Friday Mashup (10/2/09)

(And I also posted here.)

This has been in my “in” box for a little while, so I thought I’d better get to it; the following article recently appeared on phillyburbs.com, telling us the following.

(You have to think about the pic for a minute, I know, but trust me – when mentioning Cawley, it fits.)…

Bucks County Commissioner Jim Cawley will start raising cash after the announcement Tuesday afternoon that he is forming an exploratory committee for lieutenant governor.

"I want people to be aware that I am taking this decision very seriously, it's something I am being very thoughtful and reflective about," he said. "And I want to continue to go out and talk to more people across the state about their concerns."

Cawley has already crisscrossed the state as what he called a "surrogate speaker for the statewide judicial team," and specifically Supreme Court candidate Joan Orie Melvin.

Last week Attorney General Tom Corbett announced his candidacy for governor in 2010 and Cawley said he was there. Corbett plans to bring his campaign message to Spring Hill Manor in Ivyland tonight and Cawley said he'll be there as well.

…

This summer Cawley and fellow GOP Commissioner Charley Martin hosted at cocktail party for Corbett at the Temperance House in Newtown and raked in $75,000.

As I’ve said before, I admire the heck out of Joe Hoeffel (the likely Dem PA gubernatorial candidate), but with the state budget problems in this country due to no help from whatsoever from Washington over the last eight years until Obama took over, I cannot see how many incumbent Dem governors (to say nothing of the party itself) won’t end up paying a price for it (considering the “through the looking glass” world of our politics in general). And barring some major flubs and/or odious revelations on the campaign trail (always a possibility), I cannot see how we will avert the coronation of Tom Corbett as PA governor next year (definitely pains me to say that).

So if Jim Gerlach is somehow reading this, he’d better hurry up and lose his party’s nomination so he can compete for the lieutenant governor spot as well, though Cawley, having raised all that dough for Corbett, definitely has a “leg up” at this point.

Personally, in the event of a Corbett win (ugh), I’d love to see him take Cawley along with him to Harrisburg, thus making Charley (“I Have A Semi-Open Mind”) Martin sweat out his re-election prospects just a little more.

And maybe if Cawley goes, I wonder if he could take “independent” Bucks County Commissioner candidate Jay Russell along also (and that would REALLY make things interesting for Martin).

Update 1/7/10: Looks like Gerlach is getting smart for a change (here).

I happened across this item at The New Yorker from the blog of writer George Packer, on the matter of President Obama supposedly running his administration as if he is still campaigning for president (to which I ask, who doesn’t do that anymore?)…

In a campaign, which is a battle for nationwide perceptions, this kind of control is understandable, and it has a better track record than the alternatives (compare the Obama press operation with Hillary Clinton’s or McCain-Palin’s and you have at least one part of the reason for his victory). But government is something entirely different. For policies to work, they have to be explained to the country, not once but again and again, and not just by the President in infrequent speeches but by the senior-level officials who helped establish them and are charged with carrying them out. Otherwise, public confidence can turn to dust in a hurry. Afghanistan is a case in point.

…

My November worry has now become a September alarm. I want the President to succeed in Afghanistan, and I don’t think he’s well-served by a philosophy that treats policy as one more variation on stratcom, and that fears a few slips more than an unexplained war.

“Stratcom,” by the way, is pundit-speak for “strategic communications” and message discipline in general, as noted by Packer.

However, I cannot imagine how Packer can assume that Obama has conducted “infrequent” media appearances. I suppose Packer’s point is that Obama needs to more clearly define the objectives in Afghanistan and line up the generals in accordance with that overall policy, which is well taken. But Packer doesn’t mention Afghanistan until after he makes the “infrequent” claim. If anything, the claim can be made (but not by me) that Obama has made too many appearances, primarily in the urgent matter of health care (among other urgent matters, including the climate crisis).

But this appears to be another case, ultimately (putting aside the pretext of Obama’s supposed “infrequent” appearances), of Packer cheerleading for Afghanistan just as he did for Iraq (noted here).

And he was every bit as wrong then as he is now, by the way.

Finally, this being Friday, I should take note of another print appearance by Christine Flowers. However, I don’t wish to comment on her Daily News screed about Roman Polanski today (red meat for “values voter” simpatico columnists like Flowers, I realize – and I thought this was an interesting development with Flowers’ employer).

Instead, I’ll note her Letter to the Editor that appeared in the New York Times today (have to scroll down a bit...it would seem like a strange venue for her, given her frequent ridicule of the paper, until you realize what it is that she’s whining about)…

The traditional mantra of the pro-choice movement has always been “If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one.” I always felt that to be a simplistic and somewhat arrogant characterization of the moral stance held by most abortion opponents — that abortion is intrinsically evil. But I could live with the idea that not all Americans share that view.

What I can’t accept is the philosophy, expressed in your editorial, that “in a rational system of medical care, there would be virtually no restrictions on financing abortions.”

Mandating that my tax dollars be used to finance someone else’s abortion forces me to underwrite what I consider an immoral act, and also violates my First Amendment rights.

So to paraphrase that other ubiquitous abortion-rights slogan, “My body, my choice,” my response would be “My wallet, my choice.”

Christine Flowers
Philadelphia, Oct. 1, 2009

The Times editorial with which Flowers takes issue points out the following, linked to her letter (the real “takeway” here which Flowers, true to form, misses completely, probably on purpose)…

In an effort to defuse the issue and allow health care reform to proceed, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, have backed a proposal that follows the spirit of the federal restrictions while allowing some leeway for people to choose plans that cover abortion on the exchanges.

This proposal would prohibit the use of federal tax subsidies to pay for almost all abortions. Health plans could provide abortion coverage provided they used only the premium money and co-payments contributed by beneficiaries and kept that money segregated from the subsidy. In every state, there would have to be at least one plan that covers abortions and one that does not.

And I thought the Times made an excellent point here…

This compromise is still far more restrictive than the rules for other tax-subsidy programs. The subsidy for employees’ contributions to their health coverage at work, for example, can be used to buy insurance that covers abortion. Roughly half of the employer-provided policies cover the procedure. Nor are there any restrictions on paying for abortions with the tax-favored health savings accounts so beloved by conservatives.

Ah yes, those “health savings accounts” so favored by the prior ruling cabal (of use to the “pay no price, bear no burden” crowd that constituted Dubya’s beloved base, and practically no one else, as a GAO report noted here).

As the Murdoch Street Journal tells us above, funds in health savings accounts are used primarily as a tax shelter for those who can afford it. And these funds should of course be restricted from use for abortion-related medical services (or does Flowers’ professed concern for the unborn extend only to the limit of her bank account?).

And I’ll go further than that; if an employer makes a contribution to a health savings account for an employee, and those funds are used for an abortion, not only should the employee be criminally liable, but the employer should be also.

Hey, do you care about the unborn or don’t you, Christine? Isn’t abortion “intrinsically evil,” as you put it? And how about the holders of those accounts incurring additional tax penalties for using their HSA for abortion-related services?

“My wallet, my choice,” huh? How about “their wallet (and no one else's) or NO choice”?