Cry Wolf Often Enough And Conservatives Are Bound To Be Right (As With Claims Of Being Targeted By The IRS)

With conservatives loving to play the part of the victim and inventing all sorts of outrageous transgressions in their imaginations, it is often hard to take anything they say seriously. Today it was revealed that their claims of  being targeted by the IRS are true:

The Internal Revenue Service on Friday apologized for targeting groups with “tea party” or “patriot” in their names, confirming long-standing accusations by some conservatives that their applications for tax-exempt status were being improperly delayed and scrutinized.

Lois Lerner, the IRS official who oversees tax-exempt groups, said the “absolutely inappropriate” actions by “front-line people” were not driven by partisan motives.

Rather, Lerner said, they were a misguided effort to come up with an efficient means of dealing with a flood of applications from organizations seeking tax-exempt status between 2010 and 2012.

During that period, about 75 groups were selected for extra inquiry — including burdensome questionnaires and, in some cases, improper requests for the names of their donors — simply because of the words in their names, she said in a conference call with reporters.

Lerner is also sure to regret admitting “I’m not good at math” even if she is an attorney.

It is difficult to understand how she can say that they were not driven by partisan motives when the victims were of a specific political philosophy. While only speculation, I wonder if some people at the IRS believed that groups which have a philosophical opposition to taxation are more likely to violate tax laws. In the absence of any evidence against these specific groups, that would be wrong. Criticizing the IRS and our tax system should be protected speech under the First Amendment. Advocating change in laws which a group disagrees with is allowed under our system of government and is not evidence in itself that they are violating the laws they want changed.

I might also be over thinking this. It might have been a more visceral and petty reaction, retaliating against those who criticize their organization. That would also be wrong. We do need a full investigation as opposed to speculation as to their motives.

The IRS says that this came from lower level people and was stopped by those higher up. While there is no evidence to question this so far, this also needs to be investigated.

Reaction to this is varied. Mitch McConnell is calling for an investigation, and he is right to do so, even if there is no evidence of a comparison to the Nixon White House. . Hopefully this remains a proper investigation and doesn’t turn it into yet another politicized witch-hunt which Republicans have spent so much time (and tax payer money) conducting.

Portions of the conservative blogosphere are, as would be expected, showing that they are out of touch with reality even on an issue where conservative groups are right. American Thinker  writes:

And who are these “low-level” employees in Cincinnati who started the reviews? Are we seriously to believe that a couple of minor bureaucrats could alter IRS policy so easily?  If that’s the case, what other abuses isn’t the IRS telling us about?

To be part of a government run by a Democratic president and then investigate opposition groups, harassing them, trying to discourage their political activities is the sort of thing we find in Russia.

Ridiculous reactions of this type don’t help conservatives. Of course this is the same site which compares Benghazi to Watergate and yesterday tried to find a way to justify this article title: Ariel Castro, Cleveland Kidnapper, Is a Registered Democrat. (I an having trouble finding their articles criticizing real abuses of power during the Bush years from the unconstitutional attempts to expand the power of the presidency to the K-Street Project. I had no trouble finding plenty of examples at the site promoting the right wing’s imaginary case against ACORN or claiming that Barack Obama is a socialist.)

There is absolutely no evidence that we have a Democratic president exercising autocratic powers against their enemies. Historically this has more often been a Republican practice. And how are liberal bloggers responding? Are they lining up along ideological grounds, cheering on these abuses against the right. No, not at all. Liberal response has been that this is wrong and warrants a full investigation. Steve Benen wrote:

The boys who cried wolf may have dubious credibility, but to mix metaphors, even a broken clock is right twice a day.I suppose one might argue that Tea Party groups were inherently partisan, and their claims for tax-exempt status were suspect given the movement’s larger purpose, but it’s a tough sell. The IRS is supposed to be even-handed, and in several cases, it seems clear that the agency was not.

This is the sort of thing that costs officials their jobs…

For a change, all of these complaints are legitimate. There really was wrongdoing. Groups really were treated unfairly. It’d be wrong to dismiss the complaints, assuming the right is just manufacturing some new pseudo-scandal; this really does deserve to be taken seriously.

Also see responses from Think ProgressKevin Drum and Greg Sargent. The left has stuck with principle (and is concerned with uncovering the actual facts)  as opposed to following the right’s usual logic of support or opposition based upon partisan lines, while ignoring the facts.

Deal of the Day–Friday Night Lights

Great deal at Amazon today–the entire series of Friday Night Lights on DVD for only $40. If you haven’t seen the series, it is one of the best written network shows in years. (In later years it survived due to a deal in which it was first on DirectTV and later broadcast on NBC).

Republican Leaders Refuse To Make Appointments To Medicare IPAB

I have been concerned that the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board posed a potential risk to Medicare. Recommendations from the board to cut costs would be very difficult for Congress to override, requiring a 60 percent vote, giving excessive power to unelected officials. I would hate to see a Republican president and Congress pack the board with conservatives who would recommend changes to reduce costs which would be harmful to the program. In the long run this remains a concern, but short term we might not have to worry about Republicans on the Board. The president selects three member and the leaders of each party from each chamber of Congress also nominate three members.  In a letter to President Obama, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell said that they would not make any appointments to the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

The IPPB can still function without the full fifteen members and any decisions in which the Republicans don’t take part might be preferable. As all fifteen members must be confirmed by the Senate, it will be interesting to see if the Republicans filibuster all appointments. They certainly have demonstrated a willingness to block Obama’s appointments just for the sake of blocking them.  If the IPPB fails to make recommendations, the Secretary of Health and Human Services could make the recommendations instead. The end result of Boehner and McConnell’s actions would then be to give more power to the Obama administration initially.

Quote of the Day

“Conservatives like me know that in a budget crisis, everything nonessential has to go — whether it’s food for kids who aren’t mine or some other stuff for people I don’t know.” –Stephen Colbert

The Bizarre World Of Health Care Charges

CMS released  data on what hospitals are charging today with many noticing, and questioning, vast differences in charges from one hospital to another. There are a few things you must know to make any sense out of this data.

Charges to Medicare have no bearing on what Medicare will pay. Medicare has a fee schedule for services, and will pay based upon this. Inpatient services are paid under a DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) system where Medicare pays a fixed amount regardless of what individual charges are present. This starts with the diagnosis, but the amount can be adjusted based upon factors such as severity and additional problems as obviously not every case admitted to the hospital for the same diagnosis is exactly the same. A hospital might charge $10 for a Tylenol tablet, but that doesn’t mean Medicare or an insurance company will pay it.

Some insurance companies pay the same way under a DRG system. I don’t know if this is true nation wide, but in Michigan Blue Cross also pays under a DRG system. Other insurers will pay based upon their fee schedule and not approve the full amount charged.  Hospital charges mean very little except for the uninsured. It is people without insurance who wind up being charged these ridiculously high rates. This means two things if you are without insurance and wind up in a hospital. First, it is often better to have a high deductible policy which never pays a cent than no insurance if the hospital has agreed to accept the plan’s rates. That way you will only have to pay what the insurance allows as opposed to the  hospital’s charge, which might be considerably higher. Of course make sure any insurance purchased this way really does have agreements with medical providers to accept their fees. Secondly, if you have a big bill and no insurance, keep in mind that the hospital would not receive the full amount if you had insurance. It is worth trying to negotiate and offering to pay a lower amount closer to what the hospital would expect to receive.

One consequence of this system of each insurance company approving different amounts for different services is that each hospital wants to be certain that they charge at least the maximum amount the best paying insurance company will pay. It is simpler to charge well above this amount to be certain of maximizing income.

This doesn’t necessarily mean they are evil and trying to rip off the system. The system makes this necessary for survival when each insurance company pays differently. While a simplification, imagine that someone is provided services A, B, and C when hospitalized. Some insurance companies might pay a fair amount for all three. Other insurance companies might pay extremely well for A, but poorly for B, and possibly not pay for C at all. Another insurance company might pay for B or C, but not for A. Health care providers must charge high amounts for all three, or risk not receiving enough to cover expenses. This means that the total charged for A, B, and C will be well beyond what they actually receive from any specific payer. Besides covering the actual costs to a particular patient, money must also be received for the tremendous overhead costs of hospitals and other health care facilities.

Yes, the system is screwed up, but it is often the system itself which is at fault, and comparing charges from different hospitals doesn’t provide all that meaningful information–except for the uninsured who will be charged more than Medicare or insurance companies will pay.

Growing Tide In Favor Of Marriage Equality

The Republicans, supporters of a government so small that it can tell people who they may marry, are getting some bad news:

Last week it was Rhode Island. Today Delaware became the eleventh state to allow same-sex marriage.

The Minnesota House will vote on a proposal to allow same-sex marriage on Thursday.

Senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Judiciary Committee has filed an amendment to an immigration bill that would allow same sex couples to sponsor their partners for a visa.

There is some division among Republicans on this issue, but support for marriage equality remains a minority viewpoint. Pat Brady has resigned as chairman of the Illinois Republican Party because his support for same-sex marriage is out of line with the view of other Republicans.

Limbaugh Still Losing Advertisers Over Calling Fluke A Slut

Rush Limbaugh received a lot of criticism for calling Sandra Fluke a slut and many advertisers dropped his show. I hadn’t heard anything about this in a while and thought that over time the issue might have been forgotten. According to Medialite, major advertisers are still avoiding Rush Limbaugh:

As we reported earlier this morning, Rush Limbaugh is allegedly in the midst of a battle with Cumulus Media, the distributor of his radio show. The company’s CEO has blamed ad revenue losses on the conservative talkers’ controversial 2012 “slut” comments about Georgetown student Sandra Fluke.

Mediaite’s own sources confirm that the ad troubles in connection with Limbaugh’s show are, indeed, severe. In fact, one source within the radio advertising world with direct knowledge of the ad buys on Limbaugh’s show confirms the extent of the problem: “The vast majority of national advertisers now refuse to air their ads during Rush Limbaugh’s show,” our source tells us.

Limbaugh’s contract with Cumulus runs through 2013. Will he suffer the same fate as Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin at Fox? If Limbaugh leaves Cumulus he presumably will have other opportunities, but driving away advertisers would reduce his appeal to other radio outlets.

SciFi Weekend: Doctor Who; Merlin; Iron Man 3; Avengers; SHIELD; True Blood; Gillian Anderson; Person of Interest; The Americans; Firefly

doctor-who-diana-rigg-jenna-louise-coleman-matt-smith-crimson-horror

The Crimson Horror is perhaps the sweetest episode of Doctor Who ever, and starts out without the Doctor. The episode provides a vehicle for two sets of characters: 1) Jenny, Vastra & Strax and 2) characters played by Diana Rigg and her real-life daughter Rachael Stirling. This is the first time that the mother-daughter combination have ever worked together. Bringing back Jenny, Vastra, and Strax also helps with the continuity of the season. Jenny even had a scene which reminded me of Diana Rigg’s old  character Emma Peal from The Avengers, combining the two sets. Victorian England episodes tend to have the most realistic look of episodes taking place in different places or times. Undoubtedly appropriate sets and costumes are easiest to obtain.

The Doctor, and even later Clara, don’t become involved until later, but their absence in the early portions of the episode is handled well. There was a far better payoff to find that the Doctor was the monster when we did not see what happened to him until later. We were brought up to date by a sepia-toned sequence which gives the information viewers need without taking  time to provide excess detail.  Going through the earlier aspects of the Doctor’s involvement in a condensed manner was also helpful because Mark Gatiss had so much going on this episode that he already had to wrap it up too quickly. This would have worked better as a Sherlock-length story.

Being Doctor Who, there are invariably some things which seem unbelievable even if we believe in the Time Lords and the rest of the mythology surrounding the Doctor. It is hard to believe that a rocket of this type could have been built back in that era. The kid, Thomas, who sounded like my phone’s GPS raising further questions. I suspect this one might be cleared up in the season finale when we return to the Doctor’s friends. (As I also went to see Iron Man 3 Saturday night after watching Doctor Who, it was a big night for kids getting into the action.)

The reference to past Doctors was more subtle this week. When the Doctor wound up in Yorkshire instead of London he mentioned his past difficulties in making it to the right place, including problems getting an  Australian to Heathrow, referring to the fifth Doctor and Tegan. I suspect that I missed the meaning of some of the references to Yorkshire versus London which would mean more to those living in the U.K.

When Clara returned home, the kids she cares for had found old pictures of her, demonstrating her travels in time. It is highly unlikely for either these pictures to exist and for the kids to realize they are of Clara (as opposed to someone who might look like her) but this was probably done for two reasons. First Clara was surprised by seeing a picture of her from London where this Clara has not been. Secondly this was probably done to lead into next week’s episode, Nightmare in Silver, which includes the kids. I wouldn’t be all that upset if the kids wind up being assimilated by the Cybermen (who have been looking increasingly like the Borg). Nightmare in Silver will reportedly also include stock footage of William Hartnell and Jon Pertwee.

Quote of the episode: “I’m the Doctor, you’re nuts, and I’m going to stop you.”

The Behind the Scenes video is above

Jenny, Vastra & Strax will be returning in the season finale, The Name Of The Doctor. The episode will also include River Song, post-library. Here’s the official synopsis:

“Every journey taken by a time-traveller tears a wound in the fabric of reality, and the Doctor has time-travelled more than anyone. But the trail runs cold in Trenzalore, the one place in all of time and space that he should never go. The most dangerous place in the universe…

This quote from the episode was also released:

“The path I carved through time and space, from Gallifrey to Trenzalore. My own personal time tunnel, leading back to every moment I ever lived. Every step, every tear, every kiss. Even the days I haven’t lived yet. Which is why I shouldn’t be here. The paradoxes… very bad…”

Trenzalore has been linked with the fall of the eleventh and thought to mean the time when the eleventh Doctor regenerates. If we are to see the fall of the eleventh it must mean something different. Moffat says someone will die in the episode. As they are only seen occasionally, they could easily kill off one of the three Victorian detectives. As this is a p0st-library River, she can also die. Considering that the Doctor and River meet in a mixed up order, this wouldn’t prevent the Doctor from running into River in the future, at an earlier point in her time line.

David Tennant will be the only former Doctor on the 50th Anniversary episode but there will be an  homage to the very first episode of the series, An Unearthly Child.

The Guardian has an interview with Steven Moffat here.

One of the more implausible scenes in The Angels Take Manhattan was having the Statue of Liberty, as a Weeping Angel, travel across Manhattan. Among the many problems raised by this scene is the question of how the Statue of Liberty could make it very far since Angels freeze if anyone is watching. Most fans probably just let this pass as a good scene regardless of whether plausible. Steven Moffat has now provided an explanation (but I’m not sure this is any more plausible):

“The Angels can do so many things. They can bend time, climb inside your mind, hide in pictures, steal your voice, mess with your perception, leak stone from your eye… New York in 1938 was a nest of Angels and the people barely more than farm animals. The abattoir of the lonely assassins!

“In those terrible days, in that conquered city, you saw and understood only what the Angels allowed, so Liberty could move and  hunt as it wished, in the blink of an eye, unseen by the lowly creatures upon which it preyed. Also, it tiptoed.”

I’ll go with “it tiptoed.”

It has been ages since I finished watching Merlin by downloading episodes, but they have just resumed broadcasting the final episodes in the United States. While much of the final season was weaker than earlier seasons, the final few episodes did provide an excellent finale for the series. There has been talk of a movie version of MerlinColin Morgan is moving on to other projects and isn’t interested in playing Merlin again.

As Iron Man 3 breaks box office records, there is lots of attention on the future of the Marvel movie universe. There are conflicting reports as to whether there will be an Iron Man 4. I don’t think I am spoiling anything by saying that Iron Man 3 could easily serve as a conclusion of a trilogy, or the lead in for the probable future movies.   Robert Downey, Jr. has even left open the possibility of appearing in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and will most likely return to The Avengers 2. The next Avengers movie reportedly will add Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. These reports must be taken cautiously as there is the possibility of characters winding up on the cutting room floor at this stage.

Above is the trailer for True Blood Season 6 which returns on June 16. Humans are fighting back, which provides for a change from previous seasons. I hope that this, plus a new show runner, solves some of the problems plaguing recent seasons.

Gillian Anderson of The X-Files is appearing in a five part thriller for the BBC 2 entitled The Fall. A review can be found here.

zero-day-title-image-300x336

I’ve been undecided as to whether to consider Person of Interest true science fiction or a mystery series with a science fiction element. The two-part season finale, which we are in the middle of, moves the series much further towards science fiction as the machine takes on a more active role beyond spitting out the numbers. Plus there’s the return of Amy Acker.

The Americans ended the season well. I’m glad they avoided a true cliff hanger. As we can assume Elizabeth will recover from her injuries, the finale leads us back pretty close to how the series began. Besides the danger of being exposed by their FBI agent neighbor, their daughter Paige is becoming suspicious. After having viewers root for having Claudia reassigned, I bet most changed their mind during the finale. Margo Martindale has been cast in a comedy pilot so the episode leaves open the options of her leaving or Philip and Elizabeth plausibly requesting that the decision be reversed. Show runners Joel Fields and Joe Weisberg discussed the finale with Salon.

With Netflix bringing back Arrested Development, there has been hope that they might bring back some genre shows such as Firefly which didn’t survive more conventional television runs.   Netflix chief content officer, Ted Sarandos, gave this reason for not remaking Firefly:

“Let me give you one broad statement about these recovery shows. In almost every case the cult around the show gets more intense and smaller as time goes by. Arrested Development was the rarest of birds in that the audience of the show grew larger than the original broadcast audience because people came to discover it years after it was canceled. The Firefly fan is still the Firefly fan from when it was on TV and there’s fewer of them and they’re more passionate every year. Whereas with Arrested Development we’re going to be serving a multiple of the original audience. Any of the other shows we could bring back would be a fraction of the original audience.”A

Arrested Development probably would have more viewers than Firefly, but I don’t buy his explanation. I think that many others interested in this are more like me. I didn’t watch Firefly when it was on, but did buy the CD’s due to all the buzz after it was off the air.  I’m not super-passionate about the show, but I did enjoy it and if Firefly came back I would watch. I bet many other people have become fans after the initial run ended, providing for a larger audience in a remake than was present when on the air. Besides, Joss Whedon is now one of the hottest (perhaps the hottest) names in entertainment right now. I don’t think anything with his name attached should be ignored.

Other possibilities I’d suggest would be The Sarah Connor Chronicles, which ended at a point which begs for a conclusion, and Jericho which has some similarities to Revolution but did it much better.

Republicans Need To Do More Than Seek Hispanic Votes

After doing poorly in the 2012 election, Republicans have tried to make their party appear more appealing to minority voters. That is no easy task for a party which has capitalized on racism and xenophobia for their support. It also would not be enough for them to win a presidential election. Byron York looked at data from Nate Silver and showed that picking up more Hispanic votes would not have been enough for Mitt Romney to win:

What if Romney had won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, the high-water mark for Republicans achieved by George W. Bush in 2004? As it turns out, if Romney had hit that Bush mark, he still would have lost, with 240 electoral votes to 298 for Obama.

But what if Romney had been able to make history and attract 50 percent of Hispanic voters? What then? He still would have been beaten, 283 electoral votes to 255.

What if Romney had been able to do something absolutely astonishing for a Republican and win 60 percent of the Hispanic vote? He would have lost by the same margin, 283 electoral votes to 255.

But what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn’t. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268. (Under that scenario, Romney would have won the popular vote but lost in the Electoral College; he could have racked up huge numbers of Hispanic votes in California, New York and Texas, for example, and not changed the results in those states.)

According to the Times’ calculator, Romney would have had to win 73 percent of the Hispanic vote to prevail in 2012. Which suggests that Romney, and Republicans, had bigger problems than Hispanic voters.

The most serious of those problems was that Romney was not able to connect with white voters who were so turned off by the campaign that they abandoned the GOP and in many cases stayed away from the polls altogether. Recent reports suggest as many as 5 million white voters simply stayed home on Election Day. If they had voted at the same rate they did in 2004, even with the demographic changes since then, Romney would have won.

To win a national election (as opposed to showing success in Congress where they benefit from gerrymandering and deluding voters from rural and small states to vote against their interests) Republicans cannot hope to simply pander to certain minorities. They must change their underlying message. They must stop claiming to be the party of small government while supporting increased government intrusion in the lives of individuals. They cannot talk about foreign policy after promoting policies which undermine the security of the United States. They must stop claiming to care about the deficit while promoting irresponsible economic policies which increased the deficit and crashed the economy.

Quote of the Day

“Mitt Romney gave a commencement speech where he advised graduates to start a family before they turn 30. He also advised them to pay for it by inheriting millions of dollars.” –Conan O’Brien

Expanding Medicaid Coverage Is Beneficial (Ignore Those Conservative Bloggers Arguing Otherwise)

A study in The New England Journal of Medicine comparing people with and without Medicaid in Oregon provides an excellent example of how the right-wing blogs can take data and cherry pick the information which supports their views while ignoring the full set of information. The study does not provide evidence against expanding Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act, despite their spin. This is a topic which I wish I had more time to devote to tonight, but only have the time for some brief remarks.

The study shows that with some measures of medical care those receiving Medicaid coverage did better than similar adults who did not receive Medicaid coverage in Oregon’s lottery but there was not a large enough sample for the differences to be statistically significant. The most significant differences were reduced rates of depression and financial strain:

In particular, catastrophic expenditures, defined as out-of-pocket medical expenses exceeding 30% of income, were nearly eliminated.

Reducing financial strain is a rather significant benefit of having medical coverage. That’s also a key reason why so many people are concerned about receiving health care benefits from their employer and having Medicare coverage after they retire.

Showing improvements in measures of chronic diseases in a two year study, but not enough to be statistically significant yet, really comes as no surprise. It takes time to see major improvements in diabetes care, and the improvements shown in this study are a real start.

The results could be better. When I receive new diabetic patients who are poorly controlled I will see them every two weeks, and have them in for blood sugars in the time between these appointments. A new diabetic appointment will be well over an hour, and not uncommonly two hours. The glycated hemoglobin levels used in the study provide an average measure of blood sugar over the past 3 months. (It is a test of the effects of elevated blood sugars on red blood cells and provides an average based upon the life span of red blood cells). With intensive treatment of uncontrolled diabetics it still takes several months to see a statistically significant change.

I generally do see greater drops in glycosylated hemoglobin over the first year of treatment than this study is showing in two years. Of course this is not with Medicaid patients. No doctor could afford to do this with what Medicaid pays. The study shows that a poorly funded program provides some benefits. Giving the same people coverage at the level of private insurance, or at least Medicare, would probably result in even better outcomes. This study is not evidence that providing Medicaid doesn’t provide benefits, but it could be argued that to provide better results we should be putting even more money into health care benefits. I would also expect to see more impressive  improvement over a longer period of time.

I am surprised that they used HDL level as a measurement in the study as, while improving it will decrease the risk of heart disease, it is very difficult to change HDL levels regardless of medical intervention. Having Medicaid coverage would not be expected to affect this.

Two years is not long enough to meaningfully evaluate changes on chronic diseases. An evaluation of treatment for acute problems would be more meaningful over this time period. Kevin Drum’s impressions on this are correct:

The study suffers from the usual problem of measuring “outcomes,” and suffers especially because it measured only a very limited set of outcomes (primarily chronic conditions like blood pressure, cholesterol, and diabetes). This has long been one of my pet peeves. The problem is that there are lots of things that improve your quality of life but don’t show up as an improvement in either mortality rates or glycated hemoglobin levels. If I have an infection, for example, a course of antibiotics is a godsend. More than likely, though, the infection would have gone away eventually on its own. Does that mean the medication was useless? Of course not. Ditto for arthritis meds, a better pair of glasses, a new hip, a root canal, or fixing a broken ankle.

The truth is that if you take a narrow view of “outcomes,” it’s hard to find a significant effect from most of our healthcare efforts. Nonetheless, improved access to Medicaid produces plenty of improvement in acute problems; better use of preventive care; and far better financial outcomes. This is all worthwhile stuff even if controlling chronic conditions remains a challenge.

 

Republican Admits That Republicans Vote To Oppose Obama

When Barack Obama first took office, Republicans decided that they would oppose anything proposed by Obama for political reasons. This is one time they kept their word. Most recently we saw that background checks, supported by the vast majority of Americans, were defeated in the Senate despite majority support.

Republican Senator Pat Toomey, who co-authored the bipartisan measure, admitted why many Republicans opposed this:

“In the end it didn’t pass because we’re so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.

The Times Herald noted that in “subsequent comments,” Toomey “tried to walk that remark part-way back by noting he meant to say Republicans across the nation in general, not just those in the Senate.”

I find that many people who do not follow politics closely believe that Washington isn’t capable of accomplishing anything due to the failure of both parties to work together. No, both parties are not the same. One party, while not always right, is at least trying to govern responsibly. Then there are the Republicans.

Quote of the Day

“The Bush Presidential Library is beautiful, and they have a huge section devoted to weapons of mass destruction, but nobody can find it.” –David Letterman

Quote of the Day

Borowitz on Bush Library

“A George W. Bush Library is like a Mel Gibson Synagogue.” –Andy Borowitz

Sandra Day O’Connor Finally Express Regret Over Her Vote on Bush v. Gore

The Bush years were a disgrace to the United States, including repeated violations of civil liberties, abuses of power, and incompetent governing. If those who defended the American system of democract against the abuses of the Bush years were to look back and choose one moment which was particularly upsetting, the two which would undoubtedly receive the most consideration would be going to war against Iraq based upon lies and the Supreme Court decision which placed Bush in power. Of course all the abuses of the Bush years were made possible by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore.

If the Supreme Court had respected the democratic system, or at least took a consistent view on states’ rights, the outcome isn’t entirely clear. The partial recount which Gore was seeking before the Supreme Court intervened would have still resulted in George Bush winning, but a full recount of Florida would have given the state to Gore. (There were additional problems in Florida such as voters intending to vote for Gore but mistakenly voting for Pat Buchanan due to the format of the ballot, but there was no conceivable remedy for this).  Regardless of what the outcome would have been, the Supreme Court was wrong to interfere with recounts in Florida.

Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the 5-4 majority to circumvent democracy, told that Chicago Tribune that the decision may have been wrong:

Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor hasn’t given much thought to which was the most important case she helped decide during her 25 years on the bench. But she has no doubt which was the most controversial.

It was Bush v. Gore, which ended the Florida recount and decided the 2000 presidential election.

Looking back, O’Connor said, she isn’t sure the high court should have taken the case.

“It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” O’Connor said during a talk Friday with the Tribune editorial board. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’”

The case, she said, “stirred up the public” and “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation.”

“Obviously the court did reach a decision and thought it had to reach a decision,” she said. “It turned out the election authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed it up. And probably the Supreme Court added to the problem at the end of the day.”

O’Connor, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981, was the first woman to serve on the high court. Though she tended to side with the conservatives, O’Connor was known as the court’s swing vote. Her vote in the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision effectively gave Republican George W. Bush a victory over his Democratic opponent, then-Vice President Al Gore.