Henry Olsen on Sam Tanenhaus:
Sam provides his own evidence that demonstrates that Beaconsfieldian conservatism cannot take root in American soil. He claims (p.26) that Eisenhower and Clinton adopted his approach and were politically successful, arguing:
Both Eisenhower and Clinton struggled against movement forces in Congress. Both succeeded. And both left office with soaring approval ratings. They are the modern era’s true conservative presidents—and the two best.
But, to borrow from Paul Harvey, there’s the rest of the story. Both Ike and Clinton saw their party lose control of Congress during their tenure, never to regain it until long after they had passed from the scene. Both were unable to secure the election of their own vice presidents in excruciatingly close elections. Both tried to form new political orders upon the principle of mediating between movement forces. Ike’s was called “the third way,” as he wrote in his memoir, Mandate for Change; Clinton’s was the New Democrat movement. Both attempts created intense reactions on the left and the right. And in both cases, within a few years of their leaving office there were effectively no adherents of their positions within their own parties, their attempts at creating a politics of Beaconsfieldian conservatism having provoked exactly the extreme ideological reaction that such conservatism is meant to defang.
Will Wilkinson on death panels:
If most Americans don’t want their government meddling in hard choices about medical care near the end of life, then they don’t want Medicare. We’ve known that Medicare is unsustainable for a long time now. People flipping their lids about death panels and about government-funded doctors trying to sell seniors on suicide should have been flipping their lids years ago. If these are reasons to kill Obamacare, then, logically, they are also reasons to kill Medicare.
John McCormack on Rep. Bart Stupak:
Stupak may have enough votes to keep the health care bill from making it to the floor of the House. Stupak says that if Nancy Pelosi and Rules Committee chairman Louise Slaughter do not allow an up-or-down vote on his amendment to explicitly ban coverage for elective abortions in the bill, he’s going to lead a coalition of Democrats to vote with the Republicans “to try to take down the rule.” That would keep the bill from moving out of the committee to the floor.
James Capretta on Obamacare’s taxes:
To keep federal costs “down,” the bills prohibit workers who are offered coverage on the job from getting new subsidies for insurance through the so-called “exchanges.” But these workers are required to have some coverage to avoid paying the individual mandate “penalty.” Consequently, they really have no choice but to sign up with their job-based plans. And that will mean paying for this insurance through lower take-home pay, whether they can afford it or not. Thus, the individual mandate — the basis upon which Democrats can claim to “cover everybody” — is really just a hidden and regressive tax on lower and moderate wage workers.
Scott Harrington on some more Obama misstatements on health care:
[T]he president’s examples of people “dropped” by their insurance companies involve the rescission of policies based on misrepresentation or concealment of information in applications for coverage. Private health insurance cannot function if people buy insurance only after they become seriously ill, or if they knowingly conceal health conditions that might affect their policy.
Seriously, go read all of them if you’ve got the time.