Over at the Reclusive Leftist Violet notes the banality of the media’s Joe Wilson obsession:

Almost 24 hours later, that’s still the picture. Look at this snapshot of Memeorandum from 6:40 pm today. The top nineteen stories are about the shouting Congressman. Nineteen. Then there are a few stories about the speech itself — waaaay down the page — and then it’s on to John Stossel.

Personally I figure it’s because they don’t want to cover the Acorn stories, but that isn’t what really gets Violet upset this is:

By the way: my favorite part of the speech? The part where Obama lumped in abortions with death panels and illegal aliens and other crazy-ass shit his healthcare plan would never pay for.

No Violet is vehemently pro-abortion and uses a term “Godbags” that I frankly don’t care for, but she is a honest and honorable person of the left for all that. She saw though this president months ago and as a person of the left saw betrayal coming.

I think however when it comes to abortion her fear is misplaced and any optimism is not warranted on our part so I left the following comment on her blog:

Violet I wouldn’t get all worked up about the abortion statement.

As a person vehemently opposed to abortion I can assure you that when he said that he was lying through his teeth and no serious person opposed to abortion believes a word of it.

So trust me, although we both know that this president doesn’t do honesty too well abortion would be a bridge too far for most of his acolytes.

And if it turns out I’m wrong then that wouldn’t signal a change on the left concerning abortion (although I’d like it to be) it would signal that support for President Obama has officially morphed into a religion, and that would be the worst development yet.

You know I really wonder if the Obamacult is strong enough to overcome almost any actual position. You never know.

BTW I can’t take credit for the tag “obamacult” on wordpress, that honor goes to the lefty blog semidi who used it twice last year. The Hillary people saw this first and recognized it for what it was.

One last thing about the death panel stuff.

If you wonder why pro life people, particularly the Catholic Church keep fighting when all this stuff goes on it’s because they have seen the culture of life degenerate since Roe v. Wade. They have seen assisted suicide and euthanasia in the western world. The see the Capewell case and they understand what the fight is all about.

They understand in the great tradition of Margaret Sanger the death panel isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. And once there are guidelines are in place people who would normally be considered good and moral people will embrace those features and say they were just following guidelines or didn’t want to rock the boat. Just as otherwise good people and good neighbors embraced slavery and Jim Crow without giving it a second thought or if they had those thoughts kept them to themselves. The change will be gradual, it will be a gentle slope:

You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report great wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one-— the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.

If this passes I predict that in ten years we will be told that our instance of the preservation of life and the treatment of the elderly will be called “unreasonable” and the argument of “quality of life” and “economy” and “guidelines” will be used as an excuse to end life.

It’s not a bug it’s a feature

On Morning Joe it is all Joe Wilson all the time. Tina Brown made the point that in England due to question time they can deal with this type of thing.

Meanwhile the Acorn Baltimore bit doesn’t even rate a crawl at the bottom of the page even though it broke after the show ended yesterday.

And of course “She who must not be named or quoted” is being obliquely insulted as they keep talking about “death panels debunked” and not answering “lies and distortions”.

The Capewell family still can’t be reached for comment on if this is a “debunked distortion”.

There is a bubble and MSNBC is in it and they are in it by design.

Joe is now hitting Tim Paulenty on Death Panels and Paulenty won’t back away it and Barnicle is now hitting him on it.

President Obama speech was made for political reasons to help get some kind of bill passed that his name can be on. This is a short term strategy and it may pay short term dividends. It did however have a long term cost and that cost was to put himself in a box.

He put three things out there as Sine Qua Non.

It will not increase the deficit

It will not cover illegal immigrants

It will not cover abortion

Now if he had casually mentioned this in a town hall and then dropped it that would be one thing, but this was said to a joint session of congress broadcast to a national audience live.

These are markers that can be used against the bill and/or the president, and as Byron York already notes it has resulted in a change of language:

on August 10, at a town hall meeting, Obama referred to the “46, 47 million people without health insurance in our country…” And on July 23, he said, “This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don’t have any health insurance at all…”

What’s the difference? Obama appears to be choosing his words carefully. There is a difference between Americans who “cannot get coverage” and Americans who “don’t have any health insurance at all.” The interesting question is why Obama has chosen to downgrade the number from 47 million to 30 million. Look for Democrats to begin using the new figure in making the case for Obamacare.

Legal Insurrection is having none of it:

Technically, Obama was correct that his plan does not cover illegal aliens because Obama has no plan that has been released, only concepts. So if Obama says his plan doesn’t cover illegals, then by definition it does not cover illegals — at least until we see the language in his plan. Similarly, the Senate HELP Committee bill defines an “eligible individual” in numerous places throughout the bill to include only citizens and legal residents (including for the public option, at page 111 of the bill).

So using the two measures, the non-existent Obama bill and the draft Senate HELP Committee bill which was not a full Senate proposal, Obama was correct.

But if the standard is the full House Bill, HR3200, then it appears that Obama was incorrect. There is nothing in HR3200 that excludes illegal aliens from the various coverage provisions (with a few limited exceptions). The Congressional Research Service agrees with this assessment (full report embedded below).

Wilson may have apologized but he might have the last laugh, if the bill covers illegals, then that clip of “liar” will become prophetic.

On abortion If you don’t think that guys like the American Papist are going to all over him concerning then you are in a dream world, as Gateway Pundit has already reported the National Right to Life Committee has already called him on it.

As for the deficit even the AP isn’t buying that. Cripes even Lawrence O’Donnell didn’t buy it.

Believe me if a bill passes with any of these things the commercials for 2010 and 2012 are now made and ready.

Ok before we say what the president’s speech was, lets talk about what it was not.

It was NOT an attempt to persuade the American people. I suspect they tuned out in droves, with 100 channels out there and Fox putting out regular programing, and plenty of baseball out there, not to mention millions of TV’s across the land devoted to day one of Beatles Rock Band I suspect only the junkies like me were watching.

It was NOT an attempt to bring Republicans on board, republicans in the house and senate are not only able to count votes in congress but can count votes in their districts and they know that their seats depend on their opposition to this bill.

This speech had one purpose, it was designed to give the democrats that Jane Hamsher might target cover to support some kind of plan, any plan to make sure he can say he passed “health care reform”. That is also the purpose of this CNN poll. I suspect they will push these results:

What was your overall reaction to President Obama’s speech tonight – very positive, somewhat
positive, somewhat negative or very negative?

Sept. 9, 2009
Very positive 56%
Somewhat positive 21%
Somewhat negative 12%
Very negative 9%
Both/mixed (vol.) 2%
No opinion 1%

Without emphasizing this polling sample:

18% of the respondents who participated in tonight’s survey
identified themselves as Republicans, 45% identified themselves
as Democrats, and 37% identified themselves as Independents.

Soooo less than 1 in 5 polled were republicans and almost 1 in 2 who were polled were democrats.

The president’s emphasizes were specifically aimed toward blue dogs, no additional costs, no illegal immigrants, no abortion. These promises were made to give those blue dogs cover.

I wouldn’t bet the farm on it from the reaction such as this:

I don’t know how others will read this, but I was looking for something to show the President understood his credibility with Democrats has been badly damaged by precisely this kind of ambiguity. The fact that he continues this mode means he and those around him don’t get it or they don’t think it matters.

The next week will tell.

Update: The Anchoress proves me right in spades.

Tepid political theater is no match for a good ballgame. And if I have a choice between looking at Nancy Pelosi or looking at Derek Jeter, who do you think I’m going to choose?

and she saw history being made.

BTW that represents hits as a Yankee. Wade Boggs, Rickey Henderson, Dave Winfield and Paul Warner are all members of the 3000 hit club and former Yankees. If Jeter gets to 3000 hits he will be the first person to get 3000 hits in a Yankee uniform.

Update 2:
Hot air headlines notices the poll sample

“She who must not be quoted” answers:

In his speech the President directly responded to concerns I’ve raised about unelected bureaucrats being given power to make decisions affecting life or death health care matters. He called these concerns “bogus,” “irresponsible,” and “a lie” — so much for civility. After all the name-calling, though, what he did not do is respond to the arguments we’ve made, arguments even some of his own supporters have agreed have merit.

In fact, after promising to “make sure that no government bureaucrat …. gets between you and the health care you need,” the President repeated his call for an Independent Medicare Advisory Council — an unelected, largely unaccountable group of bureaucrats charged with containing Medicare costs. He did not disavow his own statement that such a group, working outside of “normal political channels,” should guide decisions regarding that “huge driver of cost … the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives….” He did not disavow the statements of his health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, and continuing to pay his salary with taxpayer dollars proves a commitment to his beliefs. The President can keep making unsupported assertions, but until he directly responds to the arguments I’ve made, I’m going to call him out too.

This should be interesting

…even that famous bi partisan Lawrence O’Donnell says it is bogus, just the Baucus plan.

He is talking about the meat not the politics of it. Apparently he worked on this issue extensively when he was a senate staffer and he sees holes you can drive a truck through.

I guess congressman Wilson was indecorous but correct.

Marc Ambinder says this:

So here’s a challenge to the media: if you want to do justice to conservative ideas and find some balance in your coverage tomorrow, book serious Republicans with original ideas on your programs. If you don’t, Palin is giving herself a voice at your expense and through little effort of her own.

He claims that Sarah Palin doesn’t have expertise in that area so she shouldn’t be quoted. As President Obama only had expertise in community organizing and Mr. Ambinder hasn’t declared him too experienced to talk on national health care, this can’t be true.

Therefore I must assume he actually means this:

Please please please don’t report on her! I know she is the most popular republican with their base and I know that she makes news and brings ratings, but we don’t want to risk engaging her and making fun of her isn’t working so please keep her from as many eyeballs as possible, because if they read her themselves they might discover that she is not the nut that we want to people to believe that she is.

You had Mika on board this morning but that’s not going to be enough.

As was said last month, if she was as irrelevant and as unserious as claimed she is they would have ignored her from the start.

I guess since the left has such a fear of her maybe if they just avoid the name they can manage not to wet their pants. Might I suggest they refer to her as “She who must not be quoted”.

If nothing else you can save on the depends.

Update: Riehl shakes his head in disbelief.

Update 2: The White House releases talking points specifically directed toward “She who must not be quoted!“, Sarah Palin counter-punches.

…in this article at the London Times concerning the healthcare debate:

Nonetheless, I remain convinced Obama will win this fight. Not totally; not without political cost; but win it he shall. And the strategy is really very simple. The most popular elements of the bill will be kept in and the most contentious left out.

The fundamental issue of costs will be deferred. A bill that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing illnesses; that creates healthcare exchanges, where people can buy their own insurance policy subsidised by the government; that brings agreed price reductions by the drug companies in return for all these new, previously uninsured clients: this will pass and be popular. How could it not? The option of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private ones will be either dispensed with or held in reserve. If, after a few years, health costs keep soaring and the private companies have not mended their free-spending ways, it could be brought back.

Obama has a solid majority and can achieve all this with Democratic votes alone. So why is he in such trouble? Partly it is that this kind of reform rightly stirs scepticism, and Obama has allowed a hapless and divided Congress to take the lead, muddying the message. Partly it is that the hard right is becoming more and more extreme and its fears have eclipsed the hopes of Obama’s supporters. But the most critical part, in my view, is the public understanding that after two massive bank bailouts and a vast stimulus package, with two still-intractable wars, the US cannot afford even the modest 10-year trilliondollar package Obama is proposing. And Obama’s inability to cut spending while the economy is so fragile means he is constrained from offering fiscal reassurance.

Not a bad bit of analysis on his part Bill Jacobson takes a look at it and says:

Well, yeah, if Obama drops the public plan and mandates he can get some measure of health insurance reform because most people want health insurance reforms without junking the whole system. New national and regional markets for insurance helping create the conditions for individual insurance empowerment. That is a plan that can pass.

It’s called the Republican plan, and it is as available now to Obama as it was six months ago. All Obama has to do is just say yes.

What I find interesting is his use of the word at the start “euthanasia” rather than the word “death panel” in his introduction:

The summer has been crammed with YouTube clips and television news reports featuring the angrier members of the Republican right railing against Barack Obama’s plans to inflict euthanasia on their grandmothers, abort their children and put them in concentration camps.

It is a word used very carefully and in my opinion deliberately. Euthanasia has a specific meaning and people in England know it. If he had used the word “death panels” I suspect he knows that the people of England would recognize and understand what that means. Sarah Capewell sure would.

a totally different thing altogether:

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child’s ‘best interests’.

The guidelines said: ‘If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.’

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

Well it’s not like hospital workers would refuse treatment to a live baby when his mother is begging for it, oh wait:

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit…

…She told how she begged one paediatrician, ‘You have got to help’, only for the man to respond: ‘No we don’t.’

Jayden Capewell  Born & Died Oct. 3, 2008
Jayden Capewell Born & Died Oct. 3, 2008

I found this story in the Corner, my son and I are both a bit shocked over it, him more than me because he is 18 and still innocent enough to not understand how a doctor can look at this baby and decide to let him die without any effort. It would seem contrary to human nature, I think the opposite, it is very human to duck responsibility whenever possible.

I have a message for the “death panel deniers” who don’t want to read editorials that use those words. You may not believe that they will exist, but let me tell you Jayden Capewell damn well believes in them.

I’m going to go all Catholic on you for a sec; it’s not the soul of Jayden that needs prayers, it’s the doctors and staff that let him die, they’re the people who you need to pray for.

Update: it’s just below the headline on Drudge. This is going to make for a fun day on Rush and on the talk shows tonight.

Update 2: Now in the green room, it will progress from there to the main page and I predict to Rush before the day is done and then to Fox.

Update 3: Don Surber has more examples while Darren Hutchinson calls it a conspiracy theory and equates it with Birtherism. Tell that to the Capewell family.