The quote last week that caught my eye shows that a good deal of blame can be placed on political correctness.

“I told him, ‘There’s something wrong with you,’” Osman Danquah, co-founder of the Islamic Community of Greater Killeen, told The Associated Press on Saturday. “I didn’t get the feeling he was talking for himself, but something just didn’t seem right.”

Danquah assumed the military’s chain of command knew about Hasan’s doubts, which had been known for more than a year to classmates at the Maryland graduate military medical program. His fellow students complained to the faculty about Hasan’s “anti-American propaganda,” but said a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal complaint.

At NRO’s the corner they’re calling “better screwed than rude”.

So what does General Casey make the rounds of Sunday morning talk shows to tell us? These are the lead two paragraphs in a NYT story, where they indicated he said pretty much the same thing on two other shows. It sure sounds like he’s reemphasizing that the Army is still following the “better screwed than rude” policy. Incredible.

General George Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said on Sunday that he was concerned that speculation about the religious beliefs of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of killing 12 fellow soldiers and one civilian and wounding dozens of others in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood, could “cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”

“I’ve asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,” General Casey said in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union. “It would be a shame — as great a tragedy as this was — it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.”

I’d have thought he’d be asking his Army leaders to make sure that all our troops are treated equally instead of acting like the soldier who reports the next Hasan is a racist guilty of a hate crime.

Yesterday when they thought the guy was dead, they offered a condemnation. Last night - perhaps after learning the perp was still wasting oxygen - we got half an obligatory-sounding condemnation and half a diatribe about horrible racist non-Muslims who might believe the guy’s religion was not a coincidence.

“We reiterate the American Muslim community’s condemnation of this cowardly attack. Right now, we call on all Americans to assist those who are responding to this atrocity. We must ensure that the wounded are treated and the families of those who were murdered have an opportunity to mourn.

“No political or religious ideology could ever justify or excuse such wanton and indiscriminate violence. The attack was particularly heinous in that it targeted our nation’s all-volunteer army that includes thousands of Muslims in all services. We again offer our thoughts and prayers for the victims and sincere condolences for the families of those killed or injured.

“The motive of the attacker is not yet known. We urge all Americans to remain calm in reaction to this tragic event and to demonstrate once again what is best about America –- our nation’s ability to remain unified even in times of crisis. We urge national political and religious leaders and media professionals to set a tone of calm and unity.

“Unfortunately, based on past experience, we also urge American Muslims, and those who may be perceived to be Muslim, to take appropriate precautions to protect themselves, their families and their religious institutions from possible backlash.

“We ask that individuals and institutions review advice on security procedures contained in CAIR’s ‘Muslim Community Safety Kit,’ which is available online at www.cair.com.”

In case you’re wondering, here’s the intro to the Muslim Community Safety Kit:

Dear imam, activist, community leader, brother or sister: As-salaamu alaykum. Peace be to you.

This “Muslim Community Safety Kit” has been developed to better equip you and your community with the knowledge necessary to protect against anti-Muslim or anti-Arab bigotry or attacks, and to secure your basic legal rights. In times of difficulty, we ask people to depend on God the Almighty, with sincere prayers, especially for those who are suffering.

How to use this resource kit:

• Read this kit carefully
• Circulate it to your friends and family
• Photocopy relevant portions and post in your local mosque, Islamic center or organization
• Contact CAIR if you have any questions or if you do not understand any part of this kit

No doubt people recall how the press was all over President Bush when the Secret Service kept him in that classroom on 9/11 and questioned his every move after that. “Why was he hiding?”

Yesterday Obama waited hours before mentioning Fort Hood, and then it was using seemingly prepared remarks. But more bizarre is that he gave this rambling discourse before that. He had obviously prepared remarks for the closing of an Indian-related conference, and that included a “shout out” to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow for being a “Medal of Honor winner”. As I heard someone point out on Bill Bennett’s show this morning, people are not Medal of Honor “winners” but rather Medal of Honor “recipients”, and that in any case Dr. Joe Medicine Crow was neither - he was awarded a Congressional Gold Medal. Could Obama be any more dismissive toward people in uniform?

Will we see any reactions like this among the major players in the MSM? I doubt it.

GM reneged on a deal to sell Opel to some Russian-Canadian consortium.

Angry German workers on Thursday protested General Motors’ shock refusal to sell its European unit Opel and its plans to cut 10,000 jobs, moves slammed as a slap in the face for Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Around 10,000 workers demonstrated at Ruesselsheim near Frankfurt, Opel’s biggest German factory, while 3,000 downed tools at Bochum, another 3,000 at Kaiserslautern and around 600 at Eisenach.

No doubt GM doesn’t see it as 10,000 jobs cut, but as saving the jobs of the other 40,000 workers.

GM estimated it would need 3.0 billion euros (4.5 billion dollars) in state aid and was confident it could secure the sum from Germany and other European countries where Opel and the British Vauxhall unit have plants.

The announcements came a day after GM, which was struggling with a bankruptcy reorganisation backed by the US and Canadian governments, stunned the auto sector by abandoning an agreed plan to sell Opel to Canadian auto parts manufacturer Magna International and state-owned Russian bank Sberbank.

It said it would restructure the unit itself, just hours after an unwitting Merkel gave a historic speech before a joint session of the US Congress and held talks with US President Barack Obama.

Classy move! Oh but wait…

Obama assured Merkel in a phone call on Wednesday evening that he was “not involved” in GM’s decision, Merkel’s spokesman said Thursday.

Right. He just controls the ownership of it. Why blame him? I’m sure the Europeans are just waiting t line up with bailout cash for ObamaMotors.

Merkel’s government had invested major financial and political capital in saving Opel from insolvency before a September general election that which she handily won.

Beyond pledging 4.5 billion euros in state aid for the ailing company, Berlin spent months shepherding a rescue deal.

Ouch. Germany can now join the growing list of supposed allies that have been screwed by Obama.

To be fair, it sounds like there were going to cuts anyway. Germany was trying to keep the German unit as protected as possible. Some Opel employees in Spain and England see this as a good thing, as it might spread the cuts more evenly across the continent. But no matter what, you can’t help but feel that Obama stabbed Merkel in the back.

We can only hope that the Democrats in 2010 continue to whine that everything is Bush’s fault. Here we are a year after the election and 9-1/2 months into Obama’s presidency, and he is still whining.

One year on, Obama cites struggle with Bush legacy
Thu Nov 5, 2009 4:04am IST
By Ross Colvin

MADISON, Wis. (Reuters) - A year after his historic election, President Barack Obama sought to remind Americans on Wednesday the biggest problems he is grappling with — from the economy to the war in Afghanistan — are the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Next year the Democrats can use the “party of no” nonsense and the “we’re not Bush” meme, but since they will have had a lock in DC and brought us to 10% unemployment through next year, voters will be looking for just a wee bit more, don’t you think?

This thing is 42 pages long. Some of it is fixing typos. Here are a few pieces that may be key in terms of trying to snag a few moderate votes. There was nothing related to abortion that I could find. Note: Any typos below are due to how Acrobat picked up the text.

This part on pp 4-5 relates to illegal aliens. There’s also a (j) added that is unrelated.

Page 26, after line 21, insert the following new subsections:

(i) APPLICATION AND VERIFICATION OF REQUIREMENT OF CITIZENSHIP OR LAWFUL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.-

(1) REQUIREMENT.-No individual shall be an eligible individual under this section unless the individual is a citizen or national of the United States or is lawfully present in a State in the United States (other than as a nonimmigrant described in a sub-paragraph (excluding subparagraphs (K), (T), (U), and (V)) of section 101(a)(15) of the Immigration and Nationality Act).

(2) APPLICATION OF VERIFICATION PROCESS FOR AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.-The provisions of paragraphs (4) (other than subparagraphs (F) and (II)(i)) and (5)(A) of section 341(b), and of sub-
16 sections (v) (other than paragTaph (3)) and (x) of section 205 of the Social Security Act, shall apply to the verification of eligibility of an eligible individual by the Secretary (or by a State agency approved by the Secretary) for benefits under this section in the same manner as such provisions apply to the verification of eligibility of an affordable credit eligible individual for affordability credits by the Commissioner under section 341(b). The agreement referred to in section 205(v)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (as applied under this paragraph) shall also provide for funding, to be payable from the amount made available under subsection (h)(l), to the Commissioner of Social Security in such amount as is agreed to by such Commissioner and the Secretary.

This one on pp 8-9 is under SEC. 261. CONSTRUCTION REGARDING STANDARD OF CARE.

Page 150, after line 17, insert the following:

(c) SAVINGS CLAUSE FOR STATE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE LAWS.-Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by this Act shall be construed to modify or impair State law governing legal standards or procedures used in medical malpractice cases, including the authority of a State to make or implement such law.

This part relates to the “Pelosicare Gift to Malpractice Attorneys” section.

Page 1432, after line 15, insert the following:

(5) No LIMITATION ON OTHER STATE LAWS.- Nothing in this section shall be construed to-
(A) preempt or modify the application of any existing State law that limits attorneys’ fees or imposes caps on damages;
(B) impair the authority of a State to establish or implement a law limiting attorneys’ fees or imposing caps on damages; or
(C) restrict the eligibility of a State for an incentive payment under this section on the basis of a law described in subparagraph (A) or (B) so long as any such law is not established or implemented as part of the law described in paragraph (4), as determined by the Secretary.

There are several pages of stuff about biofuels and feedstocks and whatever that obviously have nothing at all to do with healthcare. Here’s one small example of how unreadable all this stuff is, but it must translate into $$$$$ for someone in some key districts.

(F) QUALIFIED FEEDSTOCK.-For purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘qualified feedstock’ means–
(i) any lignocellulosic or hemicellulosic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis, and
(ii) any cultivated algae, cyanobacteria, or lemna.

I haven’t come across anyone making this connection yet, though surely I’m not the first. (Yeah I know - don’t call you ‘Shirley’.) The President obviously spent many many hours campaigning for Corzine and others. Not just his time on the ground there, but travel time, discussions from the White House and with his staff about it, etc.

Then yesterday Robert Gibbs, while trying to downplay what looked like it would be bad news for the Democrats, said that Obama was “not watching returns”.

Ignoring the massive amount of time spent shooting hoops or engaging in other time-wasting activities while he’s too busy to develop his Afghanistan strategy of the week, we now learn that President also spent all this time and effort campaigning instead of spending it working on his latest and greatest Afghan strategy - but that he didn’t feel it important enough to follow.

Just how far down are our troops on his “I’m not interested” list?

We heard about a billion times that the events in NY-23 proved that the GOP is divided and wants to get rid of all the moderates. Funny that this AP story doesn’t appear until right after the election is over.

Get on the health overhaul bandwagon, or don’t count on our help in your re-election.

That’s the hardball message liberal groups are hurling at moderate Democratic senators in a battle that is dividing their party. Their demands: Support a bill that offers optional government-run health coverage and oppose Republican attempts to derail the legislation.

Gee, I thought it was only the GOP who supposedly had litmus tests.

Read More →

The House Ethics Committee has seven active investigations going. All are against black Democrats. And this doesn’t include William Jefferson of course, since he’s already gone. Nor does it include Jesse Jackson Jr, who would make it 8 for 8, since the Justice Dept asked them to hold off while they look into Blago connections.

The ethics committee declined to respond to questions about the racial disparity, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are wary of talking about it on the record. But privately, some black members are outraged — and see in the numbers a worrisome trend in the actions of ethics watchdogs on and off Capitol Hill.

“Is there concern whether someone is trying to set up [Congressional Black Caucus] members? Yeah, there is,” a black House Democrat said. “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules [are] and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the [CBC].”

So it’s not that any of them are unethical or anything — the only possible explanation is that it’s because they’re black.

African-American politicians have long complained that they’re treated unfairly when ethical issues arise. Members of the Congressional Black Caucus are still fuming over Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s decision to oust then-Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.) from the House Ways and Means Committee in 2006, and some have argued that race plays a role in the ongoing efforts to remove Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) from his chairmanship of that committee.

If you consider a couple of obvious crooks like Jefferson and Rangel to be above reproach, could you possibly set the bar any higher as to what you consider to be unethical?

A document leaked to The Washington Post last week showed that nearly three dozen lawmakers have come under scrutiny this year by either the House ethics committee or the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog created in 2008 at the insistence of Pelosi. While the list contained a substantial number of white lawmakers, the ethics committee has not yet launched formal investigative subcommittees with respect to any of them — as it has with the seven African-American members.

The OCE has also been a particular target of ire for the Congressional Black Caucus. Black lawmakers, including CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), met with OCE officials earlier this year to raise their concerns. Spokesmen for Lee and the OCE both declined to comment.

A number of CBC members opposed the resolution establishing the OCE, arguing that it was the wrong response to the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, which helped Democrats seize control of the House in 2006.

Setting up the OCE “was a mistake,” Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) told The Hill newspaper recently. “Congress has a long and rich history of overreacting to a crisis.”

How else can one interpret this other than to say that the CBC thinks Pelosi is a racist who set up OCE for no reason other than to harass black congressmembers?

Another CBC member said black lawmakers are “easy targets” for ethics watchdog groups because they have less money — both personally and in their campaign accounts — to defend themselves than do their white colleagues. Campaign funds can be used to pay members’ legal bills.

“A lot of that has to do with outside watchdog groups like [Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington] that have to have a level of success to justify OCE,” the CBC member said. The good-government groups were strong backers of the OCE’s creation.

This just gets more bizarre — please tell me I’ve got this wrong. The CBC argument seems to be that if only racist groups like CREW had allowed them to steal more money than they did, they’d be safe. But wait, there’s more….

But these same groups won’t go after Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), this lawmaker claimed, “because she has plenty of money to defend herself,” and the outside groups don’t want to take a risk. The Democrat said the ethics committee would be going up against Harman’s lawyers and “going up against” the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee if they push the OCE to pressure the ethics committee to act.

Oh goody. We certainly want to include those damn Joooooz as being in on it.

“It is kind of crazy,” said an aide to one senior black Democrat. “How can it be that the ethics committee only investigates African-Americans? It doesn’t make sense.”

I think the CBC members should be on TV every day squawking about this. Maybe Keith Olbermann can put Nancy Pelosi on his worst person list until either all these investigations are dropped or until a proportional number of white representatives are under investigation. (Here’s an idea: They can start with John Murtha!)

Lastly, let’s include the Senate in this game as well. Reid must be following Pelosi’s lead.

The nation’s only black senator, Roland Burris of Illinois, is currently under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. It’s not clear whether that committee is currently investigating any white members, although Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) is likely to be in its sights if the Justice Department doesn’t pre-empt a committee investigation.

Owens would be such a wonderful, independent Congressman you have to wonder why Dede even ran against him to begin with. The local paper gave more details than most other on-line articles.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., was among those who urged Dierdre K. Scozzafava to endorse Democratic congressional candidate William L. Owens, the senator’s spokesman said Saturday.

… [Schumer] had more than one conversation with the Republican candidate ahead of her announcement. He said the senator also called other Democratic leaders about the situation, including White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

Yeah, nothing says “loyal Republican” quite like taking advice from Chuck Schumer.

Owens was happy about it of course.

“Now more than ever we need bipartisan solutions to help bring jobs to Upstate New York to get our economy back on track and move our country forward.”

Yes sirree, we need “bipartisan solutions” by keeping one party in control of everything.

Scozzafava’s statement is the textual equivalent of taking Ipecac.

It’s not in the cards for me to be your representative, but I strongly believe Bill is the only candidate who can build upon John McHugh’s lasting legacy in the U.S. Congress. John and I worked together on the expansion of Fort Drum and I know how important that base is to the economy of this region. I am confident that Bill will be able to provide the leadership and continuity of support to Drum Country just as John did during his tenure in Congress.

What a load of rubbish. Owens will no doubt see Fort Drum about like John Murtha views the military. Meanwhile she implies that Hoffman would screw Fort Drum. What a jerk. And Owens would “build upon” McHugh’s legacy by trying to undo it in every way other than as it relates to Fort Drum.

In Bill Owens, I see a sense of duty and integrity that will guide him beyond political partisanship. He will be an independent voice devoted to doing what is right for New York. Bill understands this district and its people, and when he represents us in Congress he will put our interests first.

Nothing says “independent voice” quite like someone who’ll vote for Pelosi and follow her lead.

“This afternoon Dede Scozzafava betrayed the GOP,“ [Hoffman] Senior Communications Advisor Rob Ryan said in a statement. “She endorsed a Pelosi Democrat who will spend more, tax more, and push the liberal agenda that is dragging down this nation.”

Well at least one guy described it correctly.

… if by “tort reform” you mean “removing limitations on malpractice attorneys”.

This section seems to start out promisingly enough. States will get extra “incentive” money if the HHS Secretary determines that a state passed an effective “medical liability reform” law after Obamacare has passed. (It doesn’t address the case where a state has such a law in place already.) Then you get to the fine print, aka subsection (a)(4)….

It looks like paragraph (A) is okay. Alternatives would include certificates of merit and/or early offers. IANAL but apparently a certificate of merit gives some 3rd party validation that the claim has some merit, which should reduce frivolous suits unless this is something that always get rubber-stamped. And an early offer is a way for a provider to settle promptly. The idea as I understand it is that the patient benefits by not having it tied up for years in court and the provider benefits by not risking a huge judgement later. So far so good if I followed it correctly.

Then the kicker is paragraph (B). If a state’s “medical liability reform” includes caps on either attorney fees or damages, then the state need not apply for this “incentive”. Gee, I guess we know the trial lawyers will be all for this bill. You can easily see where this could come into play. The Pelosi bill would add a ton of costs to states for their share of expanded Medicaid coverage, and Uncle Sam could offer to help with that - as long as the state leaves malpractice attorneys alone.

SEC. 2531. MEDICAL LIABILITY ALTERNATIVES.

(a) INCENTIVE PAYMENTS FOR MEDICAL LIABILITY REFORM.—

• (1) IN GENERAL.—To the extent and in the amounts made available in advance in appropriations Acts, the Secretary shall make an incentive payment, in an amount determined by the Secretary, to each State that has an alternative medical liability law in compliance with this section.

• (2) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall determine that a State has an alternative medical liability law in compliance with this section if the Secretary is satisfied that—
  • (A) the State enacted the law after the date of the enactment of this Act and is implementing the law;
  • (B) the law is effective; and
  • (C) the contents of the law are in accordance with paragraph (4).
• (3) CONSIDERATIONS FOR DETERMINING EFFECTIVENESS.—In determining whether an alternative medical liability law is effective under paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary shall consider whether the law—
  • (A) makes the medical liability system more reliable through prevention of, or prompt and fair resolution of, disputes;
  • (B) encourages the disclosure of health care errors; and
  • (C) maintains access to affordable liability insurance.
• (4) CONTENTS OF ALTERNATIVE MEDICAL LIABILITY LAW.—The contents of an alternative liability law are in accordance with this paragraph if—
  • (A) the litigation alternatives contained in the law consist of certificate of merit, early offer, or both; and
  • (B) the law does not limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.

(b) USE OF INCENTIVE PAYMENTS.—Amounts received by a State as an incentive payment under this section shall be used to improve health care in that State.

(c) TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may provide technical assistance to the States applying for or receiving an incentive payment under this section.

(d) REPORTS.—Beginning not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress an annual report on the progress States have made in enacting and implementing alternative medical liability laws in compliance with this section. Such reports shall contain sufficient documentation regarding the effectiveness of such laws to enable an objective comparative analysis of such laws.

(e) DEFINITION.—In this section—

• (1) the term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and
• (2) the term ‘‘State’’ includes the several States, District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each other territory or possession of the United States.

(f) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section such sums as may be necessary, to remain available until expended.

Apologies for the bullets - I tried to make this as readable as possible.

Here is the breakdown. My apologies in advance - I’m a math nerd at heart.

Total cost of this bill: $1.055 trillion
But hold on a sec you say - Pelosi says cost is $894 billion. Well you see, penalties on individuals and companies are expected to be $161 billion. Let’s just not count that as part of the cost.
“Net” cost: $894 billion
Of yeah, and don’t count the $245 billion increase to Medicare that needs to pass separately.

How to “pay” for it?
Tax increases: $572 billion
Cuts to Medicare Advantage etc.: $426 billion

So here’s how Pelosi math works when you add everything up:
$1.3 trillion grand total health care plans
- $245 billion that doesn’t count
= $1.055 trillion AHCAA cost
- $161 billion in penalties that doesn’t count
= $894 billion ‘net’ AHCAA cost
- $572 billion in tax increases
- $426 billion in program cuts
= ($104 billion) which we claim as deficit reduction

Isn’t that special?

Or to sum it up a different way:
$161B in penalties
+ $572B in tax increases
= $733B more collected from “us” in this bill

So looking at it that way, you get:
$1.3T total cost
- $733B from us suckers now
- $245B from us suckers later (add it to the deficit)
- $426B in cuts even though we know they won’t happen
= ($104B) in alleged deficit reduction

Voila!

So when they add the $245B back into the deficit in the second bill, they’ll claim it’s really “only” adding $141B to the deficit because it’s offset by Pelosicare’s $104B in “savings”.

The Democrats seem to be laying the groundwork for stealing the election if it’s close. (H/T: the Corner)

The state received about 150,000 absentee ballot applications this year.

On about 2,300 of those applications so far, the signature on the request form did not match the signature on the voter’s registration forms with the state.

In a development that is depressingly predictable, the New Jersey Democratic Party is asking the state to provide provisional ballots for all these voters. Those ballots, could, presumably, be used to overcome any narrow lead by Republican Chris Christie over Democrat Jon Corzine on Election Day.

This is from the same party who wanted any military vote in Florida that had the slightest thing wrong tossed out in 2000.

Paul P. Josephson, a lawyer representing the New Jersey Democratic State Committee, wrote to Secretary of State Nina Mitchell Wells, asking her to “instruct County Clerks not to deny (vote by mail) applications on the basis of signature comparison alone.”
…
Suspicious minds see the letter as an attempt to create a pool of emergency votes to be used if Christie holds a small lead on Election Night. The Secretary of State has not yet responded to the Democrats’ request.

I guess the Dems in Jersey are getting the press releases ready about how the GOP is trying to disenfranchise voters and intimidate Democratic voters into sitting it out.

Let’s see if I can follow this story. Please fill in any holes or correct anything I’ve got wrong.
- GMAC got into trouble by writing loans for houses instead of just for vehicles.
- Treasury certified GMAC as a bank holding company so they could pour in $12.5B of bailout funds.
- Obama told Chrysler Financial to plan an eventual shutdown so GMAC could take over future Chrysler loans.
- Obama shut down loads of GM and Chrysler dealers (possibly for arbitrary political reasons).
- Remaining dealers had to make major changes to continue in business.
- GMAC says it needs Chrysler dealers to pony up some major moolah, because it needs to stock up on its reserves now that it’s a bank holding company.
- Dealers say screw you GMAC, we already paid once plus we had major cutover costs.
- Chrysler Financial says screw you GMAC, we’re keeping first liens that we have now.
- GMAC says screw you taxpayers, we need billions more in bailout cash.

Gee, nobody could have predicted any of this, right?

The WaPo wipes out whatever little remaining hope that Deeds supporters might have had.

The headline and subhead tells you almost all you need to know.

Deeds ignored advice, White House says
Top Democrats seek to shield Obama in case of election loss

Apparently Obama’s skyrocketing poll numbers would have carried Deeds through, if only he’d spent more time worshipping at the feet of the holy trinity: Obama, Emanuel, and Axelrod. They will ensure that everyone knows the loss will be due to Deeds and Deeds alone, and of course in no way reflects on Obama.

Sensing that victory in the race for Virginia governor is slipping away, Democrats at the national level are laying the groundwork to blame a loss in a key swing state on a weak candidate who ran a poor campaign that failed to fully embrace President Obama until days before the election.

Multiple WH sources are involved in smearing Deeds.

A senior administration official said Deeds badly erred on several fronts, including not doing a better job of coordinating with the White House….

A second administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “Obama, Kaine and others had drawn a road map to victory in Virginia. Deeds chose another path.”

The second page of the article talks about how Deeds tried but failed to woo BET’s Sheila Johnson to endorse him - she ended up endorsing McDonnell mainly because of union-related issues. He tried to offset that by getting an endorsement from Doug Wilder. An Obama staffer even joined in and spent hours trying to convince Wilder to endorse Deeds - all to no avail, as he said he’s sitting this one out.

After this weekend saw all the usual suspects like Rahm and Axelrod spouting to all the Sunday morning news shows (except Fox of course) about how today’s Afghanistan issues are all Bush’s fault because he turned over nothing except 8 years of being “adrift” there, Dick Cheney called them on it today in a major way.

Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that traveled to Pakistan and Afghanistan, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.

So Bush brought Obama fully into the loop right after the election. Obama asked Bush to keep that a secret, which he did. Then Obama appropriated what Bush shared as *his* strategy in March as if *he* had developed it from scratch. Then if that were not bad enough, he adds to the back-stabbing by continuing to blatantly lie in saying Bush had given him nothing. Just when you think Obama can’t get any more abominable, you find out you were wrong.

Much of the rest of the speech is given to blasting Obama for stabbing the CIA and others in the back instead of thanking them for keeping us safe.

Good stuff. I wonder if anyone other than Fox will report it.

From the diaries by Erick.

This article from Colorado (h/t Drudge) should end any lingering doubts.

Let’s compare what the insurance execs claim…

Their concern: People will buy insurance only when they desperately need it, such as after they’re diagnosed with cancer or heart disease.

Healthy people might choose to pay the penalty, now proposed at a few hundred dollars per year, because it is far less expensive than buying insurance.

Insurance companies, under that scenario, would end up spending more to treat patients than they would receive in premiums. Rates would rise even faster than they do now.

“People would come in, pay premiums for a few months while they were getting their cancer treatments,” said John Martie, president and general manager of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado. “If enough people did that, the whole system would collapse.

…vs what some moron on the left has to say about it.

Reform advocates say it is farfetched to assume people who can’t afford insurance — and might qualify for government subsidies — would opt to pay a penalty instead.

“They are assuming that people would game the system,” said Denise de Percin, executive director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative.

“They are looking at the worst-case scenario. People aren’t stupid — they are not going to pay a penalty and get nothing,” de Percin said.

Is she REALLY that stupid to believe what she’s saying here? Let’s say your choices are these:
- Pay $10 or $15 a month “penalty” which is wasted money. Then if you ever have a serious medical problem, start paying $100 or $150 month for insurance which covers your pre-existing condition.
- Pay $100 or $150 every month for insurance, which is wasted money if you didn’t have any major medical issues.

Under this setup, the only way people are stupid is if they DON’T “game” the system.

It’s amazing how ignorant these fools are. People are 100x times smarter than they are.

Drudge is linking to a report on the Sunday morning talk shows where former Obama Cabinet nominee Judd Gregg said on CNN that “we’re basically on the path to a banana-republic-type of financial situation in this country.” I expect we’ll see a flood of faux outraged comments today about how that’s a codeword that acts as a racial slur toward Obama.

Some other good comments from Gregg in the article. He takes the Democrats to task for hiding an extra $250B in health care cost increases in a separate bill from health care. He also has a zinger for Arlen Specter and shoots down the “party of no” lie. Lastly he blasts both Senate health care bills.

No, not because he’s a moron who can’t say two sentences without including something that’s offensive, obviously false, or plagiarized. Instead, she wants him to resign as a publicity stunt related to Afghanistan.

Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning (note: that would be 10/14) to talk about Afghanistan — an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.

I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.

She goes on to say that he’s the insider poster boy for opposition to a surge there. If he can’t convince Obama to surrender, then Biden should surrender his post according to her.

It’s been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal’s desire for a big escalation of our forces there — the New York Times reported last month that he has “deep reservations” about it. So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

You can’t help but chuckle at her logic. She wants him to act instead of talk. (Wouldn’t that be a first for him?)

Well, how about making the mea culpa unnecessary? Instead of saving it for the book, how about future author Biden unfetter his conscience in real time — when it can actually do some good? If Biden truly believes that what we’re doing in Afghanistan is not in the best interests of our national security — and what issue is more important than that? — it’s simply not enough to claim retroactive righteousness in his memoirs.

Though it would be a crowning moment in a distinguished career, such an act of courage would likely be only the beginning. Biden would then become the natural leader of the movement to wind down this disastrous war and focus on the real dangers in Pakistan.

Okay let me get this straight. Obama has caved to Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, Hamas, and the Taliban. He has stood firmly against Israel, Honduras, Poland, and the Czech Republic. After surrendering in Iraq (the ‘bad’ war) and in Afghanistan (yesterday’s ‘good’ war), she wants Joe to kick some serious ass in Pakistan (today’s ‘good’ war). Has anyone checked her ouzo consumption lately? She cannot be saying this sober and with a straight face!

Newsweek’s profile makes much of Joe Biden’s loyalty. He’s a “team player,” one close friend says. And after he dissented on Afghanistan this spring he “quickly got on board.”

I have no doubt that Joe Biden is a loyal guy — the question is who deserves his loyalty most? His “team” isn’t the White House, but the whole country. And if it becomes clear in the coming days that his loyalty to these two teams is in conflict, he should do the right thing. And quit.

Obama may be no drama, but Biden loves drama. And what could more dramatic than resigning the vice presidency on principle? And what principle could be more honorable than refusing to go along with a policy of unnecessarily risking American blood and treasure — and America’s national security? Now that would be a Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment for the McChrystal crowd — one that would be a lot more significant than some lame, after-the-fact apology delivered in a too-late-to-matter book.

Here we go again. Biden needs to act “on principle”. As far as I know, his only two principles seem to be that he is free to shoot from the lip with impunity and that one of the Senate seats in DE is permanently reserved for a member of the Biden family.

It sounds like the initial vote was 3-2 against Obama, so I guess they had to keep voting until they got it “right”.

Three of the five members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee had objections to the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to US President Barack Obama, the Norwegian tabloid Verdens Gang (VG) reported Thursday.

“VG has spoken to a number of sources who confirmed the impression that a majority of the Nobel committee, at first, had not decided to give the peace prize to Barack Obama,” the newspaper said.

The article goes on to report that the panel members have ties to parties but are not members of parliament.

“The committee was unanimous,” its influential secretary Geir Lundestad told AFP on Friday.

But Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, who represented the right-wing populist Progress Party on the committee, led the way in objecting to the choice of Obama because she questioned his ability to keep his promises, the newspaper said.

It also said the representative of the Conservative Party, Kaci Kullmann Five, and Aagot Valle, the representative of the Socialist Left, had objections.

The choice for Obama was however strongly supported by committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland and Sissel Roenbeck, both representatives of the Labour Party.

So it sounds like the two Labour Party folks decided he was getting it and did whatever it took to get the skeptics to go along. You have to wonder what the initial reservation of the Socialist Left member was about - seems like she would have been in the bag for Obama from the start.