OAN Political Blog

Listen to me!! (But don’t tell anyone)

2009-11-06T19:47:54-06:00

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is set to deliver remarks at a Wisconsin Right to Life event Friday evening, one of the few speeches the former Republican presidential nominee will have given since she resigned the governorship last summer.

But Palin appears to be doing her best to keep a low profile on this trip: no press will be allowed into the Milwaukee auditorium where she will speak and those who have paid the $30 admittance fee are unable to carry in cell phones, cameras, laptops, or recording devices of any kind.

You know, circumstance (and some sketchy decision-making) made Sarah Palin a national figure when she was chosen as John McCain’s out-of-nowhere VP pick.

She insists that whatever poor or unfavorable impressions people have of her are the result of attacks on her by the national media (only the “liberal” members of the national media, though).

But here’s the thing: If you believe that the media parses your words and edits your tapes to make you look like an idiot, why wouldn’t you want as many legitimate, complete representations of your speeches as possible to counter your “attackers”?

I was hopeful that Palin was right—that McCain’s campaign staff had mishandled her and that the incompetency she appeared to show during her national roll-out was not her fault.

But a year later, I still don’t get Sarah Palin.

And it appears that I’m not alone: According to a Gallup poll noted by CNN, only about one in three Americans would seriously consider casting their vote for her.

I’m one of the other two.

Still not settled

2009-11-05T01:46:50-06:00

Here’s your latest update on the status of the ongoing controversy over whether abortion will be covered in the pending public option.

From The New York Times:

House Democratic leaders struggled Wednesday to strike a deal that would restrict the use of federal money to pay for abortions under sweeping health care legislation headed for debate on the House floor this week ...

The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, a supporter of abortion rights, has little choice but to heed the concerns of members of her caucus who oppose abortion. As many as 40 House Democrats, a potentially decisive bloc, have threatened to oppose the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion.

As the Times reports, the current House bill neither requires nor forbids health plans from covering abortions; Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, would decide whether the public option would cover them.

Sebelius has a long record of support from and cooperation with Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortions in the world. So while the House bill doesn’t stipulate that the public option would cover abortion, everyone knows that if Sebelius is making the decision, it will.

I’ve told you here previously about the effort by U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak to ensure that tax dollars are not used to fund abortions. Stupak’s amendment, though it is being assailed as an infringement on women’s rights, would simply continue the policy the federal government has had to abortion funding for 30 years.

U.S. Rep. Brad Ellsworth now has a compromise proposal. As the Times reports, “if the public plan decides to cover abortion, it would have to hire private contractors to handle money that might be used for that purpose.

Predictably, neither side is happy.

Supporters of abortion rights, like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the proposed restrictions went too far.

Laurie Rubiner, vice president of Planned Parenthood, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal would “tip the balance away from women’s access to reproductive health care.”

“Abortion should not be treated any differently from any other medical benefit or procedure,” Ms. Rubiner said. “It is our hope and expectation that the secretary would decide to include coverage of abortion in the public option.“

... The bill stipulates that in every part of the country, there must be at least one insurance plan that provides coverage of abortions and at least one that does not.

Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said Mr. Ellsworth’s proposal was “a phony compromise.”

“It serves no purpose except to assist Speaker Pelosi in peeling votes away from an amendment that would flatly prohibit the public plan from paying for elective abortions,” Mr. Johnson said. That amendment was offered by Representative Bart Stupak, Democrat of Michigan.

It’s been said that a sign of a good compromise is that neither side likes it. That may be true. But Ellsworth’s proposal does come off as a cop-out of sorts—not specifically precluding the public option from covering abortion, but simply providing a middleman to handle the money.

I hope the pro-life members of the Democratic Caucus see this for what it is: Worthless window dressing.

Hurrah for Hillary

2009-11-04T18:08:21-06:00

Hurrah for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who’s finally speaking bluntly to Pakistani leaders and their people.

From the Associated Press:

In a lively give-and-take with students at the Government College of Lahore, Clinton said inaction by the government would have amounted to ceding ground to terrorists.

“If you want to see your territory shrink, that’s your choice,“ she said, adding that she believed it would be a bad choice.

Clinton likened Pakistan’s situation—with Taliban forces taking over substantial swaths of land in the Swat valley and in areas along the Afghan border—to a theoretical advance of terrorists into the United States from across the Canadian border. It would be unthinkable, she said, for the U.S. government to decide, “Let them have Washington (state)“ first, then Montana, then the sparsely populated Dakotas, because those states are far from the major centers of population and power on the East Coast.

Clinton was responding to a student who suggested that Washington was forcing Pakistan to use military force on its own territory. It was one of several questions from the students that raised doubts about the relationship between the United States and Pakistan.

I like that comparison Clinton made regarding the land concessions. The Pakistani approach takes on a new feel when you look at it from that perspective, doesn’t it?

The bottom line for Pakistanis is that, for better or worse, their country is a nuclear power. They wanted to achieve that status, and now they have to live with the responsibility of being one. If they are not going to do the things necessary to ensure the viability of their democratically elected government—and, therefore, the security of those nukes—then someone has to.

And all of us—Americans, Europeans, Talibanis, al Qaeda and everyone else alike—know that it’s not going to be the U.N.

Pakistan has a choice. They can do what’s necessary to stop the advance of the Taliban, or they can watch while someone else does.

Tuesday: Political junkies’ delight

2009-11-03T12:13:51-06:00

Today is a big day for political junkies—especially in Alabama.

All sorts of intrigue awaits later today as several contentious races will be settled:

In the New Jersey governor’s race, incumbent Jon “Don’t vote for the fat guy” Corzine finally faces off with Republican challenger Chris Christie. You might remember a recent post I wrote about the whole “fat” thing. This race seems to be in a dead heat, so the results will be eagerly awaited.

Virginia looks poised to elect a Republican governor to succeed super-popular Democratic Gov. Tim “should-have-been-VP” Kaine despite President Obama’s support for the Democratic candidate, R. Creigh Deeds. Polls show that some dissatisfaction with the Obama/Pelosi/Democratic legislative platform has been a component in GOP candidate Bob McDonnell’s healthy preview numbers, and pundits will chatter tomorrow night about what this race means, if anything, for congressional Democrats in 2010.

The congressional race in New York’s 23rd District, one of the most bizarre contests ever, will be settled between a candidate on the Conservative Party platform and a Democrat (who was endorsed by the Republican nominee, who dropped out this weekend). Yes, I said it was strange. Read more here. But the takeaway in this contest won’t be the winner; it will be how grassroots Republicans and conservative (small c) independents break with mainline Republicans. When the pundits get sick of talking about New Jersey, they’ll talk this one up (or, if you watch MSNBC, they’ll focus on it completely to play up the splits in the GOP).

And then there are the ballot measures, always fun. Issues this year include medical marijuana expansion (Maine), the repeal of benefits extention to gay couples (Washington), the repeal of a statute allowing gay marriage (Maine) and whether to allow casino gambling for economic benefit (Ohio). Fun, huh?

OH!! And I almost forgot. If all those elections and ballot initiatives weren’t enough fun, CNN is going to have JESSE VENTURA on as a guest on Larry King Live! Yes, the former-wrestler-turned-governor-of-Minnesota-turned-party-unaffiliate will be sounding off about the evils of organized politics tomorrow night. CNN! What? Joy Behar wasn’t available? Oh, that’s right—you guys gave her her own show. And how’s that working out, exactly?

Closer to home, there’s plenty going on, too:

The Alabama Republican Party will host a news conference in Montgomery at 10 a.m. to talk ethics reform. Word has it that there are some questions about some personnel spending in the Senate, among a bunch of other related things.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne will roll out his ethics plan at 2 p.m. in Birmingham. “Byrne will outline the specifics of his Ethics Reform package and his plans for achieving legislative passage,“ according to a campaign news release. Note the capital E and the capital R. It must be important if random, inexplicable capitalization is involved!

Unless he’s planning a first-hand report about rush-hour traffic on 280, Byrne had better make it quick in Birmingham, or rent a helicopter, because he’s due to appear with the other six announced gubernatorial candidates in a forum at Auburn University at 7 p.m. This is one of the first times all seven candidates—two Democrats, five Republicans—will appear together. Yes, I’m planning to be there, if for no other reason than to report to you how many times the candidates dodge state issues, like why most of them don’t trust you to reform Alabama’s antiquated constitution, to share with you their unsolicited thoughts on congressional issues, like how much they oppose the dreaded OBAMACARE (insert blood-curdling screams from your Halloween garden noise machine here).

I’m really counting on the League of Women Voters and our local chambers of commerce to keep the candidates’ feet to the fire and keep their attention focused where it should be—on the people, potential and problems in Alabama, not on cheap shots at national figures in Washington.

FactCheck on abortion funding in health care debate

2009-11-02T21:47:30-06:00

President Obama and pro-choice Democrats insist one thing.

Pro-life Democrats and right-to-life groups insist the exact opposite.

Confused about who’s telling the truth in the debate over taxpayer-funded abortions in the health care bill?

You’re not alone.

I’ve been telling you for weeks now that the bill would provide abortion coverage under a taxpayer-funded public option.

But don’t take my word for it. Read what FactCheck.org has to say.

As usual, FactCheck does a great job of cutting through the bull to the bottom line.

And the bottom line is more irrefutable than most, in this time of squishy-mouthed, double-talking politicians.

‘Not happy with me’

2009-11-02T20:09:54-06:00

I told you last week about how U.S. Rep. Bart Stupak, a pro-life Democrat, has organized a group of Democrats to vote with Republicans to block the health care legislation if it is not amended to block taxpayer money from being used to cover abortion. (Details, including an explanation of how the current bill would change standing federal policy on tax-funded abortions, in last week’s post.)

Let’s see how Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing with this big-tent concept, shall we?

From The Hill:

Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House.

During an interview on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” show, Stupak (D-Mich.) said he is undeterred in trying to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not pay for abortions. Stupak, who opposes abortion rights, acknowledged that some in his party are upset with his public campaign to change the bill ...

Stupak pointed out that he and Democratic leaders have a fundamental disagreement on whether health plans that receive subsidies from the government should be allowed to provide coverage options on abortions.

Stupak wants a vote on the House floor to strike the language, and predicts he would have the votes to pass such an amendment.

“This has been federal law since 1976,“ he said, noting that President Barack Obama has vowed not to allow healthcare reform to pay for abortions.

“We have to have a vote,“ he said.

Hmm. Sounds like Pelosi isn’t playing well with others.

Well, no worries. This guy is just like so many others, right? He’ll make a lot of noise for the national media attention, and then he’ll back down in time for things to calm down so he can keep his seat.

Not so fast, my friend.

Stupak stressed he wants to vote for healthcare reform and is “still somewhat optimistic” that he will reach an accord with Democratic leaders.

However, the Michigan Democrat said he will not be backing down: “I’m comfortable with where I’m at. This is who I am. It’s reflective of my district. If it costs me my seat, so be it.“

Wow. A principle-driven legislator, completely unafraid of losing his power—and, therefore, uncontrollable?

No wonder Pelosi doesn’t dig him.

See also:

Remember how we were talking about how, if left unaddressed, this component of the health care legislation could create problems for the Democratic leadership and the bill’s overall prospects? Behold, pushback: CNN’s Political Ticker had this item last week on how the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops urged priests around the country to speak out against the legislation from the pulpit this Sunday. The conference provided fliers for insertion into this weekend’s newsletters “urging parishioners to contact their senators and representatives to ask them ‘to fix these bills with the pro-life amendments,‘“ CNN reported.

“The bills will have to change or the bishops have pledged to oppose them,“ the flier reads. “Our nation is at a crossroads.“

Indeed.

Check out this story about a former executive director of a Planned Parenthood affiliate in Texas who had a change of heart after witnessing a shift in the organization’s focus:

According to (former director Abby) Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,“ said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about.

I have said here before that it never made any sense to me to put an organization with a financial stake in the failure of contraception in charge of teaching contraception.

Abby Johnson’s comments illustrate the point.

This week’s column

2009-11-02T17:23:33-06:00

In case you missed it in Saturday’s Opelika-Auburn News, or if you live outside the print delivery area, this week’s column is now available online. Check it out:

Political e-mail: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde

As you can probably surmise from the title, it’s all about the perils—and promise, if you look hard enough—of electronic electioneering.

Let me know what you think.

James camp responds to Johnson rumor

2009-10-29T18:13:55-06:00

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.

Trouble on the horizon for health care efforts?

2009-10-29T13:13:29-06:00

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

PolitiFact: More than Snopes for politicos

2009-10-28T17:37:51-06:00

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.