Obama’s Eulogy for Senator Kennedy: Bending History for Socialist Agenda

Gateway Pundit reports that the Dems are shamelessly politicizing Senator Kennedy's memorial service, "Of Course ... Dems Push For Obamacare at Teddy Kennedy's Funeral Mass (Video).

I'm actually intrigued with President Obama's eulogy. It's a solemn occasion, and the president struck the appropriate tone. But he too pushed the buttons of sympathy, and wasn't against redefining America's founding values in support of the Democrats' socialist agenda:

Through his own suffering, Ted Kennedy became more alive to the plight and suffering of others — the sick child who could not see a doctor; the young soldier sent to battle without armor; the citizen denied her rights because of what she looks like or who she loves or where she comes from. The landmark laws that he championed -- the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, immigration reform, children’s health care, the Family and Medical Leave Act –all have a running thread. Ted Kennedy’s life’s work was not to champion those with wealth or power or special connections. It was to give a voice to those who were not heard; to add a rung to the ladder of opportunity; to make real the dream of our founding. He was given the gift of time that his brothers were not, and he used that gift to touch as many lives and right as many wrongs as the years would allow.

The "dream of our founding" has always been about guaranteeing individuals the freedom to live out the true meaning of our heritage: That every person was "created equal" in the eyes of God and endowed by Him with certain unalienable rights, among these, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere in our founding documents does the word "equality" appear, and never was the notion of equality of result the goal of our founding. (It's not until after the civil war, after the defeat of slavery, that the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to guarantee the equal protection of the laws - and that was to remove racial classifications, not to guarantee equal outcomes across society.)

As Dennis Prager wrote in June, "Understanding the Politics of the Left":

The left has its first president -- with the possible exception of Franklin Delano Roosevelt -- and for the first time controls the Democratic Party and both houses of Congress. In the name of compassion for the sick and the poor and in the name of preventing worldwide environmental catastrophe, it is attempting to remake America.

Yep, we see that, at the Kennedy memorial, in President Obama's nuanced but unmistakable push to foster the notion that giving "voice to those not heard" and "adding a rung to the ladder of opportunity" were the "dreams of our founding."

More at Memeorandum.

Steven Crowder on CalPIRG Astroturfing

I remember my very first job after recieving my Bachelor's degree. My (future) wife and I had just moved to Santa Barbara, and I had a couple of months before my graduate program was going to start. Looking for a job, I answered the CalPIRG ad announcing "careers in political consulting" in the local paper. Invited for an interview, I put on my blue blazer and a button-down shirt and cruised over to the office - which ended up being a ramshackle apartment in Isla Vista. (I was greeted by a bunch of college kids in Birkenstocks.) Being new to town, I didn't know that IV's reputation gained a boost after the local Bank of America branch was burned down during the 1970 riots. The actual job for CalPIRG was to go door to door, in the middle of a deep recession, and beg homeowners for money for some unexplainable environmental impact fund. I walked off the job that night. I don't think I even collected a check.

Anyway, all of that's a preface for Steven Crowder masterful exspose of CalPIRG "grassroots" recruiting at Pajamas Media. The guy's a genius! "Undercover with Liberals! (RIP Crowder)":

We’ve heard the term “Astroturf” thrown around so flippantly lately, I felt somebody needed to put it to the test. Why should Liberals be exempt from having the “special interests” card thrown at them? My hunch tells me that they appease those folks more than anybody. Well, strap on the hidden camera ...It’s time to find out!

Hat Tip: Darleen Click. See also, Verum Serum, "HCAN Affiliate Partners with Group Hiring Health Reform Canvassers Nationwide."

Mary Jo Kopechne: For Democrats, A Footnote Better Left to Obscurity

I've seen at least three articles now arguing that Mary Jo Kopechne's death pales in comparison to the historical legacy of Edward Kennedy.

It's an awful, even demonic, kind of historical revisionism that relegates to a historical footnote the life and promise of that beautiful woman.

Melissa Lafsky wrote a piece at the Huffington Post, "The Footnote Speaks: What Would Mary Jo Kopechne Have Thought of Ted's Career?" She concludes there with:

We don't know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she'd have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don't know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.

Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it.

Then yesterday Joyce Carol Oates published, "Kennedy's Redemption From the Depths":

At Chappaquiddick, having been drinking and partying with young women aides of his brother Robert Kennedy, Senator Kennedy, at this time a married man and a father, slipped away with 28-year-old Mary Jo Kopechne, who was trapped in his car after he took a wrong turn off the Chappaquiddick bridge, lost control of his car which was submerged in just eight feet of water ....

If Kennedy had summoned aid, he would very likely have given police officers self-incriminating evidence, which might have involved charges of vehicular manslaughter or homicide. The local prosecutor was not nearly so outraged by Kennedy's behaviour as other prosecutors might have been: the charges were "failing to report an accident" and "leaving the scene of an accident." The punishment: two months' probation.

That the Kennedys had always been a family operating outside the perimeters of the sort of legal restrictions that bind other citizens to "moral" behaviour publicly, is well known; no occasion so exemplifies this than Chappaquiddick and the subsequent cooperative silence of the Kopechne family who agreed never to speak of the tragedy.
One is led to think of Tom and Daisy Buchanan of Fitzgerald's the Great Gatsby, rich individuals accustomed to behaving carelessly and allowing others to clean up after them. It is often in instances of the "fortunate fall", think of Joseph Conrad's anti-hero/hero Lord Jim as a classic literary analogy, that innocent individuals figure almost as ritual sacrifices is another aspect of the phenomenon.

Yet if one weighs the life of a single young woman against the accomplishments of the man President Obama has called the greatest Democratic senator in history, what is one to think?

The poet John Berryman once wondered: "Is wickedness soluble in art?". One might rephrase, in a vocabulary more suitable for our politicized era: "Is wickedness soluble in good deeds?"

Then today, Eric Zorn's got a piece up, "How wall-to-wall Chappaquiddick would have changed history - for the worse":

Chappaquiddick was a big story ... and badly damaged the reputation of the man then seen as the surviving prince and heir apparent of American politics ....

The following year Massachusetts voters resoundingly re-elected him to the Senate. Though the Chappaquiddick scandal probably kept him out of the White House, it never cost him the seat he held until his death this week at age 77.

This thought experiment invites a question to which there is no nonpartisan answer: Was it just as well that we didn't -- couldn't -- have a media feeding frenzy over Chappaquiddick in 1969? Would the nation have been better off if Kennedy had been shamed into private life?

Or, as I believe, is the nation -- particularly our disabled and disadvantaged residents -- better off for the 40 years of service he was able to render after that terrible night?

The momentary satisfaction of destroying Ted Kennedy for his failings would have had a significant price. Something to keep in mind when the next fallen figure, Democrat or Republican, stumbles into the heat lamp.

Check Memeorandum for more commentary. When we combine these articles with the fact that Ted Kennedy himself was constantly on the lookout for the latest in Chappaquiddick humor, we're left with nothing other than the dreadful weight of Democratic monstrosity.

And the horrible truth of Mary Jo Kopechne's death is that Ted Kennedy's legacy wasn't worth it. Another member of Congress could have easily sponsored wheelchair ramps for the disabled or authorized home heating subsidies for the poor. Another Democratic would have sponsored expanded healthcare for indigent children. President Bush didn't need Ted Kennedy to pass No Child Left Behind. There's nothing that Kennedy attached his name to that wouldn't have come about by another Democrat pushing more of the same statist left-wing agenda. The hagiography of Senator Kennedy's life only shows us once again the Democratic liberalism as an ideology is not about caring or compassion, it's not about help the disadvantaged or the downtrodden. Leftist are all about power and monuments to the state. Elevating the false successes of Ted Kennedy is no different from elevating statues to dictators in authoritarian regimes: It's the deification of idolatry at the expense of the universal dignity of the individual. As Rick Moran has argued, "To left wing fanatics ... human life does not belong to the individual, but to the higher cause of the collective good.

When Mary Jo Kopechne died at Chappaquiddick, the left put one more brick in the wall of totalitarianism. The "footnoting" of Kopechne this week is a witness to how high and mighty that wall has been erected today.

See also, ABC News, "Chappaquiddick: No Profile in Kennedy Courage."

Debating Paul Wolfowitz: Realism, Neoconservatism, and Foreign Policy

Paul Wolfowitz, who was Deputy Secretary of Defense in the G.W. Bush administration, has published a great essay in the new Foreign Policy, "Think Again: Realism."

I'm not critical of Wolfowitz, naturally. He avoids, at the article, a discussion of the Iraq war, which is totally understandable. Critics of the war, both realists and political leftists, will always say the war was a mistake and that the Bush administration lied to get into it. All subsequent milestones, and the ultimate successes, will be explained away by some twisted logic that utlimately aids and encourages our enemies. As things are now, the current counterinsurgency doctrines of the Obama administration may well make things worse than they were in Iraq than in late 2008, in the final months of the Bush presidency. So, yeah, I can understand why Wolfowitz would rather focus on a more abstract discussion with people who essentially hate him and would like to see him hang at that Hague.

The article has generated a response at Foreign Policy, from Stephen Walt, David Rothkopf, Daniel Drezner, and Steve Clemons. The first three are bloggers at ForeignPolicy.com, and Clemons is the gay hard-left publisher of the Washington Note. Check their contributions at "Is Paul Wolfowitz for Real?"

Walt's is the most partisan, and I'll leave that for readers to examine. Rothkopf seems to go off in every direction. He doesn't like political science, it appears, and I wonder why the editors asked him to contribute to this debate. Clemons writes a decent - even fair - piece. It's worth a look. But Drezner offers what I think is the clearest dissection of Wolfowitz's essay:

As I was reading Paul Wolfowitz's essay on Obama and realism, I kept thinking, "there's realism and then there's Realism."

Small "r" realism consists of a recognition that there are some unpleasant truths in world politics that must be acknowledged if one is going to pursue a prudent foreign policy. If a government amasses significant capabilities or acts aggressively, it will tend to trigger balancing coalitions. International institutions are often feckless and hypocritical. Forcible regime change is really, really hard. Implacable hostility to powerful actors with different ideologies won't work terribly well. Power is a relative measure and a resource that should be husbanded for important matters of state. You get the idea.

Big "R" Realism is a theoretical paradigm that makes certain assumptions about what drives powerful actors in world politics, and derives interesting predictions (and occasional prescriptions) from those assumptions. Many of these predictions match up with small "r" realism (balancing behavior, useless international institutions, etc.). Many go beyond them, however. According to Realism, regime type is unimportant in explaining world politics. The democratic peace is a mirage. Strong states are better at foreign policy. Not all Realists agree on everything, but they agree on some big and not obvious things, and they all seem to publish in International Security an awful lot (don't aske me to parse out the difference between defensive realists, neoclassical realists, structural realists, and offensive realists; if you do, well, I'm going to have this kind of reaction).

The difference between the two "realisms" is one of purpose. Small "r" realism is a set of guidelines for real, live policymakers, and is intended to foster prudence. Big "R" Realism is intended to be more provocative to the point of caricature -- i.e., to the point where Realists might have little difficulty incorporating zombies into their paradigm. It is certainly possible to be both. Behind closed doors, I have heard big "R" Realists proffer small "r" realist prescriptions that might contradict the academic paradigm. In public, it's funny how Realists who believe that anarchy and the distribution of power are the only things that matter nevertheless rail against the pernicious influence of ethnic lobbies.

That last line is a jab at Walt and his co-author John Mearsheimer, and their book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (see the original aticle from the London Review of Books, "The Israel Lobby").

I'll have more on this later.

New Iraqi Violence by the Numbers: Security Deteriorates Under Obama

From the New York Times, "New Iraqi Violence by the Numbers":

Is violence worsening in Iraq?

The answer is a matter of perspective, and thus is open to dispute, as it has almost always been since the war began.

The catastrophic suicide bombings outside two government ministries here nine days ago — the death toll of which was raised on Friday to 132, from 95 initially — were the worst of a series of major attacks across Iraq this month that have devastated a mosque, a cafe and, in one case, much of an entire village.

As a result, August is already the bloodiest month for Iraqis since April 2008, according to the invaluable Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, the independent organization that bases its tally on news reports. (The official monthly figures released by the Ministry of the Interior are often higher; the next are due on Monday. ....

Most of the attacks appear intended to provoke an ethnic or sectarian backlash or weaken the government and its security forces. That they have not sparked a deadly cycle of retaliation or brought the government to its knees is considered a measure of decreasing violence, or at least a decreasing impact of the violence.

It also provides little comfort. Almost everyone here senses an uptick in violence that even in the best weeks remains an unnerving undercurrent of Iraqi life. Perceptions matter, even if the exact number of attacks suggests something different.

The Aug. 19 bombings, for example, struck the very heart of the government in the center of Baghdad, possibly with the collusion of Iraqi security officials. It might be one attack in the statistics, but it caused disproportionate damage, real and perceived.

“This was a serious security breach,” Iraq’s foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said in an interview in the shattered remains of his ministry compound, where the stench of death lingered a week after the bombing.

The attacks appeared to rattle Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, which descended into finger-pointing and is now reconsidering its decision to remove blast walls from Baghdad and, according to Mr. Zebari, its reluctance to openly rely on American forces for security.

Major attacks have come in waves this year; American commanders say that the insurgents need time to regroup after each attack before planning new ones. Even so, they are still able to attack, seemingly at will, which is why few here speak of violence declining — now or anytime soon.

“Those people who conducted this well organized and coordinated attack believe that the situation in Iraq after six years is reversible or could be reversible,” Mr. Zebari said. “We anticipate that there could be more attacks.”

See also, Alexander Nekrassov, "Situation In Iraq Getting Worse. So What’s The Plan, Mr Obama?"; and the Astute Bloggers, "IRAQ'S BLOODIEST DAY SINCE OBAMA INAUGURATION," and "IRAQI: 'OBAMA IS THROWING AWAY OUR COMMON VICTORY."

Democrat Diane Watson: Loves CastroCare, Hasn't Read ObamaCare

It's really not surprising anymore. The Democratic Party has made common cause with hardline Marxists and neo-Stalinist revolutionary organizations. I have reported on this first hand, and now we have another member of Congress lavishing praise on Fidel Castro and Cuban healthcare.

The conservative blogosphere's struck gold with this: Representative Diane Watson, at her town hall meeting in Los Angeles last night, heaped praise on the Cuban Revolution and the communist health system in Castro's bloody regime. Unsurprisingly, according to this report, Watson boasted of having not read the ObamaCare legislation in Washington, to the cheers of her consituents:

I went to Rep. Diane Watson's townhall meeting. This was a very unusual townhall meeting. It was quite apparent that Diane Watson was able to fill the townhall with an overwhelming number of left-wing lunatics who hold unreasonable and irrational political opinions. For instance, when Diane Watson talked about how she had not read the bill, the audience laughed and even applauded. That is not a very typical reaction from members of the public. In most parts of the country, such an admission would result in a great deal of scorn from the audience members.

A partial transcript is here:

WATSON: You might have heard their philosophical leader. I think his name is Rush Limbaugh. And he said early on, “I hope that he fails.”

Do you know what that means? If the president, your commander-in-chief, fails, America fails.

Now, when a senator says that this will be his Waterloo, and we all know what happened at Waterloo, then we have him and he fails. Do we want a failed state called the United States?

And remember: They are spreading fear and they are trying to see that the first president that looks likes me fails.

Now just understand what’s at the bottom line.

And you know we just got, 48 hours ago, we just go back, we were in Beijing, China, Hong Kong, China, we were in Taiwan, we were in Guam, we were all over the Far East.

I just want you to know: People look at the United States as a country that has changed its way and has elected someone from Kenya and Kansas, I’ll put it like that.

And they’re saying, “We thought you would never do that.”

So we don’t want to have this young man, and he just turned 48 — we want him to succeed, because when he succeeds, we regain our status. We regain our status.

It was just mentioned to me by our esteemed speaker, “Did anyone say anything about the Cuban health system?”

And lemme tell ya, before you say “Oh, it’s a commu–”, you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, now, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. [APPLAUSE]

And you know, the Cuban revolution that kicked out the wealthy, Che Guevara did that, and then, after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation, and they found … well, just leave it there (laughs), an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro ...

More at Memeorandum.

Bachmann Hammers Heckler at Raucous Anti-ObamaCare Town Hall (VIDEO)

Via PoliJam Times, "Bachmann Wins Over Raucous Town Hall Crowd With Snappy Comeback at Heckler":

REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MINN.): “I would far prefer to have American health care than I would health care in the UK any day of the week.”

BACHMANN: “These are just some headlines from the UK – the United Kingdom. Headlines about the disaster that is the government takeover of health care in the UK. You probably heard about this story the day before yesterday. It says, ‘Babies are being born in hospitals corridors, there’s a bed shortage thats forced 4,000 mothers in the UK to give birth in hallways, offices,’ – but not here.”

AUDIENCE MEMBER: “That happens here.”

BACHMANN: “I’ve given birth here probably more times than you, sir.”

See Ed Morrissey for more, "Bachmann Zaps Heckler Over Maternity Care." Also Snooper Report, "The Ways and Means of the MSM."

Related: Roll Call, "Bachmann Faces Raucous Crowd in Minnesota" (via Memeorandum).

Democrat Jim Moran's Town Hall in Virginia: Concerned Citizens Smeared as 'Teabagging' KKK Nightriders

From Marooned in Marin, "Flyers Depicing 'Teabaggers' as KKK Hanging Obama Found On Cars After Moran/Dean Town Hall in Reston":

In an unprecedented show of arrogance and disregard for the electorate, Democrats have called American citizens who dare to dissent from Obamacare unAmerican, a paid mob, political terrorists, brownshirts and Nazis, among others.

Now, opponents of socialized medicine and the Obama agenda are being depicted as Ku Klux Klan members who want to lynch Barack Obama. That's the message of this flyer which was found on cars outside the parking lot at South Lakes High School in Reston on Tuesday night, after the town hall meeting with Jim "I Like To Hit People" Moran and "Screamin'" Howard Dean.

Image and text from Restonian blog.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit.

Related: "Shouting Activists Pack Rep. Moran's Town Hall in Virginia."

Glenn Beck Gets Results

The background reports are here and here. While leftists are pumping up the alleged support for the communist Color-of-Change boycott against Glenn Beck on Fox News, the show's viewership is growing dramatically. On Tuesday, over 3 million watched Beck at 5:00pm, second only to the O'Reilly Factor. What's interesting is that the boycott is not affecting Fox's bottom line (advertisers are simply switching time slots). And note, at the second video below, the participants at Representative Steve Buyer town hall on Tuesday are asking, "Who wrote all of these bills? And did the far-left Apollo Alliance have any role in writing any of them?" Glenn Beck gets results:

See David Weigel, "The Glenn Beck Effect."

Also, Atlas Shrugs, "Obama's 'Green' Czar: Underground Terrorist and Communist."

The Left's Pushback Against the 'Wellstone Effect' Meme

The Politico's got a piece up, "Conservatives Warn of 'Wellstone Effect'." But what's interesting is the pushback against the meme. Leftists are outraged that right-wingers would take issue with their crass exploitation of Edward Kennedy's death, so they've gone on the offensive to smear conservatives.

It turns out a bunch of "liberal lions" of the blogosphere are parroting the meme at Media Matter's post, "Conservative Media Invoke Wellstone Memorial Smear in Predicting Politicization of Kennedy's Death." See, for example, Hullabaloo, The Minnesota Independent, Taylor Marsh, and MyDD.

But the truth is unkind: " Democrats Accused of Using Edward Kennedy’s Death to Promote Reforms":

Within hours of Mr Kennedy’s death on Wednesday leading Democrats were trying to turn it into a rallying point for healthcare reform — something that he had called the “cause of my life” — and suggested that any legislation should carry his name.
“[It was] the passion of his life,” David Obey, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said. “Above all else, he would want us to redouble our efforts to achieve it.”

Robert Byrd, the senior Senate Democrat, called for the passage of healthcare legislation that would bear Mr Kennedy’s name, and Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, said: “Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality healthcare for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration.”

And, "Kennedy’s Death Spurs Calls to Pass Health Legislation":

The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy quickly became a rallying cry for Congress to pass health care overhaul legislation.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office sent an email to reporters at around 2:30 a.m. today, just hours after his death, calling for the passage of health care overhaul. “Ted Kennedy’s dream of quality health care for all Americans will be made real this year because of his leadership and his inspiration,” the statement read.

Andy Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, also issued a statement this morning calling for the passage of health care overhaul. “Let us continue his cause,” Stern said. “Let us take action this year to pass health care reform. And let us continue to build Kennedy’s vision of America.”

South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the House majority whip, said: “As we move forward with health reform legislation, his absence will be palpable. But let us use his inspirational words as our guide, to rise to our best ideals and finally provide decent quality health care to all Americans as a fundamental right, not a privilege.”

Kennedy, who spent the past year battling brain cancer, had frequently called health-care overhaul the “cause of my life.”

Plus the endless examples of Kennedy exploitation across the leftosphere:

MoveOn.org issued this statement:

In his honor, we'll redouble our efforts to win what Senator Kennedy called 'the cause of his life' -- health care for all.

And from the blogs:

At AFL-CIO Blog, "Filled with Hope for Kennedy’s Dream of Health Care Reform to Become Reality."

At Balloon Juice, "Time for the Teddy Kennedy Memorial Health Care Reform Bill."

At Booman Tribune, "The Best Way to Honor Ted Kennedy's Memory is to Pass a Really Good Health Care Bill."

At Change.org's Health Care Blog, "Complete Kennedy's Unfinished Work -- Pass Health Reform."

At Daily Kos, "Honor Sen. Kennedy: Pass Kennedy's Medicare for All Act."

At the Huffington Post, "Greatest Tribute to Kennedy: Pass Health Care for All."

At Firedoglake (Christy Hardin Smith), "Ted Kennedy: Health Care “Has Been The Passion Of My Life”."

At Firedoglake (Jane Hamsher), "Sebelius Asks, “What Would Teddy Do?”."

At Political Junkie, "Let's Pass Health Care Reform for Teddy Kennedy."

At Talking Points Memo, "Franken: Kennedy's Death 'Makes Me More Determined' To Pass Health Care Reform."

Nope. No left-wing Kennedy healthcare politicization there.

Those crazy conservatives! A "Wellstone effect"? Sheesh. That's absurd!

Cartoon Credit: William Warren at Americans for Limited Government.

*********

Added: From Eric Florack, "Ted Kennedy; Another Wellstone."

Ted Kennedy at 1980 Democratic National Convention: 'The Dream Shall Never Die'

I said my piece today on Ted Kennedy's tragic void in 1980 (see, "Hey, Ted Kennedy: 'Why Do You Want to Be President?'"). The historical moment is fascinating, nevertheless. Check these clips from the conclusion of Ted Kennedy's concession speech at the 1980 Democratic National Convention:

May it be said of our Party in 1980 that we found our faith again.

And may it be said of us, both in dark passages and in bright days, in the words of Tennyson that my brothers quoted and loved, and that have special meaning for me now:

"I am a part of all that I have met
To [Tho] much is taken, much abides
That which we are, we are --
One equal temper of heroic hearts
Strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."

For me, a few hours ago, this campaign came to an end.

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.

Leon Panetta at CIA: Obama's Fall Guy

From Kimberley Strassel, "The Fall Guy":

In the game of political football that is today national security, spare a thought for CIA Director Leon Panetta. Quarterbacking is hard enough without getting sacked by your own team.

President Barack Obama fought hard for the former California congressman during his uncertain February confirmation fight. That's about the last thing the president has done for his spy chief. Quite the opposite: If the latest flap over CIA interrogations shows anything, it's that Mr. Panetta has officially become the president's designated fall guy.

The title has been months in the making. Mr. Obama is contending with an angry left that's riled by his decisions to retain some Bush-era counterterrorism policies. He's facing Congressional liberals still baying for Bush blood. He's hired Attorney General Eric Holder, who is giving the term "ideological purity" new meaning. Mr. Obama's way to appease these bodies? Hang the CIA and Mr. Panetta out to dry.

More at the link.

Also, at the video, Bill O'Reilly, "Administration Infighting? Inside Story of Leon Panetta's Angry Tirade Over News of CIA Probe."

Ezekiel Emanuel: Health Rationer-in-Chief

From Betsy McCaughey, "Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief: White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care":

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.

The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."

True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."

In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).

Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line ....

Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Is this what Americans want?

Mary Landrieu Health Care Town Hall: Ducking Question on ObamAbortion Mandate

Via Pat in Shreveport, here's this from the Times-Picayune, "Sen. Mary Landrieu's Health Care Town Hall Meeting Gets Raucous":

Sen. Mary Landrieu has left the building after about two hours with a boisterous crowd at the Louisiana National Guard outpost Reserve.

Crowd estimates at Thursday's meeting range from 500 to 650 people. There were a few more than 400 chairs set up, and it was standing-room only around the periphery.

Most of the questions were overwhelmingly in opposition to the general concept of "Obamacare," a pejorative label put on House Democratic plans for a health insurance overhaul. There were scores of other, less vocal attendees who sported stickers with messages like, "Health Care Now" and "We can't wait." Some were part of union organizing efforts. Others came with the encouragement of the White House's national field operation.

There appeared to be political operatives or activists from varying interests carrying video cameras, meaning some of the most heated exchanges could be circulating shortly online, as have key moments from health care town halls around the country.
Landrieu, a Democrat, spent much of the 90 minutes trying to focus people on the complexities of the current system and where the problems are regardless of one's coverage status: Medicare, Medicaid, employer plan, veterans care or uninsured. She said she was pleased with the reaction: "People took a lot of responsibility to respect each other and state their opinions. ... I learned a lot. That was the whole reason for today."

The senator said afterward that she remains generally skeptical of a "public insurance" option to compete with private plans and she underscored her support for the Wyden-Bennett "Healthy Americans Act." But she at least tacitly acknowledged that her preferred bill may not be what Senate leaders eventually bring to the floor.

Whatever does come to the full body, Landrieu said she will not be influenced by the political calculus of being associated with President Barack Obama -- who lost Louisiana badly and remains unpopular here -- or her national party leaders.

"I have my eyes not on the president or the Congress. I have my eyes on the people," said Landrieu, now one of 57 Democrats in a chamber that takes 60 votes to overcome minority delay tactics. (There are two independents who often vote with the Democrats.) Landrieu continued, "This is not about Democrats or Republicans or President Obama. This is about listening to the people I represent and seeing if we can find a way to better coverage."

This is a live-blogging report, so check the link for more. Here's the passage describing the moment at the video above:

The loudest cheer of the afternoon came in response to the question about whether Landrieu would commit to vote against a bill "which does not specifically exclude taxpayer funded abortion."

"I do not support taxpayer funded abortion. I do support people's choice under the Constitution." That prompted a reaction that drowned out the rest of the senator's answer.

Actually, Landrieu dodged the question.

And here's why, "Factcheck.org: Tax money Will Pay for Abortion in the Health-Care Bill."

It's pretty interesting, in any case, that Senator Landrieu is trying to buck the White House on healthcare reform. I think Louisianans have the pulse of the nation going on down there ...

Dana Loesch on Guns and Town Halls

Megan McArdle is supposed to be libertarian. But her comments on guns and town halls illustrate perfectly why she's iunreadable:

I take the narrow position: openly carrying a gun to a protest is idiotic.

And:

People carrying guns are acting like jerks.

Yeah, I left out a bunch of context ... but it's mostly "on the one hand" baloney.

Readers would be way better served by reading my new blogging BFF, Dana Loesch, "To Put It Bluntly: People Didn't Bring Guns to Town Halls Until Thugs Started Beating People Up":

I was at the townhall where Kennethy Gladney was beaten in the parking lot (you can clearly see, when playing the video frame-by-frame, a man in an SEIU shirt grabbing Gladney and thrashing him to the ground. You also see Gladney limping afterwards) and where a woman was punched in the face by a HCR-supporter in yet another SEIU shirt. My camera rolled as a man with a clean energy sticker got into another woman's face and yelled "SHUT UP," and told another woman she was "ugly." While rallying Saturday outside of Russ Carnahan's office another HCR supporter tried to shove me off the sidewalk and crunched my foot - all captured on camera - in response to my genuine question: "Can you give me 10 reasons why you support single payer?"

You want to know what else? I've had to close comments on my website, change permissions on my Flickr photos, and have security escort me at the station because certain people for health care reform began making vicious threats against me and my family. I've had to drastically change MY personal security measures. So yes, I know thing or two about REAL fear, bullying, and violence as a result of these townhalls and rallies and if the discussion is about violence at townhalls in relation to the presence of firearms, let me tell you: it's not coming from these responsible gun owners we're seeing on television.

People don't mention this when questioning why people feel the need to arm themselves to protect themselves. No, they call them racists and say nonsense like "It's because a black man is president!"

Keep in mind that a lot of the people showing up to these townhalls are disgruntled Obama supporters and black conservatives, but apparently their contributions don't matter if they dissent. People only mention the Gladney incident, my situation, the thugs attacking peaceful townhall participants in Tampa, et al., to call us the "angry mob."

The difference is that the people who began originally going to these townhall meetings did so to air months of grievances brought on by this congress's unwillingness to discuss healthcare; the majority of Americans do not support this legislation and congress refuses to listen. The president gets two hours of network airtime to pitch his legislation with no rebuttal allowed, not even by way of a paid commercial. Republicans were barred from amending legislation in the House. The Patients' Choice Act, a brilliant list of ideas, was wholly ignored by Democrats. Of course people who feel that their government isn't listening are going to be upset! Especially if their elected official is Eric Massa. But they wait their turn at the mic and sit down and clap politely for others after. The worst is that some congressperson is asked in heated tones why they exempted themselves from this reportedly-fabulous healthcare program they're proposing.

If people are concerned about violence at townhalls, perhaps they should tell groups such as Organizing for America, SEIU, and others to CHILL OUT. Does anyone else think it's odd that our government is telling these groups to "punch back twice as hard?" That 3200-supporters are being bussed in to disrupt townhalls of districts of which they're not even constituents? (I snuck into the side door at the now-infamous Carnahan townhall and the staffers immediately assumed that I was with Organizing for America told me about supporters who came from as far away as Kentucky in the "reserved seating section." Coincidently, those people popped up in the Kenneth Gladney video.) Does anyone question the tie between the amount of money that groups like SEIU gave to the last presidential campaign which may account for the administration's declaration that we're the problem?

The violence and pandemonium we've seen on the news has been caused by thugs acting with their fists not law-abiding citizens. Guns and knives are tools. Fear of inanimate objects is dangerous because it excuses and enables the actual perpetrator. Blaming guns for violence is like blaming your pencil for your spelling errors. Ray guns don't vaporize Zarbonians, Zarbonians vaporize Zarbonians (Gary Larson).

More at the link, and don't miss Dana's blog, "The Dana Show."

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).