…in a crowded Congress. It’s hard for me to get very bent out of shape about it, considering that the president was lying, and spent much of his speech accusing his political opponents of doing so. The apology was appropriate, though. Don’t expect to hear one from the president.

…sort of.

Lessons for reporters, that they probably will ignore.

…from Tom Friedman.

More thoughts from Jay Nordlinger:

Yes, the Chinese Communists are very good at “taking things away from people.” Always have been. You might even say that taking things away from people is their specialty. Sometimes it’s their lives — people’s lives. Especially if those people are democrats who speak up for a better life.

Three times, ladies and gentlemen. Three times has Thomas L. Friedman won the Pulitzer Prize. Think about his statement that “I cannot help but feel a tinge of jealousy,” realize the context in which he is making it, and shudder.

In some ways, Tom Friedman is this generation’s Walter Duranty. And the Times has apparently learned nothing from that experience.

[Update a while later]

That didn’t take long. A Fire-Tom-Friedman blog.

With which I agree. John Hinderaker:

I’m not sure whether Obama and his handlers understand how this sort of talk grates on those of us who are not liberal Democrats (a large majority of the country). Debating public policy issues is not “bickering.” Disagreeing with a proposal to radically change one of the largest sectors of our economy is not a “game.” This kind of gratuitous insult–something we never heard from President Bush, for example–is one of the reasons why many consider Obama to be mean-spirited.

They think he’s eloquent and soaring. Many of us think he’s condescending, and insulting to our intelligence. And this kind of hypocrisy and projection has been bugging me since the day he took office:

Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics.

Then, a few minutes later:

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result.

By far the biggest scaremonger on this issue has been Obama himself.

Yes.

Oh, and on the ongoing nuttiness that the way to inject “competition” into the insurance market is to “compete” against the private insurers with a taxpayer-funded system:

In fact, Obama and Congressional Democrats have zero interest in increasing choice and competition. If they did, there is an easy solution. There are over 1,000 health insurance companies in the United States; why do you think it is that in Alabama, one company has 90 percent of the business? It is because there are major legal obstacles to insurance companies operating across state lines. State legislatures, and lots of the companies, like it this way. Competition is hard. But if Obama really wanted to expand “choice and competition” in health care, all he would have to do is go along with the Republican proposal to allow health insurance companies to sell on a national basis. Like, say, computer companies, beer companies, automobile companies, law firms, and pretty much everyone else. The Democrats’ refusal to allow existing health insurance companies to compete against each other nationwide, more than anything else, puts the lie to their nonsense about “choice and competition.”

It’s funny, but their proposed solution to every problem, including problems caused by the government, is more government. Or maybe it’s not so funny.

I also agree with the bottom line:

This was not, to put it kindly, a speech that was directed at thinking people.

That’s true of all of his speeches. It’s how he got elected.

[Update a few minutes later]

And you thought this was about health care?

…organized labor has sought to turn this situation into a new opportunity. By throwing themselves into the health care debate and mobilizing their resources behind passage of the Democrat proposal, labor has been rewarded with the ability to shape the content of the health care legislation and to begin to collect on its political debt.

Hot on the heels of the inauguration labor sought to cash its first big check and push the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) through Congress to eliminate the secret ballot for union organizing elections and allow strong arm tactics to “recruit” new members by putting a card in front of them and politely asking them to sign it. Poll numbers consistently showed strong opposition among the public to this idea and the administration quickly realized they couldn’t cover this check.

But there are always new ways to achieve your objectives when the President is your loyal supplicant. The Service Employees International Union provided an estimated $160 million to the Obama campaign and related political advocacy groups and put thousands of its paid organizers on the streets to stump for Democrats. SEIU’s top recruiting priority is unionizing hundreds of thousands of health care workers across the nation.

What better way to get a leg up on unionizing health care workers, (and further driving health care costs up in the process) than by sneaking a few precious policy advantages into federal law via the 1,000-page health care bill?

Leeches and vandals. And more hypocrisy from the president when he complains about “the special interests. I guess they’re only “special” when they want to retain their liberty and not turn their lives over to the cronies of the federal government. Unions? Not so special.

And more from Arnold Kling:

He said,

Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan.

And if we don’t pass this plan, does he intend to keep the waste and inefficiency, out of spite?

Fix Medicare first, then we’ll talk. But they have no intention of doing that.

[Update a few minutes later]

Not directly related to the speech, but if you read only one white paper on health care today, read this one:

The criticisms of liberal reforms are sharp, but what really makes the paper worthwhile are two aspects. The first is that, contrary to the president’s accusation that those who oppose reform have no solutions of their own, they actually propose and detail a number of useful, specific reforms, including some that tend to get less attention, like curbing regulations on medical devices and new drugs that artificially increase scarcity (and, as a result, drive up costs).

The second is that they fully recognize that the current health-care system is a disaster, and that the reforms they propose wouldn’t necessarily ensure that those with chronic preexisting conditions have access to health insurance. But, they say, the current patchwork of ill-thought-out government regulations of the health care market is so problematic—and, in fact, exacerbates our health care problems so much—that it must be fixed before addressing the few remaining problem cases.

This is the other straw man that infuriates me, as it did with the “stimulus” bill — that people who opposed it thought there was no problem, and wanted to “do nothing.” As though those were the only two options — going along with a huge expansion of government intrusion into our lives and wallets withj a payoff to Democrat constituencies, or “doing nothing.”