, you get him or his defenders saying that he didn't carefully read the petition. The petition is quite easy to read and plain. It speaks about the government officials who may have deliberately allowed the 9/11 attack.
Now, this is a guy who has been touted as a graduate of Yale Law School. So where is the fine print here? Where is the ambiguity? And the difficulty? And the difficult syntax that he couldn't decipher?
I assure you that any of the schoolchildren that Obama will be addressing tomorrow would read it and understand it. So his explanation is completely incredible. He obviously knew what he was signing. And that's what did him in at 12:01 on a Sunday, usually the time for executions…
What you also learn about the White House is when [White House adviser Valerie] Jarrett said, as we saw on tape, "We've been watching him all these years," well, that means you have been watching him and must know something about his history of quite radical politics and statements.
And that apparently was undisturbing to Jarrett and to Obama people. And that tells you it is a reflection of the boss. The boss also had a history, before he became a candidate, of being around — and friends with the — likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers.
Liberals scolded us last year [about] how irrelevant all of that is, how it is a smear campaign against Obama. But if you live in that environment and you find nothing inherently wrong with that kind of radicalism, then a Van Jones will show up, you will watch him years and years, and you will think this guy is perfectly mainstream.
It's clear that what did him in was the Truther's statement.
All the other stuff? You know, you can have a communist or two in the White House. You can have a guy who uses expletives about the opposition. But you can't have somebody in government that believes there was a Bush conspiracy to allow — to deliberately allow — 9/11. That is beyond the pale. It is a rancid paranoid politics that is beyond radicalism.
If that hadn't happened, I suspect he would still be in office. So that is what did him in.
And here he is protesting it was a smear campaign and lies. If they were all lies, why did he apologize twice?
And then secondly, you get him or his defenders saying that he didn't carefully read the petition. The petition is quite easy to read and plain. It speaks about the government officials who may have deliberately allowed the 9/11 attack.
Now, this is a guy who has been touted as a graduate of Yale Law School. So where is the fine print here? Where is the ambiguity? And the difficulty? And the difficult syntax that he couldn't decipher?
I assure you that any of the schoolchildren that Obama will be addressing tomorrow would read it and understand it. So his explanation is completely incredible. He obviously knew what he was signing. And that's what did him in at 12:01 on a Sunday, usually the time for executions…
What you also learn about the White House is when [White House adviser Valerie] Jarrett said, as we saw on tape, "We've been watching him all these years," well, that means you have been watching him and must know something about his history of quite radical politics and statements.
And that apparently was undisturbing to Jarrett and to Obama people. And that tells you it is a reflection of the boss. The boss also had a history, before he became a candidate, of being around — and friends with the — likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers.
Liberals scolded us last year [about] how irrelevant all of that is, how it is a smear campaign against Obama. But if you live in that environment and you find nothing inherently wrong with that kind of radicalism, then a Van Jones will show up, you will watch him years and years, and you will think this guy is perfectly mainstream.
Revealing Convergence: Van Jones and the Education Speech [Lisa Schiffren]
In addition to revealing those of his views that should preclude executive-branch employment, and those of his views that should be shared only with a few very close, very like-minded intimates lest they seem inflammatory to normal voters, Van Jones was certainly not very discreet about how hard he worked to obtain the first-rate Yale law degree that was his entrée into big-time lefty politics. It’s worth reading all of this fascinating interview in a sympathetic Bay Area publication, in which he reveals his own regard for the transformative power of education. :
I had a professor who encouraged me to apply to Harvard and Yale [for law school], which was almost unheard of for students coming from the kind of public schools that I was coming from in the rural South. I was accepted to both places, and decided to go to Yale because Yale didn't have any grades and was smaller than Harvard. I figured, once I enroll I'm guaranteed to graduate, so I can just go and be a radical hell raiser student, and they can't do anything about it. Which is pretty much what happened.
ObamaCare "Debate" update
Kraughammer: On Nancy Pelosi’s shifting statements on including a public option in health-care legislation:
It’s a perfect example of the incoherence on the Democrats on all of this. And she is reflecting the president's incoherence.
On the one hand — here we are eight months into this administration, three months into a really active, vigorous debate on health care, and two days before the president's great speech — nobody has any idea what's in it, and even he probably doesn't.
So, on the one hand he's saying we're in a crisis and we have to act and it has to be done by last August, and then he doesn't even know as of today what it is, and he's asking immediate action on something that he doesn't even know about. That's number one.
But secondly, underlying all this is unease about his intentions. Obama is a man who believes in the government-run [single-payer] system. He has said that several years ago. He has now disavowed it. But clearly people understand that the public option is a way to achieve, ultimately, a government-run system…a single-payer system. But he can't admit it, because in America it is not going to happen. He himself has said that tactically you can't be in favor of a single-payer system.
He also says he will never talk about rationing. But he has said it in public, and he has said it in interviews, and he says it in private [that he is] troubled about the hip replacement his grandmother had when she was very sick and ill and terminal. He clearly thinks about rationing. He thinks it's important, but, again, he can't say it.
Public Ignorance on the Public Option [Mark Hemingway]
One of the things that's been baffling about the health-care debate is how the president and Democrats' approval has been plummeting — and specifically due to their handling of the health-care issue. Despite this, liberal health-care advocates have been trumpeting polls that show wide support for the most controversial aspect of the plan, the government-run "public option."
I have a piece up on the home page where I unpack this mystery a bit:
In June, the New York Times set the tone for health-care-poll coverage with the headline “In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health.” The poll found that 72 percent of respondents favored the public option.
With every successive poll with a similar result, liberal outfits such as the Campaign for America’s Future have beat their chests with headlines such as “New Poll Shows Tremendous Support for Public Health Care Option.” Recently, liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein urged Democratic lawmakers to “Listen to the Polls” and wrote that opposition to a government-run health-care option is “resolutely, aggressively, anti-democratic.” And just this past Friday, another Washington Post blogger, Greg Sargent, ran a story called “White House Polling Memo Omits Numbers Showing Support For Public Option.”
It’s rather hard to reconcile this interpretation of the polls with the political unpopularity of the Democrats’ handing of the issue. Rather than consider the data’s limitations, however, liberal health-care-reform advocates have reacted like chimpanzees who’ve been shown simple conjuring tricks. It’s beyond their comprehension that they could be losing the debate.
The problem is that these polls ask the wrong thing. The relevant question is not, “Do you support the ‘public option’?” but rather, “What is the ‘public option’?”
After months of fruitless White House and Democratic campaigning, a polling firm has finally done a rudimentary test of what the public knows about the health-reform debate. Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates released a poll last week that ought to undermine any confidence Democrats might have about enjoying a “mandate” for health reform. The survey of a thousand adults found that, given a choice of three plausible-sounding definitions, only 37 percent of the public could correctly identify what the “public option” is. “That’s nearly the equivalent probability that one would expect if everyone were just guessing,” according to the poll (a random pick between three options, of course, gives a 33 percent chance of success).
09/08 11:43 AMShare
It’s a perfect example of the incoherence on the Democrats on all of this. And she is reflecting the president's incoherence.
On the one hand — here we are eight months into this administration, three months into a really active, vigorous debate on health care, and two days before the president's great speech — nobody has any idea what's in it, and even he probably doesn't.
So, on the one hand he's saying we're in a crisis and we have to act and it has to be done by last August, and then he doesn't even know as of today what it is, and he's asking immediate action on something that he doesn't even know about. That's number one.
But secondly, underlying all this is unease about his intentions. Obama is a man who believes in the government-run [single-payer] system. He has said that several years ago. He has now disavowed it. But clearly people understand that the public option is a way to achieve, ultimately, a government-run system…a single-payer system. But he can't admit it, because in America it is not going to happen. He himself has said that tactically you can't be in favor of a single-payer system.
He also says he will never talk about rationing. But he has said it in public, and he has said it in interviews, and he says it in private [that he is] troubled about the hip replacement his grandmother had when she was very sick and ill and terminal. He clearly thinks about rationing. He thinks it's important, but, again, he can't say it.
Public Ignorance on the Public Option [Mark Hemingway]
One of the things that's been baffling about the health-care debate is how the president and Democrats' approval has been plummeting — and specifically due to their handling of the health-care issue. Despite this, liberal health-care advocates have been trumpeting polls that show wide support for the most controversial aspect of the plan, the government-run "public option."
I have a piece up on the home page where I unpack this mystery a bit:
In June, the New York Times set the tone for health-care-poll coverage with the headline “In Poll, Wide Support for Government-Run Health.” The poll found that 72 percent of respondents favored the public option.
With every successive poll with a similar result, liberal outfits such as the Campaign for America’s Future have beat their chests with headlines such as “New Poll Shows Tremendous Support for Public Health Care Option.” Recently, liberal Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein urged Democratic lawmakers to “Listen to the Polls” and wrote that opposition to a government-run health-care option is “resolutely, aggressively, anti-democratic.” And just this past Friday, another Washington Post blogger, Greg Sargent, ran a story called “White House Polling Memo Omits Numbers Showing Support For Public Option.”
It’s rather hard to reconcile this interpretation of the polls with the political unpopularity of the Democrats’ handing of the issue. Rather than consider the data’s limitations, however, liberal health-care-reform advocates have reacted like chimpanzees who’ve been shown simple conjuring tricks. It’s beyond their comprehension that they could be losing the debate.
The problem is that these polls ask the wrong thing. The relevant question is not, “Do you support the ‘public option’?” but rather, “What is the ‘public option’?”
After months of fruitless White House and Democratic campaigning, a polling firm has finally done a rudimentary test of what the public knows about the health-reform debate. Penn, Schoen and Berland Associates released a poll last week that ought to undermine any confidence Democrats might have about enjoying a “mandate” for health reform. The survey of a thousand adults found that, given a choice of three plausible-sounding definitions, only 37 percent of the public could correctly identify what the “public option” is. “That’s nearly the equivalent probability that one would expect if everyone were just guessing,” according to the poll (a random pick between three options, of course, gives a 33 percent chance of success).
09/08 11:43 AMShare
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Van Jones -- Kicked to The Curb (deservedly so)
Van Jones is only one of a whole host of questionable, radical, inappropriate Obama political appointments.
Now that he has been hoisted on his own ugly petard, by his own words (9-11 Truther, overall partisan radical with reprehensible views, comments and attitudes).
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34604_The_Inevitable_Happens-_Van_Jones_Resigns
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34607_Van_Jones_Statement
Now some on the left are blaming Glenn Beck for "outing" this loser, but frankly, I remember reading about Van Jones months ago at National Review on line (the corner) where some of the writers there tolds us about this guys ugly and questionable background.
Obama quickly throws him under the bus (oh yeah, he "resigned"). But he never should have been on the bus !
Where was the MSM on this ? Nowhere, of course. In the tank for Obama as always.
Read on below:
The Washington Post is on the Case.... [Jonah Goldberg]
You've got to love the Washington Post's coverage. The first story they ran on the Van Jones controversy was yesterday, with the chutzpah-rich headline "White House Says Little About Embattled Jones." Ah yes, that mute-mouthed White House has said so little about a story we at the Post haven't bothered to cover until this story about how close-lipped the White House is.
Today the Post reports in its lede:
White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned late Saturday after weeks of pressure from the right over his past activism.
Weeks of pressure that you, dear Post readers, never heard about in weeks of reading this newspaper.
Mickey's getting closer to his dream: "I've been waiting for the day when a prominent pol resigns and for print MSM readers it appears to be out-of-the-blue...."
NYT Explains It All For You [Stanley Kurtz]
Why all the caterwauling about Van Jones press coverage? NYT has explained here.
RE: The New York Times [Mark Hemingway]
A couple of takeaways from Van Jones resignation:
1) Remember Chas Freeman? This is actually the second time an Obama appointee has been sunk due to a protracted controversy over past statements and the NYT didn't write a single word about the controversy until after the fact. (Of course, Freeman had merely been nominated when he took himself out of the running for Director of National Intelligence — he wasn't actually in the administration, unlike Van Jones.)
2) While Glenn Beck and others in the conservative commentariat had been shining a light on Jones' radical past for a while, the revelations that finally sunk Jones were broken by Gateway Pundit and other bloggers. Not that long ago, the idea that a guy Googling in the basement would be capable of bringing down a White House staffer would have been a story in and of itself. I suppose some might think this sort of thing is old hat five years after Rathergate, but I also suspect that this aspect of the story will be largely ignored because it makes the MSM look very, very bad. Van Jones is an admitted former communist in an administration that thinks 'vetting' has something to do with universal health care for pets, and no one in the traditional media thought, "Hey, I wonder what we can learn if we just look this guy up on the internet?"
Van Jones & Obama's "Centrism" [Jonah Goldberg]
I just watched David Axelrod, the top ranking political advisor in the White House, and Robert Gibbs, the President's spokesman on "Meet the Press" and "This Week" respectively. Neither of them was willing, even after repeated questioning, to offer a single negative word about Van Jones. Not one word. A 9/11 Truther and defender of Mumia-Abu Jamal is not radical enough for this White House to distance itself from the man in any way. Again and again, this White House has been offered chances to condemn the man's views and they have willfully and quite deliberately refused.
Compare this to the controversy over Lani Guinier, President Clinton's nominee to run the civil rights division at the Justice Department. When her views came to light, president Clinton disavowed her. "This has nothing to do with the political center," Clinton insisted, "This is about my center." Who would have guessed that there's a case for saying Bill Clinton's center had more intellectual integrity than Barack Obama's?
Now, there's reason to believe that Clinton was lying when he said he was unaware of her views when he picked her, but at least Clinton understood that he couldn't claim to be a centrist and associate himself with her views if they became widely known.
Van Jones' views are now widely known. And as far as anyone can tell reading the newspapers this morning or watching the Sunday shows, this White House and this President have nothing but praise for Jones and think he's a fine, self-sacrificing, public servant who simply took one for the team.
I can't think of a more succinct, discrete, example illuminating why Obama's claims to centrism are a fraud.
Update: Oh and the conversation between Tom Brokaw and Tom Friedman about the lessons of Van Jones was a complete scandal. One of Friedman's key take-aways from this whole affair is that too many people will self-censor themselves so they can get government jobs. What a tragedy that fewer people will support cop-killers and anti-American conspiracy groups because of poor Van Jones chilling effect on the culture.
Oh, and listening to Friedman and Brokaw disparage the internet as a useless news medium, makes them sound like cranky old monks lamenting that flash-in-the-pan printing press.
Krauthammer (pre-resignation):
Well, I'm not terribly disturbed about the expletive he used about Republicans. I have said worse about Democrats. Hell, I've said worse about Republicans. I have said worse about cousins of mine.
On one side of the family, anyway.
And I'm not even disturbed that this guy is a communist. It is not the first time we had a communist in the U.S. government. And anyway, with the death of communism, it is a kind of a pathetic intellectual anachronism to remain a communist.
However, the stuff that we learned this afternoon is devastating. Here is a man who signed on to a petition demanding several investigations of the collaboration of the Bush administration with the worst massacre of Americans ever committed on American soil.
Now, that is beyond extremism and radicalism. That is psychotic paranoia. It is a malignant kind of politics. And you have to ask yourselves: In the White House, if you didn't know he is a "truther," then you have got to ask him to politely resign. And if you did [know], is that acceptable in the government of the United States?
Now that he has been hoisted on his own ugly petard, by his own words (9-11 Truther, overall partisan radical with reprehensible views, comments and attitudes).
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34604_The_Inevitable_Happens-_Van_Jones_Resigns
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34607_Van_Jones_Statement
Now some on the left are blaming Glenn Beck for "outing" this loser, but frankly, I remember reading about Van Jones months ago at National Review on line (the corner) where some of the writers there tolds us about this guys ugly and questionable background.
Obama quickly throws him under the bus (oh yeah, he "resigned"). But he never should have been on the bus !
Where was the MSM on this ? Nowhere, of course. In the tank for Obama as always.
Read on below:
The Washington Post is on the Case.... [Jonah Goldberg]
You've got to love the Washington Post's coverage. The first story they ran on the Van Jones controversy was yesterday, with the chutzpah-rich headline "White House Says Little About Embattled Jones." Ah yes, that mute-mouthed White House has said so little about a story we at the Post haven't bothered to cover until this story about how close-lipped the White House is.
Today the Post reports in its lede:
White House environmental adviser Van Jones resigned late Saturday after weeks of pressure from the right over his past activism.
Weeks of pressure that you, dear Post readers, never heard about in weeks of reading this newspaper.
Mickey's getting closer to his dream: "I've been waiting for the day when a prominent pol resigns and for print MSM readers it appears to be out-of-the-blue...."
NYT Explains It All For You [Stanley Kurtz]
Why all the caterwauling about Van Jones press coverage? NYT has explained here.
RE: The New York Times [Mark Hemingway]
A couple of takeaways from Van Jones resignation:
1) Remember Chas Freeman? This is actually the second time an Obama appointee has been sunk due to a protracted controversy over past statements and the NYT didn't write a single word about the controversy until after the fact. (Of course, Freeman had merely been nominated when he took himself out of the running for Director of National Intelligence — he wasn't actually in the administration, unlike Van Jones.)
2) While Glenn Beck and others in the conservative commentariat had been shining a light on Jones' radical past for a while, the revelations that finally sunk Jones were broken by Gateway Pundit and other bloggers. Not that long ago, the idea that a guy Googling in the basement would be capable of bringing down a White House staffer would have been a story in and of itself. I suppose some might think this sort of thing is old hat five years after Rathergate, but I also suspect that this aspect of the story will be largely ignored because it makes the MSM look very, very bad. Van Jones is an admitted former communist in an administration that thinks 'vetting' has something to do with universal health care for pets, and no one in the traditional media thought, "Hey, I wonder what we can learn if we just look this guy up on the internet?"
Van Jones & Obama's "Centrism" [Jonah Goldberg]
I just watched David Axelrod, the top ranking political advisor in the White House, and Robert Gibbs, the President's spokesman on "Meet the Press" and "This Week" respectively. Neither of them was willing, even after repeated questioning, to offer a single negative word about Van Jones. Not one word. A 9/11 Truther and defender of Mumia-Abu Jamal is not radical enough for this White House to distance itself from the man in any way. Again and again, this White House has been offered chances to condemn the man's views and they have willfully and quite deliberately refused.
Compare this to the controversy over Lani Guinier, President Clinton's nominee to run the civil rights division at the Justice Department. When her views came to light, president Clinton disavowed her. "This has nothing to do with the political center," Clinton insisted, "This is about my center." Who would have guessed that there's a case for saying Bill Clinton's center had more intellectual integrity than Barack Obama's?
Now, there's reason to believe that Clinton was lying when he said he was unaware of her views when he picked her, but at least Clinton understood that he couldn't claim to be a centrist and associate himself with her views if they became widely known.
Van Jones' views are now widely known. And as far as anyone can tell reading the newspapers this morning or watching the Sunday shows, this White House and this President have nothing but praise for Jones and think he's a fine, self-sacrificing, public servant who simply took one for the team.
I can't think of a more succinct, discrete, example illuminating why Obama's claims to centrism are a fraud.
Update: Oh and the conversation between Tom Brokaw and Tom Friedman about the lessons of Van Jones was a complete scandal. One of Friedman's key take-aways from this whole affair is that too many people will self-censor themselves so they can get government jobs. What a tragedy that fewer people will support cop-killers and anti-American conspiracy groups because of poor Van Jones chilling effect on the culture.
Oh, and listening to Friedman and Brokaw disparage the internet as a useless news medium, makes them sound like cranky old monks lamenting that flash-in-the-pan printing press.
Krauthammer (pre-resignation):
Well, I'm not terribly disturbed about the expletive he used about Republicans. I have said worse about Democrats. Hell, I've said worse about Republicans. I have said worse about cousins of mine.
On one side of the family, anyway.
And I'm not even disturbed that this guy is a communist. It is not the first time we had a communist in the U.S. government. And anyway, with the death of communism, it is a kind of a pathetic intellectual anachronism to remain a communist.
However, the stuff that we learned this afternoon is devastating. Here is a man who signed on to a petition demanding several investigations of the collaboration of the Bush administration with the worst massacre of Americans ever committed on American soil.
Now, that is beyond extremism and radicalism. That is psychotic paranoia. It is a malignant kind of politics. And you have to ask yourselves: In the White House, if you didn't know he is a "truther," then you have got to ask him to politely resign. And if you did [know], is that acceptable in the government of the United States?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
