November 19, 2009 MEMORANDUM FROM: Michael Hammond RE: The Reid Bill: The Mandates, Public Option, Regulation, Rationing, and Taxes
EDITORS NOTE
Harry Reid’s objective has been to secret the provisions of the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes until he could cram it down Americans’ throats because there was insufficient time to analyze and mobilize against it. To some extent, he has succeeded. I have done what I could, given the need to disseminate this at least a day before the Senate moved to cloture on the motion to proceed. I have therefore focused on the mandates, the public option, regulation, rationing, and taxes.
THE NUMBERS
-Cost:
-Reid’s phony number: $847 billion
-Including $247 billion in costs passed in separate legislation or achieved in phony regulatory fixes: $1.094 trillion
-Including both the $247 billion “doc fix” and $465 billion in phony Medicare cuts which no one believes will be made: $1.569 trillion
-For the first ten years when the bill actually goes into effect: about $2.5 trillion
-Deficit:
-Reid’s phony number: -$127 billion
-Including $247 billion in costs passed in separate legislation or achieved in phony regulatory fixes: +$120 billion
-Including both the $247 billion “doc fix” and the $465 billion in phony Medicare cuts which no one believes will be made: +$585 billion
-Medicare Cuts: $465 billion
-Tax Increases: $376 billion+++
SUMMARY
-This bill would require virtually every American to have –- not just insurance -– but the type of insurance approved by the Obama administration. The cost of this insurance is projected by PriceWaterhouse to be $25,900 for a family policy by 2019. This is dramatically more than the premiums if Congress did nothing, with the only difference beingthat you would be required to pay the inflated premiums, under penalty of fine and, ultimately, imprisonment.
-You would almost certainly not be allowed to keep the insurance and providers you currently have. Virtually all of the 10.2 million seniors on Medicare Advantage would lose care. Virtually all non- unionized employers would find it in their economic interest to dump their employees onto the exchange. States would have a strong economic incentive to dump Medicare recipients onto the exchange. And the individual and employer “grandfather” clauses are full of holes.
SPECIFICS
IMMEDIATE CHANGES: Section 1001 would prohibit giving different types of benefits, based on the ability of employees to afford them and therefore would make it illegal for more highly compensated employees to opt for premium plans (section 1001, as inserted into section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act (hereafter “PHSA”)).
Section 1001 also bans lifetime limits on coverage or annual limits on coverage exceeding statutory limits, thereby outlawing the cheap plans which many young, healthy Americans prefer.
Every customer who does not get a summary of benefits which precisely complies with section 1001 could result in a fine of up to $1,000 per customer.
Section 1001 (section 2717 of the PHSA) requires the HHS Secretary to set “reporting” standards dealing with “health care provider reimbursement structures” which would —
-“improve health outcomes through implementation of activities such as quality reporting, effective case management, care coordination, chronic disease management, and medication and care compliance initiatives…”
“implement activities to prevent hospital re-admissions through a comprehensive program for hospital discharge that includes patient-centered education and counseling, comprehensive discharge planning, and post discharge reinforcement by an appropriate health care professional…”
-“implement activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices, evidence based medicine, and health information technology…”
All of these provisions seem to be a wide-open invitation to regulations implementing health care rationing, in the guise of reporting requirements.
Section 1201 (inserting section 2705 into the PHSA) and 1001 (section 2717(a)(1)(D) and (b) of the PHSA) create wellness programs which allow consideration of behavioral issues in setting premiums and, presumably, determining activities which are so dangerous that coverage might be suspended. The definition of “wellness” includes same very broad issues, including obesity and “lifestyle.” But even these broad categories are not exclusive and do not prohibit, for example, the consideration of firearms ownership. Section 1201 specifically prevents consideration of the health of a person for purposes of setting rates, but, for any other “health status factor,” premiums can vary byup to 30%, which may be increased to 50% under the discretion of the HHS Secretary. A “reward may be in the form of a discount or rebate of a premium or contribution, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism (such as deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance), the absence of a surcharge, or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan.” The“wellness” program qualifies under this section if it “has a reasonable chance of improving the health of … participating individuals.”
The Reid bill (section 2718(b) of the PHSA) requires a rebate if, in any given year, private premiums exceed medical payments by a given percentage.
Under section 2794 of the PHSA, the HHS Secretary would review “unreasonable” insurance premiums and can require insurers to “justif[y]” their rates.
By prohibiting the consideration of preexisting conditions (section 1101) and severely limiting the ability of Americans to buy cheap policies with high deductibles and copayments, the bill insures that the cost of insurance will go through the roof. This is particularly ironic because the ostensible reason for the bill is the escalating health care premiums -– and the effect of the premium increases on small business.
Section 1101 of the bill sets up “high risk pools.” The initial “high risk pools” will supposedly cost $5 billion. But, in an unusual provision, the Secretary is authorized to somehow “make adjustments” “for any fiscal year [in which there are insufficient funds].”
Section 1102 would spend $5 billion on reinsurance for employment-based plans for people who are part of one of those plans and who retire prior to 55 –- a provision which, I’m guessing, was a payoff to labor unions.
Section 1104 gives the HHS Secretary the authority to promulgate broad rules with respect to “electronic standards.” Subsection (b)(2), for example, amends the Social Security Act to require the Secretary to “adopt a single set of operating rules … with the goal of creating as much uniformity in the implementation of the electronic standards as possible.” The same section goes on to require health plans to certify, in writing, “that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable standards…” It goes on to provide that a health plan is not in compliance unless it “demonstrates to the Secretary that the plan conducts the electronic transactions … in a manner that fully complies with the regulations of the Secretary…” Furthermore, anyone who provides services to a provider must comply as well. Again, the section requires health plans to certify to the Secretary “in such form as the Secretary may require, … that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable revised standards and associated operating rules…” The Secretary is authorized to conduct “periodic audits” to insure this is so, and substantial penalties are provided for.
GRANDFATHER CLAUSE: The language of the grandfather clause is interesting: Section 151(a)(1) provides: “Nothing in this Act … shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage…” Not to quibble, but this is different from saying that the grandfathered plan satisfies the mandate. Furthermore, grandfathered plans are exempted from Subtitles A and C, but neither contains the mandate.
Section 1251(d) specifically grandfathers health benefits offered pursuant to collective bargaining agreements.
MANDATED COVERAGE:Subtitle D defines the “qualified health plan” which Americans must have, under penalty of law. It must have “in effect a certification … that such plan meets the criteria for certification described in section 1311(c).” (Section 1311(c) says: “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.”) The mandated plan must also include statutorily mandated benefits [section 1302(a)], including mental health parity, “behavioral health treatment,” preventive care (including gym memberships), and pediatric dental care. And these statutory requirements are not exclusive, and section 1302(b)(4)(G) lays out a variety of generalized considerations which the HHS Secretary would use to set and revise benefits which Americans would be required to payt for. Subsection 1302(c) would limit deductibles and copayments. Subsection 1302(d) would set “levels of coverage,” but the levels would be based wholly on financial issues such as the levels of deductibles. With the exception of a young person under 30 who obtained a hardship certification from the government or who could not buy “affordable” coverage (section 1302(e)), a healthy person could not buy catastrophic coverage, or coverage that forced him to pay for “services” (such as maternity services) that he did not need or want, or coverage that forced him to subsidize persons whose lifestyle choices had made them very sick. ABORTION: Section 1303 sets out the rules for funding abortion. The public option would be required to fund abortions for any abortion which was allowed by the Hyde amendment, as it existed for the six previous months. Thus, if the Hyde amendment were amended to provide abortions in “health of the mother” cases (i.e., abortion-on-demand), the public option would have to provide abortions in those cases without any accounting artifices whatsoever. However, by segregating private and public funds, the HHS Secretary can allow the public option to immediately fund all abortions, including third trimester and partial birth abortions. We have seen, in connection with section 1008 of the Public Health Services Act, that Planned Parenthood is experienced in setting aside one room for abortions and another room in the same building for condoms –- and claiming that the condom money is not being used for abortions. In addition, for the first time in American history, under section 1303(a)(1)(D), the federal government will become a guarantor that abortion coverage is available to everyone in the country. Persons receiving subsidies would be subject to the same phony segregation rules. There is “non-state-and-federal preemption” language in section 1303(b) which is of dubious value. State parental consent laws could not be overturned, but state laws requiring abortion coverage also could not be preempted. Current conscience protection would not be affected, but it is far from clear that it would be extended in the way that would be required to cover the new applications created by this law. Finally, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be explicitly grandfathered. Liberals have argued for some time that failure to provide abortions in cases where other medical services are funded constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex under that statute.
MEDICAID:Would be expanded to cover those earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level.
RATIONING:The central mechanism for rationing medical care among non-Medicare-covered individuals is section 1311(c), which says: “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.” This open-ended grant of authority would allow the Secretary to write into “certified” policies a limitation on benefits in cases where treatment is not regarded as complying with “best practices.” Other sections are even more explicit: Section 1311(g) sets up a “strategy” to save money through, inter alia, “the implementation of activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices.” Finally, there are the $465 billion in Medicare cuts. Although the bill pretends that reductions in benefits and eligibility will be prohibited, it is unrealistic to assume that a Congress which cannot carry through with a 1997 commitment to cut the increase in doctors’ reimbursements by $247 billion will be able to comply with $465 billion in cuts. The result will be “rationing by under pricing.” The chief actuary for Medicare and Medicaid predicts that hospitals and providers will not treat persons at the levels of reimbursement which will result from this bill.
Sections 1321 et seq. provide various mechanisms for state “flexibility,” but, by and large, apply only to states that are willing to throw even more money away than the statute requires.
Section 1331 would give the states “flexibility” to establish basic health programs for low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid because they earn between 133% and 200% of the poverty level. On a related issue, one conservative think tank has found that virtually all 50 states would find it to their financial benefit to dump all of their Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange. Although the CBO has not scored this eventuality, estimates are that it would increase costs of the program by $2 trillion.
Section 1333 is a nod to GOP calls for interstate sales of insurance, but it applies only in accordance with open-ended HHS regulatory authority to limit it and only if licensed in each state.
Section 1401 sets up a “refundable” health tax credit (which means that the government sends a check to people who otherwise have no tax liability). The credit equals “the excess … of the adjusted monthly premium … over 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year.” The applicable percentage is “2.8 percent, increased by the number of percentage points (not greater than 7) which bears the same ratio to 7 percentage points as the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bear to an amount equal to 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.” This is the easy part. The credit, which is supposedly intended for low-income, relatively uneducated Americans, goes on with 26 more pages of special rules and definitions.
Section 1402 reduces copayments, deductibles, etc., for persons earning less than 400% of the poverty level, in accordance with a sliding scale.
Section 1421 et seq. create s “small business tax credit” for employers with fewer than 25 employees. Under these provisions, a small business can supposedly deduct 50% of the exorbitant forced premiums required by this bill. If the average annual wage is over $40,000, the employer could not benefit from this section. If the average annual salary is below $40,000 (and the average cost of a family policy is, as PriceWaterhouse estimates, $25,900 by 2019), this would still mean that the cost of the bill to small employers would be over 1/3 of the employees’ gross pay.
Section 1501 would require virtually everyone in the country to have –- not just insurance –- but government-approved insurance. The statute justifies this by a 1944 case [U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association] holding that “insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.” Of course, the question of whether “insurance” is interstate commerce is different from the question of whether not buying insurance (i.e., not doing anything) is interstate commerce. Furthermore, there is the question of whether a legally forced payment which is used to provide for the health care of others is a tax –- a tax not imposed by Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, but imposed by bureaucrats and private parties — and whether, furthermore, it is a capitation tax not commensurate with the census and not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment. If the individual fails to comply, he will be subject to an IRS-administered fine, which, by 2017, will be $1,500 for a married couple, indexed for inflation ($2,250 for a married couple with a dependent 19 year-old). And, if the individual fails to pay the fine, because, for example, he cannot afford either the premium or the fine without selling his house or his business, he can be sentenced, notwithstanding the Schumer amendment, to up to $250,000 in additional fines and up to five years in prison. There is an exemption for persons who would have to pay in excess of 8% of income for insurance.
Section 1511 et seq. provide for employer responsibilities. Section 1511 provides for automatic enrollment in the case of employers with over 200 employees. Under section 1513, an employer with employees eligible for the exchange who does not provide insurance must pay the “applicable amount,” times the number of employees. The “amount,” laid out in 26 U.S.C. 4980H(b)(2)(B), is up to $600 each for each employee. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the potentially negative impact on jobs, this figure is low enough to make it almost always economically preferable todump employees onto the exchange, rather than paying the spiraling costs of premiums under government-mandated insurance, even given the puny tax benefits which are made available under that section.
TAXES:(1) There is a 40% tax on insurance with premiums over $23,000 ($8,500 for individuals). Because these are not indexed to premium costs -– and because the average premium will soon be in excess of this level -– this is another Alternative Minimum Tax in the making. (2) The increases in small business taxes (for those filing taxes using Schedule C) would cripple jobs creation. The Medicare payroll tax would increase for these earners from 1.45% to 1.95. (3) In addition, there are increased taxes on HSA distributions (section 9004), increased taxes on flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans (section 9005), an annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9008), anannual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9009), an annual fee on health insurance providers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9010), elimination of the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D (section 9012), a tax on the very sick by increasing from 7.5% to 10% of income the level at which you can deduct health care expenses (section 9013), and the bo-tox tax (section 9017). This is in addition to the massive penalties imposed on the uninsured.
I just came from dinner and recognized the voices beside me. It was Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and three other Democrats. I knew the other faces but names escape me.
They were strategizing on how to raise the gas tax. Congressman Blumenauer said he knew a way to get at least 20 Republicans on board a gas tax increase.The place was loud and that’s about all I could make out. They talked about other times when they manages to split us. It was not fun nor easy to hold back.
Over the last few days, speculation concerning Rudy Giuliani’s plans for 2010 has run rampant. I have seen stories variously claiming with certainty that Rudy will run for governor, that he won’t run for governor, that he hasn’t decided whether to run for governor, that he will run for Senate, and that he hasn’t decided anything yet. Provided that Rudy hasn’t already made up his mind and is just being coy with everyone, this poll released today from Marist (.pdf) may perhaps be informing his thinking.
It indicates, among other things, that Rudy would plaster current sitting governor David Paterson. However, Paterson is pretty much a dead man walking at this point, and the general assumption is that Andrew Cuomo will get the D nomination. Against, Cuomo, Rudy currently trails by 10, 53-43. Both men are relatively widely-known quantities in New York, so it’s difficult to imagine a radical shift in either’s favor.
On the other hand, Rudy’s path to the Senate appears substantially easier. First, the Marist poll indicates he would easily win a hypothetical primary against Pataki (71-24), and that he holds a substantial lead (54-40) over Gillibrand. This would seem to indicate that if Rudy enters this race, it would promptly become one of the GOP’s best pickup opportunities in 2010, perhaps better than NV, AR, CT or DE.
In talking to several New Yorkers, most of them would prefer to see Rudy run for the Governor’s mansion, where his talents would be put to a more direct use. However, as a matter of pure political calculus, Rudy can doubtless see where the easiest path back to elective office lies. And if he has designs on a run for 2012 or beyond, the Senate might be the best place for him to mend fences with the portions of the national GOP electorate that cost him the 2008 primary, as well.
Tell your Senator to vote NO on cloture for the motion to proceed to debate.
If the health care legislation goes to debate, Harry Reid will start offering amendments to pick off votes.
Call your Senator right now.Tell them both that a yes vote on cloture is a vote for the health care bill. The Congressional Research Service’s latest study proves that.
Though private fraud gets the bigger headline (think Bernie Madoff), fraud in federal government programs is now so pervasive that even the Obama press is taking notice. The scope of fraud in all federal programs dwarfs the corruption in the private sector the media loves to sensationalize.
Consider the fraud in the Wall Street bailout. Here’s just one example.
This past week, the Inspector General for the TARP $700 billion bailout reported that taxpayers will “almost certainly” lose money on their investments in the “too big to fail” financial institutions. One reason, it’s safe to say, is contained in Neil Barofsky’s revelation that he is conducting 65 separate investigations of possible fraud involving TARP funds.
CIO Customer Service Bulletin – Problem Notification — Assistant Sergeant at Arms; Chief Information Officer
Date: November 20, 2009 Time: 11:30 AM Affected Service: Telephones
Problem/Symptom/Status: We are experiencing a high volume of calls which is having an impact on call transfers and voice mail. We are continuing to monitor the situation. Whenever possible offices are encouraged to retrieve and delete messages from the voice mail system throughout the day and evening.
Affected Location(s): All Master Ticket Opened: No Estimated Time to Restore: Unknown
HOE-HOE-HOE, oh, it’s not Christmas — yet. But Harry Reid is playing the sit-on-my-lap-Santa to lap-dog Senator Mary Landrieu, with a $100 million surprise. (They look so cute.)
Why not buy Senator Landrieu for $100 million, since the United States is electronically creating $1 trillion a year to finance our debt, what’s another $100 million?
When the crash comes, this is will be Exhibit A of how the Democrats do not care about your tax money, how they are greedy and irresponsible with public monies and why they cannot be trusted with their hands on the U.S. currency printing press. They cannot say no. They keep spending and spending and spending and they will never stop.
Aside from the moral and financial implications of this sorid tale — the politics of it make little sense.
(Here is the let me get this straight moment:) giving Mary Landrieu $100 million for Medicaid (the Federal and State funded program to provide health care to the low-income) will help her politically because (please take the multiple choice quiz below):
a) Medicaid voters will have voted against her in the 2010 mid-term election, this will help with that wavering constituency;
b) Medicaid voters make up the independents and moderate Democrats and Republican voters who oppose the health bill;
c) Medicaid voters who left the state after Katrina by the hundreds of thousands, have moved back to Louisiana;
d) None of the above.
And the answer is d), none of the above.
This $100 million is the cover story for her yes vote, and she will no longer be a U.S. Senator, since the demographics of Louisiana have changed so profoundly, and the vast majority of voters who have left are Democrats.
The prayers of her Republican opponent have been answered — she is going to vote YES.
And threats don’t get more direct than this: either AG Holder starts investigating ACORN, or Breitbart dumps what he still hason the scene in time to make a difference in the 2010 elections.
And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.
Italics in original. If this is a bluff… well. Every time somebody thought that Andrew Breitbart has been bluffing on the ACORN scandal, he’s turned out not to be. The latest one has Pattericoalmost gibbering in glee as he rakes the LA Timesand James Rainey over the coals for their uncritical willingness to believe Lavelle Stewart; it doesn’t seem particularly safe to hope that this time is the time that Breitbart’s got nothing left.
AG Holder hasto investigate this. It’s clear that there’s something rotten at the core of ACORN - and while that may be a politically sensitive issue for the administration, that’s the administration’s problem and nobody else’s. The longer this goes on, the worse it’s going to be for the White House when it finally gets faced… and if this becomes an electoral issue in 2010, it willbe faced. If only because a large section of the new Congress successfully campaigned on the promise that they would get to the bottom of this.
Principle over party, Attorney General. Or your party gets hammered. Your call. Speaking as a Republican, I hope that you try to keep stonewalling; speaking as an American(which takes precedence), I suggest that you don’t.
From the diaries, by Erick. Call 202-224-3121 right now.
People. Today should be a busy day since the Statists have once again scheduled a cowardly, nightime, weekend vote on healthcare.
Contact your Senators today urging them to vote ‘No’ tomorrow night to even begin debate. We can kill this thing tomorrow night if they can’t get 60 votes.
I just sent this to Senator Webb in Virginia, who being a veteran who fought for liberty and freedom I hope would still be open minded about this bill.
Senator Webb,
I am writing you to encourage you to vote ‘No’ on the Senate health care coming up for debate tomorrow night.
Vote ‘No’ so debate cannot proceed.
Vote ‘No’ to end debate should debate proceed.
Vote ‘No’ on the bill should it ever come up for a final vote.
You see, this bill is simply un-Constitutional. Nowhere in the founding document does it empower Congress to mandate the free (for now) citizens of this great country to purchase a product or service. Not the Commerce Clause. Not the ‘general welfare’ language. Nothing.
Not.A.Word.
I would encourage you and the junior Senator from our great Commonwealth to look back in time to 2 1/2 weeks ago, where the people of this great state overwhelmingly voted against the leftist policies of the junior Senator when he was Governor, and Gov. Kaine, and President Obama. The people of this country want MORE freedom not less. MORE opportunity not less and this health care bill robs the people who are theengine of this economy their ability and desire and means to produce and grow our economy. People want to be free and independent. You, of all people being a decorated veteran, should know this since you bravely fought for the very freedoms and liberties this bill would take away.
Resist the urge to vote with your leftist colleagues. Vote with the people you represent. Vote to kill this bill.
There is a study out today that is damaging to the Democrats efforts to pass health care in the Senate.
On Saturday, when constituents cannot contact their Senators’ offices because they’ll be closed, the United States Senate will vote on a cloture motion to debate the health care legislation.
This is important — a vote in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed (a parliamentary issue) is, in effect, a vote for the health care legislation. Why? Because Harry Reid has enough votes to pass the health care legislation by a simple majority, but he does not have the 60 votes necessary to proceed to debate, any Senator voting for cloture is voting for the health care plan.
Roll Call reports that according to the Congressional Research Service, “[a] study of Senate voting patterns shows the chamber has approved more than 97 percent of all bills subject to a cloture motion to begin debate — a finding that could undercut Democratic efforts to paint a key health care vote on Saturday as procedural.”
In fact, “since 1999 the Senate has approved 97.6 percent of all bills when lawmakers first voted to begin debate.”
Some Senators, like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, want the health care legislation to pass, but know politically she would lose if she voted for it. So unless pressure is brought to bear on her and others, she may vote “yes” on cloture for the motion to proceed and then try to hide behind a no vote later.
We cannot let that happen. Call your two Senators all day today and demand they vote no on the motion to proceed. The phone number to call is 202-224-3121.
Two stories in this mornings papers clearly demonstrate where the priorities of the Obama administration lie. First, the Washington Times reports that enforcement against illegal aliens in the workplace has dropped dramatically - arrests are down 50% from last year.
Yet the government seems to have the time to conduct raids on guitar manufacturer Gibson over their alleged use of “endangered woods”.
I know that Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC) is not on a lot of people’s Christmas card lists, but this exchange between him and Attorney General Eric Holder was four minutes, forty seconds’ worth of pure schooling.
Not filmed was the bit in the end where Holder was on the floor, looking for his teeth.
The act of terrorism at Fort Hood reminds us all that regardless of what the Obama/Pelosi Team or the elite media call it we are at war with Islamic fascism. Americans must rise up and remind our elected officials, Republican and Democrat, that we will not sit idly by while they bow at the altar of political correctness. Americans must, because President Obama and Nancy Pelosi will not, demand that outrages such as the massacre at Fort Hood be labeled for what they are and treated for what they are—acts of terrorism in the war that radical Islam is waging on the United States.
The emerging facts of the Fort Hood case indicate that Major Hasan is a jihadist bent on killing Americans, particularly American service personnel, in the name of his religion. Reports have indicated that Hasan told colleagues at Walter Reed Hospital that non-Muslims are infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. We know Hesan communicated many times with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who is tied to Al-Qaeda, and repeatedly exclaimed “Allahu Akbar” as he carried out his brutal attacks.
The facts are clear. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, however, remain loathe to identify evil.
On Saturday, when constituents cannot contact their Senators’ offices because they’ll be closed, the United States Senate will vote on a cloture motion to debate the health care legislation.
This is important — a vote in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed (a parliamentary issue) is, in effect, a vote for the health care legislation. Why? Because Harry Reid has enough votes to pass the health care legislation by a simple majority, but he does not have the 60 votes necessary to proceed to debate, any Senator voting for cloture is voting for the health care plan.
Roll Call reports that according to the Congressional Research Service, “[a] study of Senate voting patterns shows the chamber has approved more than 97 percent of all bills subject to a cloture motion to begin debate — a finding that could undercut Democratic efforts to paint a key health care vote on Saturday as procedural.”
In fact, “since 1999 the Senate has approved 97.6 percent of all bills when lawmakers first voted to begin debate.”
Some Senators, like Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, want the health care legislation to pass, but know politically she would lose if she voted for it. So unless pressure is brought to bear on her and others, she may vote “yes” on cloture for the motion to proceed and then try to hide behind a no vote later.
We cannot let that happen. Call your two Senators all day today and demand they vote no on the motion to proceed. The phone number to call is 202-224-3121.
Note: A year or so ago I published a diary of “Frequently Asked Questions” about RedState. Erick’s recent “Dear RedState Reader”post reminded me that I needed to publish this. This is a total re-write and expansion on that original. Numerous new members have asked for an “instruction guide” on how to use RedState. So - here’s a go at it. If you have suggestions, please comment and I’ll try to update.
So, you want to be a part of the RedState community?
Here’s how.
Getting Started:
You have probably already been browsing the site, or “lurking”. You’ll note that Redstate.com is a “community blogging” site, which means that community members can write their own blog entries and interact/comment on the “diaries” created by both front-page contributors and by site members. Now you would like to participate.
Register and join RedState.com
Click the “Sign Up” linkon the home page and you’ll be presented with a page where you can enter your new username and an email address where we can send you your site password. Also you will be given the option to sign up for the various mailing lists that we at RedState use to pass along information about the site and about various key issues that arise periodically. Note: when chosing a user name, don’t use a name of a famous person - we don’t allow impersonations…
Once you click the “Next” link on the first page of the registration process, you’ll get a message verifying your new user name and will be sent a “verification” email that contains a web link for activating your ID.
Open your email, click the link, and your new RedState account will be activated. You’ll also be given a new password. Make a note of this password!
Click the “Log In” link and log in using your new username and password.
Once you’ve logged in, click the “My Profile” link, and then “Edit” to update your profile information. On the Profile page, you can update your password to one that’s more to your liking (unless, of course, you like the one we assigned to you!
Also, under “My Profile”, you can enter information about yourself, such as your email address, personal web site, general info (”Biographical info”), and a “Signature” that will appear at the end of your comments.
You’re now a member of the community!
(Important note:You will not be able to enter any comments or diaries for 24 hours after signing up. This is to discourage “trolling” by those who sign up merely to cause trouble.)
Participate in RedState.com
Of course you’ve already been able to read the content on the RedState site. But how do you get involved in conversations and post your own contributions?
Commenting:
To comment on a diary, simply navigate to the diary and click on the “Leave a comment” link at the end of the diary entry, or go to the bottom of the page and enter your comment in the “Leave a Comment” box. Be sure to enter a title to your comment.
To respond to someone else’s comment, navigate to the comment you’re responding to, and (this is important!) click the “Reply to This” button. If you don’t do this, your comment is “orphaned” and doesn’t appear in the threaded comment string. It still appears, but the rest of the commenters won’t know who you’re replying to.
Sometimes you may just want to enter a brief comment that is just title, with no text in the body. Enter your title text, and then append the characters “(NT)” (or [NT] or -NT-) to the end of the title. That tells the RedState software that there’s “No Text” in your comment, and it won’t bug you to enter a comment body.
To add a signature to your comments, you can update your member Profile and enter information in the Signature field. This field can contain HTML or plain text. Once you’ve updated the Signature field in your profile, that signature text will be automatically added to all of your comments. Don’t get carried away here - excessively long signatures are distracting and are frowned upon by The Management.
To follow comments on the site, many members use the “Tracker”. You can get there by clicking the “Recent Posts” linkthat appears near the top of every RedState page.
Suggestion:Spend some time viewing diaries and comments on RedState before you begin commenting. You’ll get a feel for the behavior of the various site members and the generally acceptable behavior and “manners” that we use. The official site posting rules can be found here. Commenters who jump in and behave inappropriately are generally not received in a friendly manner (an unfortunate truth in Internet-based forums…)
Now that you’re interacting with the community, how do you publish your own diaries?
Diaries
Diaries are blog entries that are available to all RedState members. They are generally intended to share the thoughts and views of the diarist/member. As a general rule, a diary should be non-trivial (more than a couple of sentences) and reflect the opinions of the writer. In other words, don’t use diaries to just post a one- or two-sentence comment, or to just post a “standalone” excerpt to an article or a YouTube video. Add your own two-cents-worth! We are interested in what you think.
A while back, one of the RedState contributors wrote a diary documenting some tips and suggestions on writing diaries on Redstate. You may want to review it for hints on how to write a diary.
To get started:
Click the “Create New Diary Entry” link near the top of the page. You’ll be presented with a page that says “<your username>’s Diary” at the top, with a red-box-surrounded disclaimer stating the basic guidelines for an appropriate diary, as stated above.
Enter the title of your diary under “Title” and the body of your diary in the “Post” field. You can use either the WYSIWYG “Visual” editor, or the HTML editor. You can switch between the two by clicking the Visual or HTML tabs in the Post field.
The Visual Editor contains a number of buttons that can be used to format the appearance of your diary so you don’t have to know HTML. For example, there are buttons for bold or italics text, buttons to add and remove links, and to create lists or blockquotes. If you click the right-most button on the button bar, additional formatting buttons (the “Kitchen Sink”) will appear, and you’ll have additional formatting options.
Enter your diary text. Format it using either HTML in the HTML Editor or with the formatting buttons in the Visual Editor.
One useful feature of diaries is the use of tags to help with classification and searching for diaries. To add tags to your diary, scroll down to the “Tags” field and enter keywords that describe your diary. Separate these tags with commas. Once you’re done entering them, click “Add”
Don’t worry about the categories at the bottom. They’re not used.
Don’t mess with the Advanced Options.
When you’re done, or if you’d like to save your diary as a draft, click the “Save” button.
If you want to go back and edit a previous draft, you have to use a somewhat non-intuitive process. Click on “Create a New Diary” and then click “Manage” at the top of the page. Then click the title of the diary you’d like to update.
From here you can then either save the new version of the draft, publish your diary, or delete your post. Use the options to the right of the post title to do this.
Once you’ve saved your diary, you can preview it by using the “Preview this Post” button.
When you’re ready for your diary to get published for the rest of the Redstate community to see, click the “Publish” button. Once you’ve done this, your diary will appear in your “My Diary” page (http://www.redstate.com/<your username>/ and it will appear on the Redstate front page in the list of “MEMBER DIARIES” You will also see it appear in the Tracker.
A couple of notes about content:
RedState.com is very aggressive about enforcing copyright. We ensure that “fair use” is followed. Don’t include entire articles or other works from other sites or publications unless YOU are the writer or you have explicit permission to reproduce the work.
It’s OK to crosspost from your own personal blog. Be sure to indicate that you’ve done this at the end of your diary entry.
If you want to include a picture, do NOT “hot-link” to someone else’s site without their permission. If you want to use a picture, host it on your own web site or in a photo sharing site like Flickr, Photobucket, etc. Hot-linking eats other folks’ bandwidth and opens you to the possibility that the other user might change the picture out from under you.
To include an embedded video from sites such as YouTube:
Find the “embed code” from the video site. On YouTube, this is found in the grey box on the right side of the YouTube video page in the box marked “Embed”
Highlight the text in the Embed box and click “Edit-Copy” in your browser
Go to the diary you are editing and click the HTML tab
Scroll to the point in your diary where you’d like to place your video, place your cursor there, and click “Edit-Paste” in your browser.
Save your diary and view it with “Preview this Post” to ensure that the video works properly.
So how does a diary go anywhere beyond the RedState “Member Diaries” list?
If Redstate members read your diary and like it, they have the ability to Recommend it. There is a “Recommend This” button that appears at the top of each member diary. Once a member clicks this button, the member’s user name will appear beneath the button, along with the names of other users who have also recommended it. Note that once you recommend a diary, the button turns into an “Unrecommend” button. If you click “Unrecommend”, your name will disappear from the list. Once you’ve Unrecommended a diary, you cannot “re-recommend” it.
If enough members recommend a diary, it will appear in the “RECOMMENDED DIARIES” list on the front page. That’s a good thing! The visibility of a recommended diary is much greater than that of the diaries in the Member Diaries list. Diaries can stay on the Recommended list for several days, but generally disappear from the Member Diaries list within 24 hours. The algorithm for the RECOMMENDED DIARIES list appears tobe something of a national secret, known only to those with a sufficient Redstate security clearance.
The Redstate editors/contributors will occasionally promote diaries that stand out. We try to promote one or two member-written diaries each day. Those that appear on the front page tend to get a lot of attention, especially if they make it to the “Morning Update” email that Erick sends out each day. Promoted user diaries often make the top-10 hit list for the day, which means that hundreds or thousands of Redstate readers are reading them.
Note:Most of the diaries that appear on the front page of RedState.com are written by RedState’s group of front-page contributors. There are 20+ regular contributors - we write stories for RedState in our spare time and are not paid for this. We do it out of our passion for politics, writing, and a desire to make a difference in the political realm. Some of the contributors use their real names, and others (for various reasons)write using pseudonyms. The contributors (and site administrators) can be found on the RedState.com About page. On occasion, front page diaries have been contributed by special guests, such as U.S. Senators, Representatives, and/or other notables.
Some “Frequently Asked Questions”
What is “NT”?
“NT” at the end of a comment title means “my entire comment is in the comment title and I don’t need to put anything in the comment body (”Your Thoughts”). If you don’t put [NT] or (NT) or -NT- (or some other combination that I don’t remember), you’ll get a prompt saying “Error: please type a comment.” when you try to save your comment.
What is “5?? When someone uses “5? as a posting title, or some other derivative, such as “55555? or “5!” or “5**5?, they are ranking the comment/diary as a “5 out of 5?. In the olden days of RedState, it was possible to rank comments and/or diaries, but that capability was removed due to (as I understand it) some abuses that occurred. When someone ranks your diary or comment as a “5?, it’s a compliment.
What does “Blam!” or “G’bye” mean? These are “catch-phrases” used by some of the RedState moderators to indicate that they’ve banned a user. Why are users banned? For many reasons, but primarily because they’ve used excessive foul language, they’ve re-registered after being banned previously, or have been particularly obnoxious or objectionable in how they’ve commented or written diaries. Consult the RedState Posting Rulesfor more information. Please notethat RedState.com is notnecessarily a “free speech zone”. We don’t particularly like leftists trying to cause trouble, so if you’re a Democrat/liberal/lefty who’s trying to come to RedState for “healthy debate”, chances are you won’t be around too long.
What is PULLING A KOWALSKI?(this one’s from kowalski himself…) “Pulling a Kowalski” is an eponymous term and a euphamism for replying to one’s own comment with another comment. I (kowalski) do it because my blogging brain works in a strange, asynchronous manner — thoughts I would rather have placed in their proper order during execution are mysteriously delayed “in flight” while my brain parses them, and arrive out-of-order in the output stream. It is left to you, Dear Reader, to read re-parse all the comments and reassemble them into a coherent thought, if possible. I have to do this myself a lot of the time, alas.
I also do it sometimes because I am of different minds on a given subject, or because part of the subject is tangential to the rest, but that is rarer. Everyone knows I was a leftist before I became a Republican and the resulting schizophrenia is diminishing, but I fear will never be completely dormant. I don’t do it to take up space deliberately or to annoy people, and I’m glad that most around here have found it to be endearing enough to name the practice after me.
What is a “moby”? The word “moby,” as used here, refers to the musician, who in 2004 encouraged the pathetic, tone-deaf trolls who listen to his work to go on conservative boards and be so over-the-top that it would serve to discredit conservatives and Republicans. We now use it for anyone pretending (badly) to be a Republican or conservative, who is instead trolling for no reason we know or care. Once identified, they get tossed.
What is a “troll”? A “troll” is described on the following sites:
Trolls can be rather annoying, but most of them are easy to spot and are usually banned within short order. RedStaters often pay attention to the membership history of posters and commenters…long established members are less likely to be trolls. This is why occasionally a new registrant will be treated somewhat harshly…there is natural suspicion that they’ve registered simply to “troll.” (A member’s longevity can be found by clicking on a user’s name and viewing their profile)
The “concern troll” is a special kind of troll who writes comments or diaries that show “grave concern” about a candidate or policy position on the conservative/GOP. They seldom are trulyconcerned, but are simply masquerading as “one of us” and are trying to stir things up. (On rare occasion, the poster is TRULY concerned and trying to have an honest discussion, so RedState members should be a little graceful in how they handle potential concern trolls)
What is REDHOT? Redhot entries are created by RedState moderators, contributors, Directors and selected members who have brief postings to share, and just wish to throw out little tidbits. They usually cannot be commented upon, although on occasion a moderator will open comments on a particular entry. If the general populace wishes to comment on a Redhot entry, they should start a diary/blog entry and point back to the Redhot entry.
Who are the Contributors, Directors and/or site Founders? There are about 20 or so individuals who are regular front-page contributors to RedState.com. In addition, several folks act as “Directors”. See the About documentfor an up-to-date list of who they are.
I have a question or a beef with RedState - where do I go? Click on the “Contact” linkat the top of the page. You can send Redstate an email, and someone will (may) contact you via email.
One might look at the latest PPP polling datathat shows Roy Blunt down by one point to Robin Carnahan and think “oooh, Roy’s not looking so good”. But a quick peek beneath the results shows otherwise.
Back in January, when PPP first surveyedMissouri voters about a potential Blunt/Carnahan race, the numbers came out 45/44 Carnahan over Blunt. Now? The latest shows Carnahan up 43/42 over Blunt. Of course this is well within the MOE of 3.6%. But consider the environment that exists today in Missouri. The “League of Conservation Voters” has been conducting an extensive ad campaign criticizing Rep. Blunt’s stand against “cap-and-trade” legislation. Blunt has made his opposition to cap-and-trade well-known, pointing out the huge utility bill increases that such a bill would foist upon Missourians and the rest of the country. But despite this effort by the Carnahan-supporting group, Blunt’s numbers have barely budged.
It appears that the negative opinion of Barack Obama’s policies, the Democrat-controlled Congress and the general economic conditions have also impacted the polling data. According to the PPP numbers, Blunt leads Carnahan 44-32% with independent voters. As PPP points out, this is a very similar situation to what occurred in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections. PPP’s numbers also show strong disapproval for Barack Obama’s performance (-9 pts) and a 21-point disapproval gap for PelosiObamaReidCare.
One other positive in this survey for Blunt: the results sampled more Democrats than Republicans by four points, 36-32. As expected, the vast majority of Republicans chose Blunt (82%), and Democrats chose Carnahan (83%). There appears to be no practical reason for PPP to oversample Democrats, as Missouri was a dead-even state in the 2008 election, and there is no reason that should have changed in the past year. So even with the Democrat numbers advantage in the survey, Blunt still remained within a point of Carnahan.
Combine these factors, and this is a positive poll for the Blunt campaign. Robin Carnahan is still AWOL on the issues - we still don’t know Where in the Worldshe is. She continues to evade questions on real issues, such as health care socializationand cap and trade. We can be fairly certain that she’s a card-check supporter, since she received the endorsementof Jimmy Hoffa and the Teamsters. And given the negative opinion Missourians have of Obama’s policies, which Carnahan is bound to support, she has a serious problem.
Once Carnahan comes out of her fetal position and begins engaging on issues, Missouri will discover that she is ever bit as much of a leftist as Barack Obama, and the polling data should begin to swing decisively in Roy Blunt’s direction.
I have a lot of respect for Fred Thompson, and in this particular case I think his point is precisely correct on the merits, but there are just some things that opponents of the President shouldn’t say during wartime, and maybe it’s just bad phrasing or just being provocative, but this is one of them:
“It really doesn’t matter how President Obama divides the Afghan baby, how he splits the difference between McChrystal and Biden. Because the war has been lost,” Thompson said on his radio show today. “I say this because of one sad and simple fact. The president does not have the will and determination to do what’s necessary to win it. His heart’s not in it, and never has been. The Taliban knows it. Al Qaeda knows it. Our allies know it. And the American people know it.
“Our enemies are now emboldened and our friends are discouraged. We cannot prevail if the American people are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for an extended effort. The case has not been made to them to justify this effort. The case can only be made by the president. This president is unable or unwilling to make that case,” Thompson said…..
“Take your time, Mr. President,” Thompson said. Unless you have a total change of heart and mind, it really doesn’t make any difference.”
Wars are occasionally won and lost by the complete eradication of one side’s abilityto make war. But especially when the war involves a superpower fighting an insurgency, the more usual end - as Fred notes - is when one side loses the will to continue. He’s absolutely right that the United States willlose the war in Afghanistan if it’s not prosecuted by someone who believes in winning it. And there is reason to suspect that Obama, with his talk of “exit ramps,” may be drifting in that direction. It’s not unreasonable to accuse him of being in that place already. The Spectator, over in the UK, observes that Obama’s delay and disinterest in British input doesn’t exactly encourage the Brits to think their help is wanted:
The Afghan issue has made clear the astonishing disregard with which Mr Obama treats Britain . As he decides how many more troops to send to Afghanistan - a decision which will fundamentally affect the scope of the mission - Britain is reduced to taking a guess. The White House does not even pretend to portray this as a joint decision. It is a diplomatic cold-shouldering that stands in contrast not just to the Blair-Bush era, but to the togetherness of the soldiers on the ground.
But while all of that is well and good, we all know that the United States is capable of pursuing this war to the end if it only has the will to do so - and speaking in the past tense of us having already been defeated doesn’t help that cause, even with the “unless you change” disclaimer at the end. That was true when Harry Reid prematurely and erroneously characterized the Iraq War as lost, and it’s true today, because it allows writers like Ben Smith to paint the GOP criticism of Obama’s weakness and vacillation as somehow equivalent to what Reid did:
Thompson’s words seem to lay the groundwork for Republican opposition to further American engagement in Afghanistan, cast here as halfhearted.
I’m quite sure that’s not how Fred meant it, nor is it likely to be a widespread view on the Right. Republicans want America to win the war in Afghanistan, and to see the things done that are necessary to make that happen. We ought to be careful not to give the opposite impression.
Apparently, “any measurement” doesn’t include the unemployment rate, job growth, number of jobs, wage growth, hours worked, home foreclosures, rate of mortgage delinquencies, etc.
Which leads to the next question: what does‘any measurement’ include? Surely there’s somethingthat qualifies: for example, I imagine that segment of the sex worker industry that handles corporate lobbyists and union leadership cadres have been enjoying the recent influx of stimulus money. That’s good, right?
Feel free to come up with your own possible examples in comments. If you can’t, well: open thread.
The act of terrorism at Fort Hood reminds us all that regardless of what the Obama/Pelosi Team or the elite media call it we are at war with Islamic fascism. Americans must rise up and remind our elected officials, Republican and Democrat, that we will not sit idly by while they bow at the altar of political correctness. Americans must, because President Obama and Nancy Pelosi will not, demand that outrages such as the massacre at Fort Hood be labeled for what they are and treated for what they are—acts of terrorism in the war that radical Islam is waging on the United States.
The emerging facts of the Fort Hood case indicate that Major Hasan is a jihadist bent on killing Americans, particularly American service personnel, in the name of his religion. Reports have indicated that Hasan told colleagues at Walter Reed Hospital that non-Muslims are infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. We know Hesan communicated many times with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki who is tied to Al-Qaeda, and repeatedly exclaimed “Allahu Akbar” as he carried out his brutal attacks.
The facts are clear. President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, however, remain loathe to identify evil. Instead, President Obama stated that, “We don’t know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.” This denial of domestic terrorism stands in stark contrast to President Obama’s denunciation of an American police officer when he said, “not having been there and not seeing all the facts…the police acted stupidly.”
The mainstream media has denied the obvious to maintain their anti-war, blame-America-first agenda as well.
The initial reports of the terrorist act on NBC, CBS and in the LA Times all omitted the fact that Hasan is a Muslim.
Bob Schieffer of CBS said that, “Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts too.”
CNN anchor Betty Nguyen asked, “Are the Ft. Hood shootings the action of someone who might have suffered from PTSD?”
Pete Williams said on NBC that, “everything about his background is rock solid, and nothing extraordinary stands out about his background.”
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano vowed to use her agency to “prevent everybody being painted with a broad brush.”
These people and others like them who willfully ignore the obvious terrorist motive of Major Hasan, solidify in the minds of the American people that they have become either too gutless, too liberal, too arrogant, or all of the above, to stand up for Americans against all enemies foreign and domestic.
These, of course, are the same people who have given us TARP, stimulus, a budget resolution with a trillion dollar deficit, Cash for Clunkers, and a health care bill that will wreck whatever functioning economy we have left. Americans, if they did not know better, might think that our leaders are actually working against us.
However, Americans are beginning to let the status quo and its defenders know that they have had enough. The recent gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey were to differing degrees referenda on the Obama/Pelosi agenda.
Voters in VA and NJ rejected the tax and spend programs of the incumbents or their parties. The voters in NY-23, moreover, rejected the oligarchic arrogance of Republican leadership by driving from the race their hand-picked pro-abortion and Acorn-endorsed Republican in favor of an independent conservative who nearly won after only a three week campaign. The message: no more business as usual.
The electoral uprising coupled with the absolute implosion of the mainstream media audience shines a ray of hope on an otherwise bleak landscape. Americans will no longer be treated as children who need the instruction and discipline of their intellectual and moral superiors. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, the Congress, and the media better wake up soon or they soon will have all of the facts that they need – next election day.
Rep. Jeff Duncan is Chairman of the South Carolina House Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environmental Affairs Committee. He is a life-time member of the NRA, and holds an A+ rating from the South Carolina Club for Growth. He is currently running for United States Congress in South Carolina’s Third Congressional District. www.JeffDuncan.com
Today there is a great post up on The Conservatives by our own Brian Faughnan displaying the absolute lack of compassion and downright cruelty of Barack Obamaand his Administration.
The process will get more difficult for those who lost loved ones: Mohammed will attack and denigrate the victims. He will express pride in what he has done. Jihadists around the world will pay him tribute. The foreign and domestic press will dissect every step of the process. And in Manhattan, security will mount, and the alert level will rise, and NewYorkers will undoubtedly read that our intelligence agencies are facing more and more credible threats against the City. This will go on for years.
Even if Mohammed is eventually convicted and executed - by no means a slam dunk - could that result possibly be worth the pain?
What sort of man could fail to take into account the pain he is likely to causefor the 9/11 families, and for the people of New York?
Brian goes on to list a few bits of evidence as to what sort of man could do such a thing. Earlier today I came across another article that provided further evidence. While being greeted by our military members on Osan Air Base in South Korea the President quipped:
You guys make a pretty good photo op
This President can’t bring himself to actually perform the duties required of him by being the Commander in Chief and make a decision on troops levels and strategy in Afghanistan. Yet he can find time to bow to foreign leaders and use the troops for self proclaimed props. The level of hubris the President and his Administration have displayed is simply disgusting.
To me the answer to Brian’s question is easy to see. Obama is the sort of man who looks at everyone else as either an obstacle or a pawn. He will attempt to use the pawns to take down the obstacles. The troops aren’t people, they’re tools. The victims of 9/11 aren’t victims, they’re the perpetrators of a great injustice. Obama displays in his character the nonchalant hubris of your average dictator.
It is amazing how far we have traveled in such a short period of time. While I didn’t agree with every decision that was made in the Bush Administration, I could count in President Bush and his Administration to have a proper level of respect for the troops and humility in the offices they held.
Recently, under the cover of secrecy, President Bush went and saw the troops at Ft. Hood. He didn’t bring an entourage or a fawning press corps. He brought his wife and his deep seated respect for our military.
