The Corner on National Review Online

Obama’s Fundamental Misconception [Gordon G. Chang]

The best the defenders of President Obama’s trip to Asia can say at this moment is that the resounding chorus of criticism is premature. Of course, no presidential visit can be fully assessed until months — and sometimes years — after the event.

But the president has united the political spectrum against him for his abandonment of human rights as a central element of the American dialogue with China. The New York Times gently put it this way this weekend: “The American president must always be willing to stand up to Beijing in defense of core American interests and values.”

What the president does not understand is that American values are American interests. American diplomats tend to separate the two and sometimes think that promoting the former can undermine the latter. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton obviously subscribes to this view. After all, this February she famously said that the issue of Chinese human rights cannot be permitted to “interfere” with important topics of discussion with Beijing. The president, for his part, broke the precedent of the last three administrations and refused to see the Dalai Lama during His Holiness’s trip to Washington early last month. The administration indicated Obama did not want to rile the Chinese before his visit.

What Obama and Clinton fail to comprehend is that America derives its security because of its values. Peoples around the world support our policies precisely because they share our beliefs. And with the Chinese there is another dimension: Beijing’s ruthlessly pragmatic leaders see our failure to press human rights as a sign that we think we are weak. And if they think we are weak, they see little reason to cooperate. So promoting human rights is protecting American security.

Chinese officials were reported to have been ecstatic when Secretary Clinton issued her February remarks. Since then, they have been noticeably less cooperative on the great issues of the day. And in March, just one month after her statement, they felt bold enough to order their vessels to harass two of our unarmed ships in international waters in the South China and Yellow Seas. The Chinese even attempted to sever a towed sonar array from one of the Navy vessels. That hostile act constituted an attack on the United States.

— Gordon G. Chang is the author of Nuclear Showdown: North Korea Takes On the World. He lived and worked in China and Hong Kong for almost two decades.

11/23 07:00 AM Share

Terrorists' Opportunity to Issue Their Foreign-Policy Critiques [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

I listened to this defense attorney explain what's to come on local New York news last night. I thought I had fallen asleep and was having nightmares. But here it is:

By KAREN MATTHEWS (AP)

NEW YORK — The five men facing trial in the Sept. 11 attacks will plead not guilty so that they can air their criticisms of U.S. foreign policy, the lawyer for one of the defendants said Sunday.

Scott Fenstermaker, the lawyer for accused terrorist Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, said the men would not deny their role in the 2001 attacks but "would explain what happened and why they did it."

The U.S. Justice Department announced earlier this month that Ali and four other men accused of murdering nearly 3,000 people in the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. will face a civilian federal trial just blocks from the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.

Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, is a nephew of professed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

Mohammed, Ali and the others will explain "their assessment of American foreign policy," Fenstermaker said.

"Their assessment is negative," he said.

11/23 06:50 AM Share

A Book the Left Doesn't Want You To Read [John J. Miller]

On Friday, a left-wing website launched a coordinated attack on my new novel, The First Assassin. It encouraged its minions to post fraudulent one-star reviews on Amazon.com—in other words, to trash a book they haven't bothered to read. They also tagged the book with strange terms such as "wingnut assassination fantasy," "wingnuts are go," and worse. Their behavior is a case study in illiberalism—an online book-burning party that ought to embarrass honest liberals. I'm hardly the first National Review writer to face such abuse. Just ask Jonah.

This calls for a counterattack. Readers of The Corner can go on Amazon.com's customer-review page for The First Assassin and rate the customer reviews. By clicking a button, you can describe which reviews are helpful and which are unhelpful. These decisions matter. Reviews deemed most helpful rise to the top of the section. Also, if you're able and willing to contribute your own customer review of The First Assassin—now or at some point in the future—this would be even more valuable.

Many NROniks already have purchased The First Assassin. I’m grateful for this support. You are the best readers in the world. Thanks for letting us do what we do.

11/23 05:53 AM Share

An Amazing Story [Mark Steyn]

I'm surprised this man didn't go mad. It's a remarkable and sobering tale:

A man thought by doctors to be in a vegetative state for 23 years was actually conscious the whole time, it was revealed last night.

11/23 12:44 AM Share

New Policy at The New York Times! [Mark Steyn]

The paper's position on those revelations of "climate change" shenanigans I wrote about earlier:

The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.

(Please note: This policy does not apply to Republican candidates showing any signs of life in the polls.)

11/23 12:22 AM Share

Sunday, November 22, 2009

“The Taliban came to kill me, and instead we killed them.” [Rich Lowry]

Thus says a tribal elder in Afghanistan in this encouraging New York Times story about Afghan militias fighting the Taliban.

11/22 10:43 PM Share

"The Bureaucrat in the Exam Room" [Stephen Spruiell]

That's how Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn characterized the preventative-care sections of the Democrats' health-care bill:

BLACKBURN: And, George, this is exactly how it happens. If you go to page 1,296 of the House bill, the engrossed copy, and you began to read in title three of that bill, on preventive and wellness services, and you get down to section 2301, this is what happens. In section 3131 of that bill, it changes the Preventive Services Task Force to the Clinical Preventive Services Task Force. Then, you go back and you see that that task force on preventive clinical services is tasked with rating A, B, C, D, or I all preventive services. Then you go back into section 222 of the bill..."

(CROSSTALK)

BLACKBURN: Yes, I have read this bill. And that indicates what would be paid or covered. And this is where the actual link comes, and I'll read it for you. In section 2301, it says, "All recommendations of the Preventive Services Task Force" — that's the group that did the mammograms — "and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, as in existence on the day before the date of the enactment of this act, shall be considered to be recommendations of the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services." [...]

BLACKBURN: And when you look at what is going to happen with these 118 new bureaucracies with 62 directives that are given by the health choices commissioner on what insurance can be offered in this country after 2013 and what is going to be paid, you know that this is the bureaucrat in the exam room. This is how it's going to happen.

Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius released a statement stressing that the task force's recommendations "do not set federal policy and they don’t determine what services are covered by the federal government." But under the Democrats' health-care legislation, they would. In the House bill, only preventative services receiving grades of A or B from the task force would be part of the "essential benefits package." The task force's new recommendations on mammography downgrade routine screening in women aged 40 to 49 years to a C grade.

Of course, many states already require insurance companies to cover at least one mammogram per year. These and other mandates have driven up the cost of insurance and led conservatives to call for reforms that would enable people to buy health insurance across state lines. The point is not that all mammograms should be covered, or that none should be. It is that people should be allowed to buy insurance coverage that meets their needs, based on their family health histories, their doctors' advice, etc. They should not be required to buy coverage — or denied coverage — based on the edicts of some task force in Washington.

As James Joyner pointed out last week, the vacillations of the medical community on issues like mammography draw into question "the rigors of medical scholarship, which seems to frequently draw wide conclusions based on studies of very small, self-selected samples." We shouldn't be forced to buy one-size-fits-all insurance policies in any case, but certainly not when they are designed by bureaucrats reacting to the health crisis du jour.

11/22 06:21 PM Share

'Light Words During a Dark Time' [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $50 NRO contributor:

It's worth $50 just to be able to read lines like, "you keep us on our toes like Robert Reich at a urinal". Thanks for the light words during a dark time.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/22 06:00 PM Share

Supporting Our Troops [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $100 NRO contributor:

For [all the authors] who always keep me entertained. Thanks for always supporting me in Iraq and at my job as a casualty officer at Bethesda.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/22 04:00 PM Share

Sanity in an Insane World [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $25 NRO contributor:

As you might expect (I live in Vermont) I feel somewhat under siege. Fortunately I have NRO and NRODT to keep me sane.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/22 02:00 PM Share

Three Cheers for NRO! [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $50 NRO contributor:

The conservative media is in the ascendancy because of your work.

How could anyone miss a website with Mark Steyn.

God Bless — The Corner!

Long Live — Doctor! Doctor!

Hallelujah — The Campaign Spot!

Contribute to NRO here.

11/22 12:00 PM Share

Kalifonistan [John J. Miller]

The movie. Coming sooner than you think.

11/22 11:31 AM Share

The Swiss Army Sentence of Internet Punditry [Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader in response to my appeal:

The new most useful all purpose line in Internet Punditry: "And even if that's not exactly what you're saying, I'm sure that's the gist of it."

If I hadn't already donated, that would of done it.

Cheers, and thanks for the good work.

[Name withheld]

11/22 10:07 AM Share

How The Science Gets Settled [Mark Steyn]

It all depends on how you look at it. From The Boston Herald:

In an embarrassing blow to the movement to combat global warming, hackers have posted hundreds of e-mails from a world-renowned British institute that show researchers colluding to exaggerate warming and undermine skeptics.

From The Guardian:

The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years.

Yes, it's awfully stressful having to develop models to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, "balance the needs of the science and the IPCC", pressure scientific journals to exclude dissenting views, and delete (illegally) material requested under the Freedom of Information Act.

"Climate change" and "health care" are different ends of the same stick: They're both all-purpose pretexts for regulating every aspect of your life. Don't take my word for it - listen to the Belgian nonentity upgraded on Friday to the Holy Roman Emperor de nos jours:

2009 is also the first year of global governance.

Did you get that memo? And, if you disagree, who do you call? Who do you vote out of office if you want a change in "global governance"? Previewing Copenhagen, global warm-monger Tim Flannery is entirely upfront about the end-game:

We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case... They deal with every aspect of our life and they will inﬂuence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.

And surely that admirable goal justifies a little bit of "hiding the decline" and other sleights.

11/22 10:04 AM Share

'Part of the Family' [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $100 NRO contributor:

In many ways, you guys make us readers feel like we're part of the NR family. And where I come from, family takes care of family. Thanks for all you do. Keep it up.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/22 10:00 AM Share

Robert Wright Calls Me Out [Jonah Goldberg]

In the NYT:

IN the case of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and the Fort Hood massacre, the verdict has come in. The liberal news media have been found guilty — by the conservative news media — of coddling Major Hasan’s religion, Islam.

Liberals, according to the columnist Charles Krauthammer, wanted to medicalize Major Hasan’s crime — call it an act of insanity rather than of terrorism. They worked overtime, Mr. Krauthammer said on Fox News, to “avoid any implication that there was any connection between his Islamist beliefs ... and his actions.” The columnist Jonah Goldberg agrees. Admit it, he wrote in The Los Angeles Times, Major Hasan is “a Muslim fanatic, motivated by other Muslim fanatics.”

The good news for Mr. Krauthammer and Mr. Goldberg is that there is truth in their indictment. The bad news is that their case against the left-wing news media is the case against right-wing foreign policy. Seeing the Fort Hood shooting as an act of Islamist terrorism is the first step toward seeing how misguided a hawkish approach to fighting terrorism has been.

The American right and left reacted to 9/11 differently. Their respective responses were, to oversimplify a bit: “kill the terrorists” and “kill the terrorism meme.”

Conservatives backed war in Iraq, and they’re now backing an escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Liberals (at least, dovish liberals) have warned in both cases that killing terrorists is counterproductive if in the process you create even more terrorists; the object of the game isn’t to wipe out every last Islamist radical but rather to contain the virus of Islamist radicalism.

One reason killing terrorists can spread terrorism is that various technologies — notably the Internet and increasingly pervasive video — help emotionally powerful messages reach receptive audiences. When American wars kill lots of Muslims, inevitably including some civilians, incendiary images magically find their way to the people who will be most inflamed by them.

This calls into question our nearly obsessive focus on Al Qaeda — the deployment of whole armies to uproot the organization and to finally harpoon America’s white whale, Osama bin Laden. If you’re a Muslim teetering toward radicalism and you have a modem, it doesn’t take Mr. bin Laden to push you over the edge. All it takes is selected battlefield footage and a little ad hoc encouragement: a jihadist chat group here, a radical imam there — whether in your local mosque or on a Web site in your local computer.

He goes on. I find it all pretty unpersuasive. But we're going to try to work out a bloggingheads session out of it. So I'll reserve my comments until then,

11/22 09:59 AM Share

Obama-logic on Terrorism: Mass-murder Civilians and You Get Better Rights [Andy McCarthy]

I have an op-ed in the New York Daily News this morning on the Obama administration decision to transfer KSM and the other 9/11 jihadists to Manhattan for a civilian trial. Here's the wrap-up:

Our enemies will be given a full-blown civilian trial with all the rights of the American citizens they are sworn to kill. They will get a year or more to sift through our national defense secrets. They will have wide latitude to turn the case into a trial of the Bush administration - publicizing information about anti-terrorism tactics that leftist lawyers will exploit in their quest for war crimes prosecutions in foreign courts against current and former U.S. officials.

In the military system, we could have denied them access to classified information, forcing them to accept military lawyers with security clearances who could see such intelligence but not share it with our enemies. In civilian court, the Supreme Court has held an accused has an absolute right to conduct his own defense. If KSM asserts that right - as he tried to do in the military commission - he will have a strong argument that we must surrender relevant, top-secret information directly to him. And we know that indicted terrorists share what they learn with their confederates on the outside.

Finally, as policy, the administration's decision is perverse. A half-century of humanitarian law, beginning with the Geneva Conventions, sought to civilize warfare. To receive enhanced protection, combatants must adhere to the laws of war and refrain from targeting civilians. Under Obama-logic, the Cole bombers get a military commission while the 9/11 savages are clothed in the majesty of the Bill of Rights.

So here's the message to terrorists: If you kill thousands of civilians, we will give you better rights than if you attack military assets. That is dangerously irresponsible.

11/22 08:41 AM Share

Read About It [John J. Miller]

Readers of The Corner have contributed to a first-rate discussion about conservative novels on my personal website, HeyMiller.com. As of right now, there are 146 entries in the comment section. Please feel free to add your own or just enjoy the conversation. I've come away with many excellent suggestions for books to read and hope you do the same.

11/22 07:09 AM Share

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Sabato: The Politics Of The Cloture Vote [Robert Costa]

So what does tonight’s vote mean? Can the Senate’s week off for Thanksgiving change the politics of the health care debate? What happens if the debate ends up stretching through December and into 2010?

For answers, NRO asked Larry Sabato, the astute professor of politics at the University of Virginia, for his take.

“Three elections guaranteed the 60 votes: 2006 and 2008, which gave Democrats the White House and large Hill majorities, and 2009,” says Sabato. He continues: “What's that, you say? Didn't Republicans win the day in '09?”

“Yes, and the Republican interpretation of ‘09, as applied to health care, was that the victories of Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell would deter the Democrats from moving forward on the bill,” says Sabato. “But Democrats drew precisely the opposite lesson from ‘09. In their analysis, if they didn’t hang together and re-energize their party activists with a health care win, they'd hang separately in November 2010. Worried senators and congressmen began to see their names etched on the wall of losers, right after Jon Corzine and Creigh Deeds.”

“The conclusion, as always,” says Sabato, “is that elections matter — and so do the prevailing interpretations of those elections.”

“It is always possible that some new rationale will take hold after Thanksgiving, especially if this debate drags on and on, but there is no compelling substitute for the classroom of elections,” he adds. “Rallies, demonstrations, and protest letters are vastly inferior to the ballot box, if one's goal is to influence legislative behavior. The pro-reform forces have a big advantage in this sense.”

11/21 10:44 PM Share

Here's a Barbie I Never Saw at Gimbels [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From the Daily Mail:

One of the world's most famous children's toys, Barbie, has been given a makeover - wearing a burkha.

Wearing the traditional Islamic dress, the iconic doll is going undercover for a charity auction in connection with Sotheby's for Save The Children.

More than 500 Barbies went on show yesterday at the Salone dei Cinquecento, in Florence, Italy.

Makers Mattel are backing the exhibition which is the work of Italian designer Eliana Lorena.

The auction is part of Barbie celebrations for her 50th anniversary this year. The UK's biggest Barbie fan Angela Ellis, 35, has a collection of more than 250 dolls.

11/21 09:41 PM Share

re: Dodd [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

An e-mail:

K-Lo,

Not only does Dodd's comments show that he's after a full government takeover, it's also delusional. No one claims that this reform will cover everyone. No fewer than 24 million will still be uninsured by 2019.

That's a point that conservatives cannot hammer enough. This bill doesn't even pretend to do the thing that its supporters say it does. This is not universal coverage, it's just more expensive coverage.

11/21 09:41 PM Share

This Sounds Like a Government Takeover, Doesn't It? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Senator Dodd said right before the vote:

I ALSO WANT TO PAUSE FOR A MOMENT, IF I CAN, MR. PRESIDENT, TO RECOGNIZE A COLLEAGUE WHO IS HERE TONIGHT ONLY IN SPIRIT, TED KENNEDY... TONIGHT WE AND IN THE DAYS TO COME WILL PAY HIM THE HIGHEST COMPLIMENT AS OUR COLLEAGUE BY FULFILLING THAT QUEST OF ACHIEVING THE GOAL THAT ALL AMERICANS ASPIRE FOR, AND THAT IS A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PLAN THAT SERVES EVERY ONE OF OUR CITIZENS.

11/21 09:16 PM Share

This Is Called Overpromising [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Senator Reid tonight:

Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation - indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever face: whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.

Silly me, skeptical and opposed all this time to the panacea this legislation will be. Obama is savior — his plan is immortality!

11/21 09:05 PM Share

Some Modest [NRO Staff]

Saturday Tweet Tracking.

11/21 09:02 PM Share

Guffaw [NRO Staff]

From Politico, right before the vote:

The Senate galleries are filled with spectators. Senators are starting to filter in and take their seats. Sen. Joe Lieberman is sitting on the floor next to Sen. Susan Collins on the Republican side of the aisle, listening to Mitch McConnell speaking.

The senators will vote from their seats, which is done only on big, historic votes. Sen. John McCain mocked the formality of a virtually preordained vote saying loudly with a laugh, "What's going to happen?"

11/21 08:56 PM Share

All Is Not Lost [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

An e-mail (AND IT'S NOT ABOUT FUNDRAISING):

Santorum is all over this: It was a terrible mistake for opponents to
allow tonight's vote such a dramatic buildup. We had no hope. What
Democrat is going to deny his party even the opportunity for floor
debate on such a historical piece of legislation? Wasn't going to
happen. I hope the hype will not feed despair on our side. I am very
optimistic that much of the worst mischief will be stripped from this
bill before final passage. In fact, it is entirely possible that there
will be no final passage.

11/21 08:51 PM Share

White House Reax [Robert Costa]

From White House press secretary Robert Gibbs:

The President is gratified that the Senate has acted to begin consideration of health insurance reform legislation. Tonight's historic vote brings us one step closer to ending insurance company abuses, reining in spiraling health care costs, providing stability and security to those with health insurance, and extending quality health coverage to those who lack it. The President looks forward to a thorough and productive debate.

11/21 08:41 PM Share

'now they’ll get debate' [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Doug Johnson's response:

As National Right to Life has previously noted, Senator Reid's bill [on page 118] would authorize the federal government to pay for any and all abortions through a huge new federal health insurance program, the "public option," and also to subsidize purchase of private plans that cover abortion on demand. President Obama and Reid know that the substance of these abortion-promoting policies is deeply unpopular, so they seek to conceal the reality with layers of contorted definitions and money-laundering schemes.

Obama and Reid wanted debate – so now they’ll get debate, on their cloaked provisions that would cover abortion on demand in proposed new government-run and government-subsidized insurance plans.

Obama and Reid are seeking to block enactment of the bipartisan Stupak-Pitts compromise, adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives on November 7 by a vote of 240-194. This amendment would prevent government funding of elective abortion through the proposed “public option," and would also prevent federal subsidies from paying for private insurance plans that cover elective abortion.

During the weeks ahead, National Right to Life will continue to fight the efforts of President Obama and congressional Democratic leaders to cover abortion on demand in two huge new federal health programs. The Senate bill faces additional 60-vote hurdles in the future. Moreover, a courageous group of pro-life Democrats in the House of Representatives will oppose final approval of health care legislation if the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is gutted or removed.

11/21 08:38 PM Share

Kyl's Take [Robert Costa]

Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz) on tonight’s 60-39 vote:

Any pretense or claim that this is a bipartisan bill is gone. Every Senator who voted for tonight’s procedural motion ignored the American people and instead voted with the leaders of the Democratic party. At a time when our nation is facing its highest unemployment level in almost three decades, American families and small businesses do not need a job-killing bill that rations their care, raids Medicare, and increases taxes and premiums for everyone.

11/21 08:36 PM Share

Giving Thanks for Small Favors [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

In a post-vote press conference, Chris Dodd just clarified that Americans have the right only to certain things to be provided by the government, "not all things."

11/21 08:21 PM Share

Susan B. Anthony List on the Vote [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Statement, via e-mail:

“If this health care bill makes it to conference committee without an authentic abortion exclusion, Senators Casey, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Reid will be held especially accountable.”

Washington – In response to this evening’s advancement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act in the U.S. Senate, Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser offered the following statement:

“It's gravely disappointing that pro-life Democrats in the Senate failed to show the same courage and conviction shown by their counterparts in the House of Representatives.

“Senators should consider themselves on notice: America is still waiting for you to strike government funded abortion from this legislation. Votes have consequences, and if this health care bill makes it to conference committee without an authentic abortion exclusion, Senators Casey, Landrieu, Lincoln, Nelson and Reid will be held especially accountable.

“Their first opportunity to defend Life was on the motion to proceed. Their last chance will be on the final cloture vote to end debate. A vote to close debate without the addition of strong pro-life language will be a vote for government-funded abortion. That would be the ultimate betrayal of pro-life constituents and even self-described pro-choice Americans who oppose government-funded abortion.”

Unlike the House version of health care reform, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act explicitly authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to include abortion coverage in the public option.   The bill also allows the use of government subsidies to purchase insurance policies that include elective abortion coverage.   This is a departure from current federal policy, which bans the use of taxpayer funds for abortion and health plans that cover abortion.

11/21 08:17 PM Share

Well, What Now? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum comments to National Review Online on tonight's vote: "I never wanted this to be considered a critical vote — it wasn't one we could win. This is just the start of the process; the majority leader getting a vote tonight was almost a given. Pressure was a good thing, but only because it helped focus attention and dramatically increases pressure for the next cloture vote."

11/21 08:16 PM Share

60-39 [Robert Costa]

That's the final tally. Reid's bill now moves to the Senate floor for a final debate. That debate will begin on Monday, November 30th.

Update:

Sen. George Voinovich (R., Ohio) did not vote.

11/21 08:09 PM Share

Looking Forward: The Abortion Language In Reid's Bill [Robert Costa]

From a senior GOP Senate aide about the future of the abortion language in Reid's bill:

Republicans will have to offer amendments that mirror the Stupak language and hope that they get 60 votes for passage, which is highly unlikely...HENCE our pressure on that issue before tonight's vote. It only gets more difficult from here.

11/21 08:04 PM Share

Keystone Disappointment [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

As expected — frankly, since before he was elected to the Senate — Senator Robert Casey just refused to cast a vote in defense of the most vulnerable among us. As Frank Cannon wrote earlier this week:

If he votes for cloture on the motion to proceed on the health-care bill, he will be making possible the greatest expansion of abortion since Roe v.Wade, and mandating that all citizens participate through federal funding. Senate majority leader Harry Reid needs all 60 Democratic senators to bring the legislation to the floor and make it the order of business. So Senator Casey has the fate of the bill completely in his power. If he adds his vote, that will mean that any effort to add the pro-life Stupak language from the House bill will require 60 pro-life votes, which, as Senator Casey knows, are not there. Casey’s original vote to proceed will have stacked the deck against defending life.

So much for taking that opportunity. So much for being a pro-life leader.

11/21 08:02 PM Share

Just One [Robert Costa]

From the end of Sen. Mitch McConnell’s speech:

All it would take, Mr. President and my colleagues, is just one member of the other side of the aisle, just one, to give us an opportunity not to end the debate, but to change the debate in the direction the American people would like us to go.

11/21 07:58 PM Share

Here Comes ReidCare [Robert Costa]

The 8 p.m. cloture vote is upon us.

11/21 07:54 PM Share

It's All About Procedure [Robert Costa]

From Alex Koppelman at Salon:

[T]his is just one procedural vote. The more daunting hurdle of the cloture vote to break a filibuster and hold an up-or-down vote on the bill itself still lies ahead, and there Reid may have serious trouble, especially if a plan to create a government-run insurance provider — the public option — remains in it.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who is a member of the Democratic caucus, has already said he'll vote to filibuster a bill that contains any form of the public option. (He is voting for cloture tonight, but not, he says, the next time around.) And on Saturday, Lincoln too threatened to support a filibuster of the legislation if it includes the public option.

Both will be tough nuts for Reid to crack. Lieberman's not up for re-election next year, and has already been taunting liberals by saying he's not afraid of possible retribution. Lincoln, on the other hand, is up for re-election — and that's the problem. She's seriously vulnerable, and is looking at polling numbers that seem to indicate voting with her party to support a public plan would only put her in a more precarious position.

11/21 07:52 PM Share

Making History [Robert Costa]

Sen. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.) just trotted out that old Democratic staple on the Senate floor by calling Reid’s bill “historic.” We’ve heard that word from Democrats for months now. Which reminds me: Earlier today, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn) also called this bill “historic,” but “truly historic . . . in its arrogance.” Indeed.

More from Alexander:

It’s arrogant to dump 15 million low-income Americans into a medical ghetto called Medicaid that none of us or any of our families would ever want to join. It’s arrogant to send to the states, which are going broke, a big chunk of the bill. It’s arrogant to tell the American people that the bill will only cost $849 billion and think they’re not smart enough to read it and figure out that it will actually cost $2.5 trillion when it’s fully implemented. It’s arrogant to say paying for the physicians’ reimbursement is not an important part of a health care bill — even as they run over here in the dead of night and run up the deficit with a separate quarter-trillion-dollar bill to fix that. It’s arrogant to cut and tax Grandma’s Medicare, which is going broke, and then spend it on somebody else. It’s arrogant to tell us that it’s going to reduce premiums for most Americans when, in fact, it increases premiums for most Americans.

11/21 07:45 PM Share

The Bad News for Democrats [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

is that there was any drama today at all. Byron York writes:

the Democrats' problems in keeping their side together, in the face of united Republican opposition, is an indicator of how public opinion is beginning to dominate the health care debate. Dozens of polls show that Americans are deeply divided over the issue, with a slight plurality opposing the Democratic health care plans currently under consideration in Congress. Clear majorities of Americans don't believe their health care will improve under the plan, and don't believe the plan will not increase the deficit. Given that, Democrats are trying to pass the biggest piece of legislation in decades, one that will create an enormous and permanent new entitlement, with less than majority support among the public. And they're racing to do it with less than a year to go before mid-term elections that most observers believe will result in fewer Democrats in Congress. No wonder it's hard.

11/21 07:09 PM Share

Hatch and the Children [NRO Staff]

From just a bit ago:

Mr. President, We are rapidly approaching perhaps one of the most important votes for each of us here in the United States Senate. This is bigger than us, our parties or our ideologies.

This about the very future of the greatest nation in the history of the world. It is about your children and my children. It is about your grandchildren and my children. It is about giving our future generations the same opportunities and the same sense of pride. It is about every American life and every American business that will be subject to this 2,074-page edict from Washington.

I am going to spend my time before this historic vote to highlight some very important numbers, so every member of this chamber understands what they are voting to advance. Make no mistake, our actions today will not be without consequences. History and our future generations will judge us on this. Here are some numbers:

·         0 – the number of provisions prohibiting the rationing of health care.

·         0 – the number of government-run entitlement programs that are financially sound over the long-term.

·         10.2 percent – our national unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years.

·         70 – total number of government programs authorized by the bill.

·         1,697 – times the Secretary of Health and Human Services is given authority to determine or define provisions in this bill.

·         2,074 – total pages in this bill.

·         2010 – the year Americans start paying higher taxes to pay for this bill

·         2014 – the year when this bill actually starts most of the major provisions of this bill

·         $6.8 million – cost to taxpayers per word

·         $8 billion – the total amount of new taxes on Americans who do not buy Washington-defined health care.

·         $465 billion – Cuts in Medicare at a time when it faces a $38 trillion unfunded liability to finance more government spending.

·         $494 billion – total amount of new taxes in this bill

·         $2.5 trillion – the real cost of the bill

·         $12 trillion – our total national debt

These numbers are facts. They are undisputable.

Let me finish by reading an excerpt from a letter from one of my fellow Utahans from Provo, who is worried just like me about what this bill will mean for our country:

“I am writing out of deep concern over the increasing expansion of government. I moved here from Germany 20 years ago. I love America because it is free – freer than Germany in that I have the freedom to choose, among other things, how I want to insure my family (we have six children). I’m all for affordable health insurance which requires affordable health care. I am self-employed and have been hit hard by the economy.

There is a good chance that we would actually benefit from [this bill]. Business has been so bad that we would qualify for free school lunches if we asked for it. But I don’t want more government handouts.

I don’t want the government telling me what kind of insurance I need to have. I don’t want the government telling me what services I can receive when I need them. I don’t want them taking an ever greater part of my income to help finance government programs such as the ‘public option’ and the army of government employees it will take to administer such a program. I do not want more government. I want less. A lot less.”

11/21 06:31 PM Share

If You Haven't Been Watching C-SPAN Over the Last Hour (Perhaps You Had Something Better to Do With Your Day? I Hope So.) [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

You missed John McCain's "death panel" crack during a colloquy. (It was anti-death panel, and not anti-Palin, as I remarked on Twitter. It was also done with a McCain mischievousness.)

11/21 06:21 PM Share

Anyone Else Want to Be in the Corner? [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $75 NRO contributor:

The return of the Goldberg File (even if it is only in email newsletter form) sealed my decision to donate this year. That, and 75 bucks is totally worth the chance to have my comments reprinted in The Corner.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/21 06:00 PM Share

Conservative Democrats May Be Voting for It to Proceed, But They're Not Happy with It [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

This summary comes from the Republican Policy Committee in the Senate:

Even though Democrats likely have enough votes to get onto the bill, below are quotes from conservative Democrats where they condition their vote on the second cloture motion on changes to the bill.

·         Senator Nelson: “Throughout my Senate career I have consistently rejected efforts to obstruct. That's what the vote on the motion to proceed is all about. It is not for or against the new Senate health care bill released Wednesday. In my first reading, I support parts of the bill and oppose others I will work to fix. If that's not possible, I will oppose the second cloture motion—needing 60 votes—to end debate, and oppose the final bill.”

·         Senator Lieberman: "I've told Sen. Reid that I'm strongly inclined, I haven't totally decided, but I'm strongly inclined to vote to proceed to the healthcare debate, even though I don't support the bill that he's bringing together, because it's important that we start the debate on healthcare reform, because I want to vote on healthcare reform this year. …  I also told him that if the bill remains where it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage.”

·         Senator Landrieu: “My vote to move forward on this important debate should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end. I have decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done.”

·         Senator Lincoln: “In fact, madam president, this vote for or against a procedure that allows us to begin open debate on health care reform is nothing more and nothing less. … I will vote to support — will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill, but, madam president, let me be perfectly clear: I am opposed to a new government-administered health care plan as part of comprehensive health insurance reform, and i will not vote in favor of the proposal that has been introduced by leader Reid as it is written. I, along with others, expect to have legitimate opportunities to influence the health care reform legislation that is voted on by the senate later this year or early next year. I am also aware that there will be additional procedural votes to move this process forward that will require 60 votes prior to the conclusion of the floor debate. I've already alerted the leader, and I'm promising my colleagues, that I'm prepared to vote against moving to the next stage of consideration as long as a government-run public option is included.”

11/21 05:15 PM Share

Global-Warming Update [Mark Steyn]

Polar bears are falling from the skies.

Don't worry, I'm sure this is all peer-reviewed data with a side-order of tree rings from the First Church of the Settled Scientist.

11/21 05:07 PM Share

Diversity Is Our Strength! [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

From a $25 NRO contributor:

I read NRO religiously each day and I like the fact that contributors feel free to debate each other. Reasonable people can hold different opinions after all, something liberals should remember.

Contribute to NRO here.

11/21 05:00 PM Share

Hatch on the Senate's (Lack of) Stupak [Robert Costa]

From Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah) on the Senate floor:

It should be abundantly clear to each member of this body that the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed pro-life language exactly two weeks ago markedly different from that contained in the Reid proposal.

The House provisions, in contrast to the terribly flawed provisions in the Reid bill, contained language that would not only safeguard the rights of the unborn but also would prevent medical providers from being coerced into performing procedures that violate their conscience.

The Stupak/Pitts amendment was adopted by a significant margin – 240 to 194. That represents 55 percent of the House of Representatives, including 25 percent of the Democratic caucus.

Even more telling is two polls released this week by the Washington Post and ABC News and CNN. They confirmed that 61 percent of the American population does not support federal funding for abortion. This vote should serve as a strong signal to each member of the Senate that these protections cannot be ignored and must be contained in any measure that we adopt.

Unfortunately, the language in the Reid bill explicitly allows what the Stupak/Pitts language would prevent. The Reid language authorizes abortion in the government operated health plan (or the public option) and federal subsidies for insurance coverage that includes abortion. It is not the Stupak/Pitts language. And the sanctity of life is not an issue that can be traded away for political expediency.

11/21 04:33 PM Share

McCain's Plan [Robert Costa]

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.) to NRO:

Regardless of Saturday’s outcome, it will be important for Republicans to “keep going out to the American people,” says McCain. “I intend to try and get out of Washington during the final weeks of debate to have town-hall meetings. We need to keep the American people stoked up and informed and do everything we can to galvanize support. The American people overwhelmingly do not want this legislation. They’re already fired up and frustrated in a way I have never seen before. We have to help make sure that their voices are heard and engage in an extensive debate.”

11/21 04:30 PM Share

In Case You're Just Tuning In [Robert Costa]

There are a few things you need to know about tonight's vote and what it means.

— One, Obamacare (in the form of a cloture vote on Senate majority leader Harry Reid's bill) needs 60 votes tonight to be eligible for a final Senate-floor debate. Tonight's vote, in other words, is the last procedural roadblock for Democrats as they push to bring their health-care bill to its final legislative stage.

— Two, if Reid does get his 60 votes tonight, and the bill moves to the floor, it's a big win for Democrats — if but for a moment. The Senate would then go on Thanksgiving break and come back to start the final health-care debate on Monday, November 30th.

— Three, if the bill moves to the floor for a final debate, that debate could stretch on for a long time. Why? Reid will need 60 votes to end the final debate. However, Reid does not need 60 to pass the bill. He only needs 51 for that.

Think of it like this: tonight's vote to move the bill to the floor needs 60 to pass. Then, to end the debate on the bill once it's on the floor and move to a final vote, Reid needs 60 votes again. If he can clear these two hurdles, the bill will come to a final vote in the Senate, where it needs 51 votes to pass. Even if it passes in say early 2010, then the bill will then head to a conference committee between the House and the Senate, where issues will be hashed out even more before it has any chance of reaching President Obama's desk.

So, it's a long road ahead. Stay with us through the fight.

11/21 04:23 PM Share