# Posted 6:55 PM by David Adesnik  

SHADY CAR SALESMAN AND A PUNDIT? He is the demented comedian who gave us Uncle Sugar. He also analyzes public policy in his role as associate director of the Regulatory Studies Program at George Mason University. Ladies and gentlemen, the one and only Rob Raffety:



Incidentally, the editors of the Wall Street Journal acidly note that car sales began to plunge as soon as Cash For Clunkers expired.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:23 PM by David Adesnik  

READING BOB GATES' MIND: Everyone wants to know what he's thinking. If Gates says no more troops for Afghanistan, Obama can say "Why send more troops if George Bush's secretary of defense says they're not necessary?"

If Gates says send the troops, it will be extremely hard for Obama to reject the advice of a secretary so highly-regarded that he was the only Bush cabinet member reappointed by Obama.

So what is Gates thinking? Yesterday, he did a rare joint interview with Hillary Clinton, filmed by CNN:

FRANK SESNO, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, let me ask you about our objectives, because back in March, President Obama said several things. He said our clear and focused goal -- that was his term -- was to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda. He said, for the American people, the Afghanistan/Pakistan border was the most dangerous place in the world, that Afghanistan was an international security issue of the highest order, and that, if the Afghan government were to fall to the Taliban, the country will -- and I'm quoting him here -- "be again a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can."

Has any of that changed from then until now in this review?

CLINTON: No.

GATES: I don't think so.

CLINTON: No.

SESNO: So, staying the course and having this government survive and not fall to the Taliban and disrupting and dismantling al Qaeda is the objective, is the goal of this review that you're going through?

CLINTON: Well, Frank, the goal remains, as the president said last spring.

Generally, those who think the Taliban will open the door to Al Qaeda favor more troops. But Gates (and Clinton) know that. So were they hinting at their own positions, or were they just pretending to hint?

What a game.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:56 PM by David Adesnik  

IS McCHRYSTAL OUT OF LINE? Mike O'Hanlon says no. Eugene Robinson says,

The men with the stars on their shoulders -- and I say this with enormous respect for their patriotism and service -- need to shut up and salute.

Robinson adds that he applies the same standard to military officers whose opinions he agrees with. Clearly, Robinson shares the suspicion of many, including myself, that opinions about civil-military relations constantly flip as a result of partisan realignments. When George Bush went against his generals' advice and ordered the surge, weren't Republicans celebrating civilian supremacy while Democrats insisted we must listen to the generals?

Before that, it was Bush who insisted on the importance of listening to the generals. And before that, it was Democrats who celebrated generals like Eric Shinseki, who earned his place in Obama's cabinet by saying things that displeased the Bush administration.

What I don't know is whether specific individuals, whether in government or media, have reversed their positions on civil-military relations in order to advance a partisan interest. Those Republicans who favor listening to the generals may simply be silent now, while those Democrats who favor civilian supremacy were equally silent when Bush ordered the surge. Strange as it may seem, a party can contradict itself without having any of its members compromise their personal reputations (although some of them presumably have.)

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 1:51 PM by David Adesnik  

OBAMA'S MISLEADING SCARE TACTICS: Last month, I gave the President a hard time for denouncing GOP scare tactics, while relying on his scary stories to build support for his healthcare plan. On Monday, ABC's Jake Tapper pointed out that the President's scary stories were "not quite accurate" or, in plain English, completely misleading.

First up, there's the man who died when his insurance company cut off his chemotherapy because he allegedly failed to report he once had gallstones. Actually, the man got his coverage back, got his chemotherapy, and lived for three and a half more years.

Next up, there's the woman with cancer whose coverage was cancelled because she forgot to report a case of acne. Turns our the acne had nothing do with her cancellation (although to Obama's credit, it does seem the woman actually had some pimples.)

As Tapper notes, the whole truth still makes the insurance companies look pretty heartless. But if the President wants to denounce the liars and cynics who oppose his plan, he should work a little harder to be part of the reality-based community.

Incidentally, this was how I closed out my original post about Obama's scary stories:

So I guess if I provide a few examples of terrible things that happen in Canada, I would’ve responsibly documented the perils of government-run healthcare?

Per the Wall Street Journal:

When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no longer hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.

So wait she did.

In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. 'When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery,' said Woodkey, 72. 'They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor.'

So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days. 'I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada,' Woodkey said. 'It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone.'

As I said before, anecdotes can't prove a broader point. But they should at least be true.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:28 PM by David Adesnik  

CARL LEVIN'S AFGHAN FLIP-FLOP: Goldfarb has the goods. Four-and-a-half months ago, Chairman Carl Levin and eight other Democratic members of the Senate Armed Services Committee signed a letter to President Obama that began

We agree that the United States has a vital national interest in ensuring that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven from which al Qaeda can plot attacks against our homeland, and that achieving this objective requires that we put in place a well-resourced, comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy.

Of course, Levin is now one of the premier opponents of giving Gen. McChrystal the resources he's asked for.

The letter was also signed by John McCain and seven Committee Republicans.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:02 PM by David Adesnik  

BROOKS DECLARES WAR ON TALK RADIO: David Brooks' column this morning is a guns-blazing assault on Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and the rest of the conservative talk radio-sphere.

As Pete noted earlier, Brooks also has harsh words for those Republicans who ignorantly overestimate the influence of Limbaugh & Co. Let the record also show that Brooks is no more fond of "cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P." Those cynics include White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, who presumably takes his orders from Barack Obama.

Now let me be clear about where I stand. I don't listen to talk radio. I generally trust David Brooks' instincts, but I won't pretend I know enough to agree or disagree this time around. Limbaugh & Co. only make it onto my radar screen when the mainstream media cover them, which happens either when one of them says something outrageous or when the White House decides to crown them as the leaders of the GOP.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 4:00 PM by David Adesnik  

SAY IT THREE TIMES, "THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME": I've been off the network for almost two weeks now, while my wife and I were in the process of moving into our new home in Northwest DC.

This move will mark the end of an era. I've packed up and moved almost every 12 months since graduating from college ten years ago. Now, I've found a place where I hope to live for ten or twenty years or longer.

For the moment, it still feels like we're just playing house and pretending to be grown-ups. Maybe if a couple of kids show up and keep us up all night with their crying, it'll seem more real. For now, it's just fun.

Once again, a big shout out to Uncle Sam for his pro-homeowner tax policies, which have made it remarkably affordable to upgrade to from an apartment to a house. It's still hard to believe, but we are now paying less per month for a mortgage than we were to rent a nice two-bedroom.

Now back to serious blogging.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:54 AM by David Adesnik  

KEVIN DRUM ON WILSON-MANIA: Kevin asks:

Did the Washington Post fulfill its duty to inform the public last night by running a mere eight separate pieces about Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's healthcare speech on Wednesday? Or is anything less than a dozen a sign that they aren't really trying anymore? After all, Politico had at least 15 Wilson-related pieces, including a big front pager by Andie Coller headlined "A Party of Cranks?"

I suppose I shouldn't complain, but unlike a lot of my fellow lefties, I'm not convinced that obsessing over Joe Wilson actually does our cause any good. It's time to send him back under the rock he crawled out from.

But if we stop talking about Wilson, we might start asking questions like how we're going to pay for healthcare reform...

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:51 AM by David Adesnik  

SERENA WILLIAMS, THE JOE WILSON OF TENNIS? I didn't see the outburst that cost Serena her semi-final match, but I saw (as in, television saw) her smash her racket after losing the first set. Even that was pretty jarring.

Strange. A sport where the crowd watches in respectful silence, while a champion smashes expensive equipment that most fans would be grateful to own.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (2) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:47 AM by David Adesnik  

WILL PELOSI FLIP ON AFGHANISTAN? The editors of the Wall Street Journal remind Madame Speaker that she was a singing a different tune on Afghanistan not long ago:

It is well known that Mr. Obama has called Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Less publicized is that in 2007 Speaker Pelosi was also saying that our real interests were in Afghanistan. "The war on terror is in Afghanistan," Ms. Pelosi said just two years ago. "The fact that we weakened our commitment to Afghanistan in order to concentrate in Iraq has taken a toll."

We should find out soon enough whether the Speaker was serious about her commitment to Afghanistan, or just paying lip service to a popular cause. If she was serious, she'll have to stand up to her closest friends in order to prove it:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D., Calif.), co-chair of the 82-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, said her group is unified in wanting to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

"The Progressive Caucus is pretty much together on what is going on in Afghanistan, in being against escalating and in favor of bringing the troops home," Ms. Woolsey said in a recent interview. "We will have to stand up to our own president."

Once the dust settles after the healthcare fight, Afghanistan will have its moment.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:22 PM by David Adesnik  

OBAMA VS. JOE WILSON ON THE TRUTH-O-METER: Joe G. noted earlier that Joe Wilson scored very poorly on Politifact's Truth-o-meter. Since that post, there have been five more targeting Rep. Wilson, including Kathy's moderately titled, Is there a politician lower than Joe Wilson?

I'm guessing Kathy has heard of Charlie Rangel.

Anyhow, I'm not here to defend Joe Wilson, who most people never heard of until yesterday. I'm here to look at how President Obama scores on the Truth-o-Meter. After last night's speech, Politifact awarded President Obama a Barely True for pretending that Democratic reform bills actually incorporated Republican ideas. In fact, Democrats accepted some technical amendments from the GOP.

Politifact also awarded the President a flat-out False for saying that preventive care "saves money".

In a very generous ruling, Politifact awarded Obama a True for saying

Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

But that's just some tricky wordplay, since the real issue is whether government incentives will lead your employer to take away your coverage. That's why, less than a month ago, Politifact awarded the President a Half-true for insisting for the umpteenth time that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

America is deciding right now whether reform its entire healthcare system, which accounts for roughly one-eighth of the entire economy. So what's more important? Whether an obscure congressman bends the truth, or whether the President of the United States bends it again and again?

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

# Posted 10:58 PM by David Adesnik  

OBAMA: IGNORE (OTHER PEOPLE'S) SCARE TACTICS. Those talk show hosts are awful. They say the most awful things. But it's the President who runs the country, so I'm much more concerned with his disingenuity. From last night:

Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics.

Also last night:

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 the most. And more will die as a result.

That's not a scare tactic, of course. It's an analysis of policy options. And the following are thoughtful illustrations, not scary stories:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

So I guess if I provide a few examples of terrible things that happen in Canada, I would've responsibly documented the perils of government-run healthcare?

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:28 PM by David Adesnik  

DEM CORRUPTION: The editors of the New Republic have some harsh words[subscription only] for House Democrats, who toppled a GOP majority in 2006 by promising to clean up Washington. Charlie Rangel and John Murtha, two of the most senior and powerful Democrats in the House, are an embarrassment.

Late August brought the stunning revelation that Rangel failed to note two bank accounts, each containing somewhere in the range of $250,000 and $500,000, on past financial disclosure forms. Add to this the unreported $75,000 in income from a beachfront villa, illegal rent-stabilized apartments, and other problems and you begin to understand why it is taking the ethics committee so long to sift through all of the complaints. If that weren't bad enough, there's the brazen condescension with which Rangel brushes off the allegations. "I recognize that all of you have an obligation to ask questions," Rangel recently told reporters, "knowing that there's none of you smart enough to frame it in such a way that I'm going to respond."

If Rangel thinks reporters are dumb, imagine what he thinks of his constitutents. All I know is that, somewhere, Tom Daschle is fuming about double standards.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:45 AM by David Adesnik  

I FEEL AN ADDICTION COMING ON: Just watched the first episode of (the new) Battlestar Galactica. I wanted to try it, but assumed it would keep my interest for only a few episodes. My wife only agreed to watch because she is a gracious and generous woman. For the first thirty minutes, she made snide remarks. At the sixty minute mark she asked me if an hour had really gone by. At the eighty minute mark, I told her we had to go to sleep because we're going to California tomorrow. She begged for just ten more minutes. How could I say 'no'?

Please no spoilers in the comments!

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:38 AM by David Adesnik  

PROF. MARION BARRY, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY: Sonny already plugged Matt Labash's great article about America's most notorious mayor. I second that. The strangest thing I learned about Barry was that he came within one year of finishing a PhD in chemistry.

He was an Eagle Scout. He recited poems in church. He went to college, and stopped one year short of getting his doctorate in chemistry, quitting to join the civil rights movement. "In chemistry, there's order," he says wistfully. "In politics, there's disorder. The rules change just about every other day."

If only he had become a chemist instead.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:33 PM by David Adesnik  

FELLOW REPUBLICANS, SUPPORT OBAMA NOW! The situation in Afghanistan is bad and getting worse. Young Americans are losing their lives in a war that may soon lose the support of the American people.

Fellow Americans, will we give in to despair, or will we find a new HOPE? Will we accept a painful defeat, or will we have the AUDACITY to seek a brighter future? Will we surrender to the partisanship of the old way of politics, or seek innovative BIPARTISAN solutions?

You get my drift. Several months ago, it didn't seem very interesting when leading Republicans said they would support Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan, rather than criticize it because Obama is Democrat. After all, it's easy to announce one's support for a policy that is already popular on both sides of the aisle.

Now the situation is different. But the message from Republicans (except George Will) is the same. Accustomed to accusations of hyper-partisanship, Republicans seem to be thoroughly enjoying the chance to support Obama when he's supporting a war that Democrats have increasingly turned against. Even before l'affare Will, Bill Kristol wrote,

as a decision looms for Obama on a new strategy requiring increased numbers of troops in Afghanistan, a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week discovered that "majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction of troop levels." Conservatives and Republicans are far more supportive of the war--they "remain the war's strongest backers"--and a majority of conservatives don't merely support the war but say they approve of President Obama's handling of it.

So much for charges of knee-jerk or unprincipled partisanship. Conservatives support a president they generally distrust because they think it important the country win the war in Afghanistan. And despite temptations to make political hay out of a war that's getting more unpopular, and despite doubts about Obama as commander in chief, Republican political leaders remain supportive of the war effort. They are urging Obama to commit himself unambiguously to win the war and to approve General Stanley McChrystal's coming request for more troops. And in urging the administration to follow this course, they are willing to see the president get credit for doing the right thing.

Sure, we're giving ourselves a big pat on the pack. But we deserve it. Dan Senor and Peter Wehner struck a similar note in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. They write,

The president's actions have clearly unsettled some members of his own party, who hoped he would begin to unwind America's commitment in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama not only ignored their counsel; he doubled down his commitment. There should therefore be no stronger advocates for Mr. Obama's Afghanistan strategy than the GOP.

Senor and Wehner make the important observation that America has a "long history of political parties out of power advancing a neo-isolationist outlook." The GOP often gave into that temptation in the Clinton era.

Although supporting a Democratic president is certainly bipartisan, it's important not to forget the political benefits of facilitating a bitter divide between a Democratic president and his own party. For those who want a reason to describe GOP support for Obama as selfish, there it is. But usually, when someone gets ahead by doing what's right and good, progressives call it enlightened self-interest.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:29 PM by David Adesnik  

AFGHANISTAN -- THE WSJ OFFENSIVE: George Will called for an end to counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, provoking a flood of responses from conservatives. The Wall Street Journal has given their opinions top billing.

Fred Kagan writes that the future of Pakistan depends on Afghanistan. Max Boot reminds us that we already tried to win on the cheap -- that's why it's such a mess today. Dan Senor and Peter Wehner call on Republicans to support Obama even when the going gets tough. Finally, Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel talk about what's going right in Afghanistan. Yes, I know they're Democrats. But plenty of liberals started denouncing O'Hanlon as a neo-con stooge when he dared suggest (long before it became obvious) that the surge was working in Iraq. And Riedel? Well, he led the review that led Obama to send more troops. If things keep going the way they are, the Democratic left will start talking about him they way they once did about Bob McNamara and Dean Rusk.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion