From town halls last summer at which tough questions got lawmakers’ backs up right through the middle-of-the-night votes on thousand-page excrescences largely unread and scarcely comprehended, the directive from congressional leaders has been to ignore voters, ignore polls, ignore qualms and questions: Just pass something.
The House passed one version of Obamacare and the Senate a markedly different one. That usually means a conference committee. This time, the Democratic leaders who own Congress are skipping the usual open process and embracing a so-called “ping pong” of closed-door bargaining designed to cut out not merely Republicans but even Democrats who worry too much about what’s in the sausage.
This has the political left simmering: Liberals fear that their dearest wish, a government-run option, won’t survive. But the doors are closed precisely to enable unsavory compromises that preserve the scant margins by which the bill can pass. They’re closed to keep the priorities of passionate voters from coming into play. We out here are distractions.
This is happening on legislation that will profoundly, permanently change our relationship to government. It’s reasonable to ask that a vast expansion of Washington’s power be based on more than one-vote margins and secret deals, just as it would be reasonable for a senator to, sometime in three months, talk to a concerned citizen as promised.
This is not the season for reason, however. These are the days of political will. Democracy, constituents – all that just gets in the way.
…that a Napolitano replacement would be an improvement? Not much, at least from this administration. Of course, I don’t think that the department should have been created in the first place. Whoever runs it has a pretty impossible job.
Bob Clarebrough has some useful thoughts on the risk of space flight, for NASA and private enterprise, over at The Space Review. This is a very important topic, and one that I want to write a long post on, when I get unburied from current activities.
“You should be steamed.” Some thoughts from the former head of the Hurricane Center:
What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.
Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.
Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.
I always find the religious language amusing. The “believers” seem to take it on faith, because the high priests of Science have ordained, it, while the “skeptics” act like actual scientists.
[Monday evening update]
A call for Climaquiddick whistleblowers. I hope they get a lot. I think that the bastions have been captured.
Republicans smell blood. There is a pattern in the Obama administration of dismissing Islamist terrorist attacks as regrettable random acts. In his radio address after Major Nidal Hassan’s slaughtered 13 at Fort Hood, Texas, Obama made no mention of terrorism or militant Islam, instead blandly promising that the “ongoing investigation into this terrible tragedy” would “look at the motives of the alleged gunman”.
Hassan was a committed Islamist who had corresponded with the fanatical Yemeni imam Anwar al-Awlaki. In June, Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad, a Muslim convert being watched by the FBI and who had previously travelled to Yemen, murdered a US Army recruit in Arkansas. That rated only a tepid statement by Obama about a “senseless act of violence”.
But the violence wasn’t senseless, it had a calculated objective – just as Abdulmutallab was not, as Obama described him, an “isolated extremist”. No wonder many Americans want to grab Obama by the lapels and scream: “It’s the Jihad, stupid.” Dick Cheney, the former vice-president, clearly struck a nerve when he charged last week that Obama was “trying to pretend we are not at war”.
The White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer eagerly descended into the political fray, responding to Cheney with the obligatory jibe about Iraq and also a litany of examples of Obama’s “public statements that explicitly state we are at war”.
It’s a sure sign that you’re losing the argument when you have to research quotes from your boss’s speeches to prove that he gets it that America is at war. The problem for Obama is that people are now judging him by his actions as well as his words.
There were plenty of actions to judge him by before the election, but the media downplayed them.