Internet Scofflaw

The bad business environment in Washington State has pushed Boeing to put its second 787 assembly line in Charleston, South Carolina, rather than Everett, Washington.

Hoffman may be running away with the race.

Mark Steyn on Valerie Jarrett’s risible sloganeering:

You would think the most powerful man in the most powerful nation would find a hard job finding anyone on the planet to “speak truth to power” to. But I suppose if you’re as eager to do so as his Senior Advisor, there’s always somebody out there: The Supreme Leader of Iran. The Prime Minister of Belgium. The Deputy Tourism Minister of the Solomon Islands. But no. The Senior Advisor has selected targets closer to home: “I think that what the administration has said very clearly is that we’re going to speak truth to power. When we saw all of the distortions in the course of the summer, when people were coming down to town-hall meetings and putting up signs that were scaring seniors to death. . . . ”

Ah, right. People “putting up signs.” Can’t have that, can we?

(Previous post.)

In light of the Obama administration’s sponsorship of a UN “human rights” resolution that exempts criticism of religion from free speech protection, Eugene Volokh wonders what the Obama administration will say when foreign officials start citing the resolution to press for action against Americans who criticize Islam. I don’t know what the answer will be, but I’m sure it will be revealing.

(Previous post.)

The House Democratic health care plan would essentially make it illegal for health insurers to charge more for higher risk customers. So if you are young, healthy, and/or avoid risk behaviors, you get to subsidize those who do not. Plus, moral hazard will encourage risk behaviors, making coverage more expensive for everyone.

Frank Luntz, the famous Republican pollster/strategist, recommended last May that Republicans confine their attacks to Congressional Democrats. Attacking President Obama was politically dangerous. Five months later, matters have changed. Although Luntz says Congress is still a riper target than Obama, attacking Obama no longer carries any risk.

(Via Instapundit.)

The House Democrats’ health plan would withhold some federal funds from states that have enacted tort reform.

The latest administration to promise to be the most transparent ever:

The White House on Friday released a small list of visitors to the White House since President Barack Obama took office in January, including lobbyists, business executives, activists and celebrities.

No previous administration has released such a list, though the information out so far is incomplete. Only about 110 names —and 481 visits —out of the tens of thousands who have visited the Obama White House were made public. Like the Bush administration before it, Obama is arguing that any release is voluntary, not required by law, despite two federal court rulings to the contrary.

Under the Obama White House’s policy, most names of visitors from Inauguration Day in January through the end of September will never be released. The White House says it plans to release most of the names of visitors from October on, and that release is due near the end of the year.

(Emphasis mine.)

Transparency to begin soon! I believe we’ve heard that one before.

(Via Instapundit.)

Newly revealed emails prove that the White House was directly involved in the NEA conference call in which artists were asked to create propaganda for the Obama administration.

(Via Instapundit.)

Again, the CBO points out that its analysis of the House Democrats’ health care plan is required to assume that the law remains exactly as written in the bill. As everyone ought to know, this is not even intended to be true. In order to get the desired mark from the CBO, various parts of health care reform (notably the Medicare fix) have been broken off into other bills that will be concerned separately.

(Via Instapundit.)

(Via Instapundit.)

If you’ve lost Katie Couric . . . well, maybe it doesn’t really matter.

(Via Instapundit.)

That’s the cost of the House Democrats’ health care bill according to the CBO’s numbers. And that doesn’t even include a Medicare reimbursement fix, which would have to be added later.

(Via the Corner.)

The White House attacks Edmunds.com, a car web site. I guess these these guys just can’t stop themselves.

(Via Instapundit.)

The AP reports:

The Medicare end-of-life planning provision that 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin said was tantamount to “death panels” for seniors is staying in the latest Democratic health care bill unveiled Thursday.

The end-of-life planning provision is a bit sinister, and it’s appallingly tone-deaf for House Democrats to include it, but it is not the provision that gives rise to concerns about “death panels”.

The provision that relates to “death panels” is the Independent Medicare Advisory Council (IMAC), which would have the power to enact cuts to Medicare. People are rightly concerned that the IMAC would either create or itself become a care-rationing board similar to the UK’s NICE. One reason people are concerned is that President Obama has said that an “independent group” will be giving “guidance” about cutting care for the elderly.

I wrote here about the reasons that concerns over “death panels” are not overblown.

USA Today reports:

More than 40% of President Obama’s top-level fundraisers have secured posts in his administration, from key executive branch jobs to diplomatic postings in countries such as France, Spain and the Bahamas, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Twenty of the 47 fundraisers that Obama’s campaign identified as collecting more than $500,000 have been named to government positions, the analysis found. . .

Nearly a year after he was elected on a pledge to change business-as-usual in Washington, Obama also has taken a cue from his predecessors and appointed fundraisers to coveted ambassadorships, drawing protests from groups representing career diplomats.

A separate analysis by the American Foreign Service Association, the diplomats’ union, found that more than half of the ambassadors named by Obama so far are political appointees. . . That’s a rate higher than any president in more than four decades, the group’s data show, although that could change as the White House fills more openings. Traditionally about 30% of top diplomatic jobs go to political appointees, and roughly 70% to veteran State Department employees.

More political payoffs than any president in 40 years. That goes back to Lyndon Johnson.

(Via Instapundit.)

Attorney General Holder tried to kill an ad critical of the president:

President Obama isn’t taking kindly to a television ad that criticizes his opposition to a popular scholarship program for poor children, and his administration wants the ad pulled.

Former D.C. Councilmember Kevin Chavous of D.C. Children First said October 16 that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder had recently approached him and told him to kill the ad.

(Via Instapundit.)

Does anyone still think that these guys are defenders of civil rights? To them, civil rights are for liberals, and possibly terrorists, but not conservatives and libertarians. We’re supposed to keep our mouths shut.

New Jersey Democrats are asking that absentee ballots be sent out to the 2,300 applicants who were rejected because their signature didn’t match the voter registration.

News flash! Becoming president disrupts your personal life:

President Barack Obama says only once since Jan. 20 has White House life annoyed him.

It was the Saturday in May when, trying to be a good husband, he kept a campaign promise to take his wife, Michelle, to New York after the election for one of their “date nights” – dinner and a Broadway play. . .

“If I weren’t president, I would be happy to catch the shuttle with my wife to take her to a Broadway show, as I had promised her during the campaign, and there would be no fuss and no muss and no photographers,” [Obama] said. “That would please me greatly.”

Presidents, however, don’t travel by any means other than secure government aircraft or vehicles.

Obama added: “The notion that I just couldn’t take my wife out on a date without it being a political issue was not something I was happy with.”

(Via Instapundit.)

Rasmussen comments on that wierdo Washington Post poll that has the public option gaining while everyone else has it falling:

Polling on the health care topic by many firms has created some confusion. In particular, polls on the “public option” show a wide variety of results. A recent poll in The Washington Post found that 57% support a government-run health insurance company to compete with private insurers, but our polling shows that support is very soft. In fact, people are strongly opposed to a public option if they think it could lead employers to drop the existing coverage they provide employees. The fact that results are so subject to change based upon minor differences in question wording suggests that voters do not have firm opinions on the public option.

In fact, 63% say that we should not have a public option if people are forced to change their insurance, and 53% say it’s likely that would happen. (They’re right.)

The public option is a loser in public opinion, so it’s being renamed. It’s now the “consumer option“.

The Washington Times reports:

During his first nine months in office, President Obama has quietly rewarded scores of top Democratic donors with VIP access to the White House, private briefings with administration advisers and invitations to important speeches and town-hall meetings.

High-dollar fundraisers have been promised access to senior White House officials in exchange for pledges to donate $30,400 personally or to bundle $300,000 in contributions ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to internal Democratic National Committee documents obtained by The Washington Times.

One top donor described in an interview with The Times being given a birthday visit to the Oval Office. Another was allowed use of a White House-complex bowling alley for his family. Bundlers closest to the president were invited to watch a movie in the red-walled theater in the basement of the presidential mansion.

Fox News has the White House’s rebuttal. (As far as I can tell, no one else has picked up the story.)

James Taranto is harsh but fair:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN last week:

[The mess in Afghanistan is all Bush's fault. Blah blah blah.]

Hang on a second. It has now been 51 weeks since Obama was elected president, and more than nine months since he took office, and he’s just now getting around to asking the “questions . . . that have never been asked”?

But that’s not really fair to Obama. After all, he has a busy schedule, what with golf games and pitching the International Olympic Committee and date nights and Democratic fund-raisers and health care and the U.N. Security Council and Sunday morning talk shows and saving the planet from global warming and celebrating the dog’s birthday and defending himself against Fox News and all.

“I will never rush the solemn decision of sending you into harm’s way,” FoxNews.com quotes the president as telling servicemen. As for the servicemen who are already in harm’s way: Jeez, guys, be patient! He’ll figure out what to do about Afghanistan as soon as he gets around to it.

President Obama has priorities. Fighting the Taliban has to take a back seat to fighting Fox News. And golf:

President Obama has already caught up with predecessor George W. Bush in one area: Rounds of golf.

The Oval’s good friend Mark Knoller of CBS News reports that Obama on Sunday played his 24th round of golf since his inauguration Jan. 20 — matching Bush’s presidential total, which he racked up in two years and 10 months. Obama’s latest round also got attention because it included a woman, domestic policy adviser Melody Barnes.

President Bush played his last round in 2003, telling reporters he didn’t think it was appropriate to play the game with the U.S. at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Via Instapundit.)

Valerie Jarrett, senior adviser to the President of the United States of America, says that the White House — the most powerful office on face of the earth — is going “to speak truth to power” in its war with Fox News. I believe that the phrase is now officially meaningless.

POSTSCRIPT: As long as I’m picking apart Jarrett’s senseless sloganeering, here’s another: She says the American people are too smart for nonsense and distortions. What? That makes no sense. Smart people, after all, can identify nonsense and distortions. What she clearly means to say is the American people aren’t smart enough to distrust Fox News like they are supposed to.

UPDATE: John Hinderaker writes:

I agree that Jarrett’s claim is ridiculous, but I think it has a history. Isn’t it a time-honored tradition for socialist governments, both national and Marxist, to continue to campaign against the “powerful” on behalf of the dispossessed, long after they have assumed control and have shot, imprisoned or cowed the supposedly “powerful?” It seems to me that Jarrett, knowingly or not, was placing the administration in a Peronist or Castroite tradition.

Politico reports:

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will. . .

His comments confirmed that Reid is short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill out of the Senate, even after Reid included the opt-out provision.

(Via the Corner.)

All this talk of an “opt-out” is a fraud. In any particular state, either legislative chamber or the governor could impose the public option by blocking the resolution to opt-out. Only in nine states are Republicans fully in control (Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Utah), and some of those are decidedly iffy. So at least 41 states, and probably more, would get stuck with the public option. Moreover, states couldn’t decide later to opt-out; the opportunity expires in 2014.

An opt-in would be much more serious, but still unacceptable. The federal government has powerful tools of coercion at its disposal. (There never was a national speed limit; the federal government coerced individual states into imposing it.) Beyond that, states that opt-out would still be paying the taxes, and would get the whole rest of the deal (mandates, Medicare cuts, etc.).

The whole point to the “opt-out” is as a political fig leaf. Joe Lieberman just blew the whistle on it.

POSTSCRIPT: The Intrade contract on a public option passing this year is trading at 8 (that is, an 8% likelihood), down from 20 yesterday. By the middle of 2010, the likelihood is between 12 and 15, down from 25 or so yesterday.

In today’s UK, if you express an unpopular opinion, you can expect a visit from the police:

After witnessing a gay pride march, committed Christian Pauline Howe wrote to the council to complain that the event had been allowed to go ahead.

But instead of a simple acknowledgement, she received a letter warning her she might be guilty of a hate crime and that the matter had been passed to police.

Two officers later turned up at the frightened grandmother’s home and lectured her about her choice of words before telling her she would not be prosecuted.

There’s no need to prosecute. I’m sure she learned her lesson.

(Via the Corner.)

The UN Human Rights Council is investigating whether the high cost of housing in New York City violates human rights. Good grief.

The “unapproved by Barack Obama” label is paying off big time for Fox News, with ratings up 9% (and 15% among the 25-54 demographic). That’s just from September 28 to October 11.

Also, CNN’s has tumbled over the last year, with ratings down a disastrous 52% (and 62% among 25-54 year olds). (Via Instapundit.) Anderson Cooper, the journalist who invented the “teabagger” insult for tea-party participants, is down an astounding 72% (79%).

The Washington Times reports:

The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama’s policy czars to testify before Congress – a decision senators said goes against the president’s promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress’ constitutional mandate to investigate the administration’s actions.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don’t have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was “murky” on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress. . .

In a letter last week to Miss Collins, though, Mr. Craig explained that the White House is not trying to circumvent Congress.

“We recognize that it is theoretically possible that a president could create new positions that inhibit transparency or undermine congressional oversight. That is simply not the case, however, in the current administration,” Mr. Craig wrote.

Mr. Craig said the new positions Mr. Obama has created within the White House “are solely advisory in nature” and have no independent authority.

That is a complete lie, at least in regards to some of the czars. Ken Feinberg, the pay czar, was recently all over the news for ordering cuts in executive pay, which he did without any higher approval. Senators also pointed to Carol Browner, the climate czar, and Nancy-Ann DeParle, the health czar, who they said seemed to be operating independently.

(Via Hot Air.)

A new Gallup poll confirms an earlier result (that I didn’t notice at the time) that conservatives are now the most numerous group in American politics. Conservatives outnumber moderates 40% to 36%. Liberals lag far behind at 20%. The poll also shows the public moving right on a variety of issues. Moreover, a week ago a Rasmussen poll showed that Americans trust Republicans more than Democrats on every issue on which Rasmussen polls.

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to trail Democrats on party identification (33.4% to 39%). So despite that fact that most Americans “should” be Republicans, most are not.

Why is this? My guess is that it’s a combination of two factors. The first factor is a severe problem with the GOP brand. I think many voters have noticed that over the last decade the GOP did not govern according to a set of principles. Accordingly, they associate the Republican party with a group of people, rather than a set of principles. Since those people are a bunch of politicians, this reflects poorly on the brand.

The second factor is the strong individualist streak among conservatives, reinforced by the fact that Gallup’s poll doesn’t distinguish between conservatives and libertarians. Individualists often tend not to be joiners, so they might not identify as Republicans even while they tend to vote that way.

It’s voting patterns, rather than party identification, that determines the direction our government takes, so it’s the first factor that is important. The GOP needs to repair its brand, and that means they need to start governing by principle. The NY-23 debacle suggests that they aren’t serious yet.

(Via Hot Air.)

The White House is continuing to push back against the allegation, leveled by Fox News and CBS, that the Obama administration tried to exclude Fox News from interviews with pay czar Ken Feinberg. The White House is pushing two stories, and I’m not sure which one (or both) is their current explanation.

One story says that the decision was made by a low-level Treasury staffer. Robert Gibbs reportedly admitted that doing so was a mistake. The White House now insists that Gibbs did not apologize, but that seems to be mere hair-splitting, since Gibbs does not deny the exchange but merely says that they have no reason to apologize.

The other story says that Fox wasn’t granted the interview because they never requested one. That’s not very plausible (why on earth wouldn’t they) and it’s flatly contradicted by Fox.

The second story sounds like a lie, but the first could be true. It’s also consistent with the Treasury Department’s statement that “there was no plot to exclude Fox News,” in which the word “plot” leaves open that this was one person acting on his own. The White House seems to feel that this excuses them, but the fact is, that staffer was doubtless doing what he thought he was supposed to do, given the White House’s official position on Fox News.

The other thing that is interesting is that I’ve seen in a few places (here and here, for example) that some of the other pool networks are privately saying that they stood up for Fox for their own reasons, and not out of journalistic integrity. Ooo-kay. Duly noted.

Here’s Major Garrett’s report on the controversy:

(Previous post.)

UPDATE (8/2/2011): Emails show that the White House did make a specific effort to exclude Fox News, and their denials were lies.

Free golf carts, courtesy of the Democratic stimulus package:

Thanks to the federal tax credit to buy high-mileage cars that was part of President Obama’s stimulus plan, Uncle Sam is now paying Americans to buy that great necessity of modern life, the golf cart.

The federal credit provides from $4,200 to $5,500 for the purchase of an electric vehicle, and when it is combined with similar incentive plans in many states the tax credits can pay for nearly the entire cost of a golf cart. Even in states that don’t have their own tax rebate plans, the federal credit is generous enough to pay for half or even two-thirds of the average sticker price of a cart, which is typically in the range of $8,000 to $10,000. “The purchase of some models could be absolutely free,” Roger Gaddis of Ada Electric Cars in Oklahoma said earlier this year. “Is that about the coolest thing you’ve ever heard?” . . .

The IRS has also ruled that there’s no limit to how many electric cars an individual can buy, so some enterprising profiteers are stocking up on multiple carts while the federal credit lasts, in order to resell them at a profit later.

They say there’s no such thing as a free lunch, but with the Democrats in power, sometimes there is.

Top employees bail out of financial firms ahead of pay cuts. Who could have predicted such a thing?

Now that the government owns these companies, one might have thought it would want them to succeed. Good thing our leaders are more sophisticated than that.

The Democratic National Committee and others on the left say that those who are critical of President Obama’s Nobel prize hate America, and in fact support terrorism. A new Gallup poll shows that our country is chock full of these America-hating wingnuts.

By a two-to-one margin (61-34), Americans say that the Obama did not deserve the prize. That’s not just Republicans and independents, but 36% of Democrats as well. Further, a slight plurality (47-46) are not happy that he won the award.  That includes strong majorities of Republicans and independents, and even one-out-of-five Democrats.

If the DNC is to be believed, America hatred is surprisingly mainstream.

(Via Hot Air.)

The Washington Post reports:

Google chief executive Eric Schmidt favors net neutrality, but only to a point: While the tech player wants to make sure that telecommunications giants don’t steer Internet traffic in a way that would favor some devices or services over others, he also believes that it would be a terrible idea for the government to involve itself as a regulator of the broader Internet.

“It is possible for the government to screw the Internet up, big-time,” he said. Google is strong enough as a company to weather any possible outcome on the issue, he said. But what he worries about “is the next start-up.”

In other words, Google is concerned about regulation (and rightly so, of course), but they do support regulation when it favors them.

(Via Hot Air.) (Previous post.)