Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

TUESDAY,  MARCH 16,  2010

GOP SOARS IN CONGRESS POLL – AT 8:39 P.M. ET:  Scott Rasmussen reports that the Republicans are now solidly ahead in the generic preferences for Congress:

Republican candidates have now stretched their lead over Democrats to 10 points in the Generic Congressional Ballot, their biggest lead ever in nearly three years of weekly tracking. The GOP has been leading on the ballot for months.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 35% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. Voter support for GOP congressional candidates increased slightly from last week, while support for Democrats fell two points.

Republicans started 2010 ahead by nine points, while support for Democrats fell to its lowest level over the same period. Towards the end of 2009, GOP candidates enjoyed a more modest lead over Democrats, with the gap between the two down to four points in early December. Since the beginning of the year, however, the Republican lead hasn’t dipped below seven points.

COMMENT:  Well, that's good, but the election isn't being held today.  Republicans should run as if they're ten points behind.

It's true that Democrats are self-destructing, but their ability to campaign is considerably greater than their ability to govern.  We'll see them in campaign mode in the fall.  Don't underestimate them.

March 16, 2010   Permalink

ELECTION DRAMA IN IRAQ – AT 8:19 P.M. ET:  It seems that politicians have the same complaints all over the world.  Iraq recently held a general election, but the ballots are still being counted.  There are, uh, accuracy issues:

BAGHDAD -- Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki saw his political coalition's lead in Iraq' parlimentary elections slip on Tuesday. He charged that the national electoral commission was manipulating results and demanded a recount in Baghdad, home to the nation's largest group of voters.

"Baghdad" is Arabic for "Chicago."

Maliki's State of Law bloc has seen its lead narrow with 79 percent of the ballots from the March 7 parliamentary elections counted. Its fiercest competition has come from secular Shiite Ayad Allawi, a former prime minister who heads the Iraqiya bloc, favored by Sunni Arabs. News services reported that Allawi's coalition moved ahead in the popular vote count on Tuesday, though it was still behind in the more important province-by-province results, which determine how seats in parliament are apportioned.

It may take months to work this out, but it is democracy, and a democracy that we largely created.  The key now is whether Obama will allow enough American troops to remain in Iraq to keep things stable as the new government is formed.  There are still elements that will try to bring the country back to violence.

But let's not forget that it was President Bush who believed in the surge, against massive ridicule, and saw it through to success.  Obama will not mention that, reflecting the usual gracelessness of this administration. 

March 16, 2010   Permalink

YES, IT'S THAT JOHN ROBERTS – AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  Chief Justice John Roberts recently chided President Obama over the president's criticism, during the State of the Union message, of a Supreme Court decision.  The White House then chided Roberts over his comments.

Will there be a rematch?  There may well be.  It turns out that one of the gimmicks the House leadership is considering for ramming through the health-care bill raises some Constitutional questions.  So if the bill passes, and the president signs it, the whole matter may be dumped before the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts proprietor.  Oh, the justice in it.  The Politico reports:

The so-called “Slaughter solution” for enacting health care reform without a conventional House vote on an identically worded Senate bill would be vulnerable to credible constitutional challenge, experts say.

No lawyer interviewed by POLITICO thought the constitutionality of the “deem and pass” approach being considered by House Democrats was an open-and-shut case either way. But most agreed that it could raise constitutional issues sufficiently credible that the Supreme Court might get interested, as it has in the past.

“If I were advising somebody" on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble "I would say to them, ‘Don’t do it,’” said Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School, who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the watchdog organization, Public Citizen. “What does ‘deem’ mean? In class I always say it means ‘let's pretend.’ 'Deems' means it's not true.”

COMMENT:  Now, wouldn't that be something?  The bill passes using the "Slaughter solution," and winds up on Roberts's desk, and the Supreme Court decides it's unconstitutional, 5-4, with Roberts providing the decisive vote.

Do these things only happen in dreams?

March 16, 2010   Permalink

TAKE AWAY HIS PLANE, PARK IT, TAKE THE WINGS OFF – AT 7:08 P.M. ET:  The Democrats are once more griping about the president's travel plans.  This is a crisis of epic proportions:

The White House has been bringing its A game to the final push to pass health care reform – and some House Democrats are so pleased with the shift they want President Barack Obama to postpone his planned Asia trip again if a deal isn’t sealed before his newly announced departure on Sunday.

We just need daddy around to help us.  What's wrong with that?

Several House members interviewed by POLITICO said Obama’s looming trip to Australia, Indonesia and Guam, while creating a natural deadline for 11th-hour health care talks, is once again becoming a problem as he tries to sell reluctant members of his own party on the reform legislation.

Last week, the president pushed back his planned Friday departure three days after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats groused he was leaving at a critical time.

“For the first time in eight months, the president is finally getting his hands dirty, and now he’s going to hop on the plane? Please,” said a Democratic congressman, requesting anonymity.

I've got it!  Obama can cancel his trip, claiming Air Force One is plagued by unintended acceleration problems, and the backup plane isn't stocked with current DVDs.  He can explain this to Indonesia – he speaks the language, after all – and to Australia, which, I suspect, can do without The One's visit.

“These deadlines are sort of silly,” the member added. “Remember the first one? March 18th? That was sort of like putting a calendar on [White House chief of staff] Rahm's [Emanuel’s] back and inviting members to throw darts at him.”

Another Democrat told POLITICO bluntly, “This trip is really getting in the way of things.”

COMMENT:  Translated:  We don't have the votes, we really don't want to try Nancy's convoluted gimmicks, and we sure don't want to go home for Easter and face our constitutents.

Complaining about the president's trip surely doesn't give America confidence that the Congressional leadership is truly in control.

March 16,  2010   Permalink

DR. JONES IS NOW A CARPENTER – AT 9:55 A.M. ET:  One of the remarkable things about the health-care debate is how we've ignored the impact of "reform" on doctors. 

Now, of course, doctors aren't very important to the far left.  In the leftist scheme of things, physicians are simply "vendors" of health care.  On the left, a disciplined individual who went through years of study, internship and residency, is looked upon as a member of the "establishment."  We must be suspicious of these accomplished people.

Well, the New England Journal of Medicine has a devastating account of what may well happen to doctors, and to us, under Obamacare: 

(CNSNews.com) - Nearly one-third of all practicing physicians may leave the medical profession if President Obama signs current versions of health-care reform legislation into law, according to a survey published in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

The survey, which was conducted by the Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, found that a majority of physicians said health-care reform would cause the quality of American medical care to “deteriorate” and it could be the “final straw” that sends a sizeable number of doctors out of medicine.

More than 29 percent (29.2) percent of the nearly 1,200 doctors who responded to the survey said they would quit the profession or retire early if health reform legislation becomes law. If a public option were included in the legislation, as several liberal Senators have indicated they would like, the number would jump to 45.7 percent.

And...

The medical journal published the results in its March and April edition, saying: “While a sudden loss of half of the nation's physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health reform.”

COMMENT:  I wonder if any of these physicians was consulted on the health plan.  Probably not.  Who needs the input of those who actually treat patients? 

We are heading for a catastrophe, and those heading us there are ecstatic.  The Utopian dream is about to be realized.  Unfortunately, it's only a dream.

March 16, 2010   Permalink

TOYOTA FIGHTS BACK – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  Toyota doesn't need our help to defend it.  But the truth needs our help to defend it.  The tendency of the mainstream media to bash corporations and exalt "victims" has led to a distortion of reality.  There are bad corporations, and good ones.  There are real victims, and false ones.

Toyota's first response to the "unintended acceleration" claims was the response of a corporation trying to prove it was responsible.  There were immediate, massive recalls.  The president of the company went around, Obama-like, apologizing.  There was all that Japanese bowing.

But as we've learned more and more, we realize that the truth is more elusive.  Yesterday we ran a report pointing out that "unintended acceleration," presumably a defect in cars, is actually related quite closely to the age of the driver.  (Everyone knows that Toyotas don't like older people.)  And Toyota itself, apparently realizing that was about to be hustled by lawsuits, is starting to strike back, as AP reports:

SAN DIEGO | Toyota Motor Corp. dismissed the story of a man who claimed his Prius sped out of control on the California freeway, saying Monday that its own tests found the car's gas pedal and backup safety system were working fine.

The automaker stopped short of saying James Sikes had staged a hoax last week but asserted that his account did not square with a series of tests it conducted on the gas-electric hybrid.

"We have no opinion on his account, what he's been saying, other than that the scenario is not consistent with the technical findings," spokesman Mike Michels said at a press conference.

It turned out that Sikes has a checkered past and a poor reputation in business.

There have been charges that much of the Toyota "scandal" was cooked up by General Motors and its government allies, but I've seen no direct proof of that. 

The fact is that we go through periodic "unintended acceleration" scares, just as we go through other kinds of "scares" that turn out to be greatly exaggerated.  Remember the swine-flu epidemic? 

We'll continue to follow this.  We saw the Audi destroyed in the United States by sensationalist reporting over "unintended acceleration" that didn't exist.  That cost a lot of jobs.  If a product truly is defective, action obviously must be taken.  But beware the false charge, and the financial interests behind it.

March 16, 2010    Permalink

THE RAIN'S A PAIN, BUT THE CAUSE IS PLAIN – GLOBAL WARMING IS ITS NAME – AT 8:35 A.M. ET:  Al Gore speaks, and the flock listens.  From the Business and Media Institute:

If there’s a drought – it’s global warming. When there’s a hurricane – it’s global warming. If there are heavy snows or even blizzards – it’s somehow global warming. And amazingly, the latest round of rainy and windy weather in the Northeast, well that’s consistent with this phenomenon as well, so says former Vice President Al Gore.

Gore, the self-anointed climate change alarmist-in-chief, told supporters on a March 15 conference call that severe weather in certain regions of the country could be attributed to carbon in the atmosphere – including the recent rash of rainy weather.

“[T]he odds have shifted toward much larger downpours,” Gore said. “And we have seen that happen in the Northeast, we’ve seen it happen in the Northwest – in both of those regions are among those that scientists have predicted for a long time would begin to experience much larger downpours.”

But Gore had a specific example in mind. He explained this recent soaking in the Northeastern United States was “consistent” with what global warming alarmists were projecting.

“Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,” Gore said. “The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.”

COMMENT:  Some of the "scientists" tell us that, no matter what the weather aberration, it's caused by global warming.

Look, we had a bad storm in the northeast over the weekend.  But I've seen worse storms here. 

Maybe it's time to give the "global warming" thing a rest until some real scientists can examine the data, conduct convincing experiments, and end these farcical "sky is falling" campaigns.

March 16, 2010   Permalink

THE VOTE COUNT – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  No one knows exactly what the vote count is for health "reform."  We reported last night that some news sources were saying that the Dems were five votes or so short in the House.  Some Dems are putting a good face on it, or a frown if you prefer, and saying they already have the votes to pass the measure, but they aren't being taken seriously. 

Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, leader of the Democratic pro-life forces, believes the kamikazes aren't really close to victory.  From The Hill:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said Monday he thinks House Democratic leaders are not close to having the votes to pass health reform.

In an interview with Fox News' Greta Van Susteren, the anti-abortion rights lawmaker said, "I'd be surprised if they have 200 votes."

House Democratic leaders need 216 to pass the bill.

Stupak noted that he is not counting votes with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her lieutenants, calling his figure "a guesstimate."

Democratic leaders have a very different vote count, claiming they have, or are very close, to having the votes to pass a bill.

The Washington Examiner, in an editorial, notes that the deal making continues, even though Democratic leaders have said there'll be no more changes to their main bill.  There are those nasty little special provisions inserted to get the votes of senators and congressmen:

Last week, Obama said he wanted them removed. But over the weekend, White House senior aide David Axelrod waffled when asked about the deals, saying Obama now only objects to deals that only apply to one state: "The principle that we want to apply is that, are these [deals] applicable to all states? Even if they do not qualify now, would they qualify under certain sets of circumstances?" According to AP, "that is the argument made earlier by aides to Democratic Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Chris Dodd of Connecticut. The measure to give Medicare coverage to asbestos-sickened residents of Libby, Mont., for example, could apply to other places where public health emergencies are declared -- even though Libby is the only place where that has happened so far."

Change we can believe in.  What a disgrace.

March 16, 2010   Permalink

HUH? – AT 7:58 A.M. ET:  According to Democratic fantasies, we are no more than four days away from changing one sixth of the American economy, without a single Republican vote in support. 

The news is filled with reports of gimmicks that the Dems may pull to try to get health "reform" passed.  Get this one, from this morning's Washington Post:

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

What a racket.  This device would be used if Pelosi doesn't have the votes to pass the entire bill.  This is an insult to the whole notion of democracy.  Not only will the bill not have any GOP support, it won't have enough Democratic support actually to pass. 

On this your health care may depend.

Please note the use of the term, "sleight of hand."  This is the Washington Post, a liberal paper.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

Do you believe what you're reading?  The woman admits to the crime.

We're watching this unfold hour by hour.  As Americans, we should be ashamed.

March 16,  2010   Permalink

MONDAY,  MARCH 15,  2010

OBAMACARE BY THE NUMBERS – AT 8:01 P.M. ET:  Various news sources this evening say the Dems are still approximately five votes short in the House on Obamacare.  Situation very fluid. 

The Dems claim they will make no further changes in the bill that will, presumably, be voted on later this week.  So now it's pure arm twisting that will be the torture of choice. 

A Wall Street Journal column this morning examines the stunning results of a new poll on Americans' feelings about Obamacare:

Voters in key congressional districts are clear in their opposition to what they have seen, read and heard on health-care reform. That's one of the findings of a survey that will be released today by the Polling Company on behalf of Independent Women's Voice. The survey consisted of 1,200 registered voters in 35 districts represented by members who could determine the outcome of the health-care debate. Twenty of those members voted for the House bill in November but now may be reconsidering. Fifteen voted against the bill but are under tremendous pressure to change their vote.

The survey shows astonishing intensity and sharp opposition to reform, far more than national polls reflect. For 82% of those surveyed, the heath-care bill is eit her the top or one of the top three issues for deciding whom to support for Congress next November. (That number goes to 88% among independent women.) Sixty percent want Congress to start from scratch on a bipartisan health-care reform proposal or stop working on it this year. Majorities say the legislation will make them and their loved ones (53%), the economy (54%) and the U.S. health-care system (55%) worse off—quite the trifecta.

COMMENT:  Results like this have no impact on the left-wing shock troops of the Democratic Party.  They see this as their moment to change America.  Even the loss of Congress in November is not too great a price to pay. 

The Dems see this as an event very similar to the passage of civil-rights legislation in 1964.  They are wrong, of course, but there's no reasoning with them.  They feel they are heroic.  I doubt if many of the leading leftist Dems have actually examined what the bill says.  It's the ideology, my dears...and all those invitations to give commencement speeches.

March 15, 2010   Permalink

MR. OBAMA, LOOKS LIKE THE CHURCHILL GUYS ARE COMING BACK – AT 7:37 P.M. ET:  We haven't focused on it yet, but Britain will hold a general election this spring.  The exact date has yet to be set.  They do things a bit differently in the mother country. 

The president of the United States has made a specialty of snubbing Britain in his first year in office, the better to diss the old empire.  As you'll recall, he returned to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had rested in the Oval Office when Bush was in residence.  Churchill didn't apparently make Obama's cut of great men.  I mean, he's not up there with Reverend Wright or Mayor Daley.

Britain today is governed by the Labour Party, and you'd think Obama could make some common cause with those British leftists.  But wait.  For Barack, it gets worse.  The Churchillians are coming, the Churchillians are coming.  At least, it looks that way.  From Britain's Sky News:

An Opinium survey for the Daily Express gives the Tories an 11-point lead and ICM/Guardian figures put the party nine points ahead.

The latest results come after the gap narrowed for several weeks, fuelling speculation there will be a hung parliament after the next election.

Opinium's figures put the Conservatives on 39%, Labour down two to 28% and the Liberal Democrats on 16%. This result would translate into a 40-seat majority for the Tories, according to the paper.

The ICM poll gives the Tories 40% - up three on last month's survey. Labour had the support of 31%, and the Liberal Democrats received 20%.

COMMENT:  That's not a guarantee of victory, of course, and a minority coalition could still be formed.  But I want to see the day – oh, I want to see it – when a prime minister from Winston's old party strides into the Oval Office, maybe carrying that bust back with him.

Advice to Barack:  Take Churchill back.  Maybe read some of his speeches.  Y'know, you could learn.

March 15, 2010   Permalink

SAN FRAN NAN ADOPTS THE CHICAGO MACHINE – AT 7:22 P.M. ET:  John Fund, in today's Wall Street Journal, reports that Nancy Pelosi and her loyal court are adopting Chicago methods to deal with Dems who won't bow down to the royal decrees on health care:

...the Speaker and her allies are brandishing more sticks to corral the necessary votes. MoveOn.org has been raising money to finance liberal challengers to vulnerable House Democrats who vote against the bill. Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, leader of pro-life House Democrats who oppose the Senate's abortion funding language, tells Robert Costa of National Review that he has even been threatened with ethics complaints.

The left has always been good at purges.  Now, with modern gimmicks like Photoshop, it's even easy for them to get rid of difficult congressmen in photographs and replace them with good friends.

Likewise, the Service Employees International Union, which stands to gain many unionized members if health care passes, has also been active. New York Democrat Mike McMahon was visited by a top SEIU official and told that he won't get union funding if he votes "no." Indeed, union representatives hinted they might look for a primary challenger or third-party candidate to run in his Staten Island district.

But Fund says the thug tactics may actually backfire:

Such threats may not be as effective as liberal interest groups hope. Mr. McMahon's district voted for John McCain last year and Democrats know any last-minute primary challenger to Mr. McMahon would likely lose to a Republican in the fall, even if he or she succeeded in toppling the incumbent in the Democratic primary. Threats by MoveOn.org and SEIU against many incumbents are also less than believable simply because the filing deadline to mount primary challenges has already passed for more than 40% of House seats. Meanwhile, the debate over health care has dragged on so long that many Democratic members are now clearly more worried about the impact on general election voters than on the party faithful.

COMMENT:  The vote count continues.  Nan wants a vote no later than Saturday, but the counters still aren't sure they'll get what she needs to seize one sixth of the nation's economy.

March 15, 2010   Permalink

PENNSYLVANIA JOKER – AT 7:11 P.M. ET:  Arlen Specter, formerly a member in so-so standing in the Republican Party, flipped not long ago and became a Democrat, apparently fearful that the GOP would not renominate him.  But a recent, respected poll shows Specter slipping behind Republican Pat Toomey:

A new Susquehanna Polling and Research survey runs counter to some other recent polling, and shows Republican Pat Toomey with a lead over Sen. Arlen Specter (D).

General Election Matchup (700 LVs, 3/3-6, MoE +/- 3.7%)
Toomey 42 (+1 vs. last poll, 10/7-12)
Specter 36 (-6)
Und 18 (+6)

Toomey leads among Republicans (75-9) and independents (40-30). Specter, just over 10 months after switching parties, has the support of only 59 percent of Democrats.

Pennsylvania is traditionally blue.  The GOP would like nothing more than to regain the seat lost when Specter switched parties.  It may happen, but Pennsylvania is one state where Republicans will have to fight to the finish to stay ahead.

March 15, 2010   Permalink

A BILLION HERE, A BILLION THERE – AT 10:06 A.M. ET: 

March 15 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.

The governments of the two economies must balance bringing down their debt burdens without damaging growth by removing fiscal stimulus too quickly, Pierre Cailleteau, managing director of sovereign risk at Moody’s in London, said in a telephone interview.

Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report.

COMMENT:  And what are the Democrats about to do?  Why, they're about to pass, if they can scratch up the votes, a health-care plan that will make our economic situation even worse.

What planning.  What vision.  That Obama, I knew he could do it.

March 15, 2010   Permalink

ANOTHER RISING REPUBLICAN – AT 9:19 A.M. ET:  One of the major political stories going today is the rise of conservative Marco Rubio in Florida.  He is challenging incumbent Republican Governor Charlie Crist for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate, and will probably win.  The Wall Street Journal runs an excellent profile on Rubio and the views that propelled him to the top of the heap:

Mr. Rubio nods when I mention his former longshot status. "When I got into this race, I understood that all the traditional metrics of politics were against us. Name recognition, money, trappings of office, connections, endorsements, you name it.

"Obviously, things have happened outside of our control since then," he smiles.

With a now-infamous photo of Mr. Crist embracing President Obama during a visit in February 2009, Mr. Crist put himself on the wrong side of the tea party wave that was building. Mr. Obama had come to Florida to sell his stimulus plan, and Mr. Crist's hug was easily portrayed as embracing a new, unwanted era of super big government.

And...

Mr. Rubio says he won't shy away from social issues if asked. He is pro-life and says he would support a Senate filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee under some circumstances. But his campaign is staking out an updated version of the Reagan agenda. "We're focused on jobs and national security," he says, "because those are the great and profound national issues of our moment and that's what 95% of our campaign is based on."

Front and center is the idea that, fiscally, the federal government is running off the rails. That Washington should be "taking borrowed money to fund the general operation of government," he says, "and that somehow the government will build so many roads and bridges that everyone will have a job for the next 30 years is absurd."

His priorities:

Which leads to Job One: To get spending under control in Washington, Mr. Rubio would support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, something Florida already has in place...

...Entitlement reform is next. "I know . . . people don't like to talk about it," but Mr. Rubio says the country has to look at changing the Social Security system for people who are 10 or more years away from retirement age...

...Part and parcel is authoring a new tax code "that creates a competitive environment in America."

Rubio is getting powerful support:

A few weeks ago, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush finally broke his silence in the Crist-Rubio battle. He called Mr. Crist's support for the Obama stimulus spending bill "unforgivable" and a "mistake," saying the bill was more about advancing a permanent left-wing agenda than meeting an economic emergency.

Finally...

"Most Americans support the notion of limited government. When the Republican Party has been about those things, it's been successful," he says. "When it's been about anything else it's been unsuccessful."

COMMENT:  Rubio is spirited and impressive.  The challenge will come in the general election.  Florida is, on social issues, moderate.  Rubio is a movement conservative.  That may not wear well in certain parts of the state.

Also, Rubio must pace himself.  Fast rises often lead to overexposure and turned-off voters. 

Rubio has enormous potential.  He should, however, take a lesson from Ronald Reagan, who understood that America is idealistic, but not ideological.  Reagan was a conservative with a smile, an optimist, the kind of man Americans like to elect.  All ideologists have within them the tendency to become scolds.  Rubio must resist that.  Reagan was elected governor in a moderate state.  Rubio can win in Florida by following the Reagan example.

March 15, 2010   Permalink

THE TOYOTA MYSTERY SOLVED? – AT 8:31 A.M. ET:  Regular readers know that we've been following the Toyota story closely, in part because it's analogous to the global-warming saga, a great deal of political science, very little real science.

If Toyota has "sudden-acceleration" problems, why did we not know it a lot earlier?  Toyota is the world's largest auto company.  There are millions of Toyotas on the road.  Did any of you readers ever have a sudden-acceleration problem in a Toyota, or know of a friend or relative who did?

It's now clear that there are going to be many false claims.  But is there a problem at all?  The Atlantic has a superb piece on the subject:

The Los Angeles Times recently did a story detailing all of the NHTSA reports of Toyota "sudden acceleration" fatalities, and, though the Times did not mention it, the ages of the drivers involved were striking.

In the 24 cases where driver age was reported or readily inferred, the drivers included those of the ages 60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 72, 77, 79, 83, 85, 89--and I'm leaving out the son whose age wasn't identified, but whose 94-year-old father died as a passenger.

These "electronic defects" apparently discriminate against the elderly, just as the sudden acceleration of Audis and GM autos did before them.

Hmm.  Maybe we're getting somewhere. 

In the original Sudden Acceleration Incident craze that afflicted America in the late eighties, the National Highway Safety Transportation Administration eventually ruled that the problem was "pedal misapplication," aka stepping on the gas when you meant to step on the brake. These incidents were highly correlated with three things: being elderly, being short, and parking (or leaving a parking space). The elderly are more prone to the sort of neuronal misfiring described in yesterday's New York Times. Shorter people have to hunt more for the pedals. And starting up from a complete stop is the most likely time to press the wrong pedal.

The problem with that conclusion is that there's no big story in it, there's no lawsuit money in it, and there's no "consumer advocate" publicity in it. 

The story examines, with charts, a history of "incidents" of "sudden acceleration."

At any rate, when you look at these incidents all together, it's pretty clear why Toyota didn't investigate this "overwhelming evidence" of a problem: they look a lot like typical cases of driver error. I don't know that all of them are. But I do know that however advanced Toyota's electronics are, they're not yet clever enough to be able to pick on senior citizens.

Unfortunately, that won't help Toyota much. It will still face a wave of lawsuits, and all the negative publicity means that it may be hard for the company to get a fair trial. Even if it does, the verdict in the court of public opinion will still hurt their sales for some time to come.

COMMENT:  Auto safety is a serious subject, and automobile companies, especially American ones, have very dark histories in this regard.  "Safety doesn't sell," Lee Iacocca, a wildly overrated executive, once famously said.  American companies had to be forced, literally, to install safety equipment.  Today they're different, and emphasize safety, and they've found that it sells.

But past irresponsibility doesn't mean every charge against an auto company is accurate.  Beware of "sudden acceleration."  It has that "global warming" ring.

March 15, 2010   Permalink

AND NOW FOR THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE – AT 8:18 A.M. ET:  The leftist Democrats do indeed love the socialized health plans of Britain, Europe and Canada, as long as they personally have an alternative.  Those plans are so cozy, so warm, so inclusive and multicultural.  They are also failures.  London's Daily Mail reports on what may well be the American future:

Up to 20,000 people have died needlessly early after being denied cancer drugs on the National Health Service (NHS), it was revealed yesterday.

The rationing body NICE has failed to keep a promise to make more life-extending drugs available.

Treatments used widely in the U.S. and Europe have been rejected on grounds of cost-effectiveness, yet patients and their loved ones have seen the NHS waste astronomical sums.

Last week it emerged that £21billion - a fifth of the entire annual budget - was spent on failed schemes to tackle inequality.

NICE, the National Institute of health and Clinical Excellence, promised a year ago to make it easier for drugs for rarer cancers to be approved.

But since then four drugs which could have benefited 16,000 people have been turned down outright and a further six which could have helped 4,000 more have been provisionally rejected.
Just five drugs have been accepted - benefiting 8,500 people - says a damning report by the Rarer Cancers Forum. Drugs for rarer forms of cancer are often much more expensive than those for common tumours because pharmaceutical companies cannot make economies of scale.

COMMENT:  Ask the relatives of Britain's deceased victims what they think of the National Health Service. 

Can this happen here?  Of course it can.  If a private insurance company can deny a claim, imagine what a powerful government entity can do, especially one kept in business by a political party. 

And wait 'til the elderly are told that they must die because increased attention must be given to "the children," the usual line, especially children in groups that will vote reliably Democratic. 

March 15, 2010   Permalink

COUGH NOW – HEALTH CARE UPDATE – AT 7:54 A.M. ET:  The momentous week begins.  Democrats dream that, by next week at this time, as the president is winging toward one of his many youthful residences – this one Indonesia – he will be in effective control of one sixth of the American economy.  They call it health-care reform.  We call it government malpractice.

Republican star Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman who takes his work seriously, puts it very bluntly in the Washington Post:

Today, the House Budget Committee is to mark up a "reconciliation" vehicle, initiating the greatest expansion in government and entitlement spending in a generation through a partisan process to push "health-care reform" across the finish line.

Despite claims of transparency and calls for a "simple up-or-down vote," there is nothing simple about this process. This convoluted legislative charade demonstrates how far the Democratic majority has wandered from real health-care reform and cost control, employing any means to achieve political victory.

When you're trained in Chicago politics, this is the way it's done.

Through any analytical lens, the legislation will not address the central problem of skyrocketing health-care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that families' premiums could rise 10 to 13 percent; private-sector actuarial estimates top these already high numbers. The higher costs are driven by federalizing the regulation of insurance, narrowing consumers' options and reducing competition among providers. The health-care market would be dominated by government programs and the largest insurance companies, operating as de facto government utilities.

And...

If this debate had actually been about health care, we could have worked together to get a grip on costs, make quality care more accessible, address exclusions for preexisting conditions and realign the incentives of insurance companies with those of patients and doctors. Yet this process -- including its embarrassing conclusion -- demonstrates that the debate has never been about health-care policy but, instead, paternalistic ideology.

I'm glad someone finally said it, and said it well.

Should the Democrats' health-care train wreck make it to the president's desk, it will be a pyrrhic victory, and its devastating consequences will take their toll on our health-care system, our budget and our economy.

COMMENT:  Paul Ryan is, figuratively, just what the doctor ordered – a conservative who studies hard and prepares his comments carefully.  Watch him in the future.  He is dead on.

March 15,  2010   Permalink