Hillary Gives A Speech Or This Post Has Nothing To Do With Health Care

Max Fisher at The Atlantic with the round-up

Jeffrey Goldberg:

If you’re trying to figure out why J Street, the left-wing pro-Israel group, came into existence, just take a look at the schedule for this week’s AIPAC conference, at the Washington Convention Center. The list of speakers, apart from the usual suspects (Bibi, Hillary, and the like) includes analysts and advocates from such organizations as the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, CAMERA, and so on — the full range of conservative-leaning think tanks. It is true that the convention includes a few analysts not associated with Republican Party views on the Middle East — Wendy Chamberlin from the Middle East Institute, Brian Katulis from the Center for American Progress — but these two are talking about Pakistan, which is not a core issue of the Middle East conflict

[…]

I am not writing this in order to knock such speakers as Robert Kagan, Andrea Levin, Elliott Abrams,  Dan Senor (who just wrote a great book about Israel)  Bret Stephens, Bill Kristol, and Alan Dershowitz. I agree with much of what many of these people have to say about the Middle East (and it is true that from time to time I myself have been accused of being a bloody-minded neocon!) But the dearth of speakers who approach the most contentious issues of the Middle East from a left-Zionist perspective is noticeable. Most American Jews voted for Obama; most American Jews are liberal; and most American Jews understand the difference between the legitimate security needs of the State of Israel and the theological, political and economic needs of the small minority of Israelis who have settled the West Bank. So would it hurt to bring in speakers from the Meretz Party, from the kibbutz movement, from the New Israel Fund, from the Reform Movement, so that the AIPAC attendees could hear for themselves the views of Zionists who disagree with the policies of Israel’s right-wing parties?

Ben Sarlin at The Daily Beast:

Arriving at AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in one of the toughest months for Israeli-U.S. relations in years, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew just the magic words to win over the audience Monday.

“Our commitment to Israel’s security is rock solid, unwavering, enduring, and forever,” she said, to instant applause and a standing ovation—the second of her speech, and not the last.

Introduced by AIPAC’s executive director, Howard Kohr, who called on the crowd to “set aside the past week and work and pledge to solve problems together,” Clinton’s speech offered a number of reassurances that America’s spat with Israel was far from a full-scale crisis. Among them: a long and detailed condemnation of Iran’s government, citing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial, and 9/11 conspiracy theories.

“The United States is determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons,” she said. Clinton emphasized that Obama’s outreach to Iran would lead to tougher consequences if progress was not made on the nuclear issue.

“We know that the forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States of America,” she said, drawing another standing ovation.

Other red meat: a renewed call for the release of Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas in 2006.

Nevertheless, Clinton did not back down from the administration’s objections to expanded Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the cause of the latest flareup between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“As Israel’s friend, it is our responsibility to give credit when it is due and to tell the truth when it is needed,” Clinton said. She emphasized the point, but her words were received quietly.

Gideon Rachman at Financial Times:

In fact, Hillary got several standing ovations. And this was not at the price of watering down her message. Although she made several reassuring statements about the enduring nature of America’s committment to Israeli security, the secretary of state also reiterated American opposition to further settlements and said that America would push back “unequivocally” when it disagreed with Israeli policy.

It’s difficult to tell whether this really represents a toughening of American policy to Israel. In some sense, all that Hillary, Biden et al are doing is reiterating, a longstanding US position. Yes, the language has got tougher – but that may simply reflect irritation at the crass way the Israelis made their announcement on Jerusalem, while Biden was in town.

Jennifer Rubin at Commentary:

The speech was interesting on several notes. First, the portion of it devoted to the Palestinian conflict dwarfed the discussion on Iran, reflecting — I think — quite clearly where the interests and focus of the administration lie. Second, it appears as though Clinton was stung by accusations against her less-than-resolute defense of the Jewish state so much that this speech was an attempt at personal rehabilitation. Is this her pride speaking or rather a careful maneuver in the interest of her political future? Both, perhaps. Third, there is — as with so much concerning the Obama administration — a chasm between generalities and the administration’s actions and policies. How to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons? No mention of “all options” being on the table. How to achieve peace when Hamas won’t renounce violence? How is being a resolute friend to Israel congruent with bashing Israel in public over an issue that Clinton just said belonged to the final-status stage of negotiations? Those who were uneasy before heard little, in concrete terms, to reassure them. Those worried about Clinton’s reputation in the Jewish community are hoping that this is enough to set things right. But one speech to AIPAC does not a reputation make; it is her acquiescence in Obama’s gambit of distancing the U.S. from Israel that is the nub of the problem and will render her a less than popular figure among pro-Israel Americans

Spencer Ackerman:

Covered her speech here, here, here and here. Caught up with J Street for a response here. I don’t honestly know what I expected, as I wrote this morning. She had a deft moment where she reversed the typical construction on the right for why it’s bad for the U.S. to link the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to its interests in the Middle East by making the meta-point that it’s bad to expose daylight between the U.S. and Israel. Or, in other words, Not in fronna de goyim! Clinton is very cultural comfortable with Jews, and speaks both our dialects and our subtexts with fluency.

She didn’t apologize for the settlements flap, nor did she play it up, which is probably what she needed to do. She did, however, reinforce the point that the inexorability of demography threatens Israel’s future as a democratic Jewish state and makes the status quo unsustainable. And she didn’t get much applause for that, although everything she said about Iran met thunderous real-life-retweeting.

Phyllis Chesler:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just spoke to AIPAC, where 7,500 people had gathered to hear her preach the word. According to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency and the Israel Project, Clinton condemned both the Palestinian “culture of hate” and its “incitement” to murder Jews based on falsified information — and the Israeli “settlement” construction which, she claimed, “undermines America’s unique ability to play a role” in the peace process.

The two are not the same and are not morally equivalent; further, Israel does not exist in order to allow America to claim prowess in taming the Jewish state — even as it fails to confront Iran and jihad in a meaningful way. Indeed, when has America castigated the Palestinians for their grave and terrible “incitement” in the way they have just castigated the Israelis for their “settlement” (or rather apartment unit) construction?

Clinton said that “new construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need.” Ahem. There is only one side that wants negotiation and a two-state solution. That side is Israel. The Palestinians remain divided — and are only united in their refusal to accept a Palestinian state except if that state will occupy space “from the river to the sea,” which would mean the destruction of the only Jewish state.

For the record, Clinton stressed that America was a strong supporter of Israel. She said: “Our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is rock solid. … Guaranteeing Israel’s security is more than a policy position for me. It is a personal commitment that will never waver.” (Hope she means it. Hope she means it more than she “meant it” when she embraced Suha Arafat who had just finished excoriating the Israelis for poisoning the Palestinian women. God I hope she means it so much that Obama will sell the bunker busters, Apache helicopters, and refueling systems to Israel without which Israel cannot defend itself against Iran — alright, will not have the option of confronting Iran on Iranian soil).

Heavens To Betsy

Benjamin Sarlin at Daily Beast:

If you like partisan combat, the New York University/Langone Medical Center in Manhattan was the place to be Monday night. Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York and the leading purveyor of discredited right-wing health-care rumors, squared off against U.S. Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner, a once and future mayoral hopeful who’s called for a complete federal takeover of health care.

The results were as explosive as advertised, bringing the virulence of a summer town hall meeting—complete with heckling, shouts of “liar!” and signs conjuring socialism to one of America’s most liberal zip codes.

Ben Smith at Politico:

Weiner devoted about a third of his opening statement to a frontal assault on McCaughey, who he said represented the worst of the health care debate. As she frowned nearby, and to occasional gasps and shouts of “rude man” from her supporters in the audience, he cited the headline of today’s New Republic takedown: “The Never-Ending Lunacy of Betsy McCaughey” ; he cited her “pants on fire” rating from Politifact; he told her the thick binder she was holding was the “wrong bill” — or at least an out-of-date version of the House bill; he noted that her think tank takes money from PhRMA; and he later said he felt like he was debating a “pyromaniac in a straw man factory.”

He seemed to be echoing the structure of the last such frontal attack on McCaughey: economist Henry Aaron’s appearance on a panel with her at which he ran “through PowerPoint slides that detail–quote by excruciating quote–McCaughey’s reputation as among the most irresponsible, dishonest, and destructive players on the public stage.”

Jason Linkins at HuffPo:

Betsy McCaughey is a famous liar whom the media keep inviting on their programs to continue to lie about health care, instead of banishing her to some wilderness, where she belongs, to lie to woodland creatures. And so, today she ended up on Dylan Ratigan’s Morning Meeting with Representative Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.). There was a brief, mad moment where I thought that this might end well, but it didn’t.

I’m getting used to the tactics McCaughey deploys in situations like this: heavy-duty pretense that she supports health care reform, the Palin-esque answer-a-question-with-an-answer-to-a-question-of-her-liking technique, the ability to quickly provide information and opinion that’s completely beside the point, et cetera. Unfortunately, Ratigan wanted to have a discussion on health care competition and cost containment, and that didn’t dovetail too well with what McCaughey prefers to do in such a debate: set aside all substantive issues so that she can fearmonger about seniors being killed by the government.

McCaughey did her best, though, defaulting to the secondary position of insisting that there wasn’t enough tort reform in the bill. Ratigan was quick to point out that as a cost-containment measure, tort reform would be a spectacularly insignificant one: “Why would you start with tort reform when you have an aniti-trust exemption for insurance companies?” Weiner attempted to inject actual facts, noting that the CBO determined that eliminating 30 percent of all tort claims would yield marginal savings of .04 percent, because most of the states already cap tort claims.

Michelle Cottle at TNR:

A few feet from his maroon-flocked podium sits Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, former fellow with the conservative Hudson Institute, and longtime scourge of health care reform. A constitutional scholar by training, McCaughey (pronounced “McCoy”) blazed to fame in 1994 as the person who drove a stake through the heart of Hillarycare, with a detailed (and, as it turned out, false) takedown of the plan published in this very magazine. Fifteen years later, she has reemerged for an encore, penning op-eds and making the TV and radio rounds to issue apocalyptic warnings about the horrors lurking in the fine print of Obamacare. Pick an inflammatory, misleading rumor that has sprung up in this debate, and chances are McCaughey had a hand in springing it. She has, for instance, warned that a provision buried in the stimulus bill will soon have computers dictating doctors’ treatment of patients based on government protocols. More notably, she sounded the (false) alarm that the White House aims to ration care based on patients’ value to society–an idea that swiftly morphed into the “death panel” hysteria and then quickly became entangled in McCaughey’s equally outrageous claim that the proposed reforms would force seniors into regular chats with their doctors about how to end their lives. That such claims are untrue in no way dims McCaughey’s zeal. Confronted with conflicting information, she plows ahead with her unique interpretation of reality, leaving critics on both the left and the right nonplussed. One’s only options, they say, are to ignore her and hope that she fades away– or to go negative in the hope of discrediting her.

Ezra Klein:

In particular, there’s something sweet about the profile appearing in the New Republic, the magazine which first published McCaughey’s deceptions in 1993 and thus launched her to stardom.

Those of you who are unfamiliar with McCaughey probably aren’t unfamiliar with her many, many lies. In 1994, she published the influential article “No Exit,” which claimed that Clinton’s health-care plan would not allow you to purchase health-care services with your own money. This was debunked in one of the first provisions of the bill, which read, “Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services.” This year, she’s famous for providing the base deceptions that led to the “death panel” nonsense, and for seeding talk radio with the idea that the stimulus bill would put your doctor under the control of the newly-created Office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology. That office turned out to be a George W. Bush creation.

Few deserve to be skewered like McCaughey. In that sense, Cottle’s piece is like “Inglourious Basterds” for the health wonk set. But McCaughey is not now, and arguably never was, the point. She was discredited many years ago. Conservative policy wonks like Stuart Butler and Gail Wilensky are no kinder to her deceptions than liberals like Henry Aaron and James Fallows. No editor in the country has an excuse for being unaware that she is a fraud. Yet she keeps getting published, and promoted, and her lies keep finding their target. Why?

The answer, basically, is that McCaughey is useful. She’s useful to the New York Post and Fox News and Sarah Palin. She’s among the best in the business at the Big Lie: not the dull claim that health-care reform will slightly increase the deficit or trim Medicare Advantage benefits, but the claim that it will result in Death Panels that decide the fate of the elderly, or a new model of medical ethics in which the lives of the old are sacrificed for the good of the young, or a government agency that will review the actions of every doctor. McCaughey isn’t just a liar. She’s an exciting liar.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/betsy-mccaughey-dylan-rat_n_311044.html

How Do You Say “Billie Jean Is Not My Lover” In Farsi?

If you’re a Congressman having an affair with a woodchuck, or taking bribes from said woodchuck, today’s the day to release your statement to the media. But what about Iran?

Benjamin Sarlin in the Daily Beast:

The jokes popped up almost immediately that Mark Sanford was the luckiest guy on Earth after word broke that Michael Jackson had suffered a heart attack. But the notion that Jackson’s death, which preempted virtually all other news coverage on the cable networks last night, is sucking up media attention from other matters carries a dark edge to it as well. National security experts are warning that without sustained attention on Iran, its repressive tactics could grow more deadly in the coming days.

Elizabeth Cermak at Scoop 44:

Now I do not mean to downplay the sadness of this day or of his death, I am a fan and his contributions to the development of music, as well as the music world, is comparable to John Lennon. But people are suffering and dying in Iran, and the turmoil over there is unprecedented over the last 30 years. Don’t you think that it deserves at least a little bit of coverage on CNN, instead of the nonstop coverage it has done of MJ’s death since it was first reported?

Its another sign of how viewer ratings have enslaved the news networks inside of the U.S.

Spencer Ackerman: “But There’s No Evidence That Ahmadinejad Didn’t Murder MJ, Either, So Think About That”

I think we can agree that the Iranian regime benefits from the media rush to memorialize, explore and reflect upon Michael Jackson and his legacy. Cui bono and all that… (Here’s where human-rights liberalism really does collapse its differences with conspiracy-theory-prone neoconservatism. I’m Spencer and I’ll be your host this morning.)

Unreadable Nixters at TPM

AHiddenSaint at Daily Kos:

What got me started in watching Politics is my dad. We used to sit down and talk about each thing. I talked him into watching Countdown as well as my mom. I’m a political junkie so this might be the reason why it is hard to just watch a full days coverage of one story. Again this is not a sweep, but the news has been Cancelled due to Michael Jackson’s death.

Wonkette

Allah Pundit

Find me a post from the other side, please. Not people talking about Jackson’s musical legacy or other legacy, but those who are defending the coverage vis-a-vis Iran. I want to be balanced here.

From Hope To St. Hope

The blogosphere looks into the firing of AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin.

TPM posts, here, here, here, here and here.

Ed Morrissey, here, here and here.

Michelle Malkin:

President Obama promised he would end “Washington games.” But his abrupt firing of the AmeriCorps inspector general is more of the same. The brewing scandal smells like the Beltway cronyism of the Bush years. And the apparent meddling of First Lady Michelle Obama in the matter smacks of the corruption of the Clinton years.

If Obama keeps up with this “change,” we’ll be back to the Watergate era by Christmas.

Byron York in the Washington Examiner, here, here, here and here.

John Hinderaker at Powerline:

Walpin, who by statute is supposed to be independent of White House control, ran afoul of Obama because he investigated a charity operated by former pro basketball player Kevin Johnson, a prominent Obama supporter. The non-profit, St. Hope, received an $850,000 grant from AmeriCorps. Walpin investigated what St. Hope did with the money and concluded that much of it was improperly spent, e.g. to pay recipients to wash Johnson’s car. The result of Walpin’s investigation was that St. Hope agreed to repay half the money it got from AmeriCorps. However, since St. Hope is insolvent, AmeriCorps is unlikely to get its money back. The acting U.S. Attorney in Sacramento declined to criminally prosecute anyone in connection with these events.

Apparently in retaliation for having put the heat on an Obama supporter, the President had Norman Eisen, a Special Counsel to the President, telephone Walpin and demand that he resign within an hour. Walpin, pointing out that he is not a political appointee and does not serve at the President’s pleasure, declined to do so. So Obama fired him. By statute, Obama is required to give Congress 30 days’ written notice of his intention to fire an inspector general and set forth his reasons for doing so. Obama failed to comply with that aspect of the statute, merely saying that Walpin no longer has the President’s “fullest confidence.” That would be sufficient reason to replace a political appointee, but not to fire an inspector general. The Obama administration first denied, but now admits, that the President is firing Walpin because of the St. Hope affair.

Oliver Willis

Moe Lane

As Ed Morrissey noted, believing that this was the White House’s primary motive requires that you believe that the administration’s instinctive, immediate reaction to seeing an employee come down with a debilitating disease is to fire them.  Yes.  That is precisely the thing that one does when one wishes to maintain a reputation for empathy and tolerance.  I can’t say that I have as much difficulty as Michelle Malkin reconciling the allegation of Walpin’s mental diminished capacity with his public appearances (see the video above), mostly because neither I nor Ms. Malkin can take it at all seriously…

UPDATE: John Hinderaker, linking to Greg Sargent

Benjamin Sarlin in the Daily Beast

Mark Hemingway at The Corner

UPDATE #2: Joe Conason in Salon

UPDATE #3: Andy McCarthy at The Corner

UPDATE #4: Zachary Roth in TPM

Ed Morrissey

UPDATE #5: Michelle Malkin, linking to Robert Stacy McCain

UPDATE #6: Ed Morrissey

Jake Tapper at ABC

UPDATE #7: Byron York at Washington Examiner

UPDATE #8: More York

UPDATE #9: Washington Times

UPDATE #10: Washington Times

Robert Stacy McCain

UPDATE #11: Josh Gerstein at Politico

Byron York at Washington Examiner

The Doomsday Machine

Was there a Doomsday plan in the Edwards campaign?

Via Democratic Underground, ABC News says there was. George S. (not spelling out his last name!):

I’ve talked to a lot of former Edwards staffers about this. Up until December of 2007, most on Edwards’ staff didn’t believe rumors about the affair.

But by late December, early January of last year, several people in his inner circle began to think the rumors were true.

Several of them had gotten together and devised a “doomsday” strategy of sorts.

Basically, if it looked like Edwards was going to win the Democratic Party nomination, they were going to sabotage his campaign, several former Edwards’ staffers have told me.

They said they were Democrats first, and if it looked like Edwards was going to become the nominee, they were going to bring down the campaign.

Walter Shapiro in Politics Daily doesn’t buy it:

Okay, it isn’t the Black Sox throwing the 1919 World Series or Soviet agents stealing nuclear secrets from Los Alamos. But the notion of some vast Edwards conspiracy has the makings of the best political novel since “Advise and Consent.” As reality, however, it seems somewhere between implausible and absurd.

“I don’t believe it for a minute,” says Eileen Kotecki, who oversaw Edwards’ fund-raising operations in both the 2004 and 2008 campaigns. “I wish we had been that crafty.” Another top Edwards staffer, who was part of all the key campaign conference calls, fumes, “The whole thing is absolutely nonsense. It’s an insult to all the people who worked their hearts out and believed in this guy.”

Neither does Ed Morrissey:

I don’t doubt that they told Stephanopolous this story, but it rings hollow.  First, did any of them quit the campaign after coming to this conclusion?  If they were really convinced that Edwards had acted unethically and became that disenchanted with him, their first impulse should have been to quit.  This explanation has them continuing to work for a man they now say was too compromised to run as the ticket’s headliner, but doesn’t their own continued presence and support mean either that they didn’t believe that at the time, or that they were just collecting a paycheck and didn’t care?

Neither does Mickey Kaus, the go-to man for all things Edwards.

Benjamin Sarlin in The Daily Beast on how the former staff is not pleased with the current media tour.

UPDATE: Joe Trippi

UPDATE #2: Marc Ambinder

Chez Pazienza at HuffPo.