THURSDAY,  JULY 16,  2009

BELOVED LEADER MEETS WITH HIS COURT - AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  It has now been revealed that the president held a secret dinner with some prominent historians on June 30th.

For more than two hours on June 30, over lamb chops, salad, coffee, and dessert, the new president quizzed his guests on a wide range of topics in what was described as a sort of "history book club, with the president as the inquisitor." Those attending were Michael Beschloss, H. W. Brands, Douglas Brinkley, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, Doris Kearns Goodwin, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Garry Wills. Collectively, they represent one of the most stellar collections of presidential expertise ever assembled at the White House.

Essentially, they're all liberals.  Harvey Mansfield of Harvard wasn't invited.  Neither was Victor Davis Hanson.  And you can be sure that Mark Moyar, whose brilliant history of the Vietnam war destroys the myths we've been taught to live by, wasn't even on the "possibilities" list.

The story hilariously says that the president held the meeting to get outside the White House bubble.  Huh?  You get out of the White House bubble, which is filled with academics, by meeting with another group of academics, none of whom is likely to challenge you?

The man loves bubbles.  That is now certain.  He also seeks out opinions, as long as they're not too upsetting.

July 16, 2009   Permalink

"HEALTH" CARE STALLING - AT 7:32 A.M. ET:  As one commentator on Fox put it a short while ago, the Democrats didn't have a good day today.  The resistance to the Obama shove-it-through agenda, which began with the cap 'n trade bill, is blossoming as centrist Democrats examine the so-called "health- reform" bill.  They're also looking at polls showing 1) a rapid drop in approval of President Obama and 2) a generally negative view of current "health-reform" efforts.

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of fiscally conservative House Democrats, said Wednesday a House plan to overhaul the U.S. health-care system is losing support and will be stuck in committee without changes.

"Last time I checked, it takes seven Democrats to stop a bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee," Ross told reporters after a House vote. "We had seven against it last Friday; we have 10 today."

Apparently it's not change he can believe in.  And then the head of the Congressional Budget Office, risking life and limb, came in with a cheerful assessment of the cost of the Dems' heath plan:

The health care overhauls released to date would increase, not reduce, the burgeoning long-term health costs facing the government, Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf said Thursday.

That is not a message likely to sit well with congressional Democrats or the Obama administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Thursday she thinks lawmakers can find ways to wring more costs out of the health system as they continue work on their bills.

Finally, moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine emerged from a meeting with President Obama and ridiculed the idea of passing a health plan before Congress adjourns in August.  Essentially, Snowe echoed what more and more people are saying:  For something this important, what's the hurry? 

The American people are waking up, and members of Congress are listening.  The stimulus plan was shoved through Congress without any time to examine it.  Cap 'n trade, a farce based on global-warming fairy tales, was slammed through the House, although it may well die in the Senate.  Now the health-care plan is meeting increasing resistance despite the fast hustle that Dem leaders are trying to pull. 

Some Democrats apparently believe that they must pass the bill by the August recess, or it may die, as members of Congress go home and get an earful from their constituents.  Let it die, if need be. 

Of course, opposing the plan is not enough.  Republicans must come up with their alternative and present it, as an understandable package, to the American people.

July 16, 2009   Permalink

RASMUSSEN - CONTINUED BAD NEWS FOR OBAMA - AT 11:05 A.M. ET:  We always stress that polls are snapshots in time, and that the trend is what counts.  By that measure, though, President Obama is in trouble.  Since June 30th, now more than two weeks, he's done poorly in the Rasmussen poll, and there's nothing ahead that looks like it might change the trend.  Today's report:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 29% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-six percent (36%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –7 (see trends).

Thirty-two percent (32%) now say the country is heading in the right direction That’s down eight points from the 2009 peak and the lowest since February.

COMMENT:  Overall approval, also down, stands at 51% approve, 47% disapprove.  If the trend continues, the president could slip below 50% for the first time in a major poll since his inauguration. 

We caution, of course, that if the economy revives, or is perceived to be improving, the president's numbers can go up again.  Perception could easily be supplied, especially during next year's midterm election campaign, by a compliant press eager to support its "narrative."

July 16, 2009   Permalink

QUOTE OF THE DAY - AT 9:32 A.M. ET:  From a well-reported guest column in the New York Daily News:

The whole conversation surrounding health care rests on the false but widely held assumption that there are currently 47 million uninsured Americans. That number is on the tongue of every cable news pundit and policy wonk in Washington. After all, you can't have a massive solution without a massive-seeming problem.

In a new study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O'Neill, commissioned by the Employment Policies Institute, it was determined that 43% of people counted in the overblown 47 million uninsured estimate actually have incomes of at least 250% of the poverty level (averaging about $65,000) and could afford to purchase private health coverage. They are not insured because they choose not to pay for insurance. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that the people in this 43% pay for dinners out, cell phones, cable TV and many other "higher" priorities.

Another gem:

Beyond the fact that nearly half of the purported uninsured could actually purchase health care coverage if they so chose, there are other rarely mentioned groups being included in the bogus 47 million statistic. MIT economist Jonathan Gruber estimates that illegal immigrants constitute 13% of the uninsured population.

COMMENT:  Congress is about to enact a hugely expensive solution to a problem it doesn't even understand.  Indeed, the lack of interest in facts is stunning.  It's especially stunning when you look at the media, which is always whining about "the people's right to know."  Apparently, there are many things the people don't have a right to know, like the real nature of the health-care "crisis."

There are certainly problems in the health-care system.  Some of them should outrage us.  And I don't excuse some of the behavior of private insurers.  I've heard too many stories from physicians I trust.  However, the idea behind reform is to fix problems, carefully and cautiously, and, to cite the Hippocratic Oath, to do no harm.  What we're getting from the leftist Dems in Congress is a hatchet, when we really need a scalpel - in capable hands.

July 16, 2009   Permalink

CURIOUS - AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  As you know, an armed man was shot dead by police late yesterday, right near the Capitol in Washington.  But there's something curious here:

WASHINGTON - Police still have not publicly identified the gunman they shot and killed near the U.S. Capitol Wednesday.
The D.C. Police Department is now in charge of the investigation.

Investigators know the identity of the gunman but neither the city police nor the U.S. Capitol Police has released it.

Police say the man fled a traffic stop in front of Union Station and nearly ran over two officers.

COMMENT:  The quoted story was released at 6:33 a.m. ET this morning.  Why won't the police release the name of the gunman?  Okay, there could be legitimate reasons - notification of next of kin, for example.  But the shooting occurred yesterday afternoon.  The man was driving a car.  Presumably, he had a license with an address.  The car had temporary Virginia tags, easily traced.  Notification should have been easy.

This may well be a routine delay, but we'll follow it to see if there's anything unusual here.  There didn't seem to be any logical reason why the gunman would flee, then fire shots. 

July 16, 2009   Permalink 

NOT SO FAST, BARACK - AT 7:48 A.M. ET:  Related to the story just below, about a possible Israeli strike on Iran, is a Bloomberg report on Iran's attitude.  It is rigid, uncompromising, as it has been for years.  There is no sign of daylight:

July 16 (Bloomberg) -- Iranian leaders are turning inward and rejecting engagement with the West as they blame outsiders for street protests, even as President Barack Obama’s administration pushes for curbs on Iran’s nuclear program.

The leadership has denounced foreign governments as “enemies” for encouraging demonstrations over last month’s presidential election and plans to put a British Embassy employee on trial for inciting the protests, which were violently suppressed. A French student also has been detained on spy charges.

And...

"It’s much harder for any engagement strategy to be successful” in the post-election atmosphere, said former U.S. diplomat Mark Fitzpatrick, who now heads the non-proliferation program at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The regime is increasingly isolated since the election and more determined than ever to reject international demands that it give up uranium enrichment, a prelude to developing a nuclear weapon, said Fitzpatrick, who was deputy assistant secretary of State for non-proliferation until 2005.

COMMENT:  And that is why Obama's "engagement" strategy is doomed to failure - unless he's just using it as a propaganda tool, to demonstrate that he's done everything possible before taking further "action."  Problem is, that further action may amount to nothing more than sanctions that Iran will proceed to ignore.

What then?  And what if Iran already has the bomb by the time we 1) impose more sanctions, 2) give them time "to work," and 3) commission studies to study the previous studies that studied their effectiveness?

We will live, as the Chinese say, in interesting times.

July 16, 2009    Permalink

INTRIGUING - AT 7:18 A.M. ET:  The London Times is reporting a possible deal between Israel and Western countries - approval for an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in exchange for some Israel concessions in the "peace process."

This story cannot be independently verified, and so must be read with caution.  However, there are elements that make sense:

Two Israeli missile class warships have sailed through the Suez Canal ten days after a submarine capable of launching a nuclear missile strike, in preparation for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The deployment into the Red Sea, confirmed by Israeli officials, was a clear signal that Israel was able to put its strike force within range of Iran at short notice. It came before long-range exercises by the Israeli air force in America later this month and the test of a missile defence shield at a US missile range in the Pacific Ocean.

And...

“This is preparation that should be taken seriously. Israel is investing time in preparing itself for the complexity of an attack on Iran. These manoeuvres are a message to Iran that Israel will follow up on its threats,” an Israeli defence official said.

They key claim:

The exercises come at a time when Western diplomats are offering support for an Israeli strike on Iran in return for Israeli concessions on the formation of a Palestinian state.

If agreed it would make an Israeli strike on Iran realistic “within the year” said one British official.

Diplomats said that Israel had offered concessions on settlement policy, Palestinian land claims and issues with neighboring Arab states, to facilitate a possible strike on Iran.

“Israel has chosen to place the Iranian threat over its settlements,” said a senior European diplomat.

COMMENT:  The ultimate issue is the position of Barack Obama.  Israel wouldn't need French or German approval for a strike on Iran.  It would need American approval.  I, for one, am skeptical.  It is hard to believe that Obama would give his okay.  How would he explain it to his rabidly "anti-war" political base?  But Hillary might approve.  Then the issue would revolve around her influence with the president.

July 16, 2009   Permalink

WEDNESDAY,  JULY 15,  2009

MEMBER OF DEM ROYALTY HITS OUT AT OBAMA - AT 11:37 P.M. ET:  There's increasing criticism of Obama by centrist members of the Democratic Party, but rarely this intense, and never from a member of a Democratic "royal family." 

But Congressman Dan Boren doesn't hold back.  He's the son of David Boren, former governor of Oklahoma, U.S. senator from Oklahoma, and current president of the University of Oklahoma.  From The Politico:

The White House and House Democratic leaders have grown used to Boren bucking them, but this takes it to another level..

“Barack Obama is very unpopular,” said Boren, who represents Oklahoma’s 2nd Congressional District. “He got 34 percent of the vote statewide, and less in our district. If he were to run for re-election today, I bet it would be even worse.”

Boren points out that he does support some of Obama’s initiatives, like the economic stimulus package. He has voted for Obama-supported bills 81 percent of the time, according to a recent Congressional Quarterly study. But despite this, he said the president is too liberal.

“It would be a lot nicer if we had someone who was in the middle,” he said. “Bill Clinton won our district. A lot of people don’t remember that, but he, in 1996, carried this district. I think if you have someone who governs from the middle, who’s pragmatic, who works with both parties. President Obama talks a lot about bipartisanship. If you look at some of the legislation, he may have one or two Republicans.”

COMMENT:  We'll be seeing more of this if the president's poll numbers continue to drop.

July 15, 2009   Permalink

NPR FOLLOWS THE LINE - AT 8:47 P.M. ET:  We rarely quote National Public Radio here, and for good reason.  We don't quote Hans Christian Andersen or Walt Disney either.  But NPR outdid itself today in its fantasy-world reporting on Hillary Clinton's speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.  Ah, to go through life and just follow a line, without thinking.  It must be so comfy:

But it was clear in her comments to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington that the broken elbow and physical therapy she has undergone to recover from the accident have been hard. Clinton tried to make light of the situation, even comparing her recovery to her efforts to repair America's image abroad.

"No doubt we lost some ground in recent years, but the damage is temporary. It's kind of like my elbow — it's getting better every day," she said, to laughter.

Hah, hah. hah.  Still beating the old "image" horse.  Precisely how has our image improved?  What nations are been persuaded?  North Korea?  Iran?  There are reports that even the West Europeans are dismayed by the weakness of this administration.

And this gem goes unchallenged by NPR:

"Shortly before I started at the State Department, a former secretary of state called me with this advice: Don't try to do too much. And it seemed like a wise admonition, if only it were possible," Clinton said. "But the international agenda today is unforgiving: two wars, conflict in the Middle East, ongoing threats of violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, global recession, climate change, hunger and disease, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor."

Gee, those guys back then had it easy, didn't they?  World War II, nuclear terror, Korea, Vietnam, the rise of radical Islam.  Oh Hillary, how we feel your pain, a pain not experienced by anyone in history. 

Any minute I expect her to start singing, "Don't cry for me, Wellesley College."

Oh please. 

And then the "loyalty thing."

Ronald Neumann, a retired Foreign Service officer who now heads the American Academy of Diplomacy, said it is very important that there not appear to be any "daylight" between Obama and Clinton.

"You know, egos are always difficult, but he is the boss and he's the one who got elected, and she seems to be working loyally with him, which is to her credit," Neumann said.

The only thing close to a disagreement surfaced this week — when Clinton complained that it is taking too long to fill key positions because of a vetting process she called "frustrating beyond words."

Is this serious?  Virtually every well-sourced report we get holds that there are significant differences between Clinton and Obama, with Clinton urging a tougher line toward Iran and North Korea.  Where has this reporter been?  She's been to Camp NPR, that's where.  There are things we do not question.

Yuch.

July 15, 2009   Permalink

TALIBAN COUNTERS MARINES - AT 6:22 P.M. ET:  It seems to be a habit, but we as a nation continually forget the war in Afghanistan.  There is actually nothing new in this.  Of the wars the United States fought in the last 70 years, only World War II gripped public attention every day, in part because the The New York Times, leading the rest of the press, had a regular box for "War News" on every front page.  Also, radio broadcasters had a seriousness during that war that has since faded.

One great myth is that Vietnam was "our national nightmare," a term also applied at the time to Watergate.  In fact, most Americans showed a remarkable indifference to Vietnam.  It was someone else's war, fought either by volunteers, professionals, or draftees from groups many Americans didn't know.  The "nightmare" part existed mainly in the minds of "anti-war" activists, who had a strange propensity for being "anti-war" only about wars America had a chance to win.

Now, Afghanistan.  There is a major push going on there, and our casualties are increasing.  The Washington Post reports how difficult it is:

CAMP LEATHERNECK, Afghanistan -- Taliban fighters who evaded a major Marine Corps thrust into insurgent-held towns along the Helmand River valley this month are now probing Marine positions and using roadside bombs to impede U.S. troop movements, according to senior Marine officers.

Several hundred Taliban had been occupying the populated agricultural lands, known as the “green zone,” where the Marines are now setting up positions. Many of the Taliban fighters laid low during the offensive, the officers said.

In recent days, however, insurgents throughout the area have reemerged to mount fresh attacks, said Col. George S. Amland, deputy commander of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, which has some 4,000 troops operating in central and southern Helmand.

COMMENT:  Even President Obama says that this will be a long haul.  But are Americans ready for that?  When the Obamans play down the war on terror, even banning the term, it makes it difficult to convince our people of the importance of Afghanistan. 

And there are serious issues involving our strategy and planning.  See our post, "Report from the Real War," yesterday at 9:26 a.m.

With Iraq at least tentatively won, we must be concerned about Afghanistan, our first military thrust after the 9-11 attacks and still, almost eight years later, far from secure.  The Post report reminds us that there's real combat going on.  Consider:

Overall, officers say they expect a drawn-out campaign against the Taliban in the Helmand River valley, with Marine deployments expected to continue here for years.

“We know the Taliban are going to come back and challenge us and lay IEDs, terrorize the population and try to make us cause civilian casualties,” said Mellinger. “They’ll do all these things for the battle of influence, and we have to continue to convince the population that we are here to help.”

Very tough going, and very important.

July 15, 2009   Permalink

ADVANCE WORD FROM HILLARY - AT 11:35 A.M. ET:  As we reported earlier, Hillary Clinton's new act premieres today before the Council on Foreign Relations, with choreography by Bill Clinton.  It will be followed by a round-the-world tour, with bookings in only the finest places. 

We now have some advance quotes from secretary:

"...we will remain clear-eyed about our purpose. Not everybody in the world wishes us well or shares our values and interests. Some will seek to undermine our efforts. In those cases, our partnerships will help constrain or deter their actions. And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say: You should know that our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. You should never see America's willingness to talk as a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends and ourselves vigorously when necessary with the world's strongest military. This is not an option we seek. Nor is it a threat; it is a promise to the American people."

Hmm.  Fascinating.  While we're assured that this speech has White House approval, the tone, the style, is not Obama, it's Hillary.  Words like "arsenal" would not fall from Obama's lips.  And the windup, "...it is a promise to the American people" is something Obama would never say.  I mean, the people he knows back in the coffee houses of Hyde Park aren't waiting around to be promised military force, except maybe somebody else's.

And, on Iran:

"Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely." 

Obama has, in fact, said that, but not as toughly.

Of course, these are all words.  Whether this administration has the spine to translate them into action, if the need arises, is the fundamental test.  But the possibility of an open split between Hillary and Barack, in my view at least, is substantial. 

July 15, 2009   Permalink

GOP LEADS IN GENERIC CONGRESSIONAL BALLOT - AT 9:42 A.M. ET: Rasmussen is reporting that the Republicans, for the third straight week, lead in the generic congressional ballot, a spectacular comeback for a party that was declared terminal just weeks ago by the journalists who gave us the age of Obama, global warming, and the certain American defeat in Iraq:

Republican candidates continue to lead on the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot as Democrats fall to their lowest level of support among voters in recent years.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 40% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would choose the Democratic candidate.

And yet, the Dems charge ahead in Congress, indifferent to public opinion.

More good stuff:

Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and since mid-April, the parties have been roughly even.

Men prefer Republicans by a 43% to 35% margin. Women remain divided this week, favoring Democrats 39% to 38%.

Voters not affiliated with either party like GOP candidates by a 39% to 19% margin, showing little change since last week.

COMMENT:  The key findings here are the women's vote, essentially a dead heat, and the remarkable collapse in support for the Dems among independents.

Obviously, we want to wait for confirming figures from other polls, but Nancy Pelosi might look wistfully around the Speaker's office today, if only to have a fond memory.  Some digital pictures for the scrapbook might also help.

July 15, 2009   Permalink

MORE PROOF - AT 8:39 A.M. ET:  That the Obama star is fading.  He visited Michigan yesterday, a state that went solidly for him, and he wasn't greeted like the messiah that he knows he is.  The generally pro-Obama Politico tells the story:

WARREN, Mich. — The state that gave 54 percent of its vote to Barack Obama last November greeted his first return since the election with skepticism, doubt and anxiety about the future.

Obama, accompanied by his campaign manager, David Plouffe, on Air Force One, arrived Tuesday in this Detroit suburb, where one in five residents is unemployed, to face one of the most challenging audiences of his presidency.

Maybe being accompanied by his campaign manager didn't exactly send the right signal.  You know, campaign over, presidency begins.

Obama stepped onto a small stage set up outside the entrance of Macomb Community College, and after receiving a notably lukewarm welcome, he declared, “It’s not the time to shrink from the challenges we face.”

When is it ever that time, Mr. President?

Obama is arguably in the midst of his toughest moment as president. With budget deficits and unemployment rising, criticism of his handling of the economy is mounting, as well. The adoring crowds that greeted him in the early months of his presidency gave way today to an audience that needed convincing.

This is a lot better journalism than some of the stuff I saw on TV last night, with one in-the-clouds reporter assuring the multitudes that Obama would do just as well in Michigan if he ran today. 

Going into the speech, the Detroit News flatly said the Obama administration’s $787 billion stimulus package was not working; the Detroit Free Press criticized his decision to focus his remarks on community colleges, rather than the economy and jobs; and the mayor of Warren went on the radio to rebuke Obama for delivering a speech instead of holding an unscripted town hall, as originally planned.

Welcome to Michigan.

Oh, his theme was actually education:

Obama underscored his higher-education goal: that by 2020, the U.S. will have the largest number of college graduates of any country. His new proposal is “the most significant down payment yet” on achieving that, he said.

Maybe we'd better start focusing on what these college students are being taught...before more billions are flushed down the drain.

Not a good show in Michigan yesterday.

July 15, 2009   Permalink

AND NOW...HEEERE'S HILLARY - AT 8:02 A.M. ET:  This is the day when Hillary Clinton comes out, or goes on, or whatever they do in this administration.  We're informed that she wants the spotlight, kind of like Mama Rose in "Gypsy."  She will not be denied:

WASHINGTON – Eclipsed by a globe-trotting president, a foreign policy-savvy vice president and a bevy of special envoys, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is struggling to re-emerge this week as the Obama administration's diplomatic heavyweight.

Clinton is trying to retake center stage as the administration's top foreign policy voice after four frustrating, low-profile weeks during which a fractured elbow forced her to cancel two overseas trips. Her diminishing presence abroad and at home, followed by her startling public criticism of the White House this week for delaying a key appointment, has prompted a flurry of speculation about whether her influence is waning inside President Barack Obama's Cabinet.

Clinton was set to deliver what aides billed as a major policy address at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington on Wednesday. A day later, she heads off on an around-the-world trip.

COMMENT:  I suspect this will be the most fascinating personal story of the Obama administration.  Hillary Clinton will not be shoved aside, at least not easily.  The question is how much publicity the Obama press will give her as she globetrots.  (Michelle Obama probably hopes her round-the-world trip lasts three years.) 

We've guessed here before that Hillary might just jump ship at the right moment, especially if Obama's poll numbers continue to sink and the Dems take a beating in next year's elections.  Don't love her, but don't underestimate her.  In her heart of hearts, she knows she deserved that nomination.  She recalls that Obama got weaker and weaker toward the end of the primaries, just as he's getting weaker and weaker now.  She sees a pattern.  She's sharpening the knife.

July 15, 2009   Permalink

HEY, WHO NEEDS A LOT OF DISCUSSION? - AT 7:31 A.M. ET:  The Obama steamroller is in motion.  We will have health-care reform, Obama style, whether we like it or not.  There isn't even a pretense of having a broad national discussion, with all alternatives aired.  We don't even know what we're getting.  Bloomberg reports:

July 14 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama may rely only on Democrats to push health-care legislation through the U.S. Congress if Republican opposition doesn’t yield soon, two of the president’s top advisers said.

“Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results,” David Axelrod, Obama’s senior political strategist, said during an interview in his White House office. “If we’re going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting.”

Both Axelrod and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said taking a partisan route to enacting major health-care legislation isn’t the president’s preferred choice. Yet in separate interviews, each man left that option open.

“We’d like to do it with the votes of members of both parties,” Axelrod said. “But the worst result would be to not get health-care reform done.”

COMMENT:  Please recall that John McCain got 46% of the vote, but you'd never know it by the way the news is reported.  It's all Obama all the time.  Pretty soon I expect some commentator to say, "If only Michael Jackson had this kind of coverage..."

No real discussion.  No real air time devoted to this most profound change in government policy in more than a generation.  Life and death decisions will be made, based on this legislation.  And every poll shows that Americans are increasingly apprehensive over what Congress will do.  You'd think there'd be some restraint, some humility.  You'd think wrong.

July 15, 2009   Permalink