Fox Special Report on the Death of Ted Kennedy: 'Last of the Kennedy Royalty, the Least Talented'

It's a full-length clip, but lots of compelling discussion on the life, politics, and legacy of Ted Kennedy:

Krauthammer's comments at 3:50 minutes mirror some of my own in my essay today, "Hey, Ted Kennedy: 'Why Do You Want to Be President?'."

Networks Won't Air Anti-ObamaCare Advertisement

From Fox News, "ABC, NBC Won't Air Ad Critical of Obama's Health Care Plan":

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama's health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot -- particularly in light of ABC's health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.

The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.

"It's a powerful ad," said Bob Adams, executive director of the League of American Voters, a national nonprofit group with 15,000 members who advocate individual liberty and government accountability. "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors."

Adams said the advertisement is running on local network affiliates in states like Louisiana, Arkansas, Maine and Pennsylvania. But although CBS has approved the ad for national distribution and talks are ongoing with FOX, NBC has questioned some of the ad's facts while ABC has labeled it "partisan."

"The ABC Television Network has a long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial public issue," spokeswoman Susan Sewell said in a written statement. "Just to be clear, this is a policy for the entire network, not just ABC News."

NBC, meanwhile, said it has not turned down the ad and will reconsider it with some revisions.

"We have not rejected the ad," spokeswoman Liz Fischer told FOXNews.com. "We have communicated with the media agency about some factual claims that require additional substantiation. As always, we are happy to reconsider the ad once these issues are addressed."

Adams objects to ABC's assertion that his group's position is partisan.

"It's a position that we would argue a vast majority of Americans stand behind," he said. "Obviously, it's a message that ABC and the Obama administration haven't received yet."

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit, "It Has Begun. State-Run Media Refuses to Run TV Ads Critical of Obamacare (Video)."

Hey, Ted Kennedy: 'Why Do You Want to Be President?'

The New York Daily News cites Chris Matthews' comments on Ted Kennedy from yesterday's Today show (video here). At about 2:03 minutes, Matthews says, "Roger Mudd asked him the perhaps the best journalists' question of modern times: 'why do you want to be president?' ... it took Ted Kennedy 70 words to get to the answer, which was 'restoration'. He just wanted to bring back what Bobby and Jack had given us."

Matthews, an Irish Catholic Democratic Party insider, practically creams himself in talking about Kennedy. No, Kennedy didn't take 70 words to say why he wanted to be president. Kennedy didn't know why he wanted to be president; and Roger Mudd's interview is a classic in the history of modern presidential politics. CBS has the short video clip here, with this caption:

In November 1979, Sen. Ted Kennedy was preparing to run against incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter for president. CBS News broadcast an hour-long special report on Kennedy, reported by correspondent Roger Mudd. Kennedy's rambling answer to Mudd's question "Why do you want to be president?" dealt a strong blow to the senator's presidential hopes.

Note that the Boston Globe ran a special earlier this year, "Ted Kennedy, A Life in Politics," and the clip above from that broadcast includes footage of Roger Mudd's recollections of the moment. It's both dramatic and devastating. I especially like Ellen Goodman, at 2:15 minutes, who just nails it with no left-wing spin: "He didn't want to be president."

And this really goes to the heart of not just what was going on for Kennedy in 1980, but what was going on for Ted Kennedy and the crisis of Democratic Party liberalism. As strange as it may be, it's as if Kennedy was struck by a lightning bolt between the eyebrows, and this is from a man whose brother famously extolled Americans to "ask not what what your country can do for you ..." Ted Kennedy had no vision of his own. He was a follow-on Kennedy who could not pick up from where is brothers left off to offer a new vision for America. If you watch the CBS clip at the link above, Kennedy goes on in the Mudd interview about "inflation," about how the U.S. was falling behind other counties in whipping inflation. Michael Dukakis sounded more interesting in 1988. And why? Why was Ted Kennedy so out of it? Couldn't Kennedy use the "malaise" crisis of the Carter years as a vehicle to announce a new vision of political economy. Other Democrats could. Gary Hart went on in 1984 to challenge Walter Monday for the Democratic nomination by building a reputation for "new ideas," including calls for industrial policy and innovative investments in workers as stakeholders in their future.

There was, in short, no "new Democrat" in Kennedy's version of Democratic politics, and hence he had no driving vision to animate his quest for the presidency in 1980. That's not to say that Senator Kennedy was a spent force. Indeed, his influence kept growing as the clarity of his role as Kennedy patriarch brightened. It is to say that Kennedy himself became something of a travesty of the ideology he sought to champion. As far as we can see here, Kennedy stood for the raw acquisition and retention of power. After he failed to resurrect the Camelot mystique in the White House, he perhaps soothed the pain of his own inability with his endorsement of Barack Obama in 2008 - an Obama presidency would vindicate the hardline leftist program that he himself was impotent to effect. Interestingly, President Obama is likely more of a radical standard-bearer than Kennedy had anticipated. And thus, it's perhaps fitting that Kennedy's passing comes precisely when the Democrats are now facing the brutal letdown of the electorate's repudiation of their program. To paraphrase Senator Kennedy's words at the 2008 Democratic Convention, "the failure lives on."

YouTube has posted a bunch of clips from the "Live in Politics" series, here. See also the Boston Globe's series on Kennedy's life, here.

ACLU Spies on U.S. Covert Intelligence Officers

Michelle Malkin was on Fox & Friends just now. She was talking about the ACLU's "John Adams Project," which is a spying operation on America's spies. ACLU heavies have been following CIA officials, taking pictures of them at their homes, and then showing them to Guantanamo detainees to get information on prisoner treatment at the facility.

Michelle's piece on this yesterday is here, "ACLU: Spying for America’s Enemies."

But check out Investor's Business Daily's editorial as well, "Picturing The Enemy":

Security: The ACLU sneakily photographing CIA officers near their homes, then showing the shots to the imprisoned planners of the 9/11 attacks. A fruitcake fantasy? The government is looking into exactly this.

When the Washington Post three and a half years ago uncovered the CIA's "black prisons" program, in which enhanced interrogation was used against terrorist detainees to foil future atrocities, we forcefully argued that such secret wartime operations ought never be outed.

The Post may have won a Pulitzer for its revelation, but we feel more strongly than ever today. And a new story in that same newspaper gives new facts about the harm it did, and continues to do.

A Justice Department investigation is now apparently investigating whether photos of covert CIA officials surreptitiously taken by the American Civil Liberties Union's "John Adams Project" were unlawfully shown to terrorist detainees charged with organizing the attacks of 9/11.

It's all supposedly part of military lawyers' aggressive defense of their terrorist defendants, on whom enhanced interrogation may have been used. But the Justice probe seems to have given quite a scare to ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. Refusing to comment on the specifics of his organization's photo activities on behalf of "our clients," Romero complained that the government was not investigating "the CIA officials who undertook the torture."

Has there ever been a more outrageous trading of places? Those behind the attacks that murdered thousands are now the victims? And the courageous U.S. government officials who grilled them for the purpose of preventing further terrorist attacks are now the villains?

Instead of receiving the protection they deserve, they and their family members have apparently been spied on by the ACLU and have had their likenesses displayed to al-Qaida members.

What if these detainees get released — which the ACLU obviously wouldn't mind seeing happen? Will descriptions of those CIA officers be relayed up the al-Qaida food chain? Will there be "future ops" files on these interrogators and their families somewhere in the mountainous caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The Post story notes that leftist groups here and abroad, European investigators and others "have compiled lists of people thought to have been involved in the CIA's program, including CIA station chiefs, agency interrogators and medical personnel who accompanied detainees on planes as they were moved from one secret location to another."

It says that "working from these lists, some of which include up to 45 names, researchers photographed agency workers and obtained other photos from public records." The ACLU's Romero shrugs his shoulders and calls all that "normal" lawyerly research.

It may be normal for a group that throughout its history has provided aid and comfort to America's adversaries, but compiling a long enemies list and attaching pictures to go with the names should be the least-normal thing imaginable in a free society.

The Washington Post's initial article is here.

Wellstoning Ted Kennedy: Democrats 'Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste'

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

-- White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

The image is from Carol at No Sheeples Here!, "ChappaquiddiCARE™." And recall JammieWearingFool's comment this morning, that remembrances for Ted Kennedy will be like "a Wellstone memorial on steroids."

And while Michelle Malkin's suggested we put aside "ideological differences" to "mark this passing with solemnity," the Democratic-left wants to both whitewash Kennedy's destructive history and exploit his death for political purposes.

For example, Chris Matthews today described Barack Obama as "the "last brother" of the Kennedy political dynasty; and worse, Matthews is quoted saying, "Jack Kennedy was killed in an open car in Dallas in the midst of the most hated–it’s like the mood we’re in right now." (Even though Jack Kennedy was murdered by a communist who spent time in the Soviet Union.)

Doug Powers responded to Matthews with, "Chris Matthews is Wrong to Say Obama is the Last Kennedy Brother."

Apparently, Andrew Brietbart has let loose with some "invective" against Kennedy, as noted at the Politico, "Not All Kennedy Critics Hold Fire." And Think Progress is all over the story, "Andrew Breitbart Unleashes A Torrent of Invective Against Sen. Ted Kennedy's Legacy On Twitter."

But leftists are conveniently skipping over this tweet:

In this moment I cant but recognize absolute backwardness of media & society. Bush=EVIL. Ted Kennedy=SAINT. Im gonna keep fighin', folks.

See also, Gateway Pundit, "Liberals Smear Eric Cantor & Bash Andrew Breitbart in Kennedy Reports."

Plus, more context from Newsbusters:

I'm all for remembering a man's good qualities upon his death. But not at the price of ignoring—and denying—history. Yet that's just what David Shuster did during today's 4 PM hour on MSNBC when he claimed that Kennedy "didn't dabble in small personal attacks." This of the man who invented the dark political art form of "borking."

And note this, from Kim Priestap, "Will Kennedy's Death Bring About a Wellstone Spectacle for Health Care?":

It seems the left is intent on debasing Kennedy's death with a concerted effort to manipulate the American people into supporting Obama's health care reform. Will it work or will it turn into a Paul Wellstone spectacle with similar results? Considering how pissed the American people are at the left and the Democrats for trying to shove this down their thoats, I have a feeling they won't appreciate this new push for a government take-over of health care recycled and presented to them in Kennedy wrapping. It's crass, cynical, and simply disgusting.

Michelle Malkin has more on that, "The Wretched Excess Begins."

And Gateway Pundit again with, "AP: Obama to Deliver Eulogy at Kennedy Funeral" ("Here we go ...The messiah and the saint").

Well, you get the picture ...

See also, The Anchoress, "Ted Kennedy, Healthcare & Purgatory – More UPDATES" (a super huge Kennedy roundup). And, Nick Gillespie, "Ted Kennedy and the Death (Hopefully) of an Era" (via Memeorandum).

Rachel Lucas: Visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau

These are photos, from Rachel Lucas, of Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, in Oświęcim, Poland. Ms. Lucas' photo-essay is here, '“We have to go into the despair and go beyond it, by working and doing for somebody else, by using it for something else”.' Be sure to read it all. Ms. Lucas' feelings of anticipation, fear, and yearnings for mysteries unfolded made me well-up a couple of times:

The title is a quote by Elie Wiesel and I use it because I’ve spent the last several weeks trying to write this post but failing, especially when it came to the title. I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I titled this a hillbilly travelogue, and what do you name a blog post about Auschwitz-Birkenau?

We had 3 days in Krakow, and set aside the first day for our trip to Auschwitz. This is something I have wanted to do for a very, very long time. I started reading about WWII and the Holocaust when I was 10 years old and have never stopped. It’s one of those things that you just can’t let go until you finally understand it, and I’ll never completely understand it.

The first picture of this post is the first one I took at Birkenau. As you can see, there was a thunderstorm brewing. The truth is, the whole scene was surreal, and very oddly beautiful. I hate to say that, but it is true. The grass was the most intense saturated lush green you can imagine, and it was about 72 degrees, and the deep gray clouds loomed and thundered and rained on us in between bouts of sunshine – - and the incongruity of it all is something I will never forget in my lifetime.

There was such natural beauty visible to any human standing in the middle of Birkenau that day. It was as if nature was asserting herself over all the despair and ugliness. Look how green I can be, feel this perfect air, listen to this thunder, there is always something good that will come out of something awful.

But it is still awful, and always will be awful, in ways no words can tell.

Don't miss the whole thing. I too have been studying Nazi history since I was a little boy. And I wrote my dissertation on the inadaquacies of the Western democracies in balancing German power (and in deterring the outbreak of World War II) as the scholarly result of my own fascination with Germany's 20th century history.

I too will visit Auschwitz-Birkenau. And I'm hoping it's going to be sooner rather than later. My sister's husband is Hungarian, and I've been invited to spend time with the family in Eastern Europe any time. When my sister came home from visiting last Christmas, I told her I wanted to visit Auschwitz. I can't go quite yet, but thanks so much to Rachel Lucas for sharing her pilgrimage and reminding me not only that I need to go, but that's it's essential to do so.

(Related: "Nazi Germany's Years of Extermination, 1939-1945.")

Obama on Kennedy: 'One of the Most Accomplished Americans Ever to Serve Our Democracy'

At the White House blog, "One of the Most Accomplished Americans Ever to Serve our Democracy":

The Kennedy name is synonymous with the Democratic Party. And at times, Ted was the target of partisan campaign attacks. But in the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth, and good cheer. He could passionately battle others and do so peerlessly on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintain warm friendships across party lines.

And that's one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy.

His extraordinary life on this earth has come to an end. And the extraordinary good that he did lives on. For his family, he was a guardian. For America, he was the defender of a dream.

I don't doubt that Senator Kennedy deserves such deep feelings in commemoration. What's interesting to me is how the death of Kennedy, whose influence in American politics has long been overrated, is now going to drive a sympathy-push for the passage of healthcare legislation Americans have already repudiated.

See WSJ, "Kennedy’s Death Spurs Calls to Pass Health Legislation" (via Memeorandum).

Also, Ed Morrissey, "Videos: Chris Matthews, Not Politicizing Kennedy’s Death."

The Edward M. Kennedy Memorial Health Care Reform Bill?

I have nothing but blessings for the Kennedy family upon the news of Senator Edward Kennedy's passing. With his death, along with Eunice Kennedy Shriver's last week, we have now the melancholy sense of the final sunset on the Kennedy influence. I am with Michelle Malkin when she writes:

Put aside your ideological differences for an appropriate moment and mark this passing with solemnity.

That said, I'll just note that final farewells for Senator Kennedy have yet to be said and the Democratic-leftists are already exploiting the liberal icon's death for political gain.

From William Jacobson, "Rush Was Right: Dems Call For 'The Kennedy Memorial Health Bill'." William links to this post from Balloon-Juice:

" it’s time to come back after Labor Day with a single coherent Senator Edward M. Kennedy Health Care Reform Bill, and to twist whatever arms, ears, or other parts are necessary to get a good strong comprehensive bill passed and signed, NOW. We owe the memory of a great man no less."

No degree of rank hypocrisy nor indecency surprises me about the Democrats anymore. In Massachusetts, state law requires a special election to replace a U.S. senate vacancy. Passed in 2004 to prevent then-Governor Mitt Romney from appointing a possible Senate replacement to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, now Democratic state lawmakers are seeking to reverse the law to allow straight appointment by the governor's office. As Ann Althouse notes:

So there are 2 questions: 1. Is the death of Teddy Kennedy a sufficiently powerful event to counter the opposition to the health care bill? and 2. Is the death of Teddy Kennedy a sufficiently powerful event to overcome the embarrassment of changing the Massachusetts law back to what it was before it was changed to thwart a Republican?

See also, Karyn McDermott, "The Edward M. Kennedy Memorial Health Care Reform Bill 2009."

Senator Feingold: Yes, ObamaCare Vote Before Christmas, Public Option Alive

Folks might need to update their posts. It's a false meme that there'll be "no healthcare vote before Christmas." The source for the claim is Senator Russell Feingold, and his office has now issued an updated statement:

At the beginning of the August recess, most folks coming out were opposed to any sort of health care reform. But in the last few I have held, I have noticed more and more reform proponents coming out and being heard. Overall, in the seventeen years I’ve been holding these meetings, there has been strong support for health care reform. I’ve been saying for weeks that it will probably be right before Christmas before we have a health care reform bill to vote on. I will continue working to make sure we do and it is one with a strong public option.

Feingold's talking about the town hall forums he's held in Wisconsin. Here's Feingold's comments on the public option, from a meeting today in rural Marathon County:

I do think there should be a public option. I think there should be some choice here between people like what they have now fine. They should be able to keep it ... But a public option means that if you don't have any insurance or if you don't like what you have there's an alternative.

And here's Feingold in an interview today with the Appleton Post-Crescent:

Can you see yourself voting for any health care package that doesn't include a public option?

I would rather not. If we do something weak or just change one thing — like (including) pre-existing conditions, which is very important — I'm afraid we're not going to deal with the fundamental economic and personal issues that are involved here ....

How does long-term care fit into the national health care debate?

Wisconsin has been innovative and saved hundreds of millions of dollars by providing home-based care through our Family Care program. It has been a model for the country.

So whatever bill comes out, we should encourage an inclusion of home and community care.

I think we would get this. This is one (measure) that is not so controversial, as our population is getting older. As I like to say, the baby boomers are falling apart.

This is one of my top priorities for the health care bill, with some sort of public option, cost containment and making sure Wisconsin doesn't get ripped off on the reimbursements.

Frankly, it doesn't sound like much has changed for the Dems' ObamaCare agenda.

Plus, check out Feingold's statements earlier this year advocating a U.S. single payer system. From Verum Serum, "Sen. Feingold Defends Public Plan, Admits Ultimate Goal is Single-Payer":

Bleeding Hearts for ObamaCare: Maybe Crying Will Help Dems' Tanking Support?

Look, no one wants to learn of heartbreak stories of real people struggling with insurance bureaucracies, but trying to make Senator Tom Coburn, who is a family physician, into a heartless abomination of anti-ObamaCare obstructionism isn't going to do the trick. Here's this woman at Coburn's townhall yesterday. She says her insurance company's leaving her husband out in the cold: "We left the nursing home ... and they told us we are on our own":

NewsOK's got the story, "U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn Finds Mixed Views at Forum on Health Care":

More than 500 people attended the noontime event in the Chase Building plaza, and not all agreed with the fiscally conservative Republican.

One woman, a military veteran, asked Coburn, "Morally, how can you deny Americans affordable insurance?”

Coburn was quick to respond.

"One of the reasons it’s not affordable is because government is in the market in the first place,” he said. "Why as a veteran do you have to go to the Veteran Administration (hospital) instead of anywhere else you want?”

After another woman cried as she spoke about a sick relative, Coburn said bigger government won’t lead to health care reform.

"What’s missing from the debate is us as neighbors helping people who need help,” he said.

"The idea that government is a solution to problems is a very inaccurate statement.”

Coburn, who opposes the Democrats’ measure, has introduced a bill that would expand health care by subsidizing private insurance through refundable tax credits and forcing insurers into shared risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions.

Steve Benen, no surprise, has strong words for Coburn:

Coburn's answer represents mindless, reflexive opposition to government, for opposition's sake. It's a worldview that's as shallow as it is destructive ....

I'll never understand the right's obsession with hating the government, but for Coburn to lecture that woman in dire straits about the evils of government intervention in the health care system is callous, cruel, and exactly the kind of twisted thinking policymakers will have to reject to pass real reform.

Benen, the abominable disgrace that he is, doesn't mention that Senator Coburn tells the woman that, "Yeah, we'll help ... the first thing we'll do is see what we can do to help you, individually, through our office." Then Coburn goes on to explain that Americans must reinvigorate our tradition of community caring, focusing on "us as neighbors, helping people that need our help."

We won't get that from radical lefitsts who see every solution to society's problems as strengthening the long arm of the Orwellian state. Benen also might note that ObamaCare's certainly no friend to the woman at the video. Indeed, the logical conclusion is that Zeke Emanuel's cost rationalization regime would likely put the lady's husband out to pasture.

See also, Daily Kos, "This is Your GOP on Healthcare Reform," and Think Progress, "Coburn Tells Weeping Victim of Broken Health Care System That Government Isn't the Solution."

More at Memeorandum.

Related: "Polls Show It's Time for Democrats to Drop Healthcare Reform."

'Leave Our Penises Alone': No Wait! 'Topless Rights' Protest in Venice Beach

Well, Ann Althouse reports on Rush Limbaugh's exhortation, "leave our penises alone":

This is getting out of hand. There is a story that some officials in the Obama administration are pushing for circumcision for all boys born in the USA to fight HIV/AIDS. Not that I'm against circumcision, but it's a family's decision. Leave our penises alone, too, Obama!

Actually, liberated women in Venice Beach are focused on breasts, not penises:

Plus: "Video Snapshot: 'Topless Rights' Protest Hosted by Raëlian UFO Clone Sex Cult."

I think I'll stick to town halls!

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Obama Breaks Another Pledge: Now 'Looking Back' on Terror Prosecutions

Gateway Pundit has the video, "Team Obama Opens Investigation of CIA Officials for Treating Al-Qaeda Killers Badly." In a January interview with George Stephanopolous, President-elect Obama pledged, "we need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards."

But from today's Los Angeles Times:

In naming a special prosecutor to investigate the CIA's use of harsh interrogation tactics, the Obama administration has plunged into just the kind of controversy it said it wanted to avoid -- a polarizing, backward-looking fight over issues far removed from the president's top priorities.

At a time when healthcare and other signature initiatives are in trouble on Capitol Hill and President Obama's approval ratings are slipping, he now faces the prospect of a long, distracting probe into policies of the Bush administration -- policies Obama has already denounced.

And the furor is likely to be all the sharper because it pits the most liberal elements of Obama's base against the most unyielding elements of the Republican right.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sought Monday to position Obama out of the line of fire.

"The president has said repeatedly that he wants to look forward, not back, and the president agrees with the attorney general that those who acted in good faith and within the scope of legal guidance should not be prosecuted," Gibbs said in a statement. "Ultimately, determinations about whether someone broke the law are made independently by the attorney general."

But keeping the president above the fray may not be easy.

"Unfortunately, the pressure . . . to indict someone will be overwhelming," said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior CIA official. That will produce "two simultaneous unappealing outcomes," he said. "Half the population will think it is a whitewash and the right people weren't indicted. And half the population will think it is a lynch mob.

"If the White House thinks they can control this," Lowenthal said, "they aren't nearly as smart as I think they are."

Also, previously, from Jennifer Rubin, "Torture Prosecutions and Obama’s Radical Political Agenda."

Cartoon Credit: William Warren at Americans for Limited Government.

Political Terror in the Heartland: Quincy Tea Party Fundamentalists

From Founding Bloggers, "EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Political Terrorism In The Heartland – Inside the Quincy Tea Party Cell":

This is part one. Click the link for the full video.

Hat Tip: Glenn Reynolds.

Holder to Reopen CIA Abuse Cases

From the Wall Street Journal, "Prosecuting the CIA":

'It would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department." –Attorney General Eric Holder, April 2009

"Justice Department Names Prosecutor to Reopen CIA Abuse Cases" –Wall Street Journal, yesterday

Mr. Holder had it right the first time. His about-face yesterday, compounded by his release of a 2004 internal CIA report on that agency's handling of terrorists, opens a political war that President Obama, the CIA and above all the country will live to regret.

This is a trap the Administration set for itself. Mr. Obama and his team have attempted to appease their political left by publicly denouncing the Bush Administration's national security policies, even as they claimed to want to forget the past. Their disparagement has only fed the liberal demand for Bush prosecutions and increased the pressure on Mr. Holder to appoint a prosecutor.

Justice threw kerosene on those politics yesterday with its release of findings compiled by the CIA's inspector general in 2004 about the agency's detention and interrogation of terrorists. The ACLU had won a court order for their release. We were still reading its hundreds of pages at deadline, but most of the supposedly damning details had already been leaked. The new bits include the fact that interrogators threatened terrorists with a gun shot in a nearby room, with a power drill and cigarette smoke, and against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family. We suspect millions of Americans will be shocked to learn that these unshocking details are all that the uproar over "torture" is about.

Also, John at Power Line:

Having read the CIA report in its entirety, I am struck once again by how humane our treatment of captured terrorists was intended to be, and generally was. The handful of incidents highlighted by press accounts of the report came to light precisely because they were reported as deviations from the treatment of detainees that had been authorized by DOJ lawyers.

I'll be reading over more of this information today.

There's lots of debate at Memeorandum.

Interesting to me is what's going on at the CIA. See ABC News, "Obama White House v. CIA; Panetta Threatened to Quit: Tensions Lead to CIA Director's "Screaming Match" at the White House." Also, the Astute Bloggers, "THE SOPRANOS STYLE OF ERIC HOLDER."

Obama Faces Pressure to Postpone the Public Option

President Obama should abandon the "public option" altogether, and push for genuine reform of insurance markets instead. He's a Democratic-socialist, so of course he won't. The guy's apparently willing to tank a second term in the process, so give the dude credit for tenacity (or bone-headedness).

In any case, from CNN, "Obama, Democrats Urged to Find Unity on Health Care Reform":

With health care negotiations stalled until Congress comes back from August recess, a top Democratic strategist says President Obama and his party need to seize control of the debate.

"We need message discipline on the Democratic side," Democratic strategist and CNN contributor Donna Brazile said. "I can't speak for Republicans, but I can tell you, without message discipline, this has been a very difficult, uphill battle for the president."

Obama has spent the past week trying to put out fires sparked after his administration appeared to hedge on support for a government-run public option. Some of the greatest criticism is coming from liberals who are now threatening to vote against any bill that does not include such an option.

At a town hall meeting over the weekend, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California, implored the president not to drop the public option plan and said his efforts to be bipartisan are futile.

"Yes, we know that you are a nice man, that you want to work with the opposite side of the aisle. But there comes a time when you need to drop that and move forward," she said. "We're saying to you, Mr. President, 'Be tough. Use everything that you've got. Do what you have to do. And we have your back.'

Maxine Waters pisses me off, frankly. "Be tough ..." Give me a break. The rest of the country is not like Waters' South Central socialist constituency in the 35th Congressional District.

I looked for video the other day of her town hall, which was a no-conflict zone from what I read. Here's some video that's now been uploaded:

My earlier post is here, "Maxine Waters on ObamaCare Protests: 'I Sent Them a Message ... Don't Try That With Maxine Waters'."

Also, from Gateway Pundit, "Socialist Maxine Waters Blasts "Neanderthal" Opposition to Obamacare ...Update: Waters Challenges Town Hall Protesters."

Dick Morris: Democrats Could Lose 100 Seats in 2010

From Gateway Pundit, "Dick Morris Warns Democrats Could Lose 100 Seats in 2010":

Barack Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet ... Gallup shows the president's approval ratings hitting a new low.

The president's Rasmussen approval index numbers also hit a new double digit low this weekend at -14. Barack Obama's presidential index numbers are back in negative double digits for the first time since he smeared the nation's police force by saying an officer had acted stupidly for arresting Obama's out of control Harvard friend.

Glenn Beck Goes After Van Jones and 'Color of Change'

I'm back to teaching this week, so I wasn't home in time to catch Glenn Beck go on the attack against Van Jones, the co-founder of Color-of-Change (the group boycotting Beck's show on Fox).

Glenn Beck used his popular Fox News show this afternoon to attack the background of Van Jones, a White House environmental advisor who co-founded an African American political advocacy group that organized an advertising boycott of his program.

During his 2 p.m. PDT show, Beck did not address the boycott spearheaded by Color of Change to protest the talk show host’s remark last month that he believes President Obama is “a racist.”

Instead, he spent a large share of his program suggesting that Jones, who co-founded Color of Change in 2005, is a radical. Jones now serves as a special advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

During a six-minute biographical profile, set to ominous music, Beck said Jones was twice arrested for political protests and has described himself as a "rowdy black nationalist." The talk show host cast the piece as part of a broader examination of Obama's "czars," special advisers to the president who "don't answer to anybody."

"Why is it that such a committed revolutionary has made it so high into the Obama administration as one of his chief advisers?" Beck asked.

More at the link, via Memeorandum.

What is Budget Reconciliation?

The latest buzz in the protracted healthcare debate is over Senator Charles Schumer's suggestion that Senate Democrats may seek to pass ObamaCare via the "budget reconciliation" procedure.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The obvious problem is that Schumer's plan is fundamentally dishonest. According to the Rules of the House of Representatives:

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution. First used in1980 this process was used at the end of a fiscal year to enact legislation to fine tune revenue and spending levels through legislation that could not be filibustered in the Senate. The policy changes brought about by this part of the budget process have served as constraints on the levels of mandatory spending and federal tax revenues which also has served since 1981 as a vehicle for deficit reduction.

And here's Wikipedia's entry:

A reconciliation instruction is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution.

Democrats would be violating existing congressional norms and formal procedures in seeking an end-run around the filibuster. And it turns out that Senate Dems have encouragement from the White House:

The president and his advisers have started devising a strategy to pass a measure by relying only on the Democratic majority in each house of Congress, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Progressives will argue that resort to "reconciliation" is a common legislative practice; that Senate Republicans used the procedure when they held the majority. For example:

For more detailed information on how exactly the reconciliation process works, see this diary on Congress Matters. This is the same procedure that was used by Senate Republicans under President Bush to pass his first round of tax cuts. It’s been used over 20 times in the past 35 years, by both parties.

Well, if that's the central example of GOP use of reconciliation, the Republicans were within proper procedure in promoting the passage of tax legislation through reconciliation. It would have to be a new twist in lobbying for ObamaCare for Dems to call the legislation an "entitlement" or a "revenue program." The administration's healthcare reform would be a major new social policy expansion - and it would be a "discretionary" appropriation, not a fixed-outlay entitlement. And it's certainly not a matter of routine budgetary appropriations. Thus, it's sneaky and underhanded for leftists - such as Senator Schumer above, but also blogger Steve Benen - to disguise reconciliation for ObamaCare as possible as a normal legislative alternative. As Benen wrote the other day:

Republicans and political reporters are describing reconciliation as the "nuclear option" as a way to make it seem as if reconciliation is some kind of outrageous abuse of the legislative process. It's meant to remind political observers of the time Republicans planned to eliminate judicial filibusters through an outrageous abuse of the legislative process.

They're actually opposites. When Senate Republicans crafted the real "nuclear option" in 2005, the idea was to change the rules in the middle of the game. The Senate can change its rules with 67 votes, but Trent Lott & Co. thought they'd try it with 51 votes. Senate Dems, at the time, threatened all-out political war over this, which is why Lott referred to his underhanded scheme as the "nuclear option."

Reconciliation, in contrast, is part of the existing Senate rules. No one's talking about changing anything -- just following the process that's already in place.

Except, those "existing Senate rules" authorize reconciliation for entitlements or tax-budgeting items, of which ObamaCare is neither.

More at Memeorandum.

**********

UPDATE: From reader Dave, in the comments:

Dr. Douglas, not to defend Up-Chuck Schumer here in any way, as I find him nearly as despicable as Ted Kennedy, but I think a pretty good argument could be made that ObamaCare is, in fact, an entitlement, right along the lines of Social (In)Security.

Absolutely. ObamaCare will indeed end up as the mother of all entitlements, if fully implemented as the full-blown socialized medical scheme the radical lefitsts want. The issue here is the sales pitch. Obama and the Democrats have not sold ObamaCare as a federal entitlment, because everyone knows we need to cut entitlement spending, which is strangling American solvency and indebting future generations. Leftists can't cram down another "entitlement" on the American public, and hence they can't use the "reconciliation" process unless they say they will.

Jasmine Fiore Manhunt: Ryan Jenkins Found Dead in Canada Hotel Room

Being a local story, I followed the news of Jasmine Fiore with a little more interest than usual. I had just come home from dropping off my new course syllabi at the copy center at my school. Flipping on the TV, I caught the local ABC News report on the disovery of Jasmine Fiore's body in a garbage dumpster in Buena Park. (See, "Body Found in Suitcase is Missing Model.") As they often do, the newscasters showed a map of the area, and the approximate location of the apartment complex where the body was found. I had stopped for gas at an Arco station right near there on the way home, so it made the story even that much more compelling.

The story garned international news coverage with its celebrity/gossip tie-ins. And now that suspected killer Ryan Jenkins' body has been found, we can expect a good day's worth of news coverage through the early-week media cycle. Here's the local news video from KABC-TV Los Angeles, "Ryan Jenkins Found Dead in Canada":

TMZ posted the story late last night, "Ryan Jenkins Dead -- Hangs Himself." Also, from KTLA-TV Los Angeles, "Police: Model Murder Suspect Hanged Himself." Plus, from CNN, "Suspect in Model's Murder Found Dead in Canada."

Related: In a development perfectly "shaped" for the forensic skills of breast-expert Robert Stacy McCain, Jasmine Fiore's body was identified by her implants. A couple of related articles here. See, "Killer Removed Jasmine Fiore's Teeth, Fingers, Before Stuffing Her in a Suitcase," and "Murdered Model Identified by Breast Implants."

British Quangos to Ban 'Everyday Racist and Sexist Language'

Via Blazing Cat Fur, check out this piece from the Times of London, "Quangos Blackball ... Oops, Sorry ... Veto ‘Racist’ Everyday Phrases":

It could be construed as a black day for the English language — but not if you work in the public sector.

Dozens of quangos and taxpayer-funded organisations have ordered a purge of common words and phrases so as not to cause offence.

Among the everyday sayings that have been quietly dropped in a bid to stamp out racism and sexism are “whiter than white”, “gentleman’s agreement”, “black mark” and “right-hand man”.

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has advised staff to replace the phrase “black day” with “miserable day”, according to documents released under freedom of information rules.

It points out that certain words carry with them a “hierarchical valuation of skin colour”. The commission even urges employees to be mindful of the term “ethnic minority” because it can imply “something smaller and less important”.

The National Gallery in London believes that the phrase “gentleman’s agreement” is potentially offensive to women and suggests that staff should replace it with “unwritten agreement” or “an agreement based on trust” instead. The term “right-hand man” is also considered taboo by the gallery, with “second in command” being deemed more suitable.

Many institutions have urged their workforce to be mindful of “gender bias” in language. The Learning and Skills Council wants staff to “perfect” their brief rather than “master” it, while the Newcastle University has singled out the phrase “master bedroom” as being problematic.

Advice issued by the South West Regional Development Agency states: “Terms such as ‘black sheep of the family’, ‘black looks’ and ‘black mark’ have no direct link to skin colour but potentially serve to reinforce a negative view of all things black. Equally, certain terms imply a negative image of ‘black’ by reinforcing the positive aspects of white.

“For example, in the context of being above suspicion, the phrase ‘whiter than white’ is often used. Purer than pure or cleaner than clean are alternatives which do not infer that anything other than white should be regarded with suspicion.”

More at the link.

By the way, this story reminds me of back in 1990, when I was joined the College Democrats' club at Fresno State. The group had a huge wooden booth out on the university quad area, and it had to be taken off campus during the summer. A local union electrician agreed to store it for us, so we had to dismantle the monster (partially at least) to be able to move it. I was working with one of the women from the club, trying to pry off some of the interior baseboard. While she was pulling up and twisting I said, "You just have to manhandle that thing." She stopped right there, gave me a look, and said, "manhandle it"? I immediately realized I was insufficiently trained in the politically correct doctrines of feminism. I apologized and quickly took the hammer from her hand before she cracked my cranium with it real good!

(P.S. "Quangos" are "quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations," a bureaucratic term for non-profit public-sector agencies. Check out more good stuff at Blazing Cat Fur, in any case.)