Democrats Postpone Override of Presidential Veto

I guess Democrats like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi don't really care about kids after all. If any poor children die in the next two weeks because they weren't covered by SCHIP, it's on their heads.

Liberals Want to... Secede?

Can anybody explain to me why self-described LIBERALS would want to secede from the union? It is liberals who have championed - and continue to champion - the expansion in size and scope of the federal government. If I had my way about it, Vermont could remain a state but still do all it's own things for the most part. But alas, it's Vermonters themselves who would hoist very manner of over-bearing federalized, socialized programs onto the rest of us...

...it really is mind-boggling.

• Secessionists Meeting in Tennessee

Latest Fad: Lie About Losing a Loved One to Feel Morally Superior

Like everyone, I occasionally read something that truly disgusts me. The blog post I just stumbled across by Brendan Skwire is easily the most despicable I've seen in quite some time. But first some background.

A couple of days ago Congressman John Boehner (R-Ohio) was on CNN with Wolf Blitzer. At one point Boehner said America's "investment" of "$2 billion a week or $3 billion a week" was a "a small price" to ensure the safety and security of our country. Here is the full exchange:

BLITZER: How much longer will U.S. taxpayers have to shell out $2 billion a week or $3 billion a week as some now are suggesting the cost is going to endure? The loss in blood, the Americans who are killed every month, how much longer do you think this commitment, this military commitment is going to require?

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids. (video here)

I think any fair reader (or viewer) would conclude Boehner's comment was either simply inartful or was referring to the monetary cost (as Boehner's office contends). Unlike when Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) accused our troops of "terrorizing [Iraqi] kids and children," or when Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) compared them to Nazis, Boehner has a clear grasp of the sacrifice our troops are making and the importance of winning in Iraq.

Liberals, led no less by Kerry, Howard Dean, and the zealots on the biggest lefty blogs seized on the remark and INSIST - I say "insist" because Boehner was in Iraq and is currently in Pakistan, and the condemnations by the left flew out the door before he's even had a chance to respond - that he was trivializing the sacrifice of our soldiers. As the Weekly Standard points out, their outrage is amusing. Unfortunately, their dishonesty is simply disgusting.

Case in point:

1) Kerry, in his misleading HuffPo post, completely left out the first part of Wolf's question about the money. Nice parsing, junior senator. Liberal blogs, Democrats, and various media outlets - like the former Wonkette - have followed suit (asserting Boehner was talking about "American lives," as opposed to the monetary "investment").

And the most despicable of all:

2) This liar from brendancalling.com called Boehner's office and LIED about having a relative killed in Iraq. He LIED, telling Boehner's office that his "cousin had his head shot off in Iraq." And then he yucks about it on his blog:

I knew it was time for another phone call. But I didn’t want to do my usual complaining thing: instead, I decided I would pose as a bereaved relative of a dead soldier.

LIED. Not only does his admission call into question the veracity of his retelling of the conversation, but the simple fact that he'd resort to subterfuge is stunning. Why not just call and lodge a protest? You don't like what the Congressman said? Fine. I disagree with you, but fine. But your hook is a lie about losing a relative in the war?

It's the left's reaction to this non-episode that proves how unserious they are about anything beyond capturing power. If a leftist will lie about losing a loved one just to make himself feel morally superior to someone he's never met... well, there are no words.

The left thinks it's "caught" Boehner. In fact it is the left that has been revealed, in Boehner's own words, as a movement that will "break any rule, trample on any precedent... run roughshod over its own members," and apparently lie about losing a loved one... all "to defend a left-wing, big government agenda most Americans utterly reject."

Pathetic.

UPDATE: Full Situation Room transcript here. Boehner from Baghdad: "What we're doing here is looking at what's happening on the ground, talking to local officials, looking at the progress that's been made with the surge and most importantly, thanking our troops for doing the job that they're doing here in Iraq."

Surplus!

The venerable BizzyBlog discusses current budget deficit forecasts and takes the AP to task for perpetuating the myth about "surpluses," making a critical point missed all-too-often by... almost everyone:

That report was issued by the Congressional Budget Office in January 2001, as the dot-com bubble was bursting, the economy was slowing, and, not coincidentally, as administrations were changing. Nobody should have believed the surplus nonsense when it was released, and it’s disingenuous to pretend now that it ever had any credibility.

The sad thing is this narrative - that we were headed for trillions in surpluses until Bush and greedy Republicans "gave it away" to the rich - is all but etched onto the American soul, aided willingly by liberals and haplessly by Republicans. In my view, the only way to erase this nonsense is for the budget to again reach surplus -- without tax hikes. Godspeed to the Republican minority for holding out another year.

Unhealthy San Francisco

I'm sitting here sipping my morning coffee and noticed this little bit of bizarre editorializing in the New York Times (I'm shocked! Shocked!):

Last month, unable to bear her discomfort any longer, Ms. Ho came to North East Medical Services, a nonprofit community clinic on the edge of Chinatown, and discovered to her delight that she qualified for a new program that offers free or subsidized health care to all 82,000 San Francisco adults without insurance.

The initiative, known as Healthy San Francisco, is the first of its kind in the nation, and represents the latest attempt by state and local governments to patch a broken federal system.

What "federal system" are we talking about? We - thankfully - do not have a "federal system" for health care that can be broken. We have federal laws that needlessly prevent people - like Ms Ho - from easily obtaining health insurance outside of an employer, or that prohibit small businesses from giving their workers the same coverage as big companies and unions. But there is no "federal system," and San Francisco isn't "patching" anything.

What is San Fran doing? Well, they're forcing some of their residents to subsidize the health care of others. Good for them. I hope it works out. Of course, even San Francisco realized the perverse incentives their plan creates. The solution? More regulations:

A final funding mechanism has placed the program in legal jeopardy. To make sure the new safety net does not encourage businesses to drop their private insurance, the city in January will begin requiring employers with more than 20 workers to contribute a set amount to health care. The Healthy San Francisco program is one of several possible destinations for those funds, with others being private insurance or health savings accounts.

A "set amount"... and I'm sure the deep-thinkers on City Council will determine the precise and proper dollar amount for everybody, no doubt.

Back to my coffee.

Hagel Schooled by His Democratic Brethren

Shame on the Democrats. Did none of them have the courtesy to tell Chuck Hagel that - hey - the so-called "surge" in Iraq really is producing results? Sure liberal blogs like this one love his antics, saying he "embarrassed" the minority leader with "cold, hard facts"... but maybe Brian Baird can give him the real "cold, hard facts":

"Last Friday, Baird told the Olympian, a newspaper in his district, that he now believes the United States should stay in the country as long as necessary to ensure stability.

"That followed comments by Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Calif.) suggesting that his trip to Iraq made him more flexible in his search for a bipartisan accord on the future U.S. role in the conflict. 'If anything, I'm more willing to work to find a way forward,' he told reporters late last month.

"Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.), who was with McNerney, told his local paper that the troop increase 'has really made a difference and really has gotten al-Qaeda on their heels.' ...

"'We are making real and tangible progress on the ground, for one,' Baird said, 'and if we withdraw, it could have a potentially catastrophic effect on the region.'"

DCCC... A Little Outdated

The DCCC should really update the text of its subscriber page:

http://www.dccc.org/action_center/minisubscribe/

Uh, you guys took the majority. And people hate Congress more than ever. Congratulations.