Rasmussen Arizona 2010 GOP Senatorial Primary

• John McCain 45%
• J.D. Hayworth 43%
• Chris Simcox 4%
• Some other candidate 2%
• Not sure 7%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• J.D. Hayworth 67% / 16% {+51%}
• John McCain 74% / 24% {+50%}
• Chris Simcox 27% / 26% {+1%}

Survey of 570 Likely Voters was conducted November 18. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points.

Michael Tanner, of the Cato Institute, has done us another great service by skewering Harry Reid’s health care bill for the crushing costs it would impose upon the American people. I strongly suggest a read of the entire op-ed, but I consider this excerpt the best part:

…The bill uses various accounting gimmicks to hide its true cost. For example the bill doesn’t include more than $200 billion needed to prevent a 21 percent cut in Medicare next year. [The CBO "score" actually assumes Reid cuts Medicare 23 percent -- Ed.] That cost has been spun off into a separate bill, even though the Senate voted down that approach last month.

Moreover (as Jeffrey H. Anderson notes), much of the spending is back-loaded. The bill doesn’t start spending until 2014, and only costs $9 billion that year. But by 2019, the annual cost hits $196 billion. The minority staff of the Senate Budget Committee reports that, if you factor out all the budget gimmicks and look at the 10 years of actual implementation, the cost is closer to $2.5 trillion.

And, while Reid brags that the bill will reduce the deficit by $127 billion over the next 10 years (which is about $50 billion less than the deficit the government ran last month alone), even that tiny savings depends on budget gimmicks and the willingness of future Congresses to make huge cuts in Medicare spending. Any wagers on the chances of that actually happening? In fact, even the CBO warns that it will be “difficult” to achieve the predicted savings.

Perhaps more important, much of the cost has simply been shifted from the federal budget onto the backs of workers, businesses and state governments. Judging by previous reforms, as much as 60 percent of the cost won’t show up in government accounting.

To pay for all the new spending, Reid would enact at least 15 new or increased taxes totaling more than $493 billion.

But the cost alone doesn’t begin to describe how intrusive this bill would be for the average American. For instance, it would require everyone to buy a government-designed insurance plan, even if it was more expensive than their current policy. Failure to comply brings a penalty of up to $6,750 for a family of four.

Another provision would mandate that employers provide insurance to their workers. If they fail to do so, and if even a single worker qualified for federal subsidies, the employer could be fined up to $750 per employee. The CBO estimates that those penalties will amount to more than $28 billion.

Tanner then continues by covering some of the commonly cited concerns with government-run health care – for instance, rationing. The unfortunate reliance on the CBO scoring of the plan by the media and officials in Washington misleads the public on the economic implications of the bill.

Thankfully, House Republicans have proposed an alternative to Reid’s monstrosity. The Republican plan concentrates on cost reduction, by allowing individuals to purchase insurance across state lines, capping medical malpractice lawsuits, providing additional incentives for health savings accounts and encouraging small businesses to band together and purchase insurance in groups. Hopefully, Senate Democrats will come to grips with the horror that is Reid’s bill and reject it Saturday.

Read Chapter 1 and Chapter 2…

Moving on to Chapter 3, which concerns Palin’s time in state government.

Her record in state government has always impressed me, but there are some behind-the-scenes items that were simply astonishing. Immediately after being elected, she committed herself to reading the entire budget and approving or nixing each individual earmark ($100,000 for kids’ batting cages, $40,000 for landscaping at a school, etc). She asked an aide how on Earth past governors got this budget process done. The aide replied that, well, they didn’t: advisers would simply browse it and the governor would sign off. In the end, 85% of earmark requests would be vetoed while Palin was governor. Nice.

More than anything else, though, what Palin wants highlighted is how she stood up to corporatism. ExxonMobil had a contract with Alaska to begin development, but refused, for decades, to start drilling, viewing the land instead as a dormant company asset. Sorry, said Palin, no can do: and she ditched their contract. ExxonMobil brought the state to court over this — and the state won. Palin tells of how a circle of corrupt legislators and oil lobbyists kept this status quo in place, and how she successfully overrode them. (She also talks about her vision for a natural gas pipeline, but although the ball is rolling, it has not yet come to fruition. We’ll see how this goes under Parnell’s leadership, I suppose.)

She brags of how she put thousands of dollars back in the hands of “the people” since, according to the Alaska Constitution, the natural resources belonged to them — but she never seems to question the socialist premise of collectively-owned resources. Not that it matters, of course: it’s entrenched and it isn’t going anywhere. Just like when she vetoed a conservative bill meant to bar same-sex couples from state benefits — which some Republican legislators told her she should be willing to go to jail over — she went to office to uphold the Constitution, not to ignore it and govern as she pleased. I can’t really poke any holes in the narrative: it’s pretty consistent from either angle.

Palin refused to take food and travel benefits — she tells of how Piper was once given a $100+ check for an evening’s meal to spend as she pleased — and, famously, attempted to sell Gov. Murkowski’s private jet on eBay. These are largely symbolic acts, but I can’t help but feel a pull toward her over them. How many politicians these days deny little checks — perfectly legal! — for nice meals? Awfully easy to be generous with other people’s money, as it’s said.

Chapter 3 also delves into the story of Sarah’s pregnancy with Trig. It’s a genuinely touching story from beginning to end, and was, surprisingly for me, the major page-turner of the memoir. I can’t recount it with justice; I recommend reading it for yourself. Sarah is shockingly frank about her fears upon learning that her child would have Down Syndrome. It’s good stuff.

On the flip side, this chapter was a tad long. The details on the energy projects were a bit wordy at times, and her opponents’ criticisms were left intentionally vague. (Why did the oil companies attempt to peg her as anti-business? What were their specific claims and why did they not make sense?) Also, why did she sign off on a sub-cabinet department to combat ‘global warming’? It is never even mentioned.

I am now finished with the book and would give it, for what it is, a B+. Chapter 4 — McCain campaign time! Setting the record straight/score-settling (it’s a bit of both) — coming soon…

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

When aspiring bloggers ask me where they should focus their efforts to reach their goal of becoming a credible, productive and well-known online pundit, I always offer the same advice; “Do not just focus on the writing, but instead read, read, read and read.” 

A blogger cannot sustain a large readership without knowing the subject matter they pontificate about.  After a long day at the office or classroom, one can find it difficult to become motiviated to read the new edition of The Economist, field reports from the UNHCR or a news article on the Japan-EU Regulatory Reform Dialogue.  Failure to do your homework or a willingness to engage on a topic that you know little about, may result in life-long career of making coffee for the editorial staff of newmajority.com, or Frumsforum, or whatever name DF is using for his message board this week.

Exhibit A - This past Wednesday, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic provided bloggers with an example of how you can destroy your credibility with readers, by giving in to the temptations of intellectual laziness.

“More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel”? 

18 Nov 2009 01:07 pm

Sarah Palin, in an interview with Barbara Walters, talks about settlements:

“I disagree with the Obama administration on that. I believe that the Jewish settlements should be allowed to be expanded upon, because that population of Israel is, is going to grow. More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel in the days and weeks and months ahead. And I don’t think that the Obama administration has any right to tell Israel that the Jewish settlements cannot expand.” – Palin

“More and more Jewish people will be flocking to Israel”? Who, exactly? Is this her analysis of Jewish demography? Is there a sudden upsurge in Zionist sentiment among American Jews, the only sizable Jewish community left outside of Israel? Or is this an indication that Palin buys into creepy End-Times thinking, in which the ingathering of the Jews, and their mass death, presage the return of Christ? Inquiring minds want to know. - Goldberg

Goldberg, anxious to attack Governor Palin and Christian conservatives, made the fatal error of presuming he possessed a firm understand of Israeli immigration policy and the socio-economic challenges facing the non-Arab residents of the Jewish State.

The population of Israel continues to rise dramatically.  The quality of life for residents and the economic security of the nation are at risk over limitations on land use and urban sprawl, water shortages and other environmental degradation issues.  Although Goldberg probably believes it is a form of apartheid, for most Jews and Israeli’s, the settlement issue is not about a land grab of former Arab territory, but more to do with sustaining the prosperity their nation has achieved.    

By the early 2000′s, Israeli’s population had to grown to constitute nearly 40% of the worlds estimated Jewish population.  The goal of the government is to increase this percentage.  Israel, not unlike other modern, high-growth, high-tech, small populated nations, such as Singapore, understand that liberal immigration laws are critical to competing with economic powerhouses such as the United States, Japan and China.

Israel’s Population by Year

Data source:  World Bank, World Development Indicators – Last updated November 20, 2009

 

In the last four years, the Government of Israel and a few NGO’s have developed new infrastructure and incentives to encourage the emigration of Jews from the United States, Russia and around the world to fill the birth gap with Arab-Israeli’s.  One non-profit organization has been providing grants of $3,000 to $10,000 as an incentive for Jews to move.  Although current immigration levels are nowhere near the levels reached in the 50′s and 60′s (at the time fueled by the fact that 850,000 Jews fled or were deported from Arab nations), there are already signs that the news measures will result in increased levels of immigration.  Since 2006, Israel has experienced a 5% increase in immigration from the United States. 

 

 

Religious Affiliations in Northern Ireland 1961–2001

Religions	1961	1991	2001
Roman Catholic	34.9%	38.4%	40.3%
Presbyterian (Protestant)	29.0%	21.4%	20.7%
Church of Ireland (Protestant)	24.2%	17.7%	15.3%
Other Religions (including other Protestant)	9.3%	11.5%	9.9%
Not Stated	2.0%	7.3%	9.0%
None	0.0%

 

Immigration experts predict that the combination of government policy, private incentives, the continued growth of the Israeli economy and the improvements made to environment, agriculture and natural resource management will further increase immigration.  Even though Israel is two-thirds desert and faces chronic water shortages, the state is investing heavily in renewable water technology, so that they are able to sustain the planned population growth. 

This leaves the State of Israeli in a predicament.  Where are they to house the growing population and where are they to establish new farms to feed these people?  Expand existing settlements, build new settlements, or both? 

Since the issue of whether to build new settlements is critical to the peace process and more importantly to the P.R. war Israel is constantly engaged in with the Arab world and pro-Palestinian leftist political parties in developed nations, Israel’s only option is to allow the expansion of existing settlements on land it already controls.

We can be rest assured that Governor Palin fully comprehends the settlement issue the people of Israel face.  She has been adequately briefed on all the details, some of which I highlighted above.

Unfortunately for Jeffrey Goldberg, he has not, which is a trend we have come to expect from the contributors of The Atlantic. 

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Rasmussen California 2010 Gubernatorial Survey

• Meg Whitman 41% (35%)
• Jerry Brown 41% (44%)

• Jerry Brown 43% (45%)
• Steve Poizner 32% (32%)

• Jerry Brown 42% (44%)
• Tom Campbell 33% (34%)

Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)

• Meg Whitman 47% (45%) / 27% (28%) {+20%}
• Tom Campbell 40% (42%) / 20% (32%) {+20%}
• Steve Poizner 36% (36%) / 26% (32%) {+10%}
• Jerry Brown 48% (53%) / 41% (37%) {+7%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 40%
• Somewhat approve 15%
• Somewhat disapprove 9%
• Strongly disapprove 34%

How would you rate the job Arnold Schwarzenegger has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 6%
• Somewhat approve 23%
• Somewhat disapprove 39%
• Strongly disapprove 30%

Survey of 500 Likely Voters was conducted November 17. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 24 are in parentheses.

Race 4 2012 commenter Josiah Schmidt has written an excellent post, in which he highlights the true primary cause of the GDP growth the economy saw last quarter, for his personal blog. Mr. Schmidt laments:

So, I was perusing the St. Louis Fed’s monetary graphs today, as I do from time to time, when I noticed something peculiar. Check out the monetary base chart [shown below]. No, I’m not talking about the recent huge upshoot in monetary inflation (we’ve come to expect that from the Fed). Look at the “shaded area.” It conspicuously stops midway through 2009. According to the Fed, the recession ended, and, how conveniently, right after the Fed unleashed massive monetary inflation!

Of course, you and I know right now that such a notion is utterly preposterous. Skyrocketing unemployment rates, steadily rising prices, job losses, bankruptcies, and record numbers of bank failures are occurring as we speak. We can directly thank the Fed’s monetary inflation for that.

As Josiah proceeds to articulate, when historians look back on the “Great Recession”, they may very well attribute the temporary blip in positive growth last quarter to the government intervention implemented by the Obama administration. Thank you, Josiah, for your enlightening commentary.

In reality, the Fed revving up the printing presses and the lack of private investment in the “recovery”, as previously discussed on this site, will compel Pres. Obama and our other “leaders” in Washington to face an excruciatingly difficult decision: advocate for additional stimulus packages, of which the public disapproves, and continue sowing the seeds of crippling inflation, or take the painful, but necessary, steps to rein in the dollars flooding the market and return to flat or negative economic growth. Only the second option would allow supply to reunite with demand and facilitate the formation of a real recovery.

Knepper contra Graham here; I believe that Rudy Giuliani would be a solid vote with the Republican Party about 85% of the time in the Senate. He’d likely only stay for one term if he were elected — maybe two, unless the polls looked bad — and we already know that he’s willing to buck his Democrat constituents to get something done. It’s absolutely preposterous to say that he’d only vote with us 50% of the time.

Right now, he’d be a solid vote against cap-and-trade, the health care scheme, and — looking back — the stimulus.

Once he’s elected, he has three options in front of him.

1. Run for President

Yes, he could. New reports today indicate that he wants to, and he refused to rule it out both on CNN and The View.

Oh, but Mitt, but Mitt — stop wetting your pants, people. Mitt Romney is “the center-right candidate” only when looked at next to Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin. Romney does not have much room to maneuver, given his past shifts. Rudy could suck up all of the McCain voters in the room. Plus, in New Hampshire, there’s no Democratic contest this time around, so he could come in a respectable 2nd place (to Romney) or perhaps even eke out a 1st-place win, if Romney underperforms — there are pitfalls all over for him (what if an individual mandate passes, for instance?). That would give him enough momentum to hit up Florida and then Super Tuesday this time. And a split field could do wonders for him in South Carolina and Nevada. He just can’t come in sixth place this time.

It’s not a crazy idea. He could run again, and he could win now that John McCain is gone. And if 2012 is about size-of-government issues, then watch out. He can run, and he can win. His vice-presidential picks would include Pawlenty, Ryan, and Jindal. (Giuliani-Ryan would be literally the greatest ticket in Republican history.)

2. Endorse Sarah Palin, Become Sarah Palin’s Vice-Presidential Nominee

Oh yes, it could happen. Rudy and Sarah are pretty close, and Rudy is definitely a Palin fan. Rudy could help shore up her appeal amongst college-educated whites, especially in early states like New Hampshire and Florida. He could help craft her platform, fundraise for her, campaign with her — and as a trade-off, become her VP. She’s rural, he’s urban. She’s inexperienced, he’s experienced. She has no foreign policy gravitas, he’s got the moral vision Americans trust. She’s too lightweight, he’s America’s Mayor. She isn’t connected, he was elected to the Senate and has made new friends. They share small-government principles, William Kristol-approved foreign policy ideas, and don’t bother with social crusades. It’s a match made in heaven.

Palin-Giuliani ’12. If Palin runs, the odds of that ticket coming into fruition are good.

3. Be a Good Senator and Build a Lasting Legacy

Well…this is technically an option…

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

I’m glad that America’s Mayor is probably running for Senator in New York. And as since 2000, he’s dropped his support for Partial Birth Abortion, he’ll almost certainly get the Conservative Party line. It’s New York and given the records of all of New York’s Senators since Al D’Amato, people will take what they can get.

Now, the downside. The word is out that Giuliani is planning on using this for a 2012 stepping stone. Hopefully, Giuliani will dispel this notion. If not, it’s problematic.  If Giulini wins in 2010, his term would be good until 2012. If instead of defending the Senate seat, Giuliani opts for a Presidential run, it really raises a question as to how much a Rudy win is worth.

As a Republican in the Senate, Rudy would probably be somewhere to the right of Olympia Snowe and to the left of John McCain, but could probably counted on most big fiscal issues, and foreign policy issues, and probably most social issues if he’s running for President. However, if he’s running for President, he’s going to miss a lot of Senate votes, maybe most of them. Thus, a Giuliani win could succeed in taking Kirsten Gillibrand’s vote away from the Democrats, but not adding a vote for the Republicans, making a Giuliani win worth about half a Senate seat for two years.

In addition, the situation that has allowed Giuliani to delay a decision will still exist. The Republican bench in New York is still absolute garbage.  When Republicans have to look to old war horses like Pataki, Giuliani, and Lazio, you know they don’t have a strong future that can win statewide. So, Giuliani mounting up for a Presidential run gives the Democrats a good chance to recapture the seat in 2012 if Giuliani wins it. Of course, the same disorder that could allow a Giuliani win in 2010 won’t exist in 2012 as the unpopular Paterson would be gone along with Paterson’s ill-considered pick for U.S. Senate.

My greatest concern in this race in John Cornyn and the NRSC. Giuliani’s presence in the race means the NRSC could lay out some serious dough to capture this seat. However, with the cost of advertising in the New York Metro Market, the bills would be phenomenal. A million would be chump change in New York, but could sure help out in smaller states where the GOP also has legitimate pick-up opportunities like Delaware and Arkansas.

Bottom line?

If Rudy wants this to be a coming out party for his 2012 Presidential bid, then let Rudy’s presidential backers pay for his campaign. The NRSC should not spend one dime on this race unless either their coffers overflow or Rudy Giuliani’s pledges to stay the Senate and seek a full term representing the people of New York. To spend money to elect a Senator who’s going to be with you around 50-60% of the time and won’t run for re-election and may not even show up to vote that much would be an inexcusable mismanagement of resources when you’ve got a lot of Senate seats out there that you could win for six full years.

SO SARAH WHY DIDN’T YOU COME ONTO THE FACTOR WE HAVE THE BIGGEST RATINGS ON TV CABLE NEWS YOU KNOW I MEAN YOU EVEN CALLED ME AT MY HOUSE WHY DIDN’T YOU GO ONTO THE FACTOR THEN YOU SAID YOU WANTED TO GO ROGUE I MEAN YOU SHOULD HAVE JUST COME AND GIVEN ME AN INTERVIEW MAYBE YOU COULD HAVE WON IF YOU’D GOTTEN TO TALK TO THE FOLKS THROUGH THE FACTOR

What a waste of an interview! Why do people watch this guy?!

PPP (D) National Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of Barack Obama’s job performance?

• Approve 49% (51%) [52%] {52%} (50%)
• Disapprove 46% (43%) [44%] {42%} (43%)

Among Independents

• Approve 47% (46%) [52%] {48%} (46%)
• Disapprove 46% (44%) [40%] {42%} (42%)

How would you grade President Obama’s overall performance so far?

• A 30%
• B 18%
• C 7%
• D 19%
• F 26%

Among Independents

• A 21%
• B 25%
• C 10%
• D 15%
• F 28%

Do you support or oppose President Obama’s health care plan?

• Support 40% (42%) [45%] {40%}
• Oppose 52% (45%) [46%] {47%}

Among Independents

• Support 36% (40%) [46%] {35%}
• Oppose 58% (47%) [44%] {49%}

Do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of ACORN?

• Favorable 11%
• Unfavorable 53%

Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?

• Legitimately won election 62%
• ACORN stole it 26%

Among Independents

• Legitimately won election 72%
• ACORN stole it 18%

Among Republicans

• Legitimately won election 27%
• ACORN stole it 52%

Who did you vote for President last year?

• Barack Obama 47%
• John McCain 45%

Survey of 1,066 registered voters was conducted November 13-15. The margin of error is +/- 3 percentage points. Party ID breakdown: 41% Democrat; 33% Republican; 26% Independent. Political views: 50% Moderate; 34% Conservative; 16% Liberal. Results from the poll conducted October 16-19 are in parentheses. Results from the poll conducted September 18-21 are in square brackets. Results from the poll conducted August 14-17 are in curly brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 15-16 are in parentheses.

Fair:

Criticizing her for her vapid response to Barbara Walters’ question about the Israeli settlements is perfectly fair.

I noted this the other day. Jeffrey Goldberg has picked up on it, as well. It’s not a good answer. Watch for yourself in my “Palin On Policy” thread.

Not Fair:

Saying that Palin “confuses Iraq and Iran.” Gosh, no one’s ever confused the names of bordering foreign countries with a one-letter difference before!

Actually, if you listen and replace “Iraq” with “Iran” (obviously), it’s a good answer, besides the fact that she — like every other politician in America — keeps acting like Ahmadinejad is in charge of Iran’s nuclear program. It’s not like anyone has ever done that before…

Predictably, all of the comments on the Huffington Post said that Palin is soooo stupid.

Andrew Sullivan linked to my Persecution of Sarah Palin review. But that won’t stop me from calling out his crap!

He posts this video and says, in effect, ‘See! Look at all the stupid people supporting Sarah! What a moron!’

Anyone remember this moron?

Did anyone decide that Obama was stupid after that?

The moral of the story: judging a candidate — Republican or Democrat! — by their supporters is wrong!

Just a report on what the Young Turks, a popular ‘progressive’ blog is up to.

Here’s a guy who uses the pen name “LudwigVan”:

But what I’m afraid we’re dealing with in Palin, and with the radical right in this country, is a rebellion against the modern world and modernism itself, a fear and resentment of science, reason and the liberal democratic republic. Attached to the term “conservatism” is no longer mere agraranism and mistrust of federal policies. It’s a modified neo-Confederatism, a rebellion against America itself. It comes from fear and hate, not only of Obama and Washington, but democracy, pluralism and progress. Since logic and reason is not on their side, and they probably know this, all they have left to argue their point is emotionalism and demagoguery.

These people really believe their own propaganda. Let me analyze this paragraph like Ayn Rand would: Palin represents a “rebellion against the modern world”? How? Blank out. Resentment of science? How? Blank out. Neo-Confederatism? How? Blank out. Hate of democracy? How? Blank out. One expects the answer to be “Just look at her! If you can’t see it, I couldn’t possibly explain it to you. In other words: if I say it, it makes it so.

And here’s their ringleader, Cenk Uygur, who says that conservatives would have opposed the Nuremburg trials and that mainstream conservatism is a radical movement that’s taken over half of the country:

It’s as if we’re taking the opinions of doctors [liberals] and the lunatics at the asylum just as seriously. They are not equal and legitimate sources of information.

…

Then there is the issue of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial. Bill O’Reilly had this thoughtful commentary on the KSM trial, “The guy’s admitted it, so he shouldn’t be going on trial anyway, he should just be shot.” We’re listening to these guys?

So, under that logic, if the authorities claim someone “admitted” a crime to them, we should just skip the trial and shoot them in the head. How very American!

Imagine if we these right-wing lunatics were around – and were being taken seriously – after World War II. We would have never had Nuremberg. They would have gone ballistic; screaming for blood and seething at the idea of bringing Nazis to justice. They would have exacted a terrible political price for trying to bring these guys to trial. So, instead of setting a history making precedent on how victors in war can be just and fair, we would have lynched those detainees, punished the rest of Germany and made the same mistake as almost every other country in history by brutally oppressing the defeated.

You think these guys would have gone for the Marshall Plan? Rebuilding your enemies?

Alright, buddy, take a Prozac.

First of all, the analogy is really s***ty: conservatives are up in arms over the fact that KSM is being tried in a civilian court. The Nuremburg Trials were no such thing. We want KSM to be tried in a military tribunal, like the terrorist he is. As the agent of war that he is. The Nuremburg trials were fair and appropriate in that respect.

That also nullifies the policemen-should-do-it-too argument, of course. Cenk Uygur, like all 9/10 leftists, is unable to comprehend the simple fact that we are at war. Quoting an irritated Bill O’Reilly and projecting his emotional outburst onto everyone around him doesn’t change that fact.

As for rebuilding our enemies: what the heck does this bonehead think ‘neo-conservatism’ advocates? It’s the left that has whined about how we can’t “impose” anything on other cultures: don’t build a democratic structure, don’t let them vote, don’t expand freedom too much, blah blah blah. Since the left’s version of the war is roughly “Jews lie Bush into war, Bush lies to America about WMD so he can avenge his father, Bush steals Iraq’s oil, Bush kills Iraqi civilians on purpose, now we don’t know how to leave,” it’s easy to gloss over stubborn facts.

Uygur, my candidate for the most disgusting and outrageous leftist in the blogosphere, is the same guy I took to task for saying that Obama is “empirically” keeping us safer than Bush did, by the way, analyzing issues as if they exist in a vacuum.

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Political Survey

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president?

• Approve 46% [50%] {49%} (50%) [54%] {53%}
• Disapprove 46% [41%] {45%} (42%) [39%] {40%}

Among Independents

• Approve 34% [49%] {42%} (46%) [51%] {49%}
• Disapprove 51% [34%] {47%} (41%) [42%] {44%}

Is President Obama a stronger leader than you expected, a weaker leader, or is he about what you expected?

• Stronger leader than expected 17%
• Weaker leader than expected 23%
• Same as expected 57%

Among Independents

• Stronger leader than expected 14%
• Weaker leader than expected 29%
• Same as expected 53%

In the next congressional election in 2010, are you more likely to vote for the Democrat to help Barack Obama pass his policies and programs; or vote for the Republican to provide a check on Obama’s power?

• Vote for the Republican 42% [40%] {42%} [35%] {40%}
• Vote for the Democrat 39% [39%] {38%} [40%] {40%}

Among Independents

• Vote for the Republican 43% [31%] {35%} [28%] {30%}
• Vote for the Democrat 23% [30%] {22%} [29%] {28%}

Do you support or oppose sending additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan?

• Support 42% {46%} [41%]
• Oppose 45% {46%} [50%]

As of right now, do you think the U.S. and its allies are winning the war against terrorism?

• Yes 33%
• No 54%

Where do you think the five detainees accused of conspiring to commit the September 11 terrorist attacks should be tried — in the U.S. court system or in a military tribunal?

• Military tribunal 52%
• U.S. court system 40%

Among Independents

• Military tribunal 60%
• U.S. court system 33%

Recently, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to transfer five Guantanamo Bay detainees accused of conspiring to commit the September 11 attacks to New York City to stand trial in U.S. civilian court. Do you think this is a good idea or a bad idea?

• Good idea 42%
• Bad idea 49%

Among Independents

• Good idea 32%
• Bad idea 60%

(more…)

(Read my chapter one review here.) This is Part 2 of the review by the only person on Earth who has had his writings on Sarah Palin linked to by both Andrew Sullivan and Conservatives4Palin members.

I am repeating that above section for Google News results — I think it’s an intriguing opener for those who are new to Race42012!

—

It seems as if the book is taking a logical succession. Chapter 1 is about Palin’s background and upbringing, Chapter 2 is about her involvement in local government; Chapter 3, state government; Chapter 4, her time in the McCain campaign, and so on. All are divided into numbered subsections. Whoever came up with this organizational scheme — whether Palin herself or Lynn Vincent — deserves a lot of credit. The book is very neatly laid out and a pleasure to browse.

Now, onward to the substance. When Sarah says that parts of her record have been distorted or omitted, she’s referring to a lot of information that’s clarified in this chapter. I consider myself well-versed on Palin’s record, but there was material recounted in here — even material that I’d previously been familiar with — that didn’t strike me as especially memorable until put in its broader context. For instance: part of Sarah’s campaign for mayor was prefaced on cutting the size of local government. Now, I knew that she’d successfully campaigned to cut property taxes as a trade-off for raising sales taxes (a prudent way to manage Wasilla’s growth to small-city status). But it really impressed upon me, from an ethical standpoint, that she kept her promise that it would begin with her: she took a pay cut as mayor — the same one she’d voted against giving John Stein while she was a council member. Sarah recounts how hypocritical she’d have been had she kept the pay increase. Such little things like that — and, as she notes, eliminating the position of museum curator — are refreshing, especially when they should be such no-brainers (“Commonsense conservatism”?). I was also amazed that she once agreed to spend two hours on the phone with a citizen to discuss sewage issues — on Christmas Eve. She also notes that she consistently refused to “dance with the one who brung her,” a man named Nick Carney, although I’d have liked to have more details on that.

I was fascinated to learn that Palin was falsely attacked even in the mid-90′s for attempting to “ban books.” According to Sarah, she was merely curious what the local library’s policy was, since book banning had been causing something of a stir up in Anchorage. The details are omitted, but I see no reason not to trust this account. Palin’s opponents have had a field day painting her as some kind of religious crusader, but her record simply does not show this. However deeply her personal religious faith runs — and from reading her memoir, one can tell that it runs quite deeply indeed — she does not allow it to interfere with her governmental duties.

There are fewer cutesy anecdotes in this chapter, although one eyebrow-raising episode is mentioned: Sarah goes to cut a radio ad for a local candidate and Piper won’t stop crying. So, she breast-feeds her as the tape is rolling as the men in the room look at her, mouths agape. Awkward. She also recounts the time when an elderly woman approached her in her mayoral office and told her solemnly that her daughter had been caught smoking pot and that she would pray for her. “Which daughter?” asked Palin, “My toddler or my pre-schooler?”

Sometimes cliches pop up — the standard one, very familiar to Palin followers, is about “putting government back on the side of the people” — but that’s standard for political memoirs. More substantively, I did not feel that the issue of the Wasilla sports complex was adequately addressed. There were a lot of eminent domain issues that have left the city in a lot of debt, and that’s not any small matter. This was conspicuously glossed over. I’d rather Sarah just come out and acknowledge that it was a mistake and that she’s learned from it — she’s a human being, and all executives make mistakes, especially when starting out. But to ignore it seems to me to be unfair to those, like me, who are the on fence about whether she’s a viable national candidate. Furthermore, she did not discuss why she chose to bring up the issues of abortion and guns in her mayoral campaign. This received no mention in the memoir, although all accounts I have read of the race discuss this aspect. It is perplexing and deserves to be addressed, even if just to note that it was imprudent or inappropriate — and that her later campaigns, from her 2002 campaign for lieutenant governor onward — have not at all revolved around such issues.

Chapter 3 coming tomorrow morning. A big thank you to Ms. Vincent and, according to Kristofer, Ms. Palin, for reading what we have to say!

Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com

Rasmussen New York Political Survey

2010 Gubernatorial Race

• Rudy Giuliani 57% [50%] (55%)
• David Paterson 30% [39%] (33%)

• Rick Lazio 41% [38%]
• David Paterson 37% [38%]

• Andrew Cuomo 49% [58%] (48%)
• Rudy Giuliani 46% [37%] (41%)

• Andrew Cuomo 57% [65%]
• Rick Lazio 29% [26%]

2010 Senatorial Race

• Kirsten Gillibrand 45% [44%]
• George Pataki 42% [41%]

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Andrew Cuomo 56% [68%] (64%) / 34% [25%] (32%) {+22%}
• Rudy Giuliani 58% [55%] (56%) / 38% [44%] (39%) {+20%}
• George Pataki 51% [46%] / 44% [48%] {+7%}
• Kirsten Gillibrand 40% [39%] / 37% [42%] {+3%}
• Rick Lazio 36% [33%] / 44% [49%] {-8%}
• David Paterson 36% [38%] (38%) / 59% [57%] (60%) {-23%}

How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President?

• Strongly approve 40% [48%] (39%)
• Approve 18% [13%] (24%)
• Disapprove 10% [11%] (10%)
• Strongly disapprove 31% [27%] (27%)

How would you rate the job David Paterson has been doing as Governor?

• Strongly approve 10% [14%] (5%)
• Approve 28% [25%] (27%)
• Disapprove 29% [27%] (31%)
• Strongly disapprove 30% [33%] (36%)

Should Paterson drop out of the Governor’s race?

• Yes 43% [44%]
• No 36% [41%]

Terrorist suspects linked to the 9/11 attacks will now be tried in a New York City civilian court rather than in a military tribunal. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to try these terrorist suspects in a New York City civilian court?

• Agree 35%
• Disagree 55%

Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted November 17. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points. Results from the poll conducted September 22 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted July 14 are in parentheses.

Note: The survey was taken Tuesday night prior to news reports that former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is planning to run against Gillibrand.

Marist New York 2010 Political Survey

Republican Senatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 71%
• George Pataki 24%

Senatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 54%
• Kirsten Gillibrand 40%

Republican Gubernatorial Primary

• Rudy Giuliani 84% [83%] (77%)
• Rick Lazio 13% [13%] (16%)

Gubernatorial General Election

• Rudy Giuliani 60% [60%] (54%)
• David Paterson 35% [34%] (37%)

• Andrew Cuomo 53% [53%] (51%)
• Rudy Giuliani 43% [43%] (43%)

Survey of 805 registered voters was conducted November 12, 16-17. The margin of error is +/- 3.5 percentage points; for the subsample of 216 Republicans, ±7.0%. Results from the poll conducted September 8-10 are in brackets. Results from the poll conducted June 23-25 are in parentheses.

Research 2000/Daily Kos Florida Political Survey

(Among Republicans) If the 2010 Republican Primary for U.S. Senate were held today, which of the following would get your vote?

• Charlie Crist 47%
• Marco Rubio 37%

If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Kendrick Meek, the Democrat, and Charlie Crist, the Republican?

• Charlie Crist 50%
• Kendrick Meek 33%

Among Independents

• Charlie Crist 52%
• Kendrick Meek 32%

If the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Kendrick Meek, the Democrat, and Marco Rubio, the Republican?

• Kendrick Meek 38%
• Marco Rubio 30%

Among Independents

• Kendrick Meek 39%
• Marco Rubio 28%

If Charlie Crist were to run as an Independent and the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Kendrick Meek, the Democrat, Marco Rubio, the Republican, and Charlie Crist, an Independent?

• Charlie Crist 32%
• Kendrick Meek 31%
• Marco Rubio 27%

Among Independents

• Charlie Crist 45%
• Kendrick Meek 27%
• Marco Rubio 22%

If Charlie Crist were to switch to the Democratic Party and the 2010 election for U.S. Senate were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Charlie Crist, the Democrat, and Marco Rubio, the Republican?

• Charlie Crist 45%
• Marco Rubio 34%

If the 2010 election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Alex Sink, the Democrat, and Bill McCollum, the Republican?

• Bill McCollum 35%
• Alex Sink 33%

Do you believe that Barack Obama was born in the United States of America, or not?

• Yes 72%
• No 13%
• Not sure 15%

Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?

• Favor 53%
• Oppose 39%

Favorable / Unfavorable {Net}

• Charlie Crist 59% / 32% {+27%}
• Alex Sink 25% / 9% {+16%}
• Bill McCollum 39% / 24% {+15%}
• Kendrick Meek 23% / 9% {+14%}
• Barack Obama 51% / 45% {+6%}
• Marco Rubio 21% / 22% {-1%}

Survey of 600 likely voters was conducted November 16-18. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. There was an oversample conducted among Republican primary voters totaling 400, for which the margin of error is +/- 5%. Party ID breakdown: 39% Democrat; 34% Republican; 27% Independent/Other.

TPM talks about this DailyKos poll here, saying:

The numbers: Crist 47%, Rubio 37%. Way back in January, Crist was ahead by 57%-11%.

Crist became vulnerable to a conservative primary challenge when he endorsed the stimulus package, and even hugged President Obama. He has since denied that he endorsed it, despite all evidence to the contrary.

The New York Daily News is reporting:

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has decided not to run for governor next year – but will run for U.S. Senate instead, sources told the Daily News.

A source familiar with Giuliani’s thinking said the failed presidential candidate has been telling people he plans to run against Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010 to fill out the remaining two years of Hillary Clinton’s term.

If elected, the source said, he could use that as a stepping stone to run for President in 2012 – rather than run for re-election to the Senate.

A Giuliani spokeswoman downplayed the reports. “Rudy has a history of making up his own mind and has no problem speaking it,” she said. “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own.”

Former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari, a close Giuliani pal, said the former mayor had been privately sharing doubts with him for months about running for governor.

“What he said to me is that he doesn’t think he’s going to do it,” Molinari told The News about an early November conversation with the former mayor.

“It just didn’t make any sense to him.” Molinari said the ongoing circus in the state Senate, combined with Democratic Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver’s iron grip on Assembly matters, had convinced Giuliani that a Republican governor would have little ability to get things done quickly in Albany.

“The big drawback for him was — could I really be effective?” Molinari said.

“He saw too many hang-ups there. He’s not running for the title, that’s for sure.” Molinari said he favors the idea of Giuliani running for U.S. Senate. “Some of us, including myself, feel like that would be a better fit because he could use his talents there almost immediately,” Molinari said.

“You get the sense that he’d be a major player [in the U.S. Senate] from day one.”

The Club for Growth has redesigned its Web site and blog.  Check it out here.

Last Sunday I read a quote from Joseph Smith that really struck home. In 1842 he was greeting a group of newly arrived converts at Nauvoo, ILL. He recorded in his journal that he “…told them I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect; if they expected perfection from me, I should expect it from them“. (emphasis mine)

How often do we expect perfection in other political figures, but not in our own? How exceptionally critical are we of our opponents, and how tolerant are we of our favorites?

I am not asking us not to judge. That is impractical. If we don’t judge who is the best candidate for the position, who does? I do ask, however, that we remember to apply a consistent standard to all political figures when we judge them.

First of all, there are many of us who come here for civil, thoughtful, intelligent discourse on the issues. If we wanted to engage in hand-to-hand, no-holds-barred flame wars, there are plenty of other sites available. It is very difficult to have a thoughtful, intelligent conversation while World War III is erupting all around us on the same thread. If you must blast the opposition, kindly do it elsewhere. There are plenty of other sites which welcome that sort of thing.

Second, a warning. I’ve been around this site almost from the start. Kavon has been known in the past to clean house of the obnoxious. We have lost some very good commenters over the years, even a front pager or two. I miss some of them even today. However, because they couldn’t abide by the rules of civil discourse they are gone. The heat of argument does get the better of the best of us, and Kavon does tolerate it for a while, but eventually he will act. So if you don’t wish to get banned, cool it!

One last thing: a personal plea from me. Enough with the, “He started it”, already. We are not children on a playground. We are (for the most part) adults in control of how we respond. Nobody forces us to return bad for bad, flame for flame, insult for insult. We don’t have to slam the other guy’s candidate just because he slammed ours. We all choose how we react, not the other guy. Remember, it is impossible to throw mud without getting our own hands dirty.

It comes down to this: Who’s in control? You or the other guy?

That old rule recited 2000 years ago on a mount on the shores of Lake Galilee still applies today. “Treat others how you wish to be treated.” Works every time.

Originally posted at The Lobbyist:

Various news sources have information for the willing:

Congress.org has five interesting provisions about the bill, as well as a link to the bill itself.

CNN has an article, a political analysis of sorts as well as a link to the bill.

NRTL blasts the bill, according to Politico.

AP, NYT, and NPR compare the House and Senate bills.

Remember- this bill does not include the more-than-quarter-trillion dollar “Doc Fix” bill that failed in the Senate a month ago. So whatever the Congressional Budget Office says…add that to it. The current CBO score is $849 billion, which includes Medicare cuts and raising some taxes, and will reduce the debt by $127 billion. So, in reality, the debt will increase by $118 billion, unless the government and CBO estimates are underestimates, which is generally the case.

Either way, the CBO score is great momentum for Senator Reid (D-NV) with fiscally conservative Democrats- who may ignore the “Doc Fix” numbers for the final vote on the Senate bill- and bad for those of us opposed to many of the Democratic health reform concepts. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, abortion is covered in the bill and there is a public option. This is bad because they are bad ideas, but good because it will allow moderate Democrats to oppose the bill if abortion and the public option are included, as some have said they will do. Whatever else happens, let’s at least hope the public option and abortion are eliminated from the legislation. Contact your Senators.

One last note: this is the preliminary CBO score Democrats are all excited about. The final one is supposed to be out today.

The NY Times has the scoop:

Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has decided not to run for governor of New York next year after months of mulling a candidacy, according to people who have been told of the decision.

His decision is a blow to many Republican leaders, who had viewed Mr. Giuliani as the strongest potential candidate in a year in which voter anger and anti-Albany sentiment appear to be swelling.

Contenders from both parties have been waiting for months to hear what the former mayor would decide.

I really hope he decides to run for the Senate now that the conventional wisdom holds that George Pataki will sit out that race.

Governor Romney must be a multitasker if he can pound the foreign policy drum and pound Barack Obama at the same time. No, I guess this would be more of a kill-two-birds-with-one-stone situation.

Romney has, over the last couple of months, taken a number of shots at President Obama, most particularly against his actions, or rather his inactions, concerning the situation in Afghanistan. It all started with his “conversation” at the Foreign Policy Initiative Luncheon. Last week it continued in his speech to the Young America’s Foundation, a speech to which David Axelrod took issue with and responded.

Today the drum beat continues with Mitt Romney’s most recent op-ed at Politico: The Cost of On-the-Job Training. The title is apt in that it plays to Obama’s lack of pre-Presidential executive experience in contrast to Romney’s life-long resumé of being the man in charge. An excerpt:

The president refused to focus on what was most important. He took on so many tasks that he underinvested in the most critical ones. The restructuring of the entire health care system and his cap-and-trade proposal eclipsed the economy and the war. Investor Warren Buffett, the “sage of Omaha,” counseled him against such a foolhardy agenda, but Buffett’s wisdom was no match for the heady prospect of all-encompassing change.

So it was that in the first 100 days after his appointment in June of Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, Obama met with the general only once. After the press took note of it, the president squeezed in a mere 25 minutes for McChrystal when he was in Copenhagen to pitch Chicago’s Olympics bid. In the annals of American history, it is certain that no wartime president has ever spent less time with his generals than Obama has.

Emphasis mine.

Click here to read to the whole thing at Politico.com.

Not to be forgotten is Romney’s 13-minute interview with Sean Hannity yesterday. The topics included Obama and Afghanistan, as well as the economy, Sarah Palin, and the 9/11 terrorists’ trials. For some reason I’m not able to embed the audio here, so you can listen to it by clicking here.

For the record, I do not believe in bragging or patting of oneself on the back. However, I will say that I’m really tickled and just had to post this one….

There had been rumors that john was considering me along with many others as his VP pick, and a nice guy named Adam Brickley had started a Web site trying to rally ordinary folks to draft me for the job. Several national reporters who interviewed me about AGIA that summer had dropped off-camera hints to that effect. But I was very busy with state business and the whole veep thing was such a long shot that I hadn’t even considered it a real possibility.

Thank you very much for the shout-out, Governor. It was a pleasure and an honor to be of service.

So there was an interesting Pawlenty poll out yesterday, showing that Obama would win Minnesota 49-40 in a head to head matchup.  Obviously, this is a less than ideal result, though it’s hard to compare it without any info on other matchups.  Still, there was all kinds of encouraging data in the robust poll results, which I think is worth pointing out.  First, let’s take a look at some of sampling stuff.  One thing that I thought was interesting: generic Republican numbers seem to be, in contrast to other polls, fading in this Minnesota poll.  In their 2008 poll, Democrats were trusted to handle the state’s problems by a 35 to 30 margin.  Now, they’re trusted by a 36 to 26 margin.

The party affiliation numbers seem reasonable: they have a 33 to 25 breakdown.  In 2008 it was 40% to 36%.  So perhaps we have a mildly oversampled Democratic electorate, but there’s nothing you can pin to definitive bias.  But, here’s the really interesting part: they also ask all the independents to put themselves in a political party.  When that’s done, we get very curious results: Democrats go to 46% of the electorate while Republicans bump up to a scant 32%.  In other words, when you include leaners, the Democrats have a 14% Party ID edge.  And yet Pawlenty only loses by 9.  Assuming that neither one of them is winning a substantial portion of the opposition party (and that’s what the poll shows), that means that Pawlenty is winning 70% of the electorate that doesn’t lean any which way.

Even if we assume that this poll is on the level and the party ID numbers don’t tilt heavily to the Democrats, Pawlenty is still performing well above expectations.  There’s also an interesting “thermometer” gauge, which is supposed to measure how warmly Minnesotans view various individuals.  The obvious political figures are included (Palin, Pawlenty, Obama, Franken, and Klobuchar), but so are some oddballs like Olberrmann, Beck, and Limbaugh.  Barack Obama gets a 58 (out of 100), Amy Klobuchar get a 56, Pawlenty gets a 53, and Franken gets a 43.  This polling agency has asked the same questions for years and, contrary to the media narrative, Pawlentys pretty much where he’s always been; in 2008 he scored a 53 and in 2005 he scored a 51.  All the talk about an “absentee Governor” apparently hasn’t affected him one jot.

They also break down these numbers by sub-group.  We learn, for instance, that Pawlenty has by far the highest “warm” rating with members of the Minnesota Independence Party.  He’s at 61; no one else cracks 50.  We also learn that Pawlenty is almost as popular as Al Franken with Democrat leaning Independents- 47 warm versus 51.  No one else gets close to that level of warmness with independents leaning towards the opposite party.  But, perhaps most interestingly, they break down the numbers by place residence: central urban, suburban Twin Cities, other cities, township, etc.  Every conservative leaning figured polled does best in the Twin Cities suburbs, which is no huge surprise.  I’ve outlined, elsewhere, that Republicans MUST rack up points in the Twin Cities suburbs to have a chance.

But, Pawlenty doesn’t only do well in this region; he does unusually well.  It may be, taken as a chunk, the most Republican region of the state, but it’s still not Republican.  Klobuchar and Obama both crack 50 here (52 and 50 respectively), which is higher than everyone besides Pawlenty; he hits an almost astonishing 62.  Sarah Palin, for instance, manages only a 42; just 4 points higher than her overall score of 38.  Limbaugh manages just 38; just 7 points higher than his overall score.  Pawlenty manages to run 9 points ahead of his overall score here, 20 points ahead of Palin, 10 points ahead of Obama, and 12 points ahead of Klobuchar.  Pawlenty OWNS the suburbs.  He also does pretty well, relatively speaking, in both central urban areas and the “other metro” category.  He runs weakly in the township category (presumably rural areas).

What does all this mean?  Well, it suggests that Pawlenty is well-liked by voters who don’t like Republicans.  These voters are, as multiple data points show suburban and urban weak leaning Democrats and independents.  Given what we know about the Obama coalition, and its difficulty in bringing on PRECISELY those voters (urban and suburban blue-collar Democrats and independents), this doesn’t seem like a bad place to be in a general election.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog

Do the media really need to keep asking her if she is running for President?  Forget the fact that the only thing she is reading are policy briefs…watch the video’s.

…And Sarah, thank you for reading R412! 

More, more and more.

_____________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli

Sounds like the South Carolina senator wishes he could have that confirmation vote back.

Jeffrey Flier, Dean of Harvard’s medical school, has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal that is devastating to the Democrats’ health care proposals.

The plans will do nothing to reduce costs:

In discussions with dozens of health-care leaders and economists, I find near unanimity of opinion that, whatever its shape, the final legislation that will emerge from Congress will markedly accelerate national health-care spending rather than restrain it.

Nor will they improve quality:

Likewise, nearly all agree that the legislation would do little or nothing to improve quality or change health-care’s dysfunctional delivery system.

Innovation will be destroyed:

Worse, currently proposed federal legislation would undermine any potential for real innovation in insurance and the provision of care. It would do so by overregulating the health-care system in the service of special interests such as insurance companies, hospitals, professional organizations and pharmaceutical companies, rather than the patients who should be our primary concern.

In summary:

… while the legislation would enhance access to insurance, the trade-off would be an accelerated crisis of health-care costs and perpetuation of the current dysfunctional system—now with many more participants. This will make an eventual solution even more difficult. Ultimately, our capacity to innovate and develop new therapies would suffer most of all.

And, by the way, he doesn’t think much of the health care plan in his home state:

There are important lessons to be learned from recent experience with reform in Massachusetts. Here, insurance mandates similar to those proposed in the federal legislation succeeded in expanding coverage but—despite initial predictions—increased total spending.

A “Special Commission on the Health Care Payment System” recently declared that the Massachusetts health-care payment system must be changed over the next five years …

Normally, I expect academics to pretty much march in lock-step behind any left-wing proposal, so when one steps out of line, it must indicate that the proposal is exceptionally flawed and/or that the individual is exceptionally brave (I’m sure Flier saw what happened to Larry Summers). I salute Dr Flier for his courage, and hope he has not destroyed his career.