Sunday, January 31, 2010

New rules to raise health care premiums

Business Insurance reports on the Obama administration's latest effort to raise health care costs for most Americans:
Mental health and substance abuse treatment also must be equivalent to that provided for medical and surgical care within benefit classifications and coverage tiers, such as in- and out-of-network care, emergency care and prescription drugs, according to the rules, which implement the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. That 2008 law requires group health care plans offered by employers with more than 50 employees to provide the same coverage for mental health care services as for other medical, surgical and substance abuse services.
Such rules may sound well-meaning and there are people who need mental health services. The problem, however, is that requiring insurance to pay for treatment of conditions that cannot be medically verified ("Doctor, I feel bad") opens the system up to abuse and never-ending cost increases.

The departments of HHS, Labor, and Treasury, are developing these regulations based on a bill passed in 2008. That means the bill was passed by a Democrat-controlled Congress and then signed by Pres. Bush.

Megan McArdle has more on this here and here.

PREVIOUSLY on Obama's plans for medical care:
Those who want to go done with the ship: Obamacare Dead-enders
Obamacare may raise insurance costs by 54%
Harvard's Dean of Medicine opposes Obamacare
Rahm Emanuel explains that they are not even trying have Obamacare make sense
Harvard economist explains why Obamacare will raise premiums
HHS says Obamacare will cause costs to go up and cause employers to drop coverage
To protest Obamacare, San Francisco holds a sick-in
Polls say majority of voters oppose Obamacare
Obama wants to kill your mother!
The Canadian health care collapse

Friday, January 29, 2010

Obamanomics, Illustrated

The Democrats in the Senate just voted to raise the national debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion. This is the response from the Wall Street Journal's Pepper...and Salt:

The caption reads "How can you complain about a small bank fee when your share of the national debt is $30,000?" (American's actual shares are much larger than that.)

This illustrates the huge disconnect between, on the one hand, ordinary Americans who routinely scrimp and save and, on the other hand, Congress which is spending like a group of drunken liberals, as shown in this graphic:

PREVIOUSLY on the subject of Obamanomics and how it differs from economics:
How Dems are prolonging the recession
How Obamanomics destroys jobs
Obamanomics illustrated
Deficits: Obama goes where no man has gone before (illustration)
How to raise the standard of living
Obama's anti-intellectual economic theory
Obamanomics and the test of science
Obamacare may raise insurance costs by 54%
Harvard economist explains why Obamacare will raise premiums
HHS says Obamacare will cause costs to go up and cause employers to drop coverage

Thursday, January 28, 2010

"I want you to understand: this is not about me!"


Hat tip:

PREVIOUSLY on the subject of narcissism:
Obama: it's all about me!
Confusing Compassion with Narcissism
Obama's narcissism and the Chicago Olympics bid
Environmentalism and Narcissism, II
From OpenLeft: Is liberalism narcissism?
Environmentalism and Narcissism,
The side-effects of good intentions

PREVIOUSLY on Pres. Obama:
He lied!
Obama promises to reduced deficit, or not
Obama to rescue Reid
8 lies in 2.5 minutes
Security color codes updated for Obama
7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes

If only hate could change false to true


From news magazine salon.com's corrections page (via instapundit):
The Jan. 25 article "Is the President Panicking" originally stated that Fox News led the charge against Bill Clinton in the '94 midterm elections. Fox News did not come into being until 1996. The story has been corrected. [Correction made 1/27/10]
Facts, spin: when attacking an enemy, what's the difference?

On the other hand, it is to Salon's credit that they corrected this error within two days. Contrast that with the New York Times which waited 49 and half years to correct (PDF) an editorial claiming that space flight was impossible and ridiculing Robert H. Goddard for believing otherwise. Prof. Goddard (1882-1945) is regarded as the father of modern rocketry and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, was named after him.

The New York Times, of course, has learned its lesson. Instead of opining on the subtle and complex science of rocketry, they now write about global warming.

PREVIOUSLY on the Democrat/Media war on Fox News:
White House war on Fox News continues
Obama vs. Fox; Also MediaMatters caught again
Obama's war on Fox, updated
Obama's war on Fox
Fox News and Obama's Nixonesque enemies list
Obama White House has time to demonize Fox but not to work on Afghanistan
Rep. Sanchez (D-CA) proposes making dissent illegal

PREVIOUSLY on news bias:
MRC's Best Notable Quotables of 2009
Unbiased news report of the day
University study finds Fox more fair and balanced than ABC/CBS/NBC
News media credibility at lowest level since polling began
The MSM admits that it is a joke
Faking the news
The unbiased left
CNN criticizes Obama not
Common sense vs the MSM
MSM Obama worship: "it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric..."
MSM glorify Stalin as "calm" "steady" "buddha"
What hang-up causes news media to imagine a female political figure as a dominatrix in some sexual fantasy?
Media's bizarre hero worship
AP's hero worship of Hillary
Media misses the story
All the bias that fits
Name that party
17% of US voters claim newsmedia unbiased
If a story makes a Dem look bad, MSM find an excuse not to cover it
Hillary surprised when MSM changes sides on her
"White anger fueling health care debate"
MediaMatters caught dishonestly editing Glenn Beck
Unbiased MSM gets its "truth" from Media Matters for America

He lied!

Or so says Professor Bradley A. Smith of the Capital University Law School:
Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

The president's statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibit[ed] from making "a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election" under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any "expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication... ."

This is either blithering ignorance of the law, or demogoguery of the worst kind. [Emph. added]
Hat tip: The Anchoress

MORE: Pres. Obama's stated: "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections." In addition to the claim about foreign corporations, he also appears to have been wrong the "century of law" claim. Two falsehoods in one sentence? Will that set a State of the Union speech record?

MORE: Even the AP found need to fact check Obama's speech. Also, the Anchoress' final thoughts on the SOTU address are here.

RECENTLY on Pres. Obama:
Obama: it's all about me!
Obama promises to reduced deficit, or not
Obama to rescue Reid
8 lies in 2.5 minutes
Security color codes updated for Obama
7 Lies In Under 2 Minutes

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Climategate: laws were broken


The UK Information Commissioner's Office has determined that the global warming advocates at the University of East Anglia "broke the law" when they refused to release climate data under the UK's freedom of information act. The (UK) Times reports:
The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

The Information Commissioner’s Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said that it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late, The Times has learnt. The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.
Considering the amount of the world's resources that have been wasted on global warming alarmism, it is a shame that they won't be prosecuted for this.

PREVIOUSLY on climategate/warmergate and related scandals:
The collapse of the UN IPCC's credibility
Yet another UN IPCC Glacier-gate scandal
UN IPCC claims of melting Himalayan glaciers exposed as fraud
UN IPCC responds to Climategate with wild accusations
Surprise: EU's carbon trading riddled with fraud
Ma'am Sen. Boxer for and against climate whistleblowers.
Climate alarmist Phil Jones to step down pending review
Why Penn State's investigation of its global warmist will go nowhere
Former boss calls James Hansen call an embarrassment to NASA
NASA's global warming scientists caught hyping false data

3 in 10 Californians identify with Tea Party protests

According to a new poll (PDF) from Field Research Corp., 28% of Californians identify with the Tea Party protests "some" or "a lot." Among Republicans, that rises to 56%. Unaffiliated voters identify with it 34%. Even 11% of Democrats identify with it "some" or "a lot." The numbers among Democrats might be larger except that only 56% of Democrats "have heard" of the tea parties. An amazing 46% of Democrats are not aware of the tea parties: they must be the ones who get their news from the "mainstream media."

Hat tip: Instapundit.

PREVIOUSLY on California tea parties:

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Study: sexist women teachers stunt learning of girl students

Why do so many girls in school suffer from "math anxiety"? The answer, according to a new University of Chicago study, is that they learn it from their female teachers. Apparently, these teachers do not pass math anxieties on to the boys in their classes. The LA Times writes:
"Teachers who are anxious about their own math abilities are translating some of that to their kids," said University of Chicago psychologist Sian Beilock, who led the study published Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study is the first both to examine the math attitudes of teachers and to show that those feelings can spread to students and undermine their performance, said coauthor Susan C. Levine, also a psychologist at the University of Chicago.
In the study (PDF), Beilock and Levine assess the math anxiety of 2nd grade teachers and then studied how their students responded:
The math achievement of the students in these teachers' classrooms was also assessed. There was no relation between a teacher's math anxiety and her students' math achievement at the beginning of the school year. By school year's end, however, the more anxious teachers were about math, the more likely girls (but not boys) were to endorse the commonly held stereotype or belief that "boys are good at math and girls are good at reading" and the lower these girls' math achievement. Indeed, by the end of the school year, girls who endorsed this stereotype had significantly worse math achievement than girls who did not and than boys overall.
I do suspect that all students would better enjoy school and also learn more if teachers could learn to control their own anxieties.

PREVIOUSLY on the subject of education:
Black students, harassed for "acting white," get $150,000
Teaching self-esteem backfires
Education in Korea vs. the US: does "self-esteem" backfire?
LA pays teachers not to teach
What teachers learn in teacher's ed.
Obama promises to throw money at schools
How to get a job teaching in California even if you are illiterate

Global warming's profiteers

Today, on the Mother Nature Network, I ran across this defense of the UN IPCC. Note the incoherence of the headline:

What is the "fake ammo"? The headline is referring to the UN's claim that science proved that there was a "greater than 90%" chance that the Himalayan glacier would melt by the year 2035 when actually there was no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the claim. Mr. Burkart's article admits as much although preferring to characterize it, as you see in the headline, as a "goof-up." Of course, once he has made that admission, then the "ammo" is real not "fake."

"Goof-up" implies some kind of innocent mistake which might be a reasonable claim if it was just the 2035 glacier scandal. The UN IPCC's reports, however, are "riddled" with non-science papers.

As best I can tell, Mr. Burkart's argument about "ammo" being "fake" comes down to:
But all the evidence points to the same conclusion: The Himalayan glaciers are as a whole diminishing. So let’s put that to rest right away. No debate. It’s melting. Get used to it.
Since the end of the little ice age, the Earth has been warming at a rate of roughly 0.5°C per century. Since this has been going on for centuries, it seems clear that this is unrelated man-made CO2 which has only been significant only for a few decades. So, simple statements that things are warming, or that glaciers are melting, do not, in any way, prove that the warming is caused by man-made greenhouse gases or that such gases will lead us to imminent disaster.

Who is Mr. Burkart? According to his online bio:
After receiving a Masters in Architecture, Karl earned a LEED certification and created one of the green building industry's first web-based design tools, the GreenMatrix, later adopted in California by the county of Alameda. Realizing the power of the web to illuminate the complex world of "green" he helped launch several websites including EVO.com, developed a variety of social network widgets, and lectured internationally on the subject of digital media, technology and the environment. Karl has his own blog called Greendig: real dirt on the environment, and he consults with both nonprofits and corporations. His goal -- to leverage the power of the internet to bring about a new age of solar-powered enlightenment, one in which people and nature happily coexist.
So, "global warming" is his business: he sells "green" solutions. Mr. Burkart is not the only one making a profit off of "global warming." It is well known that Al Gore has made a large fortune from global warming. Also, IPCC chairman appears to have used the Himalayan glacier scam to make a small fortune.

Don't blame scientists for the IPCC scam: Over 30,000 American scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.D.s, have publicly signed this petition skeptical of global warming alarmism.

PREVIOUSLY on global warming:
The collapse of the UN IPCC's credibility
Yet another UN IPCC Glacier-gate scandal
UN IPCC claims of melting Himalayan glaciers exposed as fraud
Environmentalists at war with environmentalists over green energy
EPA's new global warming rules, illustrated
California global warming rules backfire
France's carbon tax ruled unconstitutional
UN IPCC responds to Climategate with wild accusations
Surprise: EU's carbon trading riddled with fraud
Global warming and the test of science, III
Global warming and the test of science, II
Global warming and the test of science, I
141 scientists wrote letter to UN challenging global warming hysteria.
Ma'am Sen. Boxer for and against climate whistleblowers.
BBC propaganda on global warming
Climate alarmist Phil Jones to step down pending review
Why Penn State's investigation of its global warmist will go nowhere
Global warming and cooling in review
Former boss calls James Hansen call an embarrassment to NASA
NASA's global warming scientists caught hyping false data
The resemblance of global warming true-believers to Islamists
James Hansen "muzzled" by Bush White House?

Monday, January 25, 2010

The collapse of the UN IPCC's credibility

On matters of global warming, the legacy media grant the UN IPCC the same credibility that Catholics are supposed to give to the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra. At the (UK) Telegraph, James Delingpole, using information developed by Dr. Richard North, reports on today's global warmist scandal and the UN IPCC's now threadbare credibility:

It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:


At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:


This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.

The link given is no longer active, but the report is on the IUCN website here. Furthermore, the IUCN along with WWF is another advocacy group and the report is not peer-reviewed. According to IPCC rules, it should not have been used as a primary source.

It gets even better. The two expert authors of the WWF report so casually cited by the IPCC as part of its, ahem, “robust” “peer-reviewed” process weren’t even Amazon specialists. One, Dr PF Moore, is a policy analyst ... and the lead author Andy Rowell is a freelance journalist (for the Guardian, natch) and green activist....

But the IPCC’s shamelessness did not end there. Dr North has searched the WWF’s reports high and low but can find no evidence of a statement to support the IPCC’s claim that “40 per cent” of the Amazon is threatened by climate change. (Logging and farm expansion are a much more plausible threat).
So, two environmental activists, both non-scientists, make some wild speculation about the Amazon that is never reviewed by scientists and, maybe, they never even wrote it down. The UN IPCC, which pretends to be a source of "authoritative" "peer-reviewed" "settled" science, then presents this to the media and to the world's governments as if it were fact.

A single mistake like this would be understandable. As WattsUpWithThat has documented, however, the UN's reports are "riddled with non peer reviewed WWF papers."

Global warming alarmism will not go away. The human mind is such that there will always be people who believe in the UN IPCC's prediction of imminent climate doom just the way that there will always be people who believe in Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster.

PREVIOUSLY on global warming:
Yet another UN IPCC Glacier-gate scandal
UN IPCC claims of melting Himalayan glaciers exposed as fraud
Environmentalists at war with environmentalists over green energy
EPA's new global warming rules, illustrated
California global warming rules backfire
France's carbon tax ruled unconstitutional
UN IPCC responds to Climategate with wild accusations
Surprise: EU's carbon trading riddled with fraud
Global warming and the test of science, III
Global warming and the test of science, II
Global warming and the test of science, I
141 scientists wrote letter to UN challenging global warming hysteria.
Ma'am Sen. Boxer for and against climate whistleblowers.
BBC propaganda on global warming
Climate alarmist Phil Jones to step down pending review
Why Penn State's investigation of its global warmist will go nowhere
Former boss calls James Hansen call an embarrassment to NASA
NASA's global warming scientists caught hyping false data
The resemblance of global warming true-believers to Islamists
James Hansen "muzzled" by Bush White House?

Obama: it's all about me!

After an interview with retiring Rep. Berry (D-AK), ADG reporter Jane Fullerton writes (via GatewayPundit):
Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”
So says the narcissist-in-chief who must be spending his time looking at mirrors instead of looking at his popularity:
For more on Obama's failure to adapt to the mood of the country, see Jules Crittenden. For the latest on the phoniness of his PR campaign, see Michelle Malkin. Also, Ed Morrissey comments on Obama's record divisiveness.

PREVIOUSLY on the subject of narcissism:
Confusing Compassion with Narcissism
Obama's narcissism and the Chicago Olympics bid
Environmentalism and Narcissism, II
From OpenLeft: Is liberalism narcissism?
Environmentalism and Narcissism,
The side-effects of good intentions

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Yet another UN IPCC Glacier-gate scandal

The (UK) Sunday Times reports:
The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.

It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus.

Hat tip: GatewayPundit.

PREVIOUSLY on global warming:
UN IPCC claims of melting Himalayan glaciers exposed as fraud
Environmentalists at war with environmentalists over green energy
EPA's new global warming rules, illustrated
California global warming rules backfire
France's carbon tax ruled unconstitutional
UN IPCC responds to Climategate with wild accusations
Surprise: EU's carbon trading riddled with fraud
Global warming and the test of science, III
Global warming and the test of science, II
Global warming and the test of science, I
141 scientists wrote letter to UN challenging global warming hysteria.
Ma'am Sen. Boxer for and against climate whistleblowers.
BBC propaganda on global warming
Climate alarmist Phil Jones to step down pending review
Why Penn State's investigation of its global warmist will go nowhere
Former boss calls James Hansen call an embarrassment to NASA
NASA's global warming scientists caught hyping false data
James Hansen "muzzled" by Bush White House?

Obama promises to reduce deficits, or not

In a post entitled "how stupid do they think we are", Roger Kimball writes:
But now comes something really amusing. In an effort to win back the support of “fiscal moderates,” Obama yesterday endorsed the idea of creating a special debt and deficit reducing commission. But guess what, it wouldn’t convene until after next November’s election.
Hat tip: Instapundit.

Politico reports that Obama's plan has strong opposition from Democrats who do not want to have to vote on deficit reduction even after November:
Powerful Democrats, including Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), are adamantly opposed to the commission. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), in a letter to colleagues Friday, warned them against being “stampeded” into the Conrad bill, which would require expedited votes in both the House and the Senate
It seems that the former Messiah may discover that there is a big difference between (1) giving speeches filled with empty rhetoric, and (2) actually governing a country.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Obama to rescue Reid

Sen. Reid (D-NV) is very unpopular in his home state. The White House has announced that Pres. Obama will appear with him next month in Las Vegas. Previously, Pres. Obama has campaigned for Corzine, Deeds, and Coakley in their high profile but unsuccessful races. Eric Allie illustrates the feeling that must be overcoming Sen. Reid at this time:

Pelosi concedes, at least for today

The AP reports that Speaker Pelosi is retreating:
"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time." ....

"We're not in a big rush" on health care, Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

As recently, as yesterday, she was still advocating a hard line. Rep. Arcuri explains what changed their minds:

"The mega bills are dead," said Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-N.Y. "If we didn't see what happened Tuesday night, we have blinders on."
It seems that the town halls last August, the polls showing health care's unpopularity, the polls showing Obama's rapidly declining popularity, and the letter writing campaigns meant nothing to the Democrats. They understand, however, the meaning of Sen. Brown (R-MA).

Via Uncoverage, here is a lighter take on the subject:

PREVIOUSLY, my reports on the San Francisco area town halls and tea parties that Democrats like Rep. Pelosi and Rep. Arcuri had been ignoring:
Farmers protest in San Jose (Nov. 21).
Tea Party breaks out in Palo Alto (Nov. 21)

PREVIOUSLY on the Massachusetts Senate race:
Making excuses: it was all about the racism and sexism
Some Democrats waking up and smelling the coffee
Obamacare: some still want to do a kamikaze run
Mass. focus group says it was all about healthcare
Massachusetts Senate race results live blog
Where has the laughter gone?

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

It was all about the racism and sexism

I listened to a few minutes of Rachel Maddow last night and she was sure that Brown won because Massachusetts voters are anti-female. In the video below, MSNBC commentator Donnie Deutsch continues on that theme explaining that Brown won because he was white and male and Massachusetts voters found "comfort" in that:
The transcript:
“We’re going back to basics, we’ve obviously had our first African American president we’ve had the female candidates and whatnot you look at him he looks like the candidate, the traditional view of the candidate, and is there a visceral comfort in that for people? I’m just curious from real kind of sociological point of view.”
Hat tip: GatewayPundit.

Over at Politico, Jeannie Cummings and Erika Lovley similarly blamed Coakley's loss on a "glass ceiling" for women in Massachusetts.

Voters say the election was about Obamacare which is not popular even in the only state that voted for Geo. McGovern for president. It is understandable that liberals would find more comfort in believing that the election was about sexism. In a state with so many left-wing Democrats, there might even be some element of truth to that belief (see the links below).

PREVIOUSLY on Democrats practicing sexism:
MSNBC's sexist attacks on Sec. Rice and Obama's sexist attacks on Hillary
DailyKos opposed to treating Hillary "fairly"
Two examples of sexist stereotyping
Sexists in the Senate
A Democrat opposes sexism
Media sexism backfires
Salon has a sexual fantasy about Palin as a dominatrix
Sexist attack on Palin or merely an example of Obama's "silver tongue"?
Dem Gov says Dem primary voters are sexist and racist
What is the victim status of your identity group?
Dems urged to vote their gender

PREVIOUSLY on the Massachusetts Senate race:
Some Democrats waking up and smelling the coffee
Obamacare: some still want to do a kamikaze run
Mass. focus group says it was all about healthcare
Massachusetts Senate race results live blog
Where has the laughter gone?

Dems: waking up and smelling the coffee

The Politico reports:
Scott Brown has turned this town upside down. ....

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) told a local reporter, “It’s probably back to the drawing board on health care, which is unfortunate.” Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) told MSNBC this morning he will advise Democratic leaders to scrap the big bill and move small, more popular pieces that can attract Republicans. And Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said his leadership is “whistling past the graveyard” if they think Brown’s win won’t force a rethinking of the health care plan.

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), who now might draw a challenge from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), said the party needs to rethink its entire approach to governing.

They are in denial no more: If Democrats can lose in Massachusetts, they can lose anywhere.

For otherwise skilled and power-hungry politicians, why did it take them this long to figure out that the Obama agenda was a loser?  Even Obama, when he was campaigning last Fall, was smart enough not to run on this agenda.

The Politico also points to four upcoming races:
Democratic insiders [are] concerned about other signs of trouble that got insufficient notice: Polls show Democrats could lose the New York Senate seat, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson’s favorable ratings plummeted in Nebraska, new polls showed Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) trailing badly in his swing district, and Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) is in a statistical tie and in more trouble than previously expected.
PREVIOUSLY on the Massachusetts Senate race:
Obamacare: some still want to do a kamikaze run
Mass. focus group says it was all about healthcare
Massachusetts Senate race results live blog
Where has the laughter gone?

Obamacare dead-enders

At Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall notes that some Democrats want to re-think their Obamacare obsession:
Barney Frank says reform should be allowed to die. Bill Delahunt says Democrats should return to an 'incremental approach'. Evan Bayh says the whole thing should be dropped.
Josh Marshall disagrees: he wants Dems to go done with the ship:
Everybody who gets the politics has made clear that it's political suicide for the Democrats not to finish health care reform done. And it seems clear that the only way to do that is for the House to pass the existing senate bill and then revise it in subsequent legislation. [Emph. added]
Notice the claim about "everybody": it seems to be psychologically important for liberals to claim to have unanimity where there is none. Global warmists make similar claims about "all" scientists when the claim is obviously false. It's all about the self-delusion.

Today, Speaker Pelosi reconfirmed her determination to proceed with Obamacare:
"We will move forward with those considerations in mind -- but we will move forward," Pelosi told the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Jim Lavery illustrates this approach:

As for the former Messiah, he, unlike the Speaker, suggests slowing down:
"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table: The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," the president said. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."
But then he continues and demonstrates that he has learned absolutely nothing:
"I think point number two is that it is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill isn't true," Obama said.

PREVIOUSLY on the MA Senate race:
Mass. focus group says it was all about healthcare
Massachusetts Senate race results live blog
Where has the laughter gone?

PREVIOUSLY on Obamacare:
Obamacare may raise insurance costs by 54%
Harvard's Dean of Medicine opposes Obamacare
Rahm Emanuel explains that they are not even trying have Obamacare make sense
Harvard economist explains why Obamacare will raise premiums
HHS says Obamacare will cause costs to go up and cause employers to drop coverage
To protest Obamacare, San Francisco holds a sick-in
Polls say majority of voters oppose Obamacare
The Canadian health care collapse

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

It was about health care!

A focus group of Massachusetts voters, assembled by Frank Luntz, discuss the election:

Amazing: even the Coakley Democrats want Congress to slow down and do a bi-partisan bill.

Hat tip: Instapundit and Johnny Dollar.

PREVIOUSLY on the Mass Senate race:
Massachusetts Senate race results live blog
Where has the laughter gone?

PREVIOUSLY on Obamacare:
Obamacare may raise insurance costs by 54%
Harvard's Dean of Medicine opposes Obamacare
Rahm Emanuel explains that they are not even trying have Obamacare make sense
Harvard economist explains why Obamacare will raise premiums
HHS says Obamacare will cause costs to go up and cause employers to drop coverage
To protest Obamacare, San Francisco holds a sick-in
Polls say majority of voters oppose Obamacare
The Canadian health care collapse

Coakley-Brown Senate race results

(Hat tip: CommonCents)

LIVE BLOG: SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES.

As of 8:53 Eastern time, and according to FoxNews, the current vote tally for the Massachusetts Senate race is:
With 18 percent of precincts reporting, early returns show Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley 52-47 percent.
Meanwhile, Drudge is quoting 169,808 votes for Republican Brown and 145,733 for Democrat Coakley.

Separately, Speaker Pelosi will not let the will of the people get in the way of her agenda:
"Let's remove all doubt, we will have healthcare one way or another," Pelosi said during an event in San Francisco on Monday. "Certainly the dynamic would change depending on what happens in Massachusetts. Just the question about how we would proceed. But it doesn't mean we won't have a health care bill."
UPDATE (9:09 Eastern time): Fox is now reporting that 39% of precincts are reporting with no change in the percentages:
With 39 percent of precincts reporting, early returns show Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley 52-47 percent.
UPDATE (9:27 Eastern time): Fox reports a stronger lead for Brown with 66% of the precincts reporting:
With 66 percent of precincts reporting, returns show Brown leading Democrat Martha Coakley 53-46 percent. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy is pulling 1 percent.
Preparing for a possible legal battle, Ms. Coakley reportedly has already hired Marc Elias, the attorney to whom Al Franken owes his victory.

Fearful of what a poor showing by Coakley might mean, a Washington Post columnist, Steven Pearlstein, is already claiming that the race was not about Obamacare.

UPDATE (9:40 ET): Coakley has conceded:
Coakley has called Brown to concede. With 84 percent of precincts reporting, returns show Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.
UPDATE (9:51 ET): Rasmussen is starting to release some of its election day poll results. For one, they report that, Steven Pearlstein and the Washington Post to the contrary notwithstanding, the voters were voting on Obamacare:

Health care has been a huge issue in this election. Fifty-two percent (52%) of Brown voters say it was the most important issue in determining their vote. Sixty-three percent (63%) of Coakley voters say health care was the top issue:

· 78% of Brown voters Strongly Oppose the health care legislation before Congress.

· 52% of Coakley supporters Strongly Favor the health care plan. Another 41% Somewhat Favor the legislation.

UPDATE (10:02 ET): 92 percent of precincts are now reporting:
With 92 percent of precincts reporting, returns show Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent, by a margin of more than 112,000 votes. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.
UPDATE: do we have VICTORY? Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) says: "It would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated." Sen. Bayh (D-IN) warns Dems to avoid denial, as ABC reports:

Even before the votes are counted, Senator Evan Bayh is warning fellow Democrats that ignoring the lessons of the Massachusetts Senate race will “lead to even further catastrophe” for their party.

“There’s going to be a tendency on the part of our people to be in denial about all this,” Bayh told ABC News, but “if you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up.”

UPDATE (10:25 ET): 96% of precincts are now reporting with percentages unchanged:
With 96 percent of precincts reporting, returns show Brown leading Coakley 52-47 percent, by a margin of more than 105,000 votes. Independent candidate Joseph Kennedy was pulling 1 percent.
The Admonition calls this Obama's third strike:
Like the Top of the Ticket at the LA Times I won’t count the Olympics debacle in which Obama’s presence sped up the departure of his beloved Chicago from the race for 2016. I will however count the numerous campaign stops Barry made for Jon Corzine in New Jersey and Creigh Deeds in Virginia. In both instances Obama’s appearances didn’t help the democrat candidate cross the finish line first.

Tonight, with Scott Brown winning in decisive fashion, and not only winning but winning Ted Kennedy’s old seat, President Obama has just received his third strike. No matter how the media establishment wants to spin it.
Corzine, Deeds, and Coakley. One would think that a former Messiah could maintain a better batting average.

MORE: Rep Weiner (D-NY) is awake, as ABC News reports:
If Brown is elected, Senate Democrats would lose the 60-seat majority they now enjoy and that they need to avoid a Republican filibuster of the health care bill.

"I think you can make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead," Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" today when asked about the Democrats' contingency plan.
Reacting to Brown winning "Kennedy's seat," Rush Limbaugh says:
"This one's for you, Mary Jo."
(Hat tip: Instapundit and Founding Bloggers.)

UPDATE (Wednesday): The AP has unofficial results from all precincts broken down county-by-county. The statewide totals are 1,168,107 (52%) for Brown vs. 1,058,682 (47%) for Coakley. Joseph Kennedy received 22,237 votes (1%).

MORE: Scott Stantis summarizes the Democrat reaction:


ALSO on the MA Senate race and its aftermath:
Some Dems are waking up and smelling the coffee
Obamacare: some still want to do a kamikaze run
Mass. focus group says it was all about healthcare
Where has the laughter gone?

PREVIOUSLY on other 2010 races:
Will Boxer go the way of Coakley?: CA Senate race tightens
California 2010 Governor's race

Where has the laughter gone?

Democrats claim to have a sense of humor and don't all those Dan Quayle jokes prove it? Mona Charen asks: why aren't they laughing at MA Senate candidate Martha (AKA Marsha) Coakley?:
Oh, how different the world would look if Martha Coakley were a Republican! As it is, she gets the sort of gentle rebukes the press reserves for Democrats. Her campaign was too "lackadaisical," we are told. She was "overconfident" and too "buttoned down." Reading and watching the MSM, you wouldn't know that Coakley is a walking minefield. There is now -- and there always has been -- a completely different set of rules for Republicans.

If a Republican candidate in such a high-profile contest put out campaign literature that misspelled the name of her state, it would be worth, let's see, mentions on every Sunday gabfest and two, maybe three, jokes on the late-night shows. Dan Quayle's misspelling is the stuff of legend. Coakley's? Not so much.

When Coakley was challenged in an October debate about her lack of foreign policy credentials, she parried: "I have a sister who lives overseas, and she's been in England and now lives in the Middle East." Hmm. Just a few months ago, Sarah Palin said something similar, and the smart set has not finished laughing yet. Palin didn't say "I can see Russia from my house!" But the Tina Fey parody has replaced the less amusing truth. "Saturday Night Live" can be brilliant. But if Palin's comment was worthy of such mockery, wasn't Coakley's equally so? Just asking.

The woman who would like to sit in the U.S. Senate announced last week that there are no longer any terrorists in Afghanistan. Not since Joe Biden boasted (during the 2008 vice presidential debate) that he had chased Hezbollah from Lebanon have we heard such a loony claim. Where are the titters?

This kind of media hypocrisy is so common that it is easy to forget that we should still be outraged at it.

For more on the MA Senate race, see Michelle Malkin here and here. For the latest polls, see here and here.

PREVIOUSLY, on liberal hypocrisy:
The UN's global warming advocates vs. their own carbon footprint
Eco-hypocrite of the day: supermodel Giselle
The hypocrisy of ACORN and others on minimum wage
It is outrageous to make Hitler analogies, or not
Broadcast networks discover a new responsibility to air presidential speeches.
Saddam's connections to terror change depending on who is president.
Dems advocate 10-year effort in Iraq until they don't
The ever-increasing energy use of Al Gore's mansion
With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming.
Dems supported enhanced interrogation.
UN humanitarian hypocrisy
Poster child hypocrisy
Edwards' hypocrisy toward the poor
Liberals bash gays

Sunday, January 17, 2010

CA Senate race tightens

Ma'am Sen. Boxer is still polling at less than 50% which is a danger sign for an incumbent. Rasmussen finds this regardless of whether she is matched against ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina, state Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, or newly announced candidate ex Rep. Campbell. In all cases, and despite her opponent's relative lack of name recognition, Ma'am Boxer polls a mere 46%. Since November, Boxer's support is unchanged while the "not sure" and "other" voters have been switching to the Republican side. According to Rasmussen's poll of 500 likely voters, a Boxer-Fiorina race would look like:

CandidateNov 17Jan 14
Fiorina (R)

37%

43%
Boxer (D)

46%

46%

Other

5%

3%

Not Sure

12%

8%


Chuck DeVore's support has risen 4% since November:

CandidateNov 17Jan 14

DeVore (R)

36%

40%

Boxer (D)

46%

46%

Other

5%

4%

Not Sure

13%

10%

Newly announced candidate Tom Cambell has 42%:

CandidateNov 17Jan 14

Campbell(R)

--

42%

Boxer (D)

--

46%

Other

-- 3%

Not Sure

--


9%
Because only 500 voters were surveyed, the margin for error is +/- 4.5%.

Sen. Boxer polls are low despite the fact that, according to Rasmussen, support for Obamacare is stronger in California than in the rest of the Nation:
In California, 49% favor the health care plan, while 48% oppose it. But as in other states, the emotion is on the side of the opponents: Just 25% of California voters Strongly Favor the plan while 39% Strongly Oppose it.
PREVIOUSLY on Sen. Boxer:
Boxer and Kerry campaign for cap-and-tax
Cap and tax in the US Senate: a who's who of the villains and their committees
Boxer: never trust a well-dressed protester

PREVIOUSLY on the California politics and the current Governor's race:
Who is Meg Whitman?
Jerry Brown learns economics and the left objects
Law signed by ex-Gov Brown's pits tree huggers against global warmists

UN IPCC claims of melting Himalayan glaciers exposed as fraud

The (UK) Sunday Times reports today that one of the UN IPCC's "central claims" will likely be retracted after it was exposed as one man's mere "speculation" and not based on any formal research:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research.

I would have classified this as being mere sloppiness on the part on the UN until I read:
When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was "very high". The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. [Emph. added]
In my opinion, that raises it to the level of fraud.

Hat tip: Instapundit and American Interest

PREVIOUSLY on global warming:
Environmentalists at war with environmentalists over green energy
EPA's new global warming rules, illustrated
California global warming rules backfire
France's carbon tax ruled unconstitutional
UN IPCC responds to Climategate with wild accusations
Surprise: EU's carbon trading riddled with fraud
Global warming and the test of science, III
Global warming and the test of science, II
Global warming and the test of science, I
141 scientists wrote letter to UN challenging global warming hysteria.
Ma'am Sen. Boxer for and against climate whistleblowers.
BBC propaganda on global warming
Climate alarmist Phil Jones to step down pending review
Why Penn State's investigation of its global warmist will go nowhere
Former boss calls James Hansen call an embarrassment to NASA
NASA's global warming scientists caught hyping false data
James Hansen "muzzled" by Bush White House?

Saturday, January 16, 2010

MSNBC host advocates vote fraud

MSNBC host and radio talker Ed Schultz explains why he supports vote fraud in the upcoming Senate race in Massachusetts:

The transcript:
SCHULTZ: I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I'd try to vote 10 times. I don't know if they'd let me or not, but I'd try to. Yeah, that's right. I'd cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. 'Cause that's exactly what they are. [Emph. added]
(hat tip: NewsBusters.) If one believes Wikipedia, Ed Schultz has the largest audience ("highest ranking") of any liberal talk show.

Michelle Malkin has much more on the Massachusetts Senate race: see, for example, here, here, here, or here. Also Brian Maloney is following it closely.

PREVIOUSLY on the subject of Democrats and vote fraud:
Dems and vote fraud in New York State.
How to buy a vote
NJ Dems demand equal rights for fraudulent voters
Nevada accuses ACORN of 39 felonies
Three Obama supporters plead guilty
Another ex-ACORN worker pleads guilty
An insider's guide to vote fraud
Vote fraud update
Absentee ballot and dishonest elections
Fraud and Deceit in 2004

PREVIOUSLY on the subject of Democrats being uncomfortable with democracy:
Democrats want to stripe union workers of right to secret ballots
Libs distrust voters; want smoke-filled rooms or monarchs
Dems oppose democratic allies
Dartmouth eliminates alumni trustee elections
Clicky Web Analytics