Zombie Orszagism Returns to Kill Health Care Reform For Good?

The Obama Administration will find a way to blow health care reform yet. Mere Rhetoric notes a report that Obama aides plan to address Tuesday's election defeats by resurrecting Orszagism, the doctrine that health care reform is the way to control the deficit because it will enable the government to "bend the cost curve" down without compromising care. From Josh Gerstein:

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs insisted Wednesday that the White House plans no changes whatsoever in its legislative strategy or agenda as a result of this week’s contests. However, a White House aide told ABC that the administration will seek to bolster moderates by returning to an argument that health care reform will curb the deficit—a talking point Obama aides have de-emphasized in recent months in favor of a focus on making the insurance system more secure and predictable. [E.A.]

If I recall, the White House had"de-emphasized" Orszagism because those who heard the argument tended to fall into roughly two camps: 1) Voters who thought it was at best pie-in-the-sky and that the government probably couldn't "bend the curve" over the next two decades--the way it hasn't been able to do with Medicare, for example; and 2) Voters who thought the government could indeed "bend the curve" and were terrified by the prospect, because the argument seemed to be that only if the government controlled virtually the entire health system could it really turn the screws start denying treatments initiate a "very difficult democratic conversation" over which treatments were really cost-effective, including treatments at the end of life. ... 

It was only when the Orszagism was in fact de-emphasized (over the summer) that opposition to health care reform stopped its relentless upward rise and actually fell for a brief period. Why go back to the debacle of last Spring?  Vague policyspeak about curve-bending has already, unnecessarily, cost health care reform the support of the elderly. Does Obama want to give reform's opponents the ammo to drive opposition above the 60% line?  Go ahead. Make Dick Morris' day. ...

P.S.: I should make it clear that I am in camp #1--I don't think Americans will tolerate draconian, or even semi-draconian, denials of service. As a result I don't think the curve (which is driven mainly by advances in medicine that yield expensive treatments) will be bent. That's why I'm for health care reform. But Orszagism is still lousy politics, because lots of voters will fall into Camp #2. ...

For more: See kf's extensive fall Orszagism collection. ... 12:06 A.M.

___________________________

Why Are the Health Care Polls Going South?

Another seemingly grim health care poll--49/39 against, compared with 42/40 earlier in the month by the same pollster (Ipsos/McClatchy). The new poll eerily resonates with Rasmussen's increased margin of 54/42 against. But, again, part of the drop in support could come from erstwhile reform supporters worried about the status of the "public option." I'd be interested in the breakout of independents and Democrats--but I can't open the file. If you can, feel free to let me know. Mickey_Kaus at msn dot com. ... Mickey's Assignment Desk: Mark Blumenthal--maybe you can help. Why are the health care polls going south? Unaffiliated voters worried about the deficit? Libs worried about the public option? Seniors worried about death panels overzealous cost containment measures? Everyone worried about rising premiums? ... Or any combination of the above (including voters betraying their stereotypes--e.g. liberals worried about overzealous cost controls or deficits?) ...

Update: Thanks to all who sent the numbers. Opposition to reform appears to have held steady among GOPs. but risen among independents by 15 percentage points (from 38% opposed to 53%) and also among Democrats by 7 percentage points (from 18% to 25%). Less clear is what could have provoked these drops. It's hard to say "lack of a public option," given that the public option seems to be in better shape today than early in October--though the poll was taken immediately following Sen. Lieberman's filibuster threat. ...4:27 P.M.

___________________________

Conservatives Against "Spiritual Health"

Conservatives against prayer ... Or, rather, against requiring health insurance in Obama's "exchanges" to cover prayer treatment ("religious and spiritual health care"). a) Yes, a government-run plan will always have to contend with this sort of pressure, in addition to pressure to cover experimental procedures and expensive mental health treatments. These pressures are often harder for our political system to resist than for private insurers to resist; b) But if the government can avoid covering Christian Science prayer treatment under Medicare you'd think it could avoid covering it under the smaller health insurance exchange plans envisioned by the Dems, no? c) Wonder which way Sarah Palin comes down on this; d) Can the Scientologists be far behind? ... 12:18 P.M.

___________________________

Hugh ("only time will tell") Sidey has a worthy successor: Eugene Robinson in this morning's WaPo:

Reading too much into Tuesday's off-off-year election results would be a mistake, but reading too little into them would be wrong as well.

[Thanks to reader J] 12:08 P.M.

____________________________ 

Chrysler to break out new "Ram" line of trucks. If they'd called it the Rahm line I'd really start to worry about politicization. ... P.S.: Chrysler has now "projected that it will double its sales over five years." Do you believe that? Me neither, though I guess if Chrysler sales keep falling (down 39% so far this year from last year, which wasn't so great itself) they'll eventually be able to double their sales just by selling another one. ... 12:04 P.M.

___________________________

Mineola Man Survives N.J. Nuclear Holocaust!

What Liberal Bias? This is the main headline on the L.A.Times web home page: 

Dem score congressional victories in California, N.Y.

From staff and wire reports | 9:42 p.m.

The GOP fares better in Virginia and New Jersey as both states elect Republican governors.

* * * * * *

Thanks to alert reader KL, who speculates that not even the conservative Washington Times would try something that disoriented. I think it would be a stretch for Granma. ...

Update: As of an hour later the headline was "Democrats win Congressional victories in California, N.Y.." with the same subhed. ...10:48 P.M.

____________________________

Election 2009: Some Winners, Losers,

Winner: Robopolls. Rasmussen's final poll, showing a 46-43-8 Christie win, was pretty damn accurate. Polls using conventional human operators tended to show Corzine ahead. They were wrong.** ... If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the presitigous N.Y.Times, go with Rasmussen! ... Why this is important: Rasmussen's polls tend to show the highest level of opposition to health care reform. If they accurately predict who will turn out to vote, they may signify big potential trouble for Democrats in lower-turnout mid-term elections. The Democratic Congressional id--at least the part that represents primordial existential fear of non-reelection--is throbbing. Expect a lot more time-consuming negotiating hangups and talk about how we should avoid arbitrary deadlines when it comes to passing Obama's big reform. ... (I still think it will eventually pass, but it may take until next Spring or beyond.) ...
 
Loser: Health care reform (see above) ...

Loser: Obama, who tried to work his magic for Corzine and discovered it wasn't there. (I don't buy the "he invested his prestige" line. A President is still allowed to try to help in a tight race. But he was clearly not a transformative presence in this one. It was more an Olympics bid situation.)

Winner: The Incumbent Rule--which holds that late-breaking voters do not go to the incumbent.  Tarnished in 2004, it's having a Nixon-like rehabilitation in New Jersey. Update: And in New York City. ...

Losers: E.J.Dionne, Walter Shapiro and others caught in the MSM negative-ads worked narrative for New Jersey (which just happened to favor the Democrat). ... Update: Negative ads were losers in Virginia too, says Byron York. ...

Winners: ACORN, SEIU, voter fraud. A close election would have put the spotlight on them, no? I guess that could still happen in NY-23. ... Corollary Loser: John Fund. A close election would have given him six months of well-paying work. ...

Losers: Dems who were planning to argue that a Corzine victory, when contrasted with Deeds' loss, shows the need to stick with "core Democratic values" (i.e. unions) ...

Loser: Card check. Virginia Republican McDonnell didn't fudge on labor's "card check" bill. He bashed it. He won. Virginia is hardly a union state, but neither are the states with Senators who are swing votes on "card check". ... 

Losers: Beck, Limbaugh, New Media conservatives who thought the rebellious Reaganite vote was bigger than it turned out to be in NY-23. ... Also Dem-leaning MSM who were planning to use a rebellious Reaganite victory as demonstrating a tea-party takeover of GOP (as opposed to a botched candidate-selection process). ...

Winner: GOP, because now that the rebellious Reaganites have had some serotonin leakage, they might be a bit easier to handle. ...

Winner: Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. Breath of sanity next to K. Olbermann ...

Perennial loser: Exit polls (see below).

P.S.: Always trust content from kausfiles!

**--Note, though, that robopollster PPP was way off on NY-23. ... 8:33  P.M.

___________________________

Election 2009: Were the Exit Polls Wrong Again?

Why do I get the feeling that the VNS Exit Polls were way off--in a pro-Dem direction--once again? Answer: Because early evening posts like this one from Marc Ambinder seemed to be hinting at a Corzine victory:

Courtesy of CBS News: If Jon Corzine wins re-election, he can thank women, who gave him a narrow advantage and who voted at higher proportions than men did.

He could have written "If Chris Christie is the new governor of N.J., he can thank men, who gave him a huge advantage ..." But ... he didn't. Did the exit polls show a relatively big Corzine victory? Back in the day when the exit polls were widely leaked, everyone would know what they were and--if they were wrong--they would know that they were wrong. Now they are more closely held--which allows the VNS to keep screwing up and hide its inaccuracy ... Again, if we can't trust the exit poll's bottom line result (presumably due to a subtle bias in which voters pollsters talk to) why can we trust any of the demographic breakouts that scholars, etc. use? Won't they be subtly biased too? ...

Update: A kf source reports

Exits were close in VA and Corzine ahead in NJ. 

Pathetic! I guess I was wrong when I said they were subtly biased. ...  7:25  P.M.

___________________________ 

Hardy Perennial: Stuck in traffic this evening? Why the end of Daylight Saving Time invariably produces giant, gas-wasting jams on local freeways. ...  3:49  P.M.

___________________________

Shorter Nagourney (and you're not missing much): "Best outcome for Democrats: Win ... Worst outcome for Republicans: Losing ...."** ...

**--Those are direct quotes. I am not aware of all internet traditions. ... 3:46 P.M.

____________________________

This is not the market share we paid for: After a big ad campaign, General Motors gets an estimated 21% market share in October. Edmunds.com had predicted 22.4%. Kf analysts not impressed, await scathing TTAC take-apart. .. Update: TTAC punts to its readers, who note a) GM achieved this market share with lots of "incentives" (i.e. price cuts); b) GM introduced several new models, which is a good thing--but new models often produce a sales spike that evaporates within a few months. ... Bailout II still on track. ... 3:22 P.M.

___________________________

NSFT--Not Safe For Twitter--Election Eve Special

R, Robot: Could this be the election that validates automated polls as more accurate than regular polls conducted by humans? Robopollster Rasmussen may have more riding on the New Jersey results than Obama. Mark Blumenthal (citing Nate Silver) discusses whether the reluctance of some potential voters to answer automated surverys eerily replicates the reluctance of some potential voters to ... vote--in effect giving robo-polls an effective screen for "likely" voters.** .. Also, in an especially exciting development, the Incumbent Rule may make a comeback ... P.S.: If robopolling really does focus accurately on "likely" voters, this latest Rasmussen-heavy health care chart will terrify wavering Democrats. ...

**--Post Election Update: Rasmussen and the other robopollsters were more accurate, but Blumenthal now attributes this to their "simulating a secret ballot, thus pushing voters harder to make a choice" between anti-Corzine candidates Christie and Daggett." Does this mean the robots' "likely voter" screen wasn't any better? ...10:30 P.M.

___________________________

Bonus Conditional CW: If conservative insurgent Doug Hoffman defeats the Democrat in New York's 23d District (after Republican party candidate, Dede Scozzafava, dropped out)--

Old CW: Sure, Scozzafava is a moderate Republican but that's what her constituents want.

New CW: It's a conservative district, what did you expect?

9:49 P.M.

___________________________

kf--Always the Positive Spin: The UAW's Ford workers have rejected contract concessions that would have almost-but-not-quite lowered Ford's labor costs to match GM and Chrysler's new costs, which are said to almost-but-not-quite match Toyota and Honda's. But is that really so bad? It means pattern bargaining is broken. The UAW strategy was always to take labor costs out of the auto industry's competitive equation by making basically the same deal with each of the Big Three. Yet Ford's workers obviously saw that their company was doing better than Chrysler or GM, and they refused to get in line. It's now clear that the fate of even unionized auto workers will vary with the success or failure of their individual employers. They're back to competing against each other, not just against the "bosses." ... P.S.: Too bad the GM and Chrysler bailouts, with their minimal UAW contract concessions, may have given Ford workers an excessively rosy impression of what it really means to have a failed employer. Were Ford workers scared enough to avoid the UAW's too-little-too-late tradition of concessions?  Obama has short-circuited bankruptcy's shock-and-awe function. ... And not just in this case. [via RCP] ... 3:33 P.M.

___________________________

That Mid-term CW in Full:

Old CW: Wow, Corzine's a goner. Voters are pissed.

New CW: Mixed message! Mixed message!

Next CW: What do midterms mean, anyway?

2:21 P.M.

___________________________

Uncensored Twitter Vitriol Unleashed! Someone calls Stephen Fry "a bit ... boring." Can't have that. ... More evidence that many celebrities have skins of pre-Internet thinness. It seems plausible that they would have to be insulated--or have their public insulated--from what's really tweeted about them. ... 2:21 P.M.

___________________________ 


Hostages to Fortune: Mid-term Edition [E.A.]

[NPR Host: ...[N]ext week, the off-year election could be a political weathervane for the Obama administration. ...  E.J., what do you - what do you find of interest in next Tuesday's elections?]

I think the weathervane is going to be going in circles in the end. I mean, what you're looking at in New Jersey, an embattled Democratic governor, Jon Corzine, on today's numbers is likely to squeak out a narrow victory. He's run a very, very tough campaign against Republican Chris Christie. It's as if Corzine lost the referendum on himself, then he turned it into a referendum on Christie, and Christie lost that one. And there's a third party candidate called Chris Daggett who's drawing off enough votes that Corzine will come through. And Corzine has hugged Barack Obama.

--E.J. Dionne, All Things Considered, Friday Oct. 30
 

John Corzine by all estimation is going to be reelected Governor of New Jersey.

--Walter Shapiro, KCRW's Which Way L.A.?, Thursday, October 22 **

Reader submissions accepted. (Email to Mickey underscore Kaus at MSN dot com). ...

P.S. I was sure this Bob Shrum column would yield a potentially embarrassing quote, riddled as it was by the assumption that Gov. Corzine was headed to unexpected victory (because unlike Creigh Deeds he "refuses to yield on core Democratic values.") But it's worded very carefully. ...

**--Maybe Shapiro left out the qualifiers speaking on a radio show? Here's the written version: "Aided by a superior Democratic get-out-the-vote drive, Corzine is now widely expected to prevail ..."   2:16 P.M

___________________________

Too Catty to Twitter--The mask of adopted authority slips: Someone who admits he thought the Ford Fiesta was "already out" --i.e. being sold in the U.S.--is maybe not the go-to expert to explain the "5 Reasons Ford Bounced Back." ... 2:14 P.M.

___________________________
 
"[M]ore people read the Newark Star-Ledger than watch Anderson Cooper": Jerry Skurnik claims I've failed to see the forest for the lede (about CNN's last place finish). The real story is how few people watch CNN and MSNBC and FOX combined: 

And it’s not like the bigger names in Cable are reaching a vast audience either. The “giants” of cable news do much better but still reach a puny number of viewers (O’Reilly, Beck & Hannitty reach 2-3 million a night) in a country where 130 million voted for President last year.

Skurnik claims this reinforces his theory of the growing gap between the "two electorates"--the tiny minority of super/faster informed politicos and the vast mass of less up-to-speed voters. But the driver of the two-electorate phenomenon isn't so much the increased knowledge of the superinformed, its the decrease (or leave-it-until-the-last-minute delay) in the common knowledge of the less informed, no? Sure, cable news' audience is tiny in a nation of 130 million voters. It's small compared to the 20 million who watch broadcast network news. But even that 20 million is small in a nation of 130 million voters! What about the other 110 million? There's your lede! (They used to watch Walter Cronkite or Huntley/Brinkley. Now they don't. Do they remain relatively uninformed, or inform themselves at the last minute--and if so, how? On the Web? If so, where? ... Word of mouth from neighbors? Neighbors in the first electorate? Neighbors who watch cable news? ...)

P.S.: I'm not so sure about Skurnik's near-CW point that

Cable news does sometimes play an important role in our politics. But that’s only when a story they report gets picked up by those parts of the media that bloggers & cable news say is dead or dying.

I suspect Dede Scozzafava might disagree. Did the conservative rebellion in her district gain unstoppable momentum because of coverage in the broadcast and newsprint MSM? ... Update: No! It was New Media! [via Insta] ...  2:12 P.M.

___________________________

Help! I Don't Like Obama!

Freud 1, Zombies 0: When it comes to ghosts, "the line between believing and not believing is not so firm." Ellen Ladowsky searches for paranormal activity in London. ... 2:21 P.M.

___________________________

Howie's Choice: WaPo ombudsperson Andrew Alexander looks up from his desk and notices that East German figure skating judge press critic Howie Kurtz, who is paid by CNN and covers CNN, has

an inescapable conflict that is at odds with Post rules.

Who knew? ... Next question: Does a weakened WaPo Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli have the ... um, clout to make Kurtz change his beat? Maybe--CNN fame isn't what it used to be! Meaning the chances that Kurtz would quit are probably lower. ... 

P.S.: Kurtz says

"My track record makes clear that I've been as aggressive toward CNN -- and The Washington Post, for that matter -- as I would be if I didn't host a weekly program there ... "

BS, BS [several items], BS [4th item], BS, BS, BS [4th item]. ... 12:39 A.M.

___________________________

I realized the other day that I don't really like President Obama. I try to explain here. Maybe it will pass. ... Lack of 'likeability' isn't necessarily a big problem in a President. But if a President thinks he's more or less beloved, it could be. ... 12:35 P.M.

___________________________

Castro: Penn, Si! Hitchens, No! Ann Bardach on how Hitch got bumped while a useful celebrity got the story. ... She also reports that stars like Jack Nicholson and Leonardo DiCaprio are routinely spied on "with sophisticated listening devices and hidden video cameras" when they visit Havana. Do they know? Bardach sees potential blackmail: "Be careful what you say; we may have compromising data on you." ...12:35 P.M.

Anita Dunn's Alibi: The Case of the Confusing Chinese?

___________________________

The Monitor Lies: I thought this time it would look like I had hair. ... 7:18 P.M.

___________________________

Night of the Goolsbee!

Good News for Hyundai: It looks as if UAW workers are rejecting the proposed contract that would not-quite give Ford the same concessions the union gave GM and Chrysler. After all, Ford is still losing fewer billions than the other two were losing before the government helped them slash their debt in bankruptcy. So Ford clearly needs to be bled a bit more. The near-certain prospect that Ford will in response ship more work out of the country may not matter if you are a UAW veteran 2 years away from retirement. ... P.S.: Is Obama aide Austan Goolsbee's prediction--that saving Chrysler would cripple Ford's comeback attempt--coming true? ... [via TTAC]  5:41 P.M.

___________________________

Titans of Spin: Chickaboomer on CNN CEO Jon Klein's hypocrisy. (He used to think the 25-54  demographic segment that CNN's now losing was crucial.) ... Mediaite makes the same point--more respectfully, alas. ... P.S.: Remember what CBS veteran Bernard Goldberg said of his former colleague Klein: 

"[A]t CBS news he had a reputation as the kind of guy who thought people who tell the truth do it mainly because they lack imagination.

5:40 P.M.

___________________________

Fisker also announces upcoming "Seppuku" two seater: Why would electric luxury car maker Fisker decide to build its new model in a UAW shop in Delaware that only recently turned out some of the least reliable cars GM made? TTAC suspects federal dirigisme. ... 5:39 P.M.

___________________________

Paranoid's Corner: Does Twitter Semi-Censor to Protect Celebrities?

@JonKleinCNN You axed Crossfire, sucked up to Jon Stewart + MSM! Don't you wish you had Crossfire back now? http://bit.ly/27TDat Just askng!

To be honest, this was as nasty an item as I thought I could write and not come off like a total prick. Perhaps I failed at that last task. But it was also an experiment to see if nastiness pointed criticism worked on Twitter. Maybe there could be a productive, or at least entertaining, debate. 
 
A few hours later I checked to see if there was any response from Klein or one of his defenders. But my hostile twitter didn't show up in a search for "Jon Klein," or his twitter handle "JonKleinCNN." In fact it didn't seem to turn up in a search for any of the terms used in the item, like "MSM" or "Jon Stewart."
 
This morning, I did get a response from Klein, and the item briefly turned up in one of my searches, only to seemingly disappear again.** It hasn't vanished entirely--it's at least still in the list of items I've posted, and presumably in the general river of tweets that flows by everyone who "follows" me. It just doesn't turn up if you search for twitters about Jon Klein.

People tell me I shouldn't read a lot into this incident--twitter search engines are notoriously flaky--so I won't. But it did get me thinking. Why do the searches for "tweets" that mention various twitter celebrities-- Demi Moore and Ashton Kutcher, and Alyssa Milano, and even CEOs like Klein--almost invariably turn up such pleasant comments? Here's a search for @Jon KleinCNN.. With one or two relatively mild exceptions, it's a tame (and lame) series of attaboys, welcome-backs, and this-is-what-he-saids. Don't a few more people have criticism of Klein, or CNN, on the weekend it hit last place in the ratings? Are twitterers that polite and deferential?

I mean, this is America. If you really opened up a line of communication where every horny 20-year old dude sitting on a couch in a basement typed 140 characters about Alyssa Milano for the world to see ... well, would you really want to see that stream of tweets? People would ... criticize her acting! They'd bring up her famous ex boyfriends. They'd say she looked bad in that dress and otherwise comment on her appearance. Perhaps approvingly! I'm keeping it clean here. But it wouldn't be pretty.

And yet it is. If you actually search for  @Alyssa Milano, this is the sort of thing you get:

Last night @AlyssaMilano asked: How do you want to be remembered in this life? I ask you, my followers, how do you want to be remembered?

Haha I saw @AlyssaMilano RT'd u. She's so chill...and hot too!

: @alyssamilano describe yourself in 3 words. Describe your husband in 3 words.

<----watching a rerun of @alyssamilano in who&apos;s the boss :)

You get the idea. Something doesn't add up. Does Twitter maybe censor "curate" the search results for its celebrity Twitterers?
 
This thought would be too paranoid even for me, if I hadn't read Nicole LaPorte's article in The Daily Beast on how celebrity publicists have connections at Twitter HQ:

[V]irtually every publicist in Hollywood has a go-to person at Twitter—the equivalent these days of having an “in” with famed MGM publicity chiefs-cum-fixers Eddie Mannix and Howard Strickling during Hollywood’s Golden Age.

“We’ve had a relationship with Twitter for quite some time,” said one. “We have contacts at most of the sites, so that they can help us out and give us quick tech support.”

(Perhaps journalists are shown less love? Twitter did not respond to multiple requests for comment for this article.)

Hmmm. Questions:

Would it even be technically feasible to delete nasty items from searches? Having once met a top Twitter tech guy who seemed incredibly competent, I'd have to guess yes.

Why would Twitter want to sanitize celeb tweet searches? That one's easy: Celebrity Twitterers like Milano, Moore and Kutcher have been very important to Twitter's growth. They take care of Twitter. Twitter takes care of them. At least that would be the equation--a familar one to anyone who has ever tried to round up bold-faced names for a party. The job of actually weeding out hostile tweets could be delegated to the celebrity's "social media director." Or  the social media director's assistant. But presumably there are also Twitter staffers whose job is celebrity troubleshooting.

(Is Jon Klein such a celebrity? You might not think so--though he's listed as one. In this paranoid theory he might qualify under a Bigwigs-at-Media-Companies-Who-Might-Buy-Twitter-One Day loophole.)

It woudn't even be all that sinister--certainly less sinister than, say, the typical roped-off VIP section at a party. Web sites police comment sections all the time, after all. Alyssa Milano does talk with ordinary people on Twitter, and her twitstream or whatever you call it--which she seems to write herself--is quite informative on a fairly wide range of topics. When Obama threw out the first pitch at the All Star game, Milano's twitters gave a better account of where it landed than the Fox telecast, which had a bad camera angle..
 
On the other hand, if Twitter sanitized searches, that would make the site a more fake and less democratic place than it initially appears to be. Here we thought we were meeting bigshots in a virtual public square, and really it was maniuplated like the Truman Show.

Is my paranoid suspicion right? Anyone with answers--including people at Twitter--can tweet a response to @kausmickey or email me at Mickey underscore Kaus at MSN dot com.

Update: Responses on Twitter from Milano

Interesting. cc: @ev RT @kausmickey: Does Twitter protect celebrities? http://bit.ly/4vIHld (via @atomsareenough) about 1 hour ago from TweetDeck

and from Twitter CEO Evan WIlliams

@Alyssa_Milano I think that guy has a pretty dire outlook on humans. :) about 1 hour ago from web in reply to Alyssa_Milano

 Oracular! A non non-denial denial non-denial ...

Update II: Gawker ... a cartoon ...

 __________

**--An earlier anti-Klein tweet that I myself deleted does turn up on one site's search of "Jon Klein."  1:28 A.M.

___________________________

Why Does the "Public Option" Have to Lower Costs?

The Curve Has To Want to Bend: Like Steven Pearlstein, Robert Samuelson more or less assumes the purpose of a "public option" is to control costs (as opposed to providing the security of a guaranteed fall-back plan). In an Un-Samuelsonesque fashion, he also assumes that there is some solution that will control costs in a manner agreeable to patients.

It's not insurers that cause high health costs; they're simply the middlemen. It's the fragmented delivery system and open-ended reimbursement. Would strict regulation of doctors, hospitals and patients under a single-payer system provide control? Or would genuine competition among health plans over price and quality work better?

That's the debate we need, but in truth, doctors, hospitals and patients don't want to be limited, whether by government or markets. Congress reflects public opinion. Fearing a real debate, we fake it.

a) Maybe none of these options--single payer, competition among health plans--will significantly lower costs, and we'll simply have to pay the increasing bill. Just a thought. b) If, as Samuelson says, "doctors, hospitals and patients don't want to be limited," it sounds like the debate over our system of "open-ended reimbursement" isn't a "debate we need." It's a debate we've had. Samuelson's side lost. Nobody wants to bend the curve.

Maybe it won't be bent. 8:38 P.M.

___________________________

Give Him a Fifth Chance! After completely misreading the zeitgeist and-- in a series of self-servingly ostentatious steps ("storytelling," emo)--leading his network into a ditch, is CNN's Jon Klein really going to keep his job? He doesn't seem even to be "embattled." ...  8:34 P.M.

___________________________

The Federalist Capers: A federalism compromise on the "public option" always seemed more promising to me than a "trigger" based compromise. But I'd been viewing the issue through a welfare-reform prism, in which states would either be in or out as discrete statewide units. Josh Marshall points out that the virtue of Harry Reid's plan is it allows states to join a single nationwide federal plan rather than set up their own plans. That lets you create a big--or big enough--pool of insured. It's like letting states opt out of (or in to) Medicare. ... That said, the federalist approach still offers a giant menu of possible compromises, from 1 to 50. You can have opt-out, opt-in, opt-in with a numerical limit, opt-out with incentives not to opt-out, opt-in with incentives to opt-in if regional distribution isn't achieved, even opt-out with a trigger that offers the incentives only if too few states stay "in." ... Update: Sam Stein has more. ... 

P.S.: Note also that the federalist solution means at least one "juice" vote in every state legislature, as health insurance lobbyists seek to use campaign contributions to bribe gain access and thereby influence the "opt out" or "opt in" vote. Another source of federalism's appeal! And bipartisan appeal at that. ... 8:34 P.M.

______________________________

Three More Fox Points (Before the War Ends)

Three quick points about the Fox War before it ends:

1) I argued that I have no faith that Roger Ailes didn't take direction from the Bush White House. The most sophisticated response I've gotten is, in effect, 'Sure he did. But you don't think Rick Kaplan at CNN took direction from the Clinton White House?' I don't know about Kaplan. But Kaplan only ran CNN for three years or so--just passing through. Roger Ailes pretty much is Fox News. The network has never existed without him.

2) Still, David Axelrod's central argument, that because Fox is not really a 'news organization' other media should "not follow their lead" doesn't make sense. You don't have to be an independent "news organization" to break a story. The Democratic National Committee could break a story--that is, disclose the information that demonstrated something newsworthy had happened (say, that a presidential aide signed a Truther petition). The March of Dimes could break a story.The Scientologists could break a story.  Joe's Garage could break a story. And Fox can break a story. The traditional, independent "news media" will follow the leads they think are real stories. They don't follow only the ones that come from "news organizations." How was Axelrod going to stop that?

3) If it was all about fundraising, and Obama is winding down the war, does that mean it wasn't working as a fundraising theme? Or that it worked so successfully the Dems don't need any more money? Or just that fundraising season is mostly over for 2009? 

Update: Jonah Goldberg, more in sorrow than in anger! ... Time to call in reinforcement, from Reader G, a conservative:

I saw it with my own eyes!  Brit Hume's Special Report did indeed try mightily to carry the WH's water on Miers and especially, comprehenisive immigration reform.  No question about it.

P.S.: Still awaiting Stephen Spruiell's extensive "dossier" of Fox's "dissents from the Bush White House." ... 1:28 A.M.

___________________________ 

Shouldn't doctors give patients waiting to see them little hand-held beepers or vibrating devices like those some crowded restaurants give you when you're waiting for a table? That way you could wander around nearby instead of staying in the unventilated waiting room filled with coughing, sneezing people. ... 1:32 A.M.

___________________________

The Man Who Didn't Save GM

Detroit Bailout II Nears the "Old News" Stage! 1) My colleague Daniel Gross thinks the GM and Chrysler bailouts weren't designed to actually save GM and Chrysler:

Sure, there was brave talk of reviving these once-proud brands and returning them to their rightful place in the pantheon of American corporations. But from the outset, I've believed that the interventions were simply efforts to delay liquidation rather than to avert it altogether, to provide a breathing space in which managers could find homes for valuable assets (other companies) and find chumps to absorb the losses from bad decisions (that would be the taxpayers). [E.A.]

2) I'm pretty sure Dan Gross is a friend of Steve Rattner. 3) Does Dan Gross know something we haven't been told? 4) If so, has anyone told President Obama, who--in Ryan Lizza's New Yorker piece, anyway--seemed to want the auto bailouts to actually "succeed." ... P.S.: Larry Summers was "comfortable Chrysler would survive," writes Rattner himself in an almost unreadably self-serving account of his bailout experience. "Comfortable"? Chrysler? Hello? Whose elevator goes straight to the garage? ... P.P.S.: For his part, Rattner characteristically hedges his bets, boasting only that his team gave Chrysler and GM a "healthy margin for error." Or, as Dan Gross might translate it, "a few more months." ... 12:15 A.M.

___________________________

So You Think You Have Swine Flu? Am I the only one--besides Michael Fumento--who finds reports like NBC's last night on the spread of swine flu ("galloping its way across the country") to be wildly unconvincing? The NBC piece claims "90 dead" last week under the rubric "swine flu cases." [See about 1:10 in] This is almost certainly BS. As this CDC report makes clear, that figure includes both the swine flu and the regular annual flu. Indeed, NBC promiscuously conflates a) swine flu (H1N1); b) regular flu and c) "flu like symptoms" which may not be any kind of flu at all. ... That may be because the CDC itself has decided to conflate at least the first two categories, as noted in this seemingly damning CBS story and confirmed in the CDC report itself:

This new system was implemented on August 30, 2009, and replaces the weekly report of laboratory confirmed 2009 H1N1-related hospitalizations and deaths that began in April 2009. Jurisdictions can now report to CDC either laboratory confirmed or pneumonia and influenza syndromic-based counts of hospitalizations and deaths resulting from all types or subtypes of influenza, not just those from 2009 H1N1 influenza virus. [E.A.]

I think this means the CDC does not really know how many cases are swine flu and how many aren't. (The regular flu kills many thousands of people every year.) ...12:43 A.M.

___________________________

It's All Going According to Plan II

Walter Shapiro: "John Corzine by all estimation is going to be reelected Governor of New Jersey." Really? "By all estimation"? You giving odds with that? I'll take them. Depends on the Daggett vote, no? And the night is young. ... P.S.: Don't forget the Incumbent Rule. ... Update: Maybe Daggett's vote won't fade. Could he pull a Ventura and actually win? Mark Blumenthal clinically examines on this non-crazy possibility. Andy Pettitte's arm is in the algorithm! ... Backfill: Shapiro made the case for betting on Corzine here. .. I may be biased by memories of an incident recounted by Fred Siegel and Dan DiSalvo: 

Supporters of public sector union power have developed a rationale for the government employees' gold-plated perks. The argument is that public employees are the vanguard of the working class. As such, the benefits they achieve will eventually have to be matched by private sector employers. As Carla Katz, the leader of New Jersey's Communications Workers of America, explained to Paul Mulshine of the Newark Star-Ledger, reformers embrace "the progressive theory that unless you create a substantial wage and benefits package that reflects good jobs and the ability to have a middle-class life style, there will be a perpetual race to the bottom." 

Katz not only represents thousands of state employees, she is also the richly rewarded former girlfriend of New Jersey governor Jon Corzine. Katz's influence on Corzine became clear in 2006 when the impassioned governor spoke to a Trenton rally of roughly 10,000 public workers and shouted out: "We will fight for a fair contract." Corzine was of course management in that situation, not labor. [E.A.]

New Jersey taxpayers, who now have to pay for the resulting union pay and benefit packages, must be unusually forgiving. ... .4:15 P.M.

___________________________

How to Fill the Empty Hours After Health Care? Nate Silver writes:

It's becoming increasingly likely that regulation of the banking and financial sector is liable to be the issue that dominates the first half of 2010. Why? Well in the first place, it's badly needed ... [snip]  In the second place, it's not clear what else the Obama administration will do on the domestic policy front, once the health care issue gets resolved. Although the unpopularity of the cap-and-trade program is greatly exaggerated -- most polls in fact show it receiving a plurality or narrow majority of support -- the swing districts in 2010 tend to be big carbon emitters. Immigration reform, likewise, is liable to be a less favorable issue for the Democrats in 2010 than it will be in 2012, when we'll have a younger, more diverse electorate in which Hispanics play a larger role as swing voters. EFCA -- the White House's support for which has always been questionable -- almost certainly isn't going anywhere. Movement on gay rights issues is a possibility, but is more dependent on the White House's willpower than its bandwidth. A second omnibus stimulus bill is probably out of the question, although certainly there will be piecemeal efforts -- extended unemployment benefits, greater investments in transportation infrastructure -- that the White House will pursue. Still, for a hard-working White House, that leaves plenty of time on the table for a big-ticket item, and that item will probably be banking reform. [E.A.]

Banking reform. Not "card check" (EFCA).  Not "comprehensive" illegal immigrant legalization. Not even "cap and trade." Banking reform.  ... And the more time it takes up, the better! ... I'm less worried about my vote for Obama every day. ...

P.S.: But will immigration really be a more "favorable" issue for the Dems in 2012, when they will probably have a smaller margin in the House? Maybe Silver is saying they'll have more incentive to bring it up--their swing district freshmen will already have lost--even if passage will still be difficult. ... Card check, on the other hand, will be both harder to pass and less advantageous to bring up, no? ...

P.P.S.: I still think the issue that "dominates the first half of 2010" is likely to be ... health care. At least the first half of the first half of 2010. We're talking about what happens after that. ...  4:15 P.M.

___________________________

National Review Not Guilty So Fox Not Guilty Too! National Review 's Stephen Spruiell defends Fox against the charge that it is an instrument, not of conservatism but of the Republican Party and (for much of the past decade) the Bushes.

I grow so tired of this smear. National Review gets this kind of thing all the time. Last year, Jonah compiled a nice summary of our dissents from the Bush White House. One could compile a similar dossier in defense of Fox News, but I'm afraid it wouldn't matter. [E.A.]

Oh, go ahead! ... It will be a mighty thin dossier, at least if it doesn't include issues (like Harriet Miers and immigration) where Roger Ailes' network initially, and disconcertingly, appeared to toe and try to hold the Bush line before eventually acceding to its viewers' opinions and allowing dissenting conservatives to express themselves. ...  4:15 P.M.

___________________________

"Howard Kurtz, Missing in Action:" The Left is now on the case of the Biggest Conflict of Interest in Journalism. Writes Michael Massing:

Young people have embraced [Jon Stewart's] show precisely because he’s willing to take on cable news in a way our top media reporters are not. And not just Fox. Last week, “The Daily Show” offered a brilliant expose of the superficiality and hollowness of the journalism practiced on CNN, showing how its anchors allow partisan spokesmen to make all kinds of ridiculous claims without challenge. “We’ll have to leave it there” was the stock response of CNN interviewers to the ludicrous talking points of their guests.

You’ll almost never see Howard Kurtz scrutinize CNN in that way. Of course, he’s employed by the network.

 4:58 P.M.

___________________________

Why the War With Fox? Is It All About Money?

The official what-we-tell-reporters reasons for the White House War with Fox don't quite add up. If the attempt is to get the MSM not to follow Fox stories--well, they weren't following FOX stories before (see ACORN). If the attempt is to keep FOX "off balance," the White House campaign is instead giving FOX extra life. If the attempt is to triangulate-- isn't triangulation is supposed to make you look sensible and moderate? This is making the White House look a bit hysterical, coming just when health care reform seemed a quiet "fait accompli."

Maybe it's all about raising money from the base by riling it up. It's late October, after all. Dems (and Dem consultants) need dollars. And those campaign fundraising dollars haven't been "materializing as much as expected." Just a thought. ... One clue: Does the FOX War last much past Election Day, or does it mysteriously wind down? ...  3:06 P.M.

___________________________

How I Got That Exclusive: What if they proved that 1950's nuclear testing increased cancer among boomers and only Walter Shapiro showed up at the press conference? ...  4:51 P.M.

___________________________

As Nate Silver notes, the Washington Post decided to heavily promote a poll showing voter support for a public option "even though public opinion has been fairly steady on the issue for months." But I can't see anything wrong with the question itself, or the general pro-government shift the poll suggested.

Question 10, however--highlighted by Ezra Klein--looks catastrophically flawed:

10. Which of these would you prefer - (a plan that includes some form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can't get affordable private insurance, but is approved without support from Republicans in Congress); or (a plan that is approved with support from Republicans in Congress, but does not include any form of government-sponsored health insurance for people who can't get affordable private insurance)? [E.A.]

Isn't Medicaid is a "form of government sponsored insurance for people who can't get affordable private insurance"? Medicare also covers some of those people, if they're over 65. Lots of state programs for near-poverty families might be considered "government sponsored" health insurance. 

Many people might reasonably read this question as asking whether they thought Republican support was important enough to eliminate Medicaid and Medicare and SCHIP, which may be why the alternative that didn't do this got such strong support (51 to 37). Those numbers seem worthless when it comes to illuminating the current debate. (What does "sponsor" mean, anyway? Promote? Subsidize? Control? Run?  Even if you put Medicaid aside, is this the famous "public option" they're talking about or just the subsidized health insurance exchanges?) ... [Thanks to reader T.A.] 1:18 A.M.

___________________________

What's Your Beef With Fox, Mr. Dem-Basher?

First Rough Draft of kf: Some readers may understandably be confused by my posts about Fox. On the one hand, I seem to be saying Fox is ideological and unbalanced but, hey, that's the wave of the future, and as a lifelong opinion journalist I'm not that bothered by the prospect of living in a universe populated by such outfits (The New Republic, MSNBC, the New York Times, DRUDGE). On the other hand I find myself agreeing with the White House, and Jacob Weisberg, when they argue Fox is different from even those other non-balanced news enterprises--that it's "not a news organization."

I guess there are two distinct axes on which you can judge press organizations--actually, there are many more than two (see below), but two are important here: 1) Neutrality--Are they attempting to be "objective," trying to serve the "public interest" in some balanced way, or are they ideologically (or otherwise) driven in a way that inevitably colors their coverage--what topics they pick, what 'experts' they rely on, etc. 2) Independence--Whether they are biased or generally neutral, can somebody--a political party, a Mafia family, a government-- tell them what to do?

I think it's pretty clear MSNBC and the NYT and Breitbart.tv are not neutral. They all have an agenda and they pursue it. But they are independent. The Obama White House can't tell Bill Keller what to do. They can't tell Keith Olbermann what to do. (They can suck up to him, and it will probably work, but that's a different issue.) Breitbart is for sure independent--I can't see anyone telling him what to do.

I think Fox is also not neutral (which, again, doesn't bother me) but it's also not independent (which does). This isn't because it's owned by Rupert Murdoch--moguls are, typically among the more independent sorts. It's because it's run by Roger Ailes. I have zero faith that Ailes is independent of the Republican party or, specifically, those Republicans who have occupied the White House recently--the Bushes. As I said, I think if Karl Rove called Ailes in 2003 and said "We don't want so much coverage of X" it's extremely likely that X would not be covered on Fox. A ... suggestive example of Fox's loyalty is the debate on immigration, in which Ailes' network initially seemed to try valiantly--against the beliefs of most of its audience--to push the Bush White House line in favor of "comprehensive" legalization (while brushing aside its viewers' views).

It's certainly possible, in theory, to have a faux news organization that pretends to be an ordinary, ideologically biased journalistic outlet but that, at the top, is actually taking orders from Moscow, or from Kennebunkport. That news organization might have lots of viewers and money and White House press passes and some great on-air correspondents--it's not as if you could rip off their masks to uncover the alien underneath, like in V. ABC's Jake Tapper would refer to it as "one of our sister organizations."  But that's not what, ultimately, it would be about. It would be different in nature, just like Organizing For America would be different in nature if it decided to buy some cameras and cable time and start reporting the news.

Here are some other measures you could use when classifying media outfits:

3) Accuracy--Are they committed to not telling untruths?

4) Fairness--Do they try to present all sides, even if it's only to take on an opponent's best argument (as opposed to his worst)?

5) Discipline--Do they tolerate dissenting voices within the organization--even when those voices are effective? Will they assign major stories that will cut against their interests and arguments?

6) Willingness to Suppress: You can have a commitment to accuracy, even a commitment to going out and finding and publicizing the truth for its own sake--but what happens when that commitment collides cataclysmically with your other, ideological purpose? The New York Times has a high commitment to accuracy, for example--and it's so big it almost has to be relatively tolerant of individual deviation. But would it endanger the Democrats' Senate majority by printing a series of damaging exposes of a leading Democratic Senator shortly before an election?  The Times answered that one for us in 2002.

Note, first, that these are all sliding scales. Only a few media enterprises print what they know to be untruths, but many more sometimes run with very suspiciously sourced stories. Some organizations tolerate lots of dissent, some very little. Some are wildly unfair, some occasionally give an idea of the strongest competing arguments. I suppose even Pravda in the Brezhnev era had its little moments of internal rebellion. But it's also possible to put some organizations at one end of the spectrum and some at the others.

Second, I'm not arguing that any of these additional qualities--aside from extreme inaccuracy (#3)--are essential for a media enterprise to play a valuable role in the national debate. The idea of the First Amendment isn't that everyone will be fair. It's that everyone will be free, and out of it all the voters will come to their own conclusion about what's fair--right? Likewise, you can have a terrific national debate between ten magazines none of which publish dissenting views in their pages. And I'm pretty sure I wouldn't pass the suppression test if you framed the hypothetical right. Suppose on October 25th, 2008 I'd discovered, without doubt, and with documentation, that Barack Obama cheated on his taxes. Would I publish it? Probably not. I think Bill Keller would publish it way before I would. Would Marty Peretz publish something true that had a high probability of leading to the destruction of the State of Israel? I have my doubts! That doesn't make The New Republic not a "news" organization.

But I do think independence is essential to be a legitimate player in the new, emerging non-objective press world. If you're independent, there's always a chance you'll change your mind. At the least, you have to make fresh calculations about your views and interests, which means that in a free society there will be a steady proliferation of nodes of thought. If you're independent, Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs has a shot at convincing you--even if you're conservative, even if you're wildly biased, even if your organization is almost dictatorial in structure. Even if you're Rupert Murdoch! But not, I think, if you're Fox.

Update: Maguire is unconvinced.

I can suggest a better place to look for signs of Fox's fealty to Bush - how did they handle the conservative rebellion in early 2006 over both Harriet Miers and the Dubai port deal?  If Fox was truly in the tank for Bush, as opposed to holding a conservative point of view, they would have tilted in favor of Harriet and Dubai.  Did they? [E.A.]

My impression is they did--on Miers, anyway. ... Samples:

MORT KONDRACKE, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, ROLL CALL: Well, you know, I trust the president. I trust the president to know this person that he's known for 10 years, and what her mind is and how she thinks. And he thinks she is strong and all that.

When various conservatives say, "Oh my God, you know, we're scared that she's going to turn into David Souter" -- as I said yesterday, I don't think that's going to happen.

--Fox News All Stars, Oct. 4, 2005

BRIT HUME: Needless to say, our colleague, Mr. Will, lacks enthusiasm for Harriet Miers, as does Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Laura Ingraham, and the former Justice Department lawyer John Yu, not to mention David Frum. What do they all have in common? Well, they're products of the most prestigious Eastern schools.

Some observations on whether there is in all of this a whiff of elitism in the air from Fred Barnes, a graduate of the University of Virginia, as indeed I am, Mort Kondracke, a graduate, I'm afraid to say, of Dartmouth, and Mara Liasson, a graduate, dare I say it, of Brown University.

All right, folks. What about it? Is there a bit of elitism in all of this?

FRED BARNES, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "THE WEEKLY STANDARD": Well, there may be snobbery even.

(CROSSTALK)

HUME: Snobbery even? Snobbery even? Go ahead, Fred.

--Fox Special Report, October 5, 2005

 7:11 P.M.

___________________________

Guaranteed 50% Fox-Related Ingredients

Attention, "Fait Accompli" Brigade: This chart seems to be going in the wrong direction for health care reform, even if you discount the lopsided FOX poll (for Nate Silverish reasons--they only get the big support/oppose question after asking a series of spoiling questions). ... P.S.: Does this suggest that the much-derided insurance industry study (suggesting premiums would rise after reform) had an impact? ... It could also reflect increased dissent on the left, from public-option supporters, as hinted by the new WaPo survey. (See, for example, question 13.) ... 9:55 P.M.

___________________________ 

On Sunday, William Kristol argued it was "reckless" for Obama to delay surging in Afghanistan while he waits to see how legitimate our "Afghan partner" will be:

If the president issued the order now, he could always delay or revoke it later, if the political situation seemed truly insupportable....

Why do I get the feeling that if Obama ordered a surge of troops today and revoked it in two weeks, Bill Kristol would be among the first to savage him for being indecisive and prone to sudden reversal? There's a virtue in making the decision once, and then being able to stick with it, as Kristol surely knows. ... P.S.: I would suspect Kristol of adding his bad faith argument so he'd have three bullet points, but he already had his three. So no excuse! ... P.P.S.: Won't Kristol's post--which sneers that the White House had "failed" to improve the election process--look awfully silly if Obama's delay turns out to force Karzai to accept a cleaner runoff? ... 10:21 P.M.

___________________________

Gawker got hold of the first few words of ex-President Clinton's private twitters, including this entry:

Twitter / Bill Clinton:  John Edwards ... why did you ...

You'd think Clinton, of all people, would know that answer to that one. ...

Update: In a slyly invisible, joke-ruining revision, Gawker's Anthony De Rosa now says the twitters were probably captured from the account of a Bill Clinton imposter. ... P.S.: Is De Rosa the new night guy or the new ex-night guy? ... 10:50 P.M.

___________________________

Odd sloppiness in Monday's big N.Y. Times story with possible dirt on GOP N.J. gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie:

1) The Times writes that

interviews with federal law enforcement officials suggest that Ms. Brown [to whom Christie had loaned $46,000] used her position in two significant and possibly improper ways to try to aid Mr. Christie in his run for governor. [E.A.]

Motive is very hard to prove. The Times doesn't come close to showing that Brown was trying to aid Mr. Christie's run for governor if (as alleged) she a) supervised a FOIA request by the Corzine campaign of her and Christie's travel records and b) argued for making a big corruption arrest before Christie left office. In (a), she might have been trying to cover her own a--, since the FOIA request included her own records, no? In (b), maybe she just thought her friend and boss (rather than his successor) deserved to get full props for his hard work. I suppose the facts do "suggest" that Brown was trying to aid Christie's political run, but it's still a weird, easily abused way to write a lede. The first arrests at the Watergate suggested that the White House was a lawless operation headed by a crook who was trying to spy on his Democratic rivals, but I don't think that's how Woodward & Bernstein's nut graf read. The allegation about Brown's motive was hardly necessary to make a good story--all the Times had to say was that in both cases Brown seems to have taken actions that actually helped Christie's campaign.

2) In its tour of anti-Christie accusations, the Times refers to

reports that [Christie] discussed a run for governor with Karl Rove in 2006 led Democrats to assert he had violated the Hatch Act, which forbids candidates from “testing the waters” for a run for office. [E.A.]

The Hatch Act forbids candidates from "testing the waters"? There's your story! A whole lot of politicians are going to jail if that's the case. But maybe the Times "computer assisted reporting team" should hit the keyboards to find out what the Hatch Act says first. (And is talking to Karl Rove "testing the waters"?)

3) "$20,000 in mileage reimbursements during his seven-year tenure" is less than $3,000 per year--not that much. Even if it does include $79 to see a Mets game.

It would be wrong of me at this point to mention the famous Howell Raines Spike (of reports damaging to Democratic New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli when he was running for reelection) as evidence that the NYT is trying to elect Dems in New Jersey. It certainly "suggests" that! But we're in the age of partisan media and if the NYT wants to try to elect Dems the way Fox wants to elect GOPs, that's their right. ...

P.S.: If you believe the Feiler Faster Thesis, this story was dropped way too soon. Plenty of time before November 3 for Christie to change the narrative. But maybe in New Jersey Feiler is slower. ... 10:52 P.M.

___________________________

No Amnesty for Windows 7!

We have ways of making you stress-free: Someone should write the fictionalized dystopian nightmare of mandatory "wellness" programs foreshadowed in Sen. Ensign's business backed plan to let insurers penalize even those who seek non-employer-based health coverage if they don't participate in healthy life regimens."  Like THX 1138, but with brownies. ... Nineteen-Eighty-Fat! ... Ensign says his plan "would guarantee that the incentive is strong enough for Americans to want to participate." ... Next:  Marital fidelity incentives! ... 9:33 P.M.

___________________________ 

It's pretty obvious Jacob Weisberg is right to assert that Fox News is a partisan, non-balanced outfit, more like a 19th century pamphlet than the 20th century "balanced" news outlet it pretends to be. During the Bush presidency, if Karl Rove gave an order, I think it was much more likely to be followed by Roger Ailes at Fox than, say, Christie Whitman at the EPA. I can see why this would lead Democrats to legitimately refuse to let Fox host a debate. But I don't see why this means that non-conservatives need to stop appearing on Rupert Murdoch's network. Are they only allowed to preach to the converted? ... P.S.: Weisberg notes that partisan media organizations like Fox (and now MSNBC) are not only one American First Amendment tradition but are also winning in the TV marketplace. Don't we need to learn to live with them? They aren't going to respond to sanctions. ('OK, we'll do anything. Just don't cut off Mara Liasson!'). ...  P.P.S.: It's true that going on Fox and effectively sowing doubt behind enemy lines is something Ailes is likely to only let you do once. So be it. But maybe not, if the ratings are good. ... 8:56 P.M.

___________________________

Nightmare of Vista Not Over! Attention, Fellow Vista-Skippers: We haven't made it yet. Yes, Microsoft is telling us we don't need to wait for the first bug-fixing "Service Pack" before replacing our creaky, precious XP machines with new Windows 7 devices. But they've said that sort of thing before. Given Microsoft's track record, it seems more sensible to wait for them to get it right right out of the box at least once before we start to take them at their world. ... P.S.: The obvious analogy is to .... comprehensive immigration reform!  Maybe fancy new employer-based verification systems and "biometric" identifiers (and "virtual" border fencing) really will survive ACLU challenge and then actually function effectively keep out illegal immigrants. But we were given similar assurances in 1986. It didn't happen. Better to wait and make sure the new high-tech enforcement mechanisms work before we take the plunge with the proven illegal-immigrant lure of an amnesty, no? ... 8:26 P.M.

___________________________

It's All Going According to Plan!

Peter Beinart thinks Obama's on track to success. Actually, Beinart understates the favorability of the circumstances. If, like me, you assume that the most desirable and popular part of Obama's agenda is health care reform, while the rest of it is studded with sweeping measures that are controversial at best (cap and trade, "card check" union organizing) and explosive at worst (illegal immigrant legalization)--well, then everything is falling into place like a well-choreographed water ballet!

The kf Plan for Presidential Success:

-- Obama gets health care reform, but not until well after New Year's Day. That leaves no time in 2010 to take up "card check" or "comprehensive immigration reform" before the election season hits. Darn! Even "cap and trade," which as Tom Edsall notes pleases affluent elites a lot more than Obama's low-income base, has to undergo further study. What can you do?

-- The economy picks up, but unemployment remains high enough--and doubts about health care reform among the elderly persistent enough--to get the Dems clobbered in the 2010 midterms. Republicans may even win back the House. All those controversial big Dem bills that got backed up in 2010--well, they certainly won't be enacted by the GOPs. So frustrating!

-- Without a new wave of low-wage immigrants drawn by legalization, meanwhile, the labor market eventually grows tight enough at the bottom to finally raise wages as the economy grows--just in time for Obama's 2012 campaign.

-- Returned to office in an incumbent-friendly year, Obama still faces a GOP-heavy Congress, sharply limiting what he can do. He's forced to shelve much of his ambitious second term agenda--sorry!--and focus on those areas where Republicans are favorably disposed--like reining in the cost of entitlements and expanding charter schools. (As Walter Shapiro once argued--and Bill Clinton proved--having a Democrat in the White House with a Republican Congress is the institutional recipe for controlling the budget. The Democratic President reins in defense spending while the Republican Congress reins in domestic spending.)

I'm only partly joking. Or maybe I'm not joking at all. Losing control of Congress didn't cripple Bill Clinton, did it? It arguably saved Bill Clinton. Having Newt Gingrich in charge of the House allowed Clinton to push off against Republican excess, tame his own party's demands, and actually balance the budget. The difference with Obama is that unlike Clinton he will have accomplished his main goal--health care reform--first, before the drawbridge goes up.

It's all going according to plan. 1:51 A.M.

___________________________

Bailout II Watch: A member of GM's board of directors has admitted that the carmaker's recovery plan is based on it maintaining a market share of above 19%:

"The public plan is 19 percent and change. That is what everything is being based on," [Stephen] Girsky said during a panel discussion at a conference at Columbia Business School.

That's about what GM's share has been recently. But it's been heading in the wrong direction. And if it sinks to 18% ...? 

Update: The Big Money's Matthew DeBord sneers at Truth About Cars for "heralding GM’s demise since gas was 30 cents a gallon and Sinatra was headlining the Sands. ... And yet ... GM lives!"  Plucky of GM! How did they survive? And to think Truth About Cars was predicting they would go bankrupt! ...

P.S.: DeBord persists in publicizing an auspicious "trend" in GM's market share. Yes, GM's share is up for  the last couple of months--but a) again, it doesn't do that much good to have a big share in the months when nobody is buying cars (September) if you have a much lower share during the big clunker sellathon (July and August). Here is a chart with the raw figures. See if you spot a significant pro-GM "trend." I don't.  b) You can always boost market share by offering cash-back incentives at the expense of profits. GM's incentives have been large--at an average $3,796, almost three times Honda's; c) DeBord cites an Edmunds prediction of a rise in GM's share to more than 22 percent in October, which is apparently based on visits to GM models on the Edmunds web site. We'll see. GM is shooting off a lot of its advertising wad this month. d) While Buick and Cadillac have "profit potential," the success of Chevrolet is "a question mark," DeBord concedes. But Chevy is where GM's volume sales are. If Chevy tanks, can GM survive? ... P.P.S.: DeBord sees growth. TTAC sees decline. One of them is wrong. My money's not on The Big Money. ... 2:25 A.M.

___________________________