The Gaggle

Religious Leaders Warn of Civil Disobedience

2009-11-20T20:53:42Z

They are calling it the Manhattan Declaration, a 4,700-word manifesto reaching into scripture and signed by 148 Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders. It was released this afternoon at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and is designed to draw a line in the sand across three issues they argue are non-negotiable despite the law: the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman, and religious freedom.

Signers of the Declaration pledge to "...not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” nor will signers “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships” or “treat them as marriages.” The list of backers reads like a who’s who of the pro-life movement, and the document essentially argues that supporters of the movement deserve conscience rights.

What does noncompliance look like? Nonviolent civil disobedience. "Dr. King was very clear about nonviolence and we are committed to nonviolence,” said Robert George, drafting committee member and jurisprudence professor at Princeton University. He listed some examples of what religious civil disobedience might look like, such as a pharmacist quitting before providing abortion drugs or a physician changing jobs before performing an abortion or taking part in an assisted suicide. “There are limits to what can be asked of people,” said George, who was flanked by 15 religious leaders, including the Archdioceses of Washington and Philadelphia and evangelical leaders like Chuck Colson and Tony Perkins.

Addressed not only to Christians, but to President Obama, Congress, and civil authorities, the treatise will be available online for individuals to sign as well. When asked whether nonpayment of taxes would be an acceptable form of protest, George, who is also a lawyer, said he was currently representing a West Virginia taxpayer who is refusing to pay the small percentage of her bill that might go toward state-funded abortions (“Litigation is still pending,” said George). Institutions were also called on to participate in the civil disobedience if, for example, if a Catholic hospital is under pressure to provide services that go against Catholic beliefs. Although conscience protections do exist for many institutions already, there are areas, cited on Friday, such as when the Catholic Charities of Boston halted adoption services, rather than comply with state law and allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples.

According to the Declaration, “We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition.” Yet similar documents, such as last year’s Evangelical Manifesto, have been unveiled with great fanfare but little consequence. Civil disobedience, especially giving up a job, is a lot to ask in the current economy and is a hard notion, even for some signers of the Declaration.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council tells NEWSWEEK the point of the Declaration is really to avoid mistakes of the past, such as when religious leaders did not stand up early enough against no-fault divorce, which he says led directly to the breakup of families and high divorce rates. “I’m a former police officer, and I have hard time with civil disobedience, but if it comes to the point where our religious liberty is at risk, I’d not only participate but would encourage people to resist.”

Daily Mayor of New York Higher Office Debunking

2009-11-20T20:50:34Z

If it's not Mike Bloomberg, it's his predecessor. The New York Daily News reports that Rudy Giuliani is going to run for the Senate in 2010 and that he may use that as a stepping stone to a presidential run in 2012. Over at The Atlantic Chris Good claims "Giuliani will make a formidable Senate candidate, should he run—in fact, if he enters the race, he will likely become the frontrunner," noting that he polls ahead of incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand.

Repeat after me, punditariat: the mayoralty of New York is a stepping stone to nothing. Being mayor of New York is a good way to:

A) piss off a lot of powerful constituencies by making hard choices

B) piss off a lot of powerful constituencies by being the kind of obnoxious jerk who becomes mayor of New York in the first place

C) get entangled in the minor corruption that is endemic to even the best-run major city governments

and, D) become well known to the powerful national media figures in your hometown, who will talk about how you will or should run for senate, governorship, or the presidency.

But it ain't happening. Like Ed Koch and John Lindsay before him, Rudy Giuliani has been seen at times as a likely, and strong, candidate for statewide or national office. And, like both of them, he'll lose if he actually runs. Flashback to early 2000, when Giuliani's approval ratings were in the toilet, thanks to his contentious tenure, and he was losing to carpetbagger Hillary Clinton in every poll for the Senate race. He dropped out, citing health reasons, and was not expected to ever come back. But then September 11 made him America's mayor, his national name recognition soared, making him misleadingly appear to be a GOP frontrunner in the 2008 election, and off he went to New Hampshire and Florida. Forty-eight million dollars and 1 RNC delegate later, Giuliani crashed and burned, his image tarnished by revelations about his inappropriate use of his NYPD security detail, and his cronies' even worse behavior.

When will people learn? Polls three years in advance are about name recognition and little else. When the campaign actually starts and the New York press picks the bones of the skeletons of the Giuliani's closet, his numbers will go down. The rationale for his presidential or gubernatorial candidacy—crime-fighting and managerial credentials—don't apply to legislative, rather than executive, office. Democrats hold a 5-3 registration advantage in New York State. When people actually step in the voting booth, plenty of folks who currently don't know Gillibrand from Eve will pull the lever for her. And, Gillibrand has shown some political talent.

The better question is why anyone thinks Giuliani is running at all. He could make millions of dollars a year giving motivational speeches and working as a lawyer, with a direct line into all the cable news networks. Or, he can spend the next year going to county fairs Upstate, shaking hands, giving the same stump speech, asking donors for money and answering fascinating questions. "Mr. Giuliani, what are you going to do about the economy here in Elmira? Mr. Giuliani, how are you going to protect New York's dairy farmers? Mr. Giuliani, the public schools here in Herkimer County are teaching evolution, what do you think about that?"

All in the service of either losing or getting to be a junior senator in the minority party. Which he will chose? Either way, I don't think we'll talking about Senator Giuliani in 2011.

Newsverse: The Trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed

2009-11-20T19:26:47Z

By Jerry Adler

Exhibit A:

Consider, men and women of the jury

The evidence of displaced fury.

Rage flung like a prisoner’s feces

Against the walls. The human species

Unique in all biology

Kills for ideology.

Exhibit B:

Is entropy.

One hundred stories, ground to dust.

The twisted columns, growing rust.

Scraps of flesh and flecks of blood

Splashed outward, and then mixed with mud.

Exhibit C:

The cellphone calls.

From people trapped in stairs and halls

The roof above, below them fire.

And in the dark, the strong desire

To say goodbye, fed by belief

That one can store up memories

Against the coming grief.

Closing Argument:

Consider, if you will, the brain

And how it analyzes gain

And if anything worth having

Could justify such pain.

High Stakes For Online Gamblers

2009-11-20T16:50:57Z

By Jeremy Herb

Between online gambling and the countless ESPN reruns of the World Series of Poker, poker has become a mainstream "sport." More than 6,000 people paid $10,000 to enter this year's World Series main event, and gambling experts say 10 to 15 million Americans wager $100 billion on all forms of Internet gaming annually. The online gambling industry—made up of offshore companies—earns somewhere between $6 and $10 billion in the U.S. each year. But it's a poker game of politics, not cards, that will decide the fate of online gambling in the U.S.

The battle rests on a bill that was passed in the final hours of the 2006 Republican-controlled Congress, when Sen. Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) forbids banks from accepting illegal Internet gambling transactions. In essence, it prevents would-be players from using their debit or credit cards—a standard for online payments—for Internet gambling. Those who support Internet gambling, led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, are making a final plea to the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to push back the law for one year, giving them time to repeal it. In response, Sen. John Kyl and Rep. Spencer Bachus wrote a letter to Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke urging them to enforce the Dec. 1 deadline. The Treasury and Fed have yet to make a decision, according to a Federal Reserve official.

The problem with UIGEA is it raised more questions than it answered. The law does not make it illegal for people to gamble online, as it focuses on bank transactions. But it failed to define what's considered "illegal Internet gambling." The Treasury and Fed, which are instructing banks on how to enforce the law, did not define illegal gambling either. "The role of financial institutions is not to be policemen of the government," says Mary Dunn, senior vice president of the Credit Union National Association. The finance industry says the law is an unfair burden and also wants it delayed. But if the law goes into effect Dec. 1, all financial institutions must demonstrate they can block online transactions.

The new law won't prosecute individual players, but the risk for gamblers is that online casinos will pull out of the U.S. market. Last week, Golden Casino announced it would no longer take deposits from American players on Dec. 1, according to a gambling trade site. PartyGaming, a publicly traded company, left the U.S. in 2006 when UIGEA passed. The company paid a $105 million nonprosecution fine to the Justice Department, which took UIGEA's passage as a "Congressional mandate" to prosecute illegal online gambling.

The Justice Department believes all Internet gambling is illegal based on the 1960s Wire Act, which was designed to stop bookies from using telephones and passed long before the Internet as we know it existed. The gambling industry disputes this, arguing the Wire Act only applies to sports-betting, not games like poker or roulette. In 2002, the Fifth Circuit Court ruled the Wire Act only applied to sports-betting, but that didn't sway any opinions at Justice. Several offshore executives of online casinos and "e-wallet" payment processors have been arrested in the past few years. In June, the Justice Department froze $33 million in payments to American players from four online casinos.

If Frank gets his online gambling bill passed, however, the Wire Act dispute would disappear. Frank's bill, along with companion legislation from Rep. Jim McDermott, would legalize and tax online casinos, though online sports-betting would remain outlawed. Online gambling could generate up to $42 billion in tax revenue over the next decade, according to a Joint Committee on Taxation report. Spurred on by efforts from lobbyists and advocacy groups, Frank has vowed to overturn what he says is an "outrageous" law. His plans have been sidetracked by finance reform, however, which has eaten up most of the Financial Services Committee's time this year.

The morality debate over Internet gambling doesn't stray far from regular gambling, with a few exceptions. Opponents say the convenience of the Internet gives gambling addicts easy access to the lure of slots and cards, and encourages underage playing. Gambling advocates argue regulated sites will be more difficult for underage players because they will have stricter age verification, and that players should have the same rights online they already have in a casino. But another argument that's also being made is poker should be legalized online because it's a skill game-not a game of chance-and therefore it doesn't fall under UIGEA or the Wire Act. Sen. Robert Menendez has also introduced separate legislation that carves out an exception for poker. "People have been playing this great skill game that's been around for a long time," says Howard Lederer, a professional poker player and member of the Poker Players Alliance. "We're playing against each other, not the house."

Even if the UIGEA is enacted, it's unlikely online gambling would disappear completely. There are ways for American players to circumvent bank regulations, including setting up a foreign bank account. "We're all holding our breath and hoping the petition will be accepted," Lederer says, but that isn't the industry's only option. Online poker could be legalized through the courts on the argument that the Wire Act doesn't apply to poker. The industry is waiting to see what happens Dec. 1 before taking any action, he says. But if they do head to court, Lederer likes the odds.

Footballing Obama Experiences the Wonders of Slow Motion

2009-11-20T16:12:20Z

If President Obama was looking for another way to differentiate himself from President Bush, he just found it. When it comes to sports, you might recall Bush as an avid mountain biker. He also showed off some lightening-quick reflexes that one time that would give him an edge in dodgeball, and certainly fencing. Obama’s forté so far has been shooting hoops. Now add to the list, football. Check out this PSA that will run during several football games on Thanksgiving Day that encourages kids to get more exercise. Between spliced footage of kids running and doing jumping jacks, Obama makes a cameo on the White House lawn, tossing around the old pigskin. An ordinary game of catch, right? Not quite. The whole spot comes off as rather moving, almost epic, but not because of Obama or his receiving skills. Producers slowed down the footage so much that a short-range pass from New Orleans’s Saints quarterback Drew Brees to Obama ends up looking like a Sports Center highlight. Then, add in some dramatic background music and the receiver-in-chief almost looks qualified for a Heisman. Of course that would be premature. First we would need to see his end-zone dance.

Poll: Majority of Republicans Believe ACORN Stole the Presidential Election

2009-11-19T20:30:58Z

As his hopes of winning the congressional election in New York's 23rd district fade, conservative candidate Doug Hoffman is clearly getting desperate. Today he's blaming his loss on "ACORN, the unions, and the Democratic party" who he alleges, without a shred of evidence, tampered with votes to rig the election against him. Never mind that ACORN told David Weigel that they didn't have volunteers in the area, or that it largely operates in poor urban communities, which NY-23 is not. For conservatives, ACORN is shorthand for the evils of the left.

On the heels of that news, Public Policy Polling released this shocking nugget on its blog: "a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately." Say what? More than half of Republican respondents believe the president was elected fraudulently! That's a stunningly high number. It's disturbing, not only as a demonstrable lack of faith in America's democracy but as an expression of wanton ignorance. Worse, it illustrates the effectiveness of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al., alongside a well-funded "Stop ACORN" campaign, in creating an atmosphere where unquestioned lies become received wisdom.

Barack Obama won the election by an easy margin. In the end, it wasn't even close. John McCain knew that and delivered his concession speech before 9:30 p.m. Obama didn't just win in the urban areas where ACORN could actually be seen as a force—and which would likely have voted for him regardless of ACORN's participation. He won in places like North Carolina, where ACORN had just eight staffers. There's been no formal challenge to the electoral validity of the votes.There's simply no proof to back up claims that ACORN tampered with ballots. But there is evidence of irresponsible reporting catalyzing misguided fears.

In September, Peter Dreier and Christopher Martin at California's Occidental College released a study of media coverage of ACORN. Among their many findings was this laundry list regarding stories about ACORN's alleged involvement in voter fraud:

82.8% of the stories failed to mention that actual voter fraud is very rare;
80.3% of the stories failed to mention that ACORN was reporting registration irregularities to authorities, as required by law;
85.1% of the stories about ACORN failed to note that ACORN was acting to stop incidents of registration problems by its (mostly temporary) employees when it became aware of these problems;
95.8% of the stories failed to provide deeper context, especially efforts by Republican Party officials to use allegations of "voter fraud" to dampen voting by low‐income and minority Americans, including the firing of U.S. Attorneys who refused to cooperate with the politicization of voter-fraud accusations—firings that ultimately led to the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

To be sure, ACORN has some serious credibility problems, including those infamous videos of ACORN staffers handing out advice about how to fool the IRS as well as an embezzlement scandal. The organization is indeed compromised. But that's even more reason why it's almost unimaginable that it could engineer a massive deceit on the American people and fraudulently steal an election. It's hard to conceive that hundreds of volunteers with clipboards and voter-registration papers were engaged in an elegant (and enormous) conspiracy to cheat and thieve a national election, or that such drastic measures were necessary in a fight against an unpopular incumbent party.

The conservative obsession with ACORN is sad and culturally debilitating. For some, it's politics as usual. Demonize the other side until you get the power back. But for others it's evidently an expression of fear of a world where poor people of diverse ethnic backgrounds become a mobilized political force. For its part ACORN hasn't been very virtuous, but it's far from the "criminal enterprise" that Rep. Steve King or Rep. Darrell Issa would have you believe. It actually does have a history of doing socially constructive work in low income and disenfranchised communities, legitimately helping people file taxes, register to vote and find employment. The people they serve—underprivileged, mainly nonwhite, inner-city dwellers—also happen to vote for Democrats, which is exactly why they're such a prime target of conservative animus. But ACORN's now public improprieties doesn't make it even remotely capable of stealing a hard-fought presidential election. If it did, America would have much bigger problems on its hands than some hookers trying to cheat on their taxes.

This Flower Won't Bloom(berg)

2009-11-19T19:48:44Z

Yesterday, political strategist Mark McKinnon made the case that Sarah Palin's popularity could create an opening for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run for president in 2012. Well, that's original. Too bad it's preposterous. Katie raises two of the correct counterpoints: Bloomberg is uninspiring, and his Wall Street background doesn't seem like such a strong suit these days. But, she says, "McKinnon's argument shouldn't be discounted, and my quibbles aren't insurmountable hurdles for someone like Bloomberg."

Actually, McKinnon's argument should be dismissed out of hand, as there is no rationale for a third-party candidacy on the political, or policy, merits. Of course you can see why he made it. Like Bloomberg, McKinnon is a Democrat-turned-Republican but not a movement conservative. That describes a lot of rich white guys, who are overrepresented in the media. But it doesn't describe a lot of Americans, much less a plurality in a presidential election. McKinnon's thesis makes for a great web op-ed: it's pegged to Palin, but not a love-her-or-hate-her argument, and it works in the name of the billionaire New York mayor.

But, as the Gaggle's resident New Yorker, let me disabuse McKinnon and others who think Mike Bloomberg is popular in his hometown. He isn't. In 2001 he would have lost decisively to Mark Green despite spending $70 million on his campaign were it not for September 11 (the ensuing beatification of Rudy Giuliani turned his endorsement into gold). Bloomberg has governed effectively and yet he barely beat Bill Thompson, despite spending $100 million or so on his reelection campaign. Well, Barack Obama isn't Bill Thompson or Freddy Ferrer. He's brilliant, charismatic, had a well-run campaign that raised plenty of money, and he will have the advantages of incumbency. If Bloomberg were the Republican nominee, I'd bet heavily against him.

But that's not even the scenario McKinnon envisions. Nor should it be. The only idea more preposterous than Bloomberg beating Obama would be Bloomberg—a short, divorced, Jewish, socially moderate media mogul from New York by way of Boston—getting the Republican nomination. No, McKinnon thinks that if Sarah Palin is the Republican nominee in 2012 then Bloomberg could run as a third-party candidate.

While it is true that a Palin, or even a Mike Huckabee, nomination would leave moderate Republicans, both of them, out in the cold, there is no evidence that they amount to a larger constituency than the Republican or Democratic base. The oft-cited fact that the number of independents is growing is misleading. Most independents vote regularly for one party or the other. The days of one-party control of entire regions of the country, thus making the primary the actual election, are over, so there is no longer the same incentive to register with a party. But just because Southern conservatives and liberals battle it out in the general election instead of the Democratic primary doesn't mean the country is any more centrist.

What is more centrist than it was 40 years ago, though, is the Democratic Party. Bloomberg was a perfectly happy mainstream Democrat until he decided to run for mayor in a city where the Democratic field would be crowded. In New York, where unreconstructed Great Society liberals still roam, there may even be an ideological distinction between Bloomberg and some of his opponents. But look at his putative presidential platform: pro-abortion rights and gay rights, associated with racial harmony and welcoming of immigrants, concerned for the environment, committed to fiscal responsibility, combatting crime, and improvements in public education. That sounds an awful lot like the presidency of Bill Clinton, and what Barack Obama hopes to achieve.

If that's what Mark McKinnon wants he can just vote Democratic. The voters who fit this profile do not constitute any kind of majority. Split them from the minorities and other core Democratic constituencies in the blue and purple states where Bloomberg would have to exclusively focus and maybe you just throw those states to Republicans. Anyway, the idea that all of those voters would abandon Obama is absurd. What, exactly, does Bloomberg offer that Obama doesn't? Competence? That sure worked well for Mike Dukakis.

Opportunity Cost: Studying Health Care's Sticker Shock

2009-11-19T19:39:50Z

The new number is $849 billion. That is the cost the Congressional Budget Office has stamped on the health bill now in the Senate, which, spread out over 10 years, would provide medical coverage to some 31 million uninsured Americans. It's an awe-inspiring number, so how to make sense of such a whopping price tag? What about 849 thousand million? Or call it "just shy of a trillion"? It's stupendously difficult. That hasn't stopped Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid from trying: "It saves lives. It saves money," he said bluntly Wednesday night. Largely by way of increased taxes, Democrats argue that the legislation would in fact trim the federal budget by more than $100 billion. Undeniable though, is that any trillion-dollar program is a ridiculously huge undertaking.

That's not to say plans of such scale are unfamiliar. To compare, let's round the cost of the health-care bill to $85 billion a year and stand it up alongside some other massive spending projects currently underway:

War in Afghanistan
COST SO FAR: $300 billion ($33 billion a year)
According to the Congressional Research Service, the American war in Afghanistan through the end of 2010 will have cost Americans just about $33 billion a year, about a third of what health care would cost. However, since 2006, Congress has been allocating more and more funds for the effort (the request for 2010 alone is $73 billion), and should President Obama decide to deploy more troops (at an estimated cost of $1 billion per 1,000 soldiers), that number could continue to spike, and even surpass the sticker shock of health care.

Iraq War
COST SO FAR: $750 billion ($125 billion a year)
Dividing what has been spent thus far in Iraq by six (the number of years since the invasion) results in an astronomical figure: $125 billion annually. It's hardly a stretch to claim that health care would cost less than Iraq. Some, like Linda Bilmes and Joseph Stiglitz, have claimed that total costs, when counted after the fact, will top $3 trillion. But since spending peaked in 2008 ($141 billion), the war budget has dropped as violence receded and American troops began pulling out. At least in terms of funds from Congress, and despite the treasure already expended, expenses for Iraq are now ebbing.

Federal Stimulus Bill
COST: $787 billion
Eerily similar in cost to the health-care bill was the Obama administration's federal stimulus package that passed in February. (Like Bilmes and Stiglitz on Iraq, the Heritage Foundation claims that the real cost is somewhere above $3 trillion over 10 years.) At $787 billion, it was the largest move by the federal government to avoid a recession since the end of World War II and consisted largely of tax cuts and aid to states.

In one sense, comparing a plan to give health care to tens of millions of Americans to wars overseas or reviving a seizing national economy is a non sequitur. Health, war, economy—each must be argued on its own merits. Perhaps. But this raft of spending is driving a whopping national deficit that could well prove that so many initiatives and wars may not all be affordable. (The cover of the new Economist hauntingly reads, "Dealing with America's fiscal hole".) And if that moment is coming, then the comparison might well be all the more apt and make the setting of priorities all the more urgent.

Senate Bill Restores Abstinence-Only Funding

2009-11-19T06:35:24Z

While the Senate toned down the House's language on abortion restrictions, it may have ratcheted things up with another controversial reproductive-health issue: abstinence-only education. Sec. 2954 of the Senate health-reform bill, released Wednesday evening, restores funding for abstinence education.

As of this summer, abstinence-only education seemed en route to becoming a thing of the past. As I wrote for Newsweek this past month:

Buoyed by $1.9 billion in government funding since 1997 ($1.5 billion of that federal money), abstinence-only education grew from a niche market to a booming industry, with hundreds of curriculums for teachers to choose from. But if the 2000s were abstinence's boom years, the next decade may well be its bust. With Obama's budget for 2010 dropping all abstinence-until-marriage funds from the federal budget, past grantees are left uncertain.

Leave it to the United States Senate to prove my prediction slightly off. Their provision would restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.

If the Senate language survives reconciliation, the Title V program will be extended through 2014. This will not, however, bring abstinence funding back to the levels of the past decade. In 2008, Title V grants accounted for just under 25 percent of the federal abstinence budget (the rest of the budget came from other abstinence-only funding sources not restored in the Senate bill, including Community Based Abstinence Education Grants and the Adolescent Family Life Act).

Nevertheless, abstinence-only groups have declared victory. “We are pleased that Senator Reid inserted this provision within his health-care bill because the sexual health of America's teens depends upon the kinds of skills that are a part of a typical abstinence-education program,” Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, noted in a late-Wednesday-night press release.

What to make of abstinence-only’s restoration? I don’t think it’s off base to read this as a slight concession to the Senate’s social conservatives: backing off the strong abortion language but offering up a significant pool of money for abstinence-only programs. Orrin Hatch, after all, was the man behind both the abstinence-only funding and the push for the Stupak provision—and he won at least one of those battles. Admittedly, a $50 million grant is unlikely to make Hatch an ardent supporter of Reid's bill. But it might do something for an on-the-fence Democrat like Blanche Lincoln (who, by the way, voted yes on abstinence-only funds in that previous Senate Finance Committee vote).

One last thought: while it remains to be seen whether the Stupak language survives in the final version of the health-care bill, I would place my bet on these abstinence-only funds, while controversial, making it through. Abortion-rights supporters are already questioning whether they ought to put up such a fight on the abortion issue if it could derail health-care reform. If they're not willing to risk health care for abortion, chances are they’re not coming out swinging against abstinence-only. Meanwhile, pro-abortion rights reproductive-health groups—generally the opponents of abstinence-only education—are hyperfocused on defeating an “abortion ban” and likely do not have the resources for a serious two-front battle. Abortion can incite a war in Congress, but abstinence education? That seems less likely.

Stupak Abortion Measure Stopped...for the Moment

2009-11-18T23:23:10Z

In a city where few secrets are kept, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid managed to keep the latest iteration of the Senate’s health-care reform bill under wraps even as the Congressional Budget Office scored it just a few hours ago as costing $849 billion over 10 years, big news in the yearlong debate. A source in the leader’s office confirmed to NEWSWEEK that the abortion language Reid includes in the bill is less restrictive than what the House passed last week. The Senate maintains the status quo of 30 years, in which public funds cannot be used to pay for abortion services. The language resembles what the House bill originally had before a power play by the Catholic Bishops forced the Democratic pro-choice majority to accept an amendment offered by pro-life Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak.

This small victory by the pro-choice side does not mean the fight is over—far from it. One analyst on the Democratic side said that Reid’s choice of the less-restrictive language leaves room to move to the right, hopefully not all the way to the Stupak amendment, but to a compromise embodied in language offered by another pro-life House Democrat, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth. His amendment would allow health providers to segregate funds between public money and private money, which is done all the time. The bishops protested last week that because money is fungible, separating funds is unworkable. But it’s done routinely by Catholic institutions that receive federal money to run soup kitchens and other social services, and don’t use government money to proselytize.

Right-to-life forces were thrilled last week with the Stupak amendment. It was the biggest gain they had made legislatively in 30 years. The fact that it’s not in the bill Reid is unveiling is one small step along a still very rocky road for both sides in the abortion debate. Red-state conservative Democrats—Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln—have backed down in recent days, saying they would be satisfied with language that bans federal money from abortion but doesn’t broaden the restrictions to force women to buy separate abortion riders, which seem nonsensical on their face. Who plans to have an abortion?

The fights will now move to the Senate floor. There are two numbers to watch: (1) Can an anti-abortion amendment offered by, say, Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, or pro-life Democrat Bob Casey, get 60 votes? Probably not, but Reid will have to get 60 votes to even proceed with debate on the bill. (2) Getting that 60 could mean putting stronger anti-abortion language in the bill to get those red-state Democrats. Looking at it from the positive side, it’s an arrow in Reid’s quiver to get votes, just as Nancy Pelosi did when she caved in to the bishops. It’s not pretty, but it’s how the legislative process could well unfold.

Does Palinmania Really Help Bloomberg?

2009-11-18T19:20:54Z

Over at The Daily Beast today, political strategist Mark McKinnon makes a compelling argument for why the 2012 election could be tailor-made for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. McKinnon is one of the sharpest minds around when it comes to understanding the mood of the electorate. McKinnon knows how to sell winning candidates, which is why I think the case he builds for Bloomberg is a serious one. Bloomberg is a true centrist who has racked up a swag of political achievements in New York—and he has a ton of cash. Dropping $1 billion on a presidential campaign would barely cause a ripple in his ocean of Benjamins. And he appeals to the growing bloc of independent voters. But, after reading McKinnon's analysis, I've got a couple of lingering questions.

First, how will his background in financial services play to an electorate weary of Wall Street misadventures? To be sure, it's been a very long time since Bloomberg was directly involved in trading and banking. Most of his cash piled up when he started offering IT and media services to the financial sector. But Wall Street is already enough of a myth to most voters. They may not have the patience to distinguish between the greedy bankers who broke the economy and the folks that provided the information that helped them carry out the devastating deeds. They may just see a really, really, ridiculously rich guy who made his money on Wall Street.

That may not be as much of a burden in New York, where there are plenty of ridiculously rich people, as well as loads of people who move among the obscenely wealthy hoping one day to be that rich themselves. But outside the city, the electoral map just doesn't work to Bloomberg's advantage. I can't imagine Bloomberg's appeal translating well in the red states he would have to win to wrest the presidency from Obama (and to scuttle the Palin vote): Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, you know the list. He'd need to pick up all the purple states and nearly all the red ones to be viable, and for many predominantly Republican voters in those parts of the country, Manhattan might as well be a different country. And then there are the poorer rural areas that have long voted Republican. I just don't think Bloomberg's urban fairy tale will resonate with people who can't get even broadband in their homes, or who can barely afford their electricity bill let alone think about buying a Mac.

Second, I'm unconvinced of Bloomberg's ability to excite and inspire, as evidenced by the paltry turnout in November's mayoral election. Of course turnout was low because his opponent was a pretty ordinary candidate who nobody thought would win, but it still didn't seem like Bloomberg's supporters were particularly passionate about him. People who like Bloomberg often like him in a very levelheaded fashion. In my experience they tend to offer buttoned-up report-card like assessments of his political career. "He's a wonderfully proficient administrator." "He's managed the city very well." "New York feels much safer under Bloomberg. I'll take sugar with my tea." You get the picture.

I don't think that rationally expressed appreciation of management skills wins presidential elections. Just ask Mitt Romney. As our current president definitively illustrates, voters want to be excited and inspired by presidential candidates. Effective turnout operations are critical, and they require passionate, committed field workers to herd voters into polling booths. Maybe I've misread things, but I don't see swathes of voters fired up about Bloomberg, nor can I imagine armies of enthusiastic volunteers. (They certainly didn't in New York, according to The New York Times: "But the turnout appeared to be on track to be among the lowest in modern New York history as the mayor’s vaunted campaign machinery failed to deliver the surge of supporters his aides had predicted.")

Yes, Bloomberg could capture the imagination of many an independent voter (and has in the past), but independents can't be your base. Mostly, they're independent for a reason: they're fickle, picky, and non-committal. And that means they're rarely inclined to spend their Saturdays handing out your literature at Wal-Mart or cheerfully standing on street corners brandishing pro-Bloomberg signs. (I guess Bloomberg could just pay folks to do that.) Independent voters are ripe to be courted, but they're not renowned for reliability.

McKinnon's argument shouldn't be discounted, and my quibbles aren't insurmountable hurdles for someone like Bloomberg. But I'm going to need some more convincing before I believe he's viable in 2012.

This Week in Conservative Media: Health Rationing and Mammograms

2009-11-18T18:46:49Z

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force on Monday said women in their 40s should stop routinely having yearly mammograms, and older women should have them only every other year, recommendations that have divided the medical community (“It’s crazy—unethical, really,” Harvard radiologist Daniel B. Kopans told The Washington Post), left a whole lot of women confused, and riled conservative commentators, as well as just about everyone else.

What happened? As Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey writes, “What a difference six months—and a health-care overhaul proposal—can make!” Just a few months ago there was a concern over a slight dip in the number of mammograms, and alarm bells were sounded. Why the about-face? Money, writes Morrissey. “If the administration gets its way, the government will be paying for a lot more of these exams when ObamaCare passes. That will put a serious strain on resources, especially since many of the providers will look to avoid dealing with government-managed care and its poor compensation rates.” The motivation, in short, will be to cut costs, not save lives. Morrissey raises a question likely to come up more in the future as health care continues to be debated: “Barack Obama predicated his ObamaCare vision on the notion that increased prevention would save costs. Suddenly, his administration is for decreased screening and prevention.”

Clarifying that point Wednesday afternoon, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius confirmed in a statement that federal policy on mammograms remains unchanged and that the Preventive Services Task Force, whose advisory on mammograms originally broke the news, is "an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations." In other words, the decision on revised mammogram guidance was not a political one made by the White House.

Iain Murray at National Review’s The Corner says the policy change “is something to be pleased about,” since many women go through unnecessary and painful procedures because of the recommendations. “So it is possible that this decision is actually a victory for science over the precautionary principle, with a decision having been based on a proper consideration of the risk trade-offs involved. Even if cost was involved in the decision, as Captain Ed suggests, it's still the right decision.”

Fox News health blogger Dr. Manny Alvarez isn’t so sanguine, especially with the panel’s surprising advice against teaching women to do self-exams and assertion that there is insufficient evidence to recommend that doctors do them too. If it doesn’t cost much (other than a few minutes of a doctor’s time during an already scheduled appointment), doesn’t hurt, and might catch something, why not? “Finally, I really want to express my discontent with the advice being given to younger women not to bother doing self exams," Alvarez wrote. "We teach women about the importance of becoming familiar with their bodies. Self examination can yield lesions in a woman’s breast that if recognized and worked-up could prevent death and disease. It does not cost anything, and it can only provide vital information that is important to health care professionals.”

Alvarez is more measured than TownHall.com’s staff, which, taking a post from Americans for Prosperity, asks why the phrase "unnecessary tests" sounds so familiar. “That’s probably because it’s the same rationale for many of the decisions made by the government rationing boards in Britain and Canada."

The post continues: “And the results speak for themselves. Where mammograms are used much more infrequently than the U.S., breast cancer mortality rates are 9 percent higher in Canada and 88 percent higher in the United Kingdom!

“Is this what we are to expect once we have government-run health care as well?”

We do know what to expect in the coming weeks: that the recommendations will play a key role in the current health-care debate.

NEWSWEEK Explains Thinking Behind Palin Cover

2009-11-18T17:35:51Z

As Sarah Palin’s book tour kicked off this morning, the debate continues to rage about what exactly she means for America and the Republican Party. This week’s NEWSWEEK takes a look at those questions, exploring the unique challenges posed by a would-be candidate both loved and loathed but almost nothing in between.

Our choice of a cover image this week has also stirred the debate. Yesterday, NEWSWEEK Editor Jon Meacham responded to critics of the photo, explaining the magazine’s policy, which is, and has always been, to choose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover.

This morning, on the Today show, NEWSWEEK Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman further explained the editorial choice. “Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy, outdoorsy woman. And I'm not suggesting it's not authentic, but there is a sense in which she understands that it resonates politically,” Klaidman told Today host Matt Lauer. “There are a lot of people who would see that image and say 'that’s Sarah Palin, that’s why she connects with people, there’s that authenticity.' I don’t think this is an image that is taken out of context, especially when you consider what the point of the story was: to raise these questions about her seriousness."

Watch the video here.

John Thune: Probably Not the Next Big Thing

2009-11-18T15:16:08Z

Perhaps as an antidote to Sarah Palin's media domination over the last two weeks, frequent Palin critic David Brooks offered on Thursday a different presidential contender for 2012: South Dakota Sen. John Thune. And Tuesday, Washington Post political guru Chris Cillizza picked up the tune. "For months—if not years—the Republican/conservative smart set has been looking for a fresh face on which to hang their hopes and dreams," Cillizza wrote. South Dakota Sen. John Thune may be that person."

Wait, really?

Brooks's rather guileless New York Times column doesn't make a compelling argument that Thune has anything new to offer, but simply that he is reliably conservative, affable, and not likely to say anything dumb:

His positions on the issues are unremarkable. He is down-the-line conservative on social, economic and foreign policy matters. What’s notable is the way he talks about the issues and jumps off from them ... He doesn’t have radical plans to cut the federal leviathan. He just wants to restrain the growth of government to bring deficits down. He doesn’t have ambitions to restructure the tax code. He just wants to lift burdens on small business.

Cillizza names Thune his dark-horse pick for the GOP nod in 2012, but he's similarly tepid. Thune's strengths, he writes, are a good core of advisers and a strong fundraising base he built in 2004, when he impressively toppled then-Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle.

Brooks points out that the friendly, pragmatic, and unquestionably conservative mold worked well for Bob McDonnell in Virginia, but as Dan Stone and I have both argued, that defeat was more a statement about voters' concerns in the Old Dominion than it was about the national Republican electorate. As Brooks says, Thune's record is not distinguished. It's hard to find any especially impressive legislation he's sponsored since arriving in the Senate four years ago. His most prominent moment was an eponymous amendment that would have allowed gun owners with concealed-carry permits to move across state lines with guns concealed, regardless of other states' laws. In fact, the amendment failed, although it did have the interesting effects of making Democrats trumpet states' rights and triggering an amusing controversy about violence in Central Park (Thune deployed an outdated idea of the park as a hot spot for violence, and was promptly corrected by New Yorkers).

While Thune's had a solid career in politics, including three terms in the House of Representatives, his biggest accomplishment was knocking off Daschle—a sizable feat, to be sure. But he did it by a hair in a state that voted decisively for Republicans in each of the last three presidential races. It seems a stretch to imagine that Thune could transform himself into the Republicans' man for the job in 2012 unless Barack Obama missteps badly—or steps leftward—enough to lose droves and droves of moderate and independent voters.

On the other hand, Obama's quick ascent shows it's now impossible to dismiss a candidate based on a short track record—although Thune hasn't demonstrated the ambition a young Obama had, and doesn't have the advantage of a political base like Illinois (see also: South Dakotans' lackluster performance in White House runs). And if Democrats continue to focus their fire on figures like Tim Pawlenty, they could overlook a gathering head of steam from out on the prairie.

Official Statement on NEWSWEEK's Sarah Palin Cover

2009-11-17T20:34:07Z

Newsweek, issue dated November 23, 2009

This week, to coincide with the release of Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue, NEWSWEEK's editors decided to print two essays (one by Evan Thomas, the other by Christopher Hitchens) about the former Alaska governor and have her image grace our cover. The photo chosen was from a shoot Palin had participated in for Runner's World magazine.

To note that choosing that particular photograph has ruffled a few feathers is perhaps an understatement. Palin denounced it—and us—to her million-strong Facebook following last night. "The choice of photo for the cover of this week's Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this 'news' magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant," she wrote on her fan page, adding, "The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now." She also told ABC's Barbara Walters that she found the cover "a wee bit degrading." Others, like CBN's David Brody, said our cover was a new low: "biased and sexist at the same time."

Today, NEWSWEEK's Editor Jon Meacham has responded to critics. "We chose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do,” Meacham said. "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."