Bloodthirsty Liberal

Does this include NPR? Please?

Mitt Romney likes PBS, but says it’s time for the public broadcasting television network to stop relying on taxpayer funding and find private income sources instead.

“I think there will be things that we think are nice programs, and we’ll say to ourselves, is this program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it?” Romney said in an interview with Time magazine’s Mark Halperin on Wednesday.

“I like PBS. I’d like my grandkids to be able to watch PBS,” the presumptive GOP nominee said. “But I’m not willing to borrow money from China and make my kids have to pay the interest on that, and my grandkids, over generations, as opposed to saying to PBS, look, you’re going to have to raise more money from charitable contributions or from advertising.”

I don’t have strong feelings about PBS, but I am beyond irritated with the constant bias against conservatives on NPR. It is outrageous and I don’t want to pay for it any longer.

- Aggie

You know, just a couple more thousand pages of legislation, and we may just get this health care thingy solved. (Lord knows, we don’t have to read it.)

Like countless rulers before and since, Diocletian discovered the hard way that price controls don’t work. They worsen the problem they are intended to solve, leading to shortages, rationing, and even higher prices.

Yet the belief that government can control inflation by fiat never seems to lose its allure.

Which brings us to the “Health Care Quality Improvement and Cost Reduction Act of 2012,” a 178-page bill introduced in the Massachusetts House this month amid jaunty predictions of cheaper insurance premiums for Bay State families and tens of billions of dollars in medical savings over the next 15 years. An even longer bill — 235 pages — has been introduced in the state Senate.

Remind me to write a bill called “The Tasty Sh*t Sandwich Act”. It will make more sense and be more achievable than this idiocy.

These bills aren’t written in Latin and they don’t impose the death penalty, but their core principle is not much different from Diocletian’s: The state knows best. What fraction of the local economy should health care consume? How fast should medical spending rise? On what business model should provider networks be organized? How should hospital and doctors fees be calculated? Where should consumers get information on quality and cost of care? When are a provider’s high rates justified? What penalty should it bear when they aren’t? In the world these plans envision, decision after decision comes not through the voluntary interplay of doctors, patients, hospitals, and insurers, but from government agents who impose them from above.

Adding up the “dizzying and expansive” array of decrees in the House legislation, health care analyst Joshua Archambault of the Pioneer Institute finds 941 instances in which the bill mandates that something “shall” be done. Among these are more than 25 kinds of penalties, fines, and surcharges, for price control and punishment always go hand in hand.

Looming over all would be a new Division of Health Care Cost and Quality, a command-and-control behemoth that would dominate the state’s medical and health-insurance landscapes, with the power to affect billions of dollars and millions of lives.

And what checks and balances would restrain this behemoth? In the language of the House bill, it “shall be an independent public entity not subject to the supervision and control of any other executive office, department, commission, board, bureau, agency or political subdivision.” Throw in a toga, and Diocletian would feel right at home.

It is a hallmark of liberalism that democracy must be legislated out of existence. The state will decide for you, and you’ll like it.

PS: Romney’s fault wasn’t to author such an abortion of a law that bears his name: he didn’t; the Democrat-dominated state legislature did. But he signed it, lent his name to it, and left Democrats in charge of implementing it. He deserves his share of blame.

NY Times poll

Hah!

President Obama’s claim that the GOP is mounting a war on women has proven to be a failure. A month into his assault on the Republicans and Mitt Romney, the new CBS-New York Times poll shows that the GOP presidential candidate now leads among women–and men.

Since April, women have gone from strongly backing Obama to endorsing Romney. In April, Obama held a 49 percent to 43 percent lead among women. That has now flipped to 46 percent backing Romney with 44 percent for Obama, an 8-point switch.

Ironically, Romney’s support among men has dropped, but he still edges Obama 45 percent to 42 percent.

And here’s a surprise: Despite the media hyping the so-called war on women, no major outlet today noticed Romney’s new lead with women voters.

“This is unbelievable,” said conservative consultant Greg Mueller. “The CBS story manages to not mention the change in women numbers,” he said, adding sarcastically. “No media bias here — Obama is getting fluffy stories about his commencement speech to women at Barnard — so we better bury the reality.”

They are going to go ballistic if Romney wins. Should we stock up on food and bottled water?

- Aggie

being dead is no reason for a journalist not to get a statement.

Because journalists have a beeline to the other world.

Less than 48 hours after the Washington Post published a major, 5,000 word exposé that portrays Mitt Romney as a homophobic, high school bully, the story has started to unravel. Jason Horowitz’s profile alleged that Romney high school chum Stu White has “long been bothered” by an unconfirmed incident in which Romney supposedly cut the hair of a fellow student. But White wasn’t present at the alleged incident, Romney doesn’t remember it, the alleged victim has been dead for eight years, and White only learned about the incident decades after it supposedly happened.

In response to that, the Post today airbrushed the story. Until today, Horowitz’s story read:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and has long been bothered by the Lauber incident. “But I was not the brunt of any of his pranks.”

Today it reads:

“I always enjoyed his pranks,” said Stu White, a popular friend of Romney’s who went on to a career as a public school teacher and said he has been “disturbed” by the Lauber incident since hearing about it several weeks ago, before being contacted by The Washington Post. “But I was not the brunt of any of his pranks.”

The Post did not publicly acknowledge that alteration for hours — more on that below. It just appeared in the online version. Also today, Lauber’s family has come out to contradict key parts of the story, and they further suggest that the Post smeared their deceased family member, who obviously is in no position to defend himself. Despite Lauber’s having been deceased since 2004, the Horowitz story directly quotes him, through another so-called witness to the haircut event. Is it standard Post practice to quote the dead, and use them as props in political stories?

Thursday afternoon I tweeted and emailed Horowitz directly about the White discrepancy. Horowitz never responded and has gone silent on Twitter, but today, the Post quietly altered the story to clean up that problem. The paper is evidently paying attention to criticisms of the story, but not responding directly to queries about it. This morning, I emailed the Post ombudsman about the White timeline problem and the Lauber family’s reaction to Horowitz’s story. I sent the ombudsman two polite emails on the subject. The ombudsman, Patrick B. Pexton, has not responded at all. But while I have been putting this report together, the Post did publish an editor’s note regarding the White timeline.

Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this story reported that White “has long been bothered” by the Lauber incident. White later clarified in a subsequent interview that he has been disturbed by the incident since he learned of it several weeks ago from a former classmate, before being contacted by The Washington Post.

The editor’s note raises more questions: Who is the classmate, and where did the classmate hear about the haircut story? In what context did the unidentified classmate tell it to Stu White? It’s possible that Horowitz brought it up to the classmate over the course of working on the story, who then told it to White. If that’s the case, Horowitz tainted the witnesses.

The Jason Horowitz story is no small matter. Its release coincided perfectly with the week’s messaging from President Obama. It depicted Obama’s rival, Mitt Romney, in a sharply negative light. It was a front-page, 5,000+ word story that must have taken weeks or even months to write. Significant resources went into the production of that story. Yet the Post has gone silent as cracks have started to appear in it.

I have sent Mr. Pexton a third email on the subject, asking questions raised by the editor’s note. The ombudsman, who is supposed to be the readers’ representative at the newspaper, has not responded.

It is beginning to look like the Washington Post made it up entirely:

The older sister of Mitt Romney’s former high school classmate said she has no knowledge of any bullying incident involving her brother and the GOP presidential candidate.
…

When ABC News showed her the story, Christine Lauber’s eyes welled up with tears and she became agitated.

She described her brother as a “very unusual person.”

“He didn’t care about running with the peer group,” Christine Lauber said. “What’s wrong with that?”

Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story.

“The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said.
…
Romney has since apologized for what he said were “pranks” in high school but has said he doesn’t remember the specific event.

Romney said “homosexuality was the furthest thing from his mind” when it came to the jokes he played on classmates.

So we’ll never know and it doesn’t matter. I am soooo much more interested in Obama’s applications to college (did he apply as an American citizen?) and please, please, please tell us what he studies and what his grades were. I am not interested in the high school record of either man. But, since the can of worms has been opened, how were Obama’s high school grades? I asked because he started out at an ok college and transferred to an Ivy League school. What is the story there?

Even more importantly, journalists, how can we have a functioning society if the people entrusted with sharing important news just refuse to do their jobs?

Coincidentally the Obama administration decided to make an issue of gay marriage just as this story broke. Is there a single adult in America with an IQ higher than a turnip who believes that wasn’t coordinated between the White House and the media?

- Aggie

or what’s happening to my country?

I just thought I’d share some of the high points of a recent day here in Massachusetts. Early in the day I went into a specialty shop that had an exciting coupon for a product that I really like. While ringing up the purchase, and absolutely out of the clear blue, the manager opined, “What I want to know is why are Republicans so stupid?” He said it because it is a conversation starter, kind of like, “Nice day if it don’t rain.”

I worked for a while, then met a friend for drinks. We were invited to an afternoon party celebrating the opening of a new business. The owner is a friend. While there, several people that I was introduced to for the first time began the conversation with various social pick-up lines. Here’s a smattering: “Conservatives are insane.” “Romney is the dumbest thing on two legs.” And my personal favorite – “Conservatives react more strongly than liberals to the smell of farts.” All of this to a total stranger!

Later my husband and I went to a dinner party where the secondary topic of conversation, (after the ranting at conservatives and the fervent, almost sweaty pronouncements of allegiance to Barack Obama), had to do with how stupid religion is, this time with a particular emphasis on the Coptic Christians.

When we got home, we seriously began to consider relocating to another place. But where?

- Aggie

What a knucklehead

Presidential candidate Rick Santorum on Thursday said Republicans should give President Barack Obama another term if Santorum isn’t the GOP nominee and for a second day compared rival Mitt Romney to an Etch A Sketch toy.

Santorum reiterated an argument he has made before: The former Massachusetts governor is not conservative enough to offer voters a clear choice in the fall election and that only he can provide that contrast.

“You win by giving people a choice,” Santorum said during a campaign stop in Texas. “You win by giving people the opportunity to see a different vision for our country, not someone who’s just going to be a little different than the person in there.”

Santorum added: “If they’re going to be a little different, we might as well stay with what we have instead of taking a risk of what may be the Etch A Sketch candidate for the future.”

Do you suppose that logic will be used again and again in the general election?

- Aggie

Seriously, dude. What’s so funny?

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 25% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.

…

For the third consecutive day, Mitt Romney leads President Obama by five points in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. It is still, however, too early to tell if these results reflect a lasting change in the race or are merely statistical noise. Today’s numbers show Romney at 48%, Obama at 42%. That matches the largest lead Romney has ever enjoyed over the president.

Romney’s support among Republican voters has moved up to 83%, just about matching the president’s 84% support among Democrats. However, only six percent (6%) of GOP voters would vote for Obama if Romney is the nominee. Twice as many Democrats (12%) would cross party lines to vote for Romney. The former governor of Massachusetts also has an eight-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

Consider this: Romney has been the default leader among Republican candidates since 2008—yet he still can’t close the deal! Even so, he’s still kicking Obama’s a** (inshallah)!!!

He calls it Plan B

I’m so glad that we’re talking about this. The beginning has to do with the ground work that W. F. Buckley laid when he told conservatives that Goldwater would lose in a landslide, but that they were working to build a coalition that would bear fruit down the road. He then suggests that neither Romney or Santorum is electable, but that the important mission is to control the House and work to regain the Senate. He has apparently given up on the Presidency.

If nominated, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum might not cause such subtraction. Both are conservatives, although of strikingly different stripes. Neither, however, seems likely to be elected. Neither has demonstrated, or seems likely to develop, an aptitude for energizing a national coalition that translates into 270 electoral votes.

If either is nominated, conservatives should vote for him. But suppose the accumulation of evidence eventually suggests that the nomination of either would subtract from the long-term project of making conservatism intellectually coherent and politically palatable. If so, there would come a point when, taking stock of reality, conservatives turn their energies to a goal much more attainable than, and not much less important than, electing Romney or Santorum president. It is the goal of retaining control of the House and winning control of the Senate.

Several possible Supreme Court nominations and the staffing of the regulatory state are among the important reasons conservatives should try to elect whomever the GOP nominates. But conservatives this year should have as their primary goal making sure Republicans wield all the gavels in Congress in 2013.

If Republicans do, their committee majorities will serve as fine-mesh filters, removing President Obama’s initiatives from the stream of legislation. Then Republicans can concentrate on what should be the essential conservative project of restoring something like constitutional equipoise between the legislative and executive branches.

Given what a terrible President Obama has been, this is depressing. But it speaks to the weakness and I would argue the lack of coming to terms with reality, in the Republican field. Obama should have been beatable, just on the question: Are you better off today than you were four years ago? They should have focused on health care and on the economy. On the debt. On the astonishing waste of money and what that meant to individuals and to the country as a whole. Instead, we got sidetracked into silly conversations about contraception, which simply turns most women and most men off. Completely. What were they thinking?

PS: Krauthammer agrees with me on Santorum

- Aggie

Ron Paul leads him in a hypothetical matchup.

…For the first time since late December 2011, Mitt Romney leads the president in a hypothetical 2012 matchup. Romney earns 45% of the vote, while the president attracts support from 43%. Romney holds a nine-point advantage among unaffiliated voters.

For the first time ever, Texas Congressman Ron Paul also leads the president. In that matchup, 43% prefer Paul and 41% Obama. Ten percent (10%) would vote for some other option, a figure that includes 17% of Republicans.

If former Senator Rick Santorum is the Republican nominee, the president leads by two, 45% to 43%. With former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as his opponent, the president enjoys a 10-point lead, 49% to 39%.

Some days it doesn’t pay to get out of bed and put your golf clothes on, does it Mr. President?

- Aggie

And they show it by proxy.

First let me stipulate: I am Jewish and don’t approve of Baptism of Jews after they die. Secondly, I’ve known about this practice since 1989. Yes, I first heard about it in 1989. That was when a Mormon friend announced that she had baptized some of my relatives. It was done in a loving way. I remember thinking: Well, that’s strange. And then: I’ll just let G-d sort it out.

The media never cared about this stuff before. If you didn’t have close friends who were Mormon, you probably didn’t know. Therefore, this is simply a way to trash Mitt Romney.

Reacting to a report that well-known Holocaust victim Anne Frank had been baptized by proxy in a Mormon temple, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says it is committed to disciplining members of its church who conducted such baptisms, which violate church policy.

Word of the Frank baptism came a week after the issue of Mormon posthumous proxy baptism of Jews attracted national attention. This controversy surfaced after it was reported that the dead parents of Jewish Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal had been baptized in a Mormon temple.

The church apologized for that baptism, blaming it on a technical glitch in its system for submitting names for posthumous proxy baptism.

“It takes a good deal of deception and manipulation to get an improper submission through the safeguards we have put in place,” the church said in a statement Tuesday, responding to the report about the Anne Frank baptism.

Though the church regularly conducts proxy baptisms for dead, in what it calls an attempt to give everyone a chance to accept salvation through Jesus, it has a 1990s-era policy against conducting such baptisms for Holocaust victims.

The six million Holocaust victims were murdered by a regime that held antisemitism as its defining feature AND by an indifferent world. The Jews were trapped and nobody – not the United States or anybody else – would take them. Today we have various regimes in the Arab and Muslim world who preach genocide against the Jews, and we have an indifferent world. That is a far, far bigger concern to me than whether or not a church group in the United States is baptizing dead Jews.

So, if you really hate Mormons, you won’t vote for Mitt Romney, and that is the point of these stories.

- Aggie

They like to baptize dead people in order to bring them to heaven.

The Mormon Church on Tuesday apologized that its members had performed posthumous baptisms into Mormonism of the long-dead Jewish parents of famed Nazi hunter and Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal.

The baptisms “by proxy” were performed last month in Mormon temples in Utah, Arizona and Idaho, according to the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization named after the man who hunted down more than 1,000 Nazi war criminals in the years following the Holocaust.

Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center told Reuters the baptisms were “unacceptable,” adding that people who lost everyone and everything and were murdered for being Jewish during the Holocaust should not have their souls hijacked by another religion.

Probably 20 years ago I knew Mormon women who did this as a hobby, the way many of us belong to book groups. The idea was to save souls, and it was purely done for compassionate reasons. I assume that they baptized some of my dead relatives and was mildly amused by it all. But I’m an easy-going sort – ask anyone who knows me – and I seriously doubt if most Jews will look favorably on this. If it makes it into the MSM, it is just another nail in the Romney coffin.

- Aggie

The media had me believing that Romney had no chance at the CPAC convention. Huh.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney won the close-watched Conservative Political Action Conference presidential straw poll on Saturday.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, took 38% of the vote in the poll. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum received 31%, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was at 15% and Texas Rep. Ron Paul stood at 12%.

He also won in Maine, which is much less surprising.

- Aggie