Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Can you say MACACA?
Governor's Race Erupts Over McDonnell's Past Views
By Amy Gardner, Rosalind S. Helderman and Anita Kumar, Washington Post Staff Writers
The Virginia governor's race ignited Monday over Republican Robert F. McDonnell's 20-year-old graduate thesis: Democrats assailed him in e-mail blasts and interviews for what he wrote about working women, homosexuals and "fornicators," and McDonnell tried to explain his views to crucial moderate and female voters.
After a sleepy summer filled with rural RV tours and policy papers on energy and the economy, news of the thesis, first reported Sunday in The Washington Post, pushed the race to a fever pitch.
McDonnell's opponent, Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, bombarded state and national media with details of the thesis, submitted by McDonnell in 1989 for a master of arts in public policy and juris doctorate in law from Regent University in Virginia Beach.
The Deeds campaign sent out a fundraising appeal with ... [link]
Give me a minute. My laughter sent Wheaties flying all over my keyboard. "News of the thesis pushed the race to a fever pitch"? "The race ignited?" In the Washington Post unisex bathroom maybe. Those who live in Virginia, on the other hand, don't give two squirts about this bit of silliness.
Maybe I shouldn't be too dismissive though. The snakes at the Post did, in fact, convince the electorate here that macaca was not only a word, but that it was a bad - shockingly bad - word, requiring that George Allen be run out of office.
Looking back on that little episode, you feel kind of ashamed of yourself for having gotten caught up in it, don't you?
Well, welcome to Macaca II.
What's the single most important reason for Obama wanting to dramatically alter our health care delivery system?
To make it more affordable.
Problem is, every remedy the guy has come up with has proven to either make things worse or be ineffectual. In that latter category, we place this:
Study Raises Questions About Cost Savings From Preventive CareWell, if it's not going to save money, why do it, you ask? Welcome to our side of the debate, my friend.
By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post Staff Writer
Preventive services for the chronically ill may reduce health-care costs, but they are unlikely to generate the kind of fantastic savings that President Obama and other Democrats have said could help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health system, according to a study being published Tuesday.
Using data from long-standing clinical trials, researchers projected the cost of caring for people with Type 2 diabetes as they progress from diagnosis to various complications and death. Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year -- money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found.
However, except for the youngest diabetics, the additional services would add to overall health spending, not decrease it, the study shows. [link]
When George Bush was president, the media focused on the lunatics in the White House. Rumsfeld. Cheney. Alberto Gonzales. Ashcroft.
With Barack Obama in the White House, the press is focused on the lunatics outside the White House. Tea Party fanatics. Right-wing talk show hosts. Sarah Palin.
Think it's an accident? Get your head out of your ass.
Justice Dept. to Recharge Enforcement of Civil Rights
We're going back to 1970. Minus the actual discrimination.
For the love of God.
The irony is that the final months of Senator Kennedy’s life are the very reason we shouldn’t let government take us to the Pelosi, Frank plan. When diagnosed with brain cancer, Senator Kennedy didn’t do as President Obama suggested and take a pain pill and ride it out at home. He went to the best medical facilities in the world, had surgery and sought to live as long and as strong as possible.See "Mike Huckabee defends his Ted Kennedy remark," Politico, August 31, 2009
John Kerry: Global Warming Is The Next 9/11Whew!
By Jay Yarow, Business Insider
John Kerry has written an op-ed for the Huffington Post comparing the inaction in response to a heating planet to the inaction of President Bush before September 11th. Kerry reaches deep into the bag of global warming hysterics to uncork this piece, saying that the fate of the nation hinges upon the passing of some sort of climate change legislation.
It's ridiculously over the top, but we suppose it might get a few supporters all riled up and ready to fight for the bill this fall. Of course, it's so over the top that it might just turn off a bunch of people:
"On August 6, 2001, President George W. Bush famously received an intelligence briefing entitled, 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.' Thirty-six days later, al Qaeda terrorists did just that.
"Scientists tell us we have a 10-year window -- if even that -- before catastrophic climate change becomes inevitable and irreversible. The threat is real, and time is not on our side.
"The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.
"Make no mistake: catastrophic climate change represents a threat to human security, global stability, and -- yes -- even to American national security.
"Climate change injects a major new source of chaos, tension, and human insecurity into an already volatile world. It threatens to bring more famine and drought, worse pandemics, more natural disasters, more resource scarcity, and human displacement on a staggering scale. We risk fanning the flames of failed-statism, and offering glaring opportunities to the worst actors in our international system. In an interconnected world, that endangers all of us." [link]
Somone needs to break the news to this doofus that the planet isn't warm ...
Oh, never mind.
Odd thing is, in this case we're talking about Afghanistan. And the man who led the fight in Afganistan under Bush - Robert Gates - is the same guy who's leading the fight under Obama.
But no matter:
U.S., NATO must change to win Afghan war says commanderMcChrystal is referring to our NATO allies that are in Afghanistan reluctantly, at the pleading of George Bush. But Obama will make them want to cooperate. After all, this is Mr. Uniter we're talking about ...
The White House sought on Monday to pin the blame for the grave state of the war in Afghanistan on the Bush administration, which made Iraq its top military priority.
"This was underresourced, underfunded, undermanned and ignored for years," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
The United States and its allies must change strategy and boost cooperation to turn around the war in Afghanistan, the top U.S. and NATO commander there said on Monday, wrapping up a much-anticipated review.
U.S. Army General Stanley McChrystal said the situation was "serious" but the 8-year-old war could still be won. He gave no indication if he would ask for more troops but is widely expected to do so in the coming weeks.
With U.S. and NATO casualties at record levels in Afghanistan and doubts growing about the war in the United States and other NATO nations, McChrystal is under pressure to reverse Western fortunes within months.
"The situation in Afghanistan is serious, but success is achievable and demands a revised implementation strategy, commitment and resolve, and increased unity of effort," McChrystal said in a statement announcing his report was done. [link]
Daily Presidential Tracking PollDo you get the impression that the "It's all Bush's fault" strategy is wearing kinda thin?
Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve while 83% of Republicans disapprove. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 66% disapprove.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a rating of -11. [link]