By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 10/29 at 12:13 PM
(0)
Comments
I received a statement a few minutes ago from Brett Hall, communications director for Republican gubernatorial candidate Tim James. Hall is responding on James’ behalf to rumors I noted in this week’s column—that GOP candidate Bill Johnson, who has been an increasingly vocal and frequent critic of Gov. Bob Riley, may be attacking Riley’s record on James’ behalf in exchange for a position in a James administration.
Here’s the statement:
This concerns recent rumors that Tim James and those connected with his gubernatorial campaign are somehow connected with statements from Bill Johnson. These rumors are false and without any basis in fact. Bill Johnson has in recent weeks has publicly criticized Governor Bob Riley. Tim James doesn’t share in those sentiments expressed by Mr. Johnson, nor has he in any way, shape or form encouraged those comments.
Governor Riley has admirably served the people of Alabama. Like the two terms of former Governor Fob James, the Riley administration remains untainted by scandal.
Republican gubernatorial candidates would do well to support Governor Riley in the final year of his administration, as his popularity serves as an example to the people of Alabama that electing a Republican governor in 2010 would continue ethical and honest government. In light of yesterday’s conviction of Democrat Mayor Larry Langford of Birmingham, along with convictions of several other Alabama Democrat officials in 2009, people are especially sensitive to the importance of ethics in government.
For what it’s worth, I noted in the column that the best way to refute these rumors would be for James to state clearly that he would not offer Johnson a role in his administration, and for Johnson to say that he wouldn’t accept one if it was offered.
You see the James statement in its entirety above. To date, I haven’t heard anything from the Johnson camp on the rumor.
In other news, James has decided to sign the Madison County gas tax pledge we have discussed here over the past few weeks. More on that later.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 10/29 at 07:13 AM
(0)
Comments
Harry Reid’s SURPRISE!! GOTCHA, SEN. SNOWE!!/maybe-you-can-opt-out public option plan is getting all the attention, but trouble of a different kind is brewing on the health care front.
I have been talking here on a regular basis about the concerns millions of Americans have about the role abortion will play in any government-funded health care option. Liberals, spokespeople for abortion rights groups and even President Obama’s own staff insist that their concerns—that taxpayer money could end up paying for abortions for women covered under the government option—are unfounded.
As I have said on many occasions, their concerns are easy enough to assuage. Just put language into the bill that specifically forbids such funding.
It hasn’t happened.
While Reid runs around the Senate trying to hold his fingers in the dam of the propects of a near-certain filibuster against his opt-out plan, on the House side, Nancy Pelosi has a lot of work to do to line up passage for the plan. Speculation abounded over the weekend that Pelosi was just a few votes shy of having enough.
When it comes down to it, Pelosi will likely have a harder time keeping her caucus together than Reid will. Conventional wisdom is that this is because of the concerns conservative Democrats have with the public option and the program’s cost.
That’s true. But there is more.
From The Hill:
Approximately 40 House Democrats are prepared to block healthcare reform legislation from coming to the floor should the bill include federal subsidies for abortions, said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Friday ...
The group of 40 would join House Republicans in voting against procedural measure that would draft rules for debating the bill on the House floor. Passage of the measure is necessary for the House to hold a floor vote.
“There’s about 40 like-minded Democrats like myself—we’ll try to take down the rule,“ Stupak said. “If all 40 of us vote in a bloc against the rule—because we think the Republicans will join us—we can defeat the rule. The magic number is 218. If we can have 218 votes against the rule, we win.”
With 177 Republicans in the House, Stupak would need at least 41 Democrats to cross the aisle and vote against the rule. Stupak’s amendment was originally defeated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee during mark-up.
Notice that Stupak says “about 40 like-minded Democrats” (emphasis mine). If this comes to a vote, it’s going to come down to who’s on the floor while the board is open. Everyone knows this, so Stupak is holding his cards close to the vest.
(Incidentally, I wonder if Alabama’s own Bobby Bright and Parker Griffith are among that 40. Staffers for them, let’s hear from you on this.)
So what has these Democrats upset enough to devise a plan to scuttle the entire bill?
Under language in the Energy and Commerce proposal, one health plan in each health care “exchange” that sells public health insurance must provide coverage for abortion. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is currently in the process of merging the House’s three health bills ...
SIDEBAR: Did you get that? “MUST PROVIDE COVERAGE for abortion.“ Someone please point this out to Melody Barnes so she can be as informed as the rest of us. END SIDEBAR
Stupak, who is conservative on social issues, told CNS News that he has organized the voting bloc to support his amendment that would strip the abortion provisions from the legislation. House Rules Committee chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), according to Stupak, said that there is “no way” her panel would provide a vote for his amendment.
Hmm. Louise Slaughter, what is more important to you: Health care reform, or protecting one of the two most divisive components at the expense of that reform?
Congressmen and women, if you are out there, strip the language. Don’t sacrifice—or risk sacrificing—whatever progress can be made on reform on the altar of divisive ideology.
President Obama wants us to find consensus on this issue. Forcing mandated abortion coverage down the throats of pro-life Americans this way is not, presumably, what he had in mind.
And for that matter, President Obama, where are you on this? Are you for really for consensus? This would be a good time to put those words into action.
Late word yesterday was that House Democrats had reached agreement on a $894 billion plan that includes the public option. But in reporting the deal (and a press conference in the offing this morning), the Associated Press noted:
Democratic leaders still faced disputes over prohibiting taxpayer money for abortions and health care for illegal immigrants, issues they hoped to resolve after the bill’s unveiling.
It’s unclear to me how House Democrats could reach a deal if the issue that has 40-some of them ready to block the bill remains unresolved.
On another note, this effort by pro-life Democrats highlights their growing influence in Washington. I have told you before about Democrats for Life. Yes, they are out there. The national Democratic Party doesn’t like to acknowledge them, but they are there.
And they know the process.
We have talked before about how the Democrats’ expanded majority in Congress is built on moderate and conservative Democrats who beat incumbent Republicans or won open seats being vacated by GOP members (see Bright and Griffith, above). That construction has consequences: The ballooning deficit is one of them; this fissure over abortion is another.
That’s some of why the midterms are going to be more interesting and fun to watch than most people think.
See also:
“Abortion issue still clouding health care bill,“ blog post from Sept. 29
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 10/28 at 11:37 AM
(1)
Comments
If you aren’t familiar with PolitiFact, the Pulitzer Prize-winning truth project of the St. Petersburg Times, you should be.
Yes, when it was originally founded, its purpose was to serve as a truth patrol of sorts for political charges, not unlike Snopes.com has become for e-mail rumors of all kinds.
The idea was to put journalists—trained professionals who know how to investigate, research and read between the lines—in charge of separating the fact from fiction during the 2008 presidential election, then use the platform of the Times, one of the country’s best newspapers, to set the record straight.
It was an idea that was as terrific as it was straightforward. It really shouldn’t have been a surprise when it took off ... and then, when it won journalism’s biggest and most prestigious prize.
But PolitiFact has become more. Building off of its success, it is now a clearinghouse for all sorts of useful information, including a running record of President Obama’s achievements as measured against his campaign promises, among other features.
The Truth-O-Meter is still there—with a nice trademark, of course—and readers can track flip-floppers and pundits alongside the performance of the president himself.
Speaking of pundits, PolitiFact investigators studied recent statements of three of America’s most prominent talkers.
Guess what? They all failed the Truth-O-Meter.
Check it out at PolitiFact.com.
Make your visit a habit. You’ll learn a lot—and that is the truth.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 10/28 at 07:28 AM
(0)
Comments
Make about 10 minutes today to read Rich Galen’s latest column, “Tenth Amendment.“
It deals with the “scam” (and yes, I agree with that characterization) of Harry Reid’s surprise opt-out public option.
As usual, you can learn things from Rich. Today, he’ll explain why, if the government passes Reid’s version, you need to hope you live until 2016.
Then again, when you see the numbers involved on the budget end of Reid’s plan, maybe you won’t want to be around in 2016.
Also, there’s this absolute gem of a sentence, describing the government’s way of using federal dollars to “encourage” certain behaviors from the states:
In civilian life this is known as “coercion” and will buy you some time in the slammer. In government this is known as sophisticated legislating and will buy you a sub-committee chairmanship.
Bam.
Check out Rich’s latest piece here.
By Jennifer J. Foster
Posted 10/27 at 08:22 AM
(0)
Comments
Folks, we’ve discussed here on a (sadly) regular basis the sort of guy Levi Johnston is.
In case you missed it, I’ll catch you up: He’s an egomaniac. He’s a world-class jerk. And he has no respect for the mother of his little son.
We heard a couple of weeks ago that he was planning to appear in Playgirl.
... Which reminds me: I forgot to mention that he’s a shameless publicity hound.
Well, the Huffington Post breathlessly reported yesterday that Johnston is preparing for “full frontal nudity” for the shoot.
Oh, thank you, HuffPo, for that groundbreaking news. And to think that you have trouble convincing people you are a serious media outlet. I just don’t get it!!!
SIDEBAR: Note to self: Add “disgusting” to the list of Levi Johnston descriptors. END SIDEBAR
Oh, there’s more.
A representative for the magazine told the New York Post that the shoot will happen in mid-November “in order to get the pictures out for the holidays.“
Are you serious?
There is no competition this year for the world’s worst holiday gift. It’s Levi Johnston and his full frontal nudity, pants—er, hands down.
Talk about your horrible gift ideas.
“We’re working out the actual details day-by-day, and have come to a very happy conclusion, which we feel readers will be enthralled by,“ the rep added.
Really? Because you know what would enthrall me? If someone would remind this kid that his 15 minutes of fame were up—oh, about A WHOLE YEAR AGO. He’s very, very late getting out of the public eye for good, and we would appreciate it if he would skedaddle on out into the sunset and, you know, stop being a moron.
