A Nobel Reaction?

OK Hughniversians, what’s your reaction? Mine is posted over at HughHewitt.com and in a column at Townhall.com, but I am looking forward to reading yours.

If you want to turn your reaction into something more nobel, I suggest you join me in purchasing a copy of Five for Fighting’s new release, “Slice.” It is a wonderful album –CD, recrod, whatever we call it these days– and John Ondrasik is a great American and terrific supporter of our troops who also makes great music. I prerecorded today’s program with him on Monday as I am on a plane to Chicago, and you can hear some of the songs from the new release on the show.

Order it here:

Order from iRTunes here.

A “Yes” Vote On Cloture Crushes Medicare and American Medicine

Eight Democratic senators stand between the Medicare and the destruction of the senior health care program as well as the ruin of American medicine generally. These eight know the stakes and have written Harry Reid to demand that the Democratic leader slow down the jam down so that they and the public know what they are voting on and what it will cost. They have asked for at least 72 hours and a CBO estimate for any Obamacare bill before a final floor vote occurs, as well as 72 hours and a full CBO score before any vote on a future House-Senate conference report occurs.

These demands are a dodge because any of these eight have the ability to enforce any amount of delay they want via a refusal to vote for cloture whenever that debate-limiting motion is put forward by Reid.

To review: The Senate’s rules provide that it requires 60 affirmative votes to pass a motion ending debate on any legislative proposal. Thus if even one Democrat refuses to go along with this Obamacare jam down that will devastate Medicare, the entire bill halts until and unless that Democrat is satisfied it is a good idea. Thus every Democrat has the individual ability to demand a serious, careful debate and serious, careful budget impact analysis.

Some Democrats hope to protect themselves against the people’s fury at the polls in November 2010 by voting for cloture and then voting against passage, but that won’t work in this hyperattentive new media age.

A vote for cloture is a vote for everything in the Obamacare package that would end up on the president’s desk. Everyone knows this, but some Democrats hold out hope that their genuine responsibility for Obamacare will be obscured by various posed votes. In this sleight-of-hand they hope to be helped by Manhattan-Beltway media elites that will do what they can to obscure accountability on the cloture votes ahead.

But the clear truth is that a vote for cloture is a vote for Obamacare, and not just its ruinous impact on Medicare for seniors and medicine generally but also for the trickery that is obscuring the real and vast costs of the bills and the refusal to allow the American people the opportunity to see and read what it is they are being obliged to sacrifice their health care and benefits for.

So contact all the Democrats below. Contact them early and often and contact anyone you know who lives in their state and ask them to do the same thing. If you are a doctor in their state, your voice is especially important. Tell each one of them to vote no on cloture motions –all of them– and to start over with a genuinely bipartisan reform bill that protects Medicare and which includes tort reform.

And tell them that if they vote yes on any cloture, you will help fund their next opponent and do whatever it takes to defeat them at the polls when next they stand for re-election.

A couple of these senators, like Joe Lieberman and James Webb will not be moved by the prospect of losing their Senate seat but they will be very careful before sacrificing their honorable records to help President Obama achieve a political win that destroys Medicare. Webb especially has built a record of fiery populism that would be laughable if he joins in a jam down that protects trial lawyers with seven figure annual incomes while dramatically cutting back on health care for seniors. Joe Lieberman knows what the bill will really do to seniors. Together these two can stop the whole charade right now. Encourage them to do so.

The rest will care about their jobs, and especially Blanche Lincoln and Evan Bayh who face the public in Arkansas and Indiana in a year. If either votes for cloture, she or he or both of them will be the face of Obamacare at the polls.

Each of these senators needs to hear fromthousands and tens of thousands and indeed hundreds of thousands of Americans that we know a yes on cloture means yes on Obamacare and will assess their records accordingly.
Key Democratic Senators:

Arkansas

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (18.70% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-4843

Local Phone: Dumas (870) 382-1023, Fayetteville (479) 251-1224, Little Rock (501) 375-2993, Jonesboro (870) 910-6896, Texarkana (870) 774-3106

Link to E-mail [# More #]

Sen. Mark Pryor (18.33% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-2353

Local Phone: Little Rock (501) 324-6336

Link to E-mail

Connecticut

Sen. Joe Lieberman (15.96% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-4041

Local Phone: (860) 549-8463

Link to E-mail

Florida

Sen. Bill Nelson (37.28% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-5274

Local Phone: Orlando (407) 872-7161, Miami-Dade (305) 536-5999, Tampa (813) 225-7040, West Palm Beach (561) 514-0189, Tallahassee (850) 942-8415, Jacksonville (904) 346-4500, Broward (954) 693-4851, Fort Meyers (239) 334-7760

Link to E-mail

Indiana

Sen. Evan Bayh (20.70% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-5623

Local Phone: Evansville (812) 465-6500, Fort Wayne (260) 426-3151, Hammond (219) 852-2763, Indianapolis (317) 554-0750, Jeffersonville (812) 218-2317, Southbend (574) 236-8302

Sen. Mary Landrieu (23.20% Lifetime ACU rating)
DC Phone: (202) 224-5824

Local Phone: Baton Rouge (225) 389-0395, Lake Charles (337) 436-6650, New Orleans (504) 589-2427, Shreveport (318) 676-3085

Link to E-mail

Montana

Sen. Jon Tester (16.00% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-2644

Local Phone: Billings (406) 252-0550, Bozeman (406) 586-4450, Butte (406) 723-3277, Glendive (406) 365-2391, Great Falls (406) 452-9585, Helena (406) 449-5401, Kalispell (406) 257-3360, Missoula (406) 728-3003

Link to E-mail

Nebraska

Sen. Ben Nelson (47.26% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-6551

Local Phone: Omaha (402) 391-3411, Lincoln (402) 441-4600, Scottsbluff (308) 631-7614, Kearney (308) 293-5818, South Sioux City (402) 209-3595

Link to E-mail

Nevada

Sen. Harry Reid (18.96% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-3542

Local Phone: Carson City 775-882-7343, Las Vegas (702) 388-5020, Reno (775) 686-5750

Link to E-mail

North Dakota

Sen. Kent Conrad (19.57% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-2043

Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 258-4648, Fargo (701) 232-8030, Grand Forks (701) 775-9601, Minot (701) 852-0703

Link to E-mail

Sen. Byron Dorgan (16.57% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-2551

Local Phone: Bismarck (701) 250-4618, Fargo (701) 239-5389, Minot (701) 852-0703, Grand Forks (701) 746-8972

Link to E-mail

South Dakota

Sen. Tim Johnson (18.36% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-5842

Local Phone: Aberdeen (605) 226-3440, Sioux Falls (605) 332-8896, Rapid City (605) 341-3990

Link to E-mail

West Virginia

Sen. Robert C. Byrd (28.26% Lifetime ACU rating)

DC Phone: (202) 224-3954

Local Phone: Charlestown (304) 342-5855, Eastern Panhandle (304) 264-4626

The “Blue Dog” House Democrats:

Alabama

Rep. Bobby Bright – 2nd District
DC Phone: (202) 225-2901

District Phone: Dothan (334) 794-9680; Montgomery (334) 277-9113; Opp (334) 493-9253

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/bright/contact-form.shtml

Rep. Parker Griffith – 5th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4801

District Phone: Huntsville (256) 551-0190; Decatur (256) 355-9400; Shoals (256) 381-3450

Link to E-mail: http://griffith.house.gov/?sectionid=7&sectiontree=4,7

Arkansas

Rep. Marion Berry – 1st District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4076

District Phone: Jonesboro (870) 972-4600; Cabot (501) 843-4955; Mountain Home (870) 425-3510

Link to E-Mail: http://www.house.gov/berry/messageform.html

Rep. Mike Ross – 4th District

DC Phone: 1-800-223-2220

District Phone: El Dorado (870) 881-0681; Hot Springs (501) 520-5892; Pine Bluff (870) 536-3376; Prescott (870) 887-6787

Link to E-mail: http://ross.house.gov/?sectionid=77&sectiontree=76,77

Arizona

Rep. Harry Mitchell – 5th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2190

District Phone: (480) 946-2411

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/mitchell/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords – 8th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2542

District Phone: Tucson (520) 881-3588; Cochise (520) 459-3115

Link to E-mail: https://giffordsforms.house.gov/contact/email.shtml

California

Rep. Mike Thompson – 1st District

DC Phone: (202) 225-3311

District Phone: Napa (707) 226-9898; Humboldt (707) 269-9595; Mendocino (707) 962-0933; Yolo (530) 662-5272

Link to E-mail: http://mikethompson.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za.pl?/mthompson/contact/email_auth.txt&form=/mthompson/contact/email_form.shtml&pass

Rep. Dennis Cardoza – 18th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-6131

District Phone: Merced (209) 383-4455; (209) 527-1914; Stockton (209) 946-0361

Link to E-mail: https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep

Rep. Jim Costa – 20th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-9308

District Phone: Fresno (559) 495-1620; Bakersfield (661) 869-1620

Link to E-mail: http://www.house.gov/formcosta/issue.htm

Rep. Loretta Sanchez – 29th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2965

District Phone: (714) 621-0102

Link to E-mail: http://www.lorettasanchez.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=218&Itemid=17

Rep. Jane Harman – 36th District

DC Phone: (202) 225 8220

District Phone: El Segundo (310) 643 3636; Wilmington (310) 549 8282

Link to E-mail: http://www.house.gov/harman/contact/email.shtml

Rep. Joe Baca – 43rd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-6161

District Phone: (909) 885-2222

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/baca/ht_zip_parms.txt&form=/baca/messageform.shtml

Colorado

Rep. John Salazar – 3rd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4761

District Phone: Grand Junction (970) 245-7107; Pueblo (719) 543-8200; Durango (970) 259-1012; Alamosa (719) 587-5105

Link to E-mail: http://www.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/salazar/contact-zip.txt&form=/salazar/contact2.shtml

Florida

Rep. Allen Boyd – 2nd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-5235

District Phone: Tallahassee (850) 561-3979; Panama City (850) 785-0812

Link to E-mail: http://www.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/boyd/zip_authen.txt&form=/boyd/contact_email.html&pass

Georgia

Rep. Sanford Bishop – 2nd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-3631

District Phone: Albany (229) 439-8067; Colombus (706) 320-9477; Thomasville (229) 226-7789

Link to E-mail: http://bishop.house.gov/display.cfm?section_id=13

Rep. Jim Marshall – 3rd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-6531

District Phone: Macon (478) 464-0255; Dublin (478) 296-2023; Tifton (229) 556-7418

Link to E-mail: https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep?HIP29329573301.1220.9427

Rep. John Barrow – 12th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2823

District Phone: Augusta (706) 722-4494; Sandersville (478) 553-9215; Savannah (912) 354-7282

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/barrow/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. David Scott– 13th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2939

District Phone: Jonesboro (770) 210-5073; Smyrna (770) 432-5405

Link to E-mail: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Iowa

Rep. Leonard Boswell – 3rd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-3806

District Phone: (515) 282-1909

Link to E-mail: http://boswell.house.gov/?sectionid=81&sectiontree=4,81

Idaho

Rep. Walt Minnick – 1st District

DC Phone: (202) 225-6611

District Phone: Meridian (208) 888-3188; Lewiston (208) 743-1388; Couer d’Alene (208) 667-0127

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/minnick/contact-form.shtml

Indiana

Rep. Joe Donnelly – 2nd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-3915

District Phone: South Bend (574) 288-2780; Logansport (574) 753-2671; La Porte (219) 326-6808; Michigan City (219) 873-1403

Link to E-mail: http://donnelly.house.gov/contact/email.shtml

Rep. Brad Ellsworth – 8th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4636

District Phone: Evansville (812) 465-6484; Terre Haute (812) 232-0523

Link to E-mail: http://www.ellsworth.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=325&Itemid=

Rep. Baron Hill (Co-Chair for Policy) – 9th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-5315

District Phone: Jeffersonville (812) 288-3999; Bloomington (812)336-3000

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/baronhill/IMA/issue_subscribe_parm.txt&form=/baronhill/IMA/issue_subscribe_verify.shtml

Kansas

Rep. Dennis Moore – 3rd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2865

District Phone: Overland Park (913) 383-2013; Kansas City (913) 621-0832; Lawrence (785) 842-9313

Link to E-mail: http://www.moore.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za.pl?/moore/contact/zip_authen.txt&form=/moore/contact/email.shtml

Kentucky

Rep. Ben Chandler – 6th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4706

District Phone: (859) 219-1366

Link to E-mail: https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep?HIP29329573301.26817.5636

Louisiana

Rep. Charlie Melancon (Co-Chair for Communications) – 3rd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4031

District Phone: Houma (985) 876-3033; Chalmette (504) 271-1707; Gonzales (225) 621-8490; New Iberia (337) 367-8231

Link to E-mail: http://www.melancon.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=205

Maryland

Rep. Frank Jr. Kratovil – 1st District

DC Phone: (202) 225-5311

District Phone: Centreville (443) 262 -9136

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/kratovil/contact-form.shtml

Maine

Rep. Mike Michaud – 2nd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2943

District Phone: Bangor (207) 942-6935; Lewiston (207) 782-3704; Presque Isle (207) 764-1036; Waterville (207) 873-5713

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/michaud/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Minnesota

Rep. Collin Peterson – 7th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2165

District Phone: Detroit Lakes (218) 847-5056; Marshall (507) 537-2299; Montevideo (320) 235-1061; Red Lake Falls (218) 253-4356; Redwood Falls (507) 637-2270; Willmar (320) 235-1061

Link to E-mail: http://collinpeterson.house.gov/zipauth.htm

Mississippi

Rep. Travis Childers – 1st Districts

DC Phone: (202) 225-4306

District Phone: Tupelo (662) 841-8808; Hernando (662) 449-3090; Colombus (662) 327-0748

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/childers/webforms/contact_parm.txt&form=/childers/webforms/contact_form.htm

Rep. Gene Taylor – 4th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-5772

District Phone: Bay St. Louis (228) 469-9235; Ocean Springs (228) 872-7950; Hattiesburg (601) 582-3246; Laurel (601) 425-3905

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/genetaylor/webforms/zipauth.htm

North Carolina

Rep. Mike McIntyre – 7th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2731

District Phone: Lumberton (910) 735-0610; Fayetteville (910) 323-0260; Wilmington (910) 815-4959; Bolivia (910)-253-0158

Link to E-mail: http://www.house.gov/mcintyre/issue.shtml

Rep. Heath Shuler (Whip) – 11th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-6401

District Phone: Asheville (828) 252-1651; Murphy (828) 835-4981; Sylva (828) 586-1962

Link to E-mail: http://shuler.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/shuler/ht_zip_parms.txt&form=shuler/messageform.htm

North Dakota

Rep. Earl Pomeroy

DC Phone: (202) 225-2611

District Phone: Bismarck (701) 224-0355; Fargo (701) 235-9760

Link to E-mail: http://www.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/formpomeroy/ht_zip_parms.txt&form=/formpomeroy/messageform.htm

New York

Rep. Mike Arcuri – 24th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-3665

District Phone: Utica (315) 793-8146/8147; Auburn (315) 252-2777/2778; Cortland (607) 756-2470

Link to E-mail: http://arcuri.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm

Ohio

Rep. Charles Wilson – 6th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-5705

District Phone: Canfield (330) 533-7250; Marietta (740) 376-0868; Bridgeport (740) 633-5705; Ironton (740) 533-9423; Wellsville (330) 532-3740

Link to E-mail: http://www.charliewilson.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=139

Rep. Zack Space – 18th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-6265

District Phone: Dover (330) 364-4300; Zanesville (740) 452-6338; Chillicothe (740) 779-1636

Link to E-mail: http://space.house.gov/?sectionid=61&sectiontree=26,61

Oklahoma

Rep. Dan Boren – 2nd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2701

District Phone: Muskogee (918) 687-2533; Claremont (918) 341-9336; McAlester (918) 423-5951

Link to E-mail: http://www.house.gov/boren/emailsignup.shtml

Pennsylvania

Rep. Jason Altmire – 4th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-2565

District Phone: Aliquippa (724) 378-0928; Natrona (724) 226-1304

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/altmire/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. Patrick Murphy – 8th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4276

District Phone: Bristol (215) 826-1963; Doylestown (215) 348-1194

Link to E-mail: http://www.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/formpatrickmurphy/ht_zip_parms.txt&form=/formpatrickmurphy/messageform.shtml

Rep. Christopher Carney – 10th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-3731

District Phone: Clarks Summit (570) 585-9988; Shamokin (570) 644-1682; Williamsport (570) 327-1902

Link to E-mail: http://www.carney.house.gov/contact.shtml#email

Rep. Tim Holden – 17th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-5546

District Phone: Berks (610) 921-3502; Dauphin/Perry (717) 234-5904; Lebanon (717) 270-1395; Schuylkill (570) 622-4212

Link to E-mail: http://holden.house.gov/htbin/formproc_za/holden/email_zipauth.txt&form=messageform.shtml

Tennessee

Rep. Lincoln Davis – 4th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-6831

District Phone: Columbia (931) 490-8699; Jamestown (931) 879-2361; McMinnville (931) 473-7259; Rockwood (865) 354-3323

Link to E-mail: https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_const

Rep. Jim Cooper – 5th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4311

District Phone: Nashville (615) 736-5295

Link to E-mail: http://www.cooper.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=61

Rep. Bart Gordon – 6th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4231

District Phone: Murfreesboro (615) 896-1986; Cookeville (931) 528-5907; Gallatin (615) 451-5174

Link to E-mail: http://gordon.house.gov/contact/contact_form.shtml

Rep. John Tanner – 8th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4714

District Phone: Union City (731) 885-7070; Jackson (731) 423-4848; Millington (901) 873-5690

Link to E-mail: https://writerep.house.gov/htbin/wrep_findrep

Texas

Rep. Henry Cuellar – 28th District

DC Phone: (202) 225-1640

District Phone: Laredo (956) 725-0639; McAllen (956) 631-4826; Rio Grande City (956) 487-5603; San Antonio (210) 271-2851; Seguin (830) 401-0457

Link to E-mail: http://cuellar.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm

Utah

Rep. Jim Matheson – 2nd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-3011

District Phone: South Salt Lake (801) 486-1236; St. George (435) 627-0880;

Link to E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/matheson/contact.shtml

Virginia

Rep. Glenn Nye – 2nd District

DC Phone: (202) 225-4215

District Phone: Hampton (757) 326-6201; Eastern (757) 789-5092

Link to E-mail: http://nye.house.gov/?sectionid=7&sectiontree=4,7

Afghanistan, New Jersey, and Virginia

The presidential dithering over General McChyrstal’s clear recommendations on the necessary resources to support first stability and then victory in Afghanistan is now being papered over with news accounts suggesting that the “debate” over Afghanistan strategy has become a sort of book club in the West Wing. And the president is just now getting around to meeting with bipartisan delegations at the the White House to discuss the war, nine months after he moved in. Calling this “dithering” is actually gentle. It appears to be the manipulation of the war as a means of advancing domestic political goals, specifically the passage of Obamacare.

Call me cynical, but a prolonged and public review of a very pointed report is coming at a time when the president needs the public to focus on anything except the details of his disastrous proposals for American medicine, especially the facts that Obamacare in any of its forms devastates Medicare services while pushing Medicare Advantage rates skyhigh, includes not a lick of tort reform that could save hundreds of billions annually, is opposed by large majorities of doctors, and will cost the country hundreds of billions in deficits every year. What’s the problem with playing politics with the war and the lives of American troops if it provides cover for the end zone dash for Obamacare?

The president is using every trick at his disposal to push the Senate to push any version of this great destroyer of American medicine to a conference committee before New Jersey and Virginia vote in four weeks. If as expected seniors in those states vote their disgust with Democrats in both races, a chill wind will blow through the ranks of Democrats looking at their own electoral prospects a year out. Thus the stunt with the handpicked 150 doctors on Monday –huge majorities of docs oppose Obamacare– and the delay on Afghanistan with its attendant photos of the president pondering his options in the Situation Room etc. Try to create a false reality about the opinions of doctors on Obamacare and then drive the debate from the front pages.

Here’s a few graphs from the Wall Street Journal account of the dueling books that the White House is saying accounts for the president’s paralysis:

The two books — “Lessons in Disaster,” on Mr. Obama’s nightstand, and “A Better War” on the shelves of military gurus — have become a framework for the debate over what will be one of the most important decisions of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

On Tuesday, in a White House meeting that went well over its allotted hour, Mr. Obama discussed the war with 31 members of Congress. Republican leaders, and some Democrats, pressed him to quickly accept the judgment of his commanders and send as many as 40,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. But some Democrats asked if the war was winnable.

In Washington, books are flying off shelves. None of the major bookstores near the White House have the recently released paperback edition of “Lessons in Disaster” in stock, and one major shop in the Georgetown area, Barnes & Noble, said all its remaining copies were being held for buyers.

The impact of all the book-reading on the Afghanistan decision isn’t clear. The administration’s review of its Afghan strategy is expected to last until the end of this month, and views are likely to evolve. “A Better War” shaped the debate over the 2007 troop surge in Iraq: Military commanders and top Pentagon civilians pushed the book ardently on surge skeptics, winning important converts.

Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), long an advocate of the narrative detailed in “A Better War,” warned that while Vietnam may appear to have some parallels to Afghanistan, the better comparison is Iraq, where many of the same commanders now managing the Afghan war learned the value of surging more troops into a battle zone. “Vietnam fell to a conventional invasion of the North Vietnamese military,” Mr. McCain said. “The closest parallel to Afghanistan today is Iraq, the strategies that succeeded and the generals that succeeded.”

“Lessons in Disaster” entered West Wing circulation after Deputy National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, one of the top foreign-policy voices in the White House, gave it to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel after reading it himself.

Read the whole thing as it is a perfect example of a leaked story designed to “bend the curve” of news coverage about the president’s strategic indecision over his decision in Afghanistan. It is good news that the president reads, though there’s no evidence that he actually took either book off the nightstand and absorbed it. But even if has, he’s also had a much more relevant report from General McChyrstal lying around unacted on for weeks preceded by a long summer of indifference to conditions in the theater. There was time to jet to the Olympics fiasco, but not to reach a clear decision on the battle with the Taliban and al Qaeda. All this agonizing decision-making couldn’t come at a better time for a president eager to keep America’s eyes off the details of Obamacare’s many nasty surprises.

Average Americans cannot do a thing to press the president to take his job as Commander-in-Chief more seriously than he has, or to reverse his unfolding policy of appeasement across the globe.

But average Americans can make sure that everyone they know who lives and votes in New Jersey and Virginia realizes how important it is that Chris Christie win in the Garden State and Bob McDonnell do so in Virginia. The votes of seniors are particularly important in both states, and the temptation of some to waste their vote on the third party spoiler in Jersey on whom corrupt incumbent Democrat Jon Corzine’s hopes rests has got to be resisted. I’ll be spending most of today’s show on that topic, but if you know any voters in either state, tell them that the fate of American medicine depends greatly on the elections of Christie and McDonnell.

Then tell them again.

Because The Sacramento Bee Isn’t Really Journalism

In a deeply flawed “chronology” of events concerning its deeply flawed story about Meg Whitman’s voting record, the Sacramento Bee leaves out my post detailing the errors in its story, but doesn’t mention must less invite its own readers to listen to its own editor Amy Chance discuss the story with me.

Another example of great “reporting” by the very courageous Bee. No wonder newspapers come in two categories –dead and dying. The Bee ran a hit piece pretending to be a story, got caught, and won’t tell its readers the truth about what happened or own its errors.

As though every single person who cares about the story to begin with doesn’t already know what happened. BTW: Still waiting on the promised call back from Amy with the names of who Andrew McIntosh allegedly talked to in the three “offices” he quotes in his original story.

The Latest From Bear In The Woods

Our favorite anonymous ad exec has come out of his cave with not one, but two emails.

Number one:

Hugh:

It’s been quite awhile since I’ve written anything here. Like most ad agencies — most businesses, actually — we’re doing more with less these days, and that translates into longer hours, more weekends, and less time for stuff that isn’t directly related to clients. But just because I haven’t written doesn’t mean I haven’t been paying attention. I hardly need to point out that a lot is happening all at once on the political/marketing/communications front. But I do want to comment on an opportunity or two I see, that I hope the GOP will take advantage of. I’m still reachable at bearinthewoods84@gmail.com

So, let’s talk user-generated content. That’s a fancy social media term that obviously refers to regular folks making their own stuff. In the political world it boils down to grassroots communicatons. We’ve seen a ton of it, in the form of Tea Party signs and slogans, townhall banners and speech, the online efforts to encourage folks to participate, and a number of videos documenting townhall activity that have found their audience on YouTube, and expanded that audience on air. To say the impact has been great is an understatement. Most of the momentum is fueled by the issues themselves — there are, simply put, an awful lot of people who are passionately opposed to big government, huge deficits, and a government-run healthcare/energy/auto-manufacturing system. They feel they have no one to speak for them, or that spokespeople (or organizations) are ineffective, so they have taken it upon themselves to make their own signs and videos and get them up for the world to see.

I’ve heard many on the Right point out the failure to the Left’s big-budget efforts to support Obamacare, compared to the grassroots communications of conservatives and libertarians, and come to the conclusion that high level marketing is ultimately a waste. This is a dangerous position.

The Left’s executions are failing not because they’re slick and well-produced. They’re failing because the messages they’re delivering are hollow at best, and at worse, outright falsehoods. The creators of the messages are committing one of the cardinal sins of advertising — they’re underestimating the intelligence of their audience. In short, they’re trying to sell something people don’t want. No amount of media, and not even the best creative on the planet, can do that. What we’re seeing is a rejection of the message.

But we’re also seeing an opportunity to galvanize the conservative side. And the right creative strategy can help.

This is a strong grassroots movement. But all movements — like all messaging campaigns –need both leadership and focus to weather setbacks, and have greater impact. Focused messages are stronger messages. And people of like mind tend to rally, sometimes for different reasons, around broad common themes.

Don’t believe me? Quick — besides the US Flag, what’s the most common banner seen at the Tea Parties? If you answered “Don’t Tread On Me” (the yellow Gadsden Flag, or, for the nonconformists, the white Culpepper Flag) you’d be correct. Symbolically, the rattlesnake image, and the “Don’t Tread on Me” message resonate with a broad swath of the people who believe in limited government, and who now believe our current government has far overstepped its bounds. The flags represent a broad umbrella theme that can accommodate specific issues, whether it’s healthcare, cap and trade, the bailout, gun control, or school indoctrination, and oppose it under a unifying banner that simply speaks to a desire for liberty. People in the grassroots movement carry the banner because it speaks to so many of them on so many levels. I’m not suggesting that the GOP adopt the Culpepper flag. But I am suggesting they take a lesson from it.

Number two:

I’ve been following the story of the infamous NEA conference call, over at Big Hollywood and Big Government.

In short, it seems the White House, via the NEA, sought to recruit influential artists and creators to produce art that promotes White House policies. At issue, of course, is the use of a government entity for political purposes — which, of course, is illegal. But also at issue is the very thought of government-sponsored art promoting, well, the government. Which is something we’re accustomed to seeing in countries that are more socialist than one would think even the current administration would have us be. Then again, maybe not. I, like most conservatives who have followed the story, am appalled by this administration’s apparent misuse of government-funded organizations for political purposes.

But I’m not surprised. Nor do I think anyone should be. This White House is very good at campaigning. Which is why it has attempted to stay in continuous campaign mode throughout its brief history. Apparently, governing doesn’t come naturally to them, but campaigning is a natural state of being for this administration, and it’s only natural that they should seek the help of those who helped them so much in their pre-election campaign.

What’s interesting to me, though, is that the reaction I’m reading from a lot of conservative circles can be paraphrased along the lines of, “this is a misuse of art.” Hogwash. Political purposes are not only a fantastic use of art, they are quite possibly the most common use of art. Instead, this is a misuse of a government-funded entity — art has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

What art does have to do with, though, is emotion. And persuasion. And communication. These are points that the Democrats have recognized for more than two generations, and have employed to their advantage to create profound shifts in our society. Mostly negative shifts, in my personal opinion, but very real shifts, nonetheless. While conservative arguments ring logical and true, they too often are presented with nothing but logic. And while logic may engage the intellect, it’s emotion that spurs action. Art — visual, performance, verbal, cinematic — creates emotion. Art is important to a message. Art helps win minds. Art is powerful. The Democrats understand this. They understand it so well that they, apparently, will risk breaking federal law to engage the power of art for their side.

Fighting them in the courts will only address the legal issues of use of government funds, and ultimately will only get us so far. Fighting fire with fire means we must understand the importance of fighting art — with art.

bearinthewoods84@gmail.com

The Poizner Contributions to Democrats

Among the questions I posed to Meg Whitman’s campaign over the weekend in connection with my review of the Sacramento Bee “story” –read and listen to the details below– I asked if the former eBay CEO had contributed to Barbara Boxer’s first two U.S. Senate campaigns and the answer from her campaign was no, and that 94% of her contributions had gone to Republicans, a higher percentage than Steve Poizner’s.

I asked the Poizner campaign for a response and got two e-mails from Press Secretary Jarrod Agen. The first:

Steve’s contributions to Republicans is over 91%, without including more than $3.5 million that Steve has given to conservative propositions in California.

Poizner Contributed $2.3 Million To The Campaign Against The Nunez-Perata-Backed Proposition 93. (California Secretary Of State Website, dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/, Accessed 10/5/09)

Poizner Contributed $1.25 Million For The Proposition 77 Redistricting Campaign In 2005. (California Secretary Of State Website, dbsearch.ss.ca.gov/, Accessed 10/5/09)

I followed up and inquired about where the 9% had gone, and got this response:

Steve attended two Gore fundraisers with his wife, who is a Democrat, in 2000. Those events accounted for $1k to Gore and $10k to the DNC.

Steve’s wife also wanted to give to the 2000 recount, so Steve made a $10K contribution to the recount in 2000 from their joint checking account.

Finally, in February of 2001, Steve and his wife attended an event for Kerry’s Senate campaign which accounts for $2k.

So the front-runners for the GOP nomination have both contributed to high profile Democrats. Fine.

Which one is more electable and which one is more likely to push for and achieve the fundamental reforms that Arnold failed to secure and without which the Golden State is sunk?

“Begala To President Obama: Listen To Me, Dummy

My new Washington Examiner column is up.

Fun With “Journalists”: Sacramento Bee Edition

My eyebrows arched when I read Andrew McIntosh’s September 24 Sacramento Bee article on former eBay CEO-turned candidate for California governor Meg Whitman and her spotty voting record. I have interviewed Whitman on air a couple of times and knew she wasn’t particularly active in politics until she threw herself into Mitt Romney’s and then John McCain’s presidential campaigns in 2008. She had made a point of telling audiences that her record of voting in elections had been awful while apologizing for that fact, and so a newspaper report detailing how often she had failed to vote was to be expected. Sure enough McIntosh’s account led with the fact that Whitman had skipped California’s famously crazy recall election in 2003, passing by the opportunity to vote for Arnold, Arianna Huffington, Gary Coleman, or any of the other 132 candidates from that interesting episode in Golden State political history. McIntosh’s story went on to leave the impression that Whitman had never bothered to register or vote anywhere until 2002.

Two things stood out in the McIntosh piece that raised very red flags. Those flags got bright red indeed when I called McIntosh this morning and he wouldn’t answer any questions about the piece. “We are not going to discuss sources on any story,” he huffed, and then sent me on to his editor Amy Chance. When I got Chance on the phone and asked some very basic questions about the article, she became very defensive, demanded to know if I had gotten my information from the Whitman campaign, and then after objecting that I had called her cold, told me she needed to get back to a meeting and hung up on me. I’ll play the interview on today’s program.

To the red flags.

First, the “expert” McIntosh quotes to assess Whitman’s record is University of California, Irvine Professor Mark Petracca. Mark’s been a friend of mine for 20 years, and he’s to the left of President Obama and a long time Democratic activist. Asking Mark for an opinion on the significance of Whitman’s voting record is like quoting me and only me in a Bee story on Gavin Newsome’s temperament or Jerry Brown’s record on prisoner release litigation.

That’s the kind of signal that led me to read the piece very carefully indeed.

Even a modest level of attention should draw a reader’s eyes to this non-attributed assertion: “The San Francisco County elections office no longer retains records prior to 1992, but said that had she been registered and voting, her registration information would have been transferred to the current system. They have no record of her registration.” (My emphasis.)

“Offices” don’t make statements, people do, and no individual is quoted here. This is especially odd as voting data is not controversial, and such government offices routinely designate individuals to deal with press inquiries –individuals who can be quoted and whose quotes can be checked. These are public records after all –not state secrets.

The lack of a specific source is the sort of glaring omission that should have drawn an editor’s attention, but the Bee is rapidly losing altitude, and editors demanding that basic standards of old school journalism be upheld are probably in short supply and stretched too thin. Even with the thinnest of staffing, however, purposeful vagueness on such a key point combined with the convenient use of Petracca as the “expert” who condemned Whitman should have sounded alarms for editors and certainly for any reader with any background in the Bee’s long-standing habit of doing its best to bleed strong GOP candidates. Chance told me she was very confident of McIntosh’s sources, but wouldn’t’t give me even the name of one official McIntosh had spoken with in San francisco, the Ohio state office or Hamilton County –even though all are public offices charged with providing information to the public!

Sure enough, the “San Francisco County elections office” is staffed by real people, and one of them, Jocelyn Wong –the “Campaign Services Coordinator”—had previously responded to a request for registration information on such high profile San Francisco residents as Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi with a letter that states that “there is no registration records kept prior to 1992 kept by the Department.” (sic).

“Please also keep in mind that our database can only account for the voting history of voters from 1992 to the present since the Department switched databases that year,” Ms. Wong added.

Should McIntosh have provided such useful background to his story? After all, if the San Francisco Department of Elections cannot confirm the voting records of the Speaker of the House and the former-mayor of the city and now U.S. Senator, how certain could McIntosh’s source be about Whitman’s voting history –if he really had a source within the Department? Since the information Ms. Wong provided undercuts McIntosh’s central thesis that an inference can be drawn from the lack of registration data on Whitman and since Wong is willing to be on the record as opposed to the unnamed source McIntosh relied on, the possibility is real that McIntosh was played by someone who fed him a false line on the degree of certainty with which he could write his story. And though in our conversation Chance at first tries to argue to me that the Bee story leaves the question open as to whether Whitman voted or not, it clearly does not and intends for the reader to conclude that she didn’t vote while in San Francisco.

McIntosh used other assertions that have the appearance but not the reality of in-depth research and serious sourcing. After noting that Whitman lived in Ohio from 1979 to 1981 after graduating from Harvard, McIntosh wrote that
“[n]either Ohio State elections officials nor Hamilton County Board of Election officials found a record of Whitman registering or voting there.”

This is yet another odd, even purposefully misleading construction. “Joe Jones wasn’t registered” would be a direct response to a direct question, and such a statement from a Buckeye public official should come with a name attached. Again, these sort of questions are not the stuff that causes government employees to run for cover. These are public records.

I e-mailed Whitman campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds about the story. He produced a letter from Hamilton County’s Board of Elections’ Registration Clerk Jean Beirise stating unequivocally that Meg Whitman was registered in the county from April of 1980 through December of 1982, when her registration was canceled and stamped “MOVED OUT OF THE COUNTY.”

“Ohio election officials had confirmed in writing that Meg Whitman had registered in Hamilton County, Ohio while living there,” Bounds succinctly noted.

I pressed Bounds for any other errors in the Bee report, and while Bounds repeated again and again that Whitman makes no excuses for her spotty voting record, the Bee had missed evidence of her 1999 registration in Santa Clara County in addition to the error concerning Ohio and the misleading account concerning San Francisco’s records.

As you will hear when I play the interview today, Chance has no answer to my questions on sources but instead demands that I fax her the letter from the Jean Beirese. She also wanted to know if I got it from the Whitman campaign, as though that changes anything about the haphazard job her reporter did of checking the Ohio records.

The Bee story is a poorly sourced and very sloppy example either of agenda journalism or of lazy journalism, if you want to call it journalism at all. It conveys a level of certainty that is not deserved with a breathless sensationalism we’ve come to expect from the legacy media when in hunter-gatherer mode vis-?-vis Republicans. According to Bounds, Whitman actually recalls voting for Reagan in 1984 and George H.W. Bush in 1988, and she contributed to both of the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush, was part of the “Innovators for Bush” 2004 committee, and of course was a high-profile proponent first of Mitt Romney’s and then John McCain’s 2008 presidential bids. An honest assessment of Whitman’s voting record would have begun with what she has done in politics in the past few years and then accurately contrasted that record with her recollections of participation in the past, and perhaps have pointed out that the dismal state of San Francisco City and County voting operations precluded confirming her memories. Even a rookie reporter would have buttressed the Ohio falsehood with a named source to protect his paper’s reputation against even a cursory fact check. Such an accurate report on the facts of Whitman’s political record isn’t nearly as attention-grabbing as what McIntosh wrote and what his editors approved. Instead McIntosh rolled out a hit piece that no doubt will surface again and again in attacks on Whitman from her primary opponents.

I also asked Bounds about the Whitman 2003 campaign contribution to Barbara Boxer, and whether Whitman had contributed to Boxer’s campaigns in 1996 and 1990.

“No,” he responded. “As it has been reported in several news sources dating back to 2003, as CEO of eBay Meg joined other Republicans and Barbara Boxer to fight against internet taxes. This decision was good for Silicon Valley, good for eBay and good for Californians. Meg only contributed to [Boxer’s] 2004 re-election campaign and 94-percent of her contributions have gone to Republicans, a significantly higher percentage than Steve Poizner.”

I haven’t yet asked the Poizner campaign for a response on that last assertion, but will. I have had both Poizner and Whitman on the program, and will have them both back as well as former Congressman Tom Campbell as well. May the best GOP candidate win.

I am certain, however, that Republican voters ought not to trust reporting from the Sacramento Bee when making the decision on which is the best candidate. The refusal of Andrew McIntosh to answer any questions and of Amy Chance to take the opportunity to discuss the story in length, in a calm, measured, non-combative fashion and to answer obvious questions tells you everything you need to know about the Bee’s standards of reporting. When a newspaper screws up this badly on what it trumpets as an important story, you shouldn’t trust a word it writes on the candidate it attempted to smear for the duration of the race.

BookTV and Peter Slen

Back in California after yesterday’s three hour, live interview on BookTV’s “In Depth” with BookTV’s executive producer Peter Slen. Slen and his colleagues are extraordinary professionals who do great things for the world of books and authors, and Peter is a wonderful interviewer as well. The program can be seen here, and will air again next Saturday at 9 AM.

C-SPAN’s extraordinary series on the Supreme Court is a truly unique view inside the nation’s highest court, and includes interviews with every single living justice, sitting and retired. Check here for times and be sure to encourage anyone with an interest in the law to watch.

“Who Are These People And Where Did They Come From?”

My latest Townhall.com column is here.

I’ll be the guest for an extended interview on CSPAN’s Book TV today, from noon until 3 PM, EST.

And don’t miss the Washington Examiner’s latest editorial on ACORN and Congress.