It’s safe to admit it, now: Obamacare, in any meaningful sense of the term, is dead. There’s not going to be a public option, and the House Bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. It’s safe now to start performing the autopsy of the “public” “option” and other statist schemes. They aren’t zombies; they aren’t being buried alive. They’re dead. The American people have rejected them.
Why?
We already know that Obamacare was handled abysmally from a political standpoint. From the beginning, the president punted by sending the mission of crafting a bill off to the wildly divided Democratic caucus — and then was stunningly silent when it could not come to a clear consensus. The president then proceeded to stupidly squander almost all of his political capital by refusing to fight for any particular aspect to be included in the bill. Do we know, to this day, whether he wanted a public option?
He furthermore did not reply effectively to his critics, from Sarah Palin on down. For all of Obama’s ubiquitous presence, he has been bizarrely absent from the health care debate. What does the president actually stand for beyond “reform”? We’ve truly taken the spouter of platitudes off of the campaign trail and stuck him in the White House.
But yet, half-baked ideas have gotten through Congress before, especially in times of one-party rule. Does anyone really need a recap of the Delay-Frist years?
So what went wrong? The country handed Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress a mandate for top-to-bottom reform. The polls are unequivocal in expressing the dissatisfaction by the public with the current state of the health care system. With such a sweeping mandate, it is truly astounding that a progressive Democrat president and a Congress headed by the representative from San Francisco and a sycophant like Harry Reid could not cobble together enough votes to pass any meaningful changes to our health care system. And at this point, it looks like nothing will come of this. (At worst, we may end up with state-sponsored co-op systems. In other words: don’t head for the hills just yet.) All in all, this has been, against all odds, a resounding victory for conservatives and for free enterprise. The health care ball has once again been kicked down the road.
Why has the entire West adopted a socialist-style system while America has refused to jump on board? Why won’t, ask the progressives, America join the rest of the civilized world and start giving out free state-organized health insurance to all of its citizens?
The simple answer is that America is unique among the West. Just as writers of the time erroneously conflated the French Revolution with the American Revolution, contemporary progressives think that America can simply be lumped in with the rest of the West, as if their histories were essentially a shared one.
It’s not. The quick, simplified version is this: America was the first modern republic, and for almost two hundred years, it was the only successful one. We think of Germany, France, and Spain as obvious democratic allies today, but their histories show us nothing of the sort. They are not rooted in the democratic tradition. France, for hundreds of years, was as unstable as Syria in the 1900’s, while Germany was a hotbed of utter craziness until we pacified them after World War 2. Spain has only been democratic for thirty-some years. Only America, since the beginning, has been rooted in a tradition of individualism, republicanism, and free enterprise.
The human condition is mostly a collectivist, nationalist one; this is what unthinking men are naturally led to. America has a specific intellectual tradition that is unique to it because it is so new and was not tied to these prejudices. It was founded on the traditional concepts of British liberty, but evolved from there in its own way. But most importantly, it was founded upon these ideas qua ideas — as we expanded as a country, we integrated others based not on nationality or history, but on the abstract concepts of self-reliance, individual merit, and free enterprise. We emphasized the ‘liberty’ part, rather than the ‘British’ part. An American was defined not by his lineage of blood, but by his adopted, self-selected lineage of thought. This is why people can choose to be Americans in ways that they cannot choose to be French or German. This is truly a uniquely American conception that we simply do not appreciate sometimes, much like the fish who asks: “What water?”
These ideas evolved and are part of our national consciousness in a way that they simply have not in other Western cultures, the unity of which are still rooted in a sense of nationalism. American patriotism, on the other hand, is defined by our adherence to these ideas, rather than how we share a plot of land or similar bloodlines. Those ideas are not infinitely malleable; when we move forward as Americans, it is only by working within the framework of these concepts.
Much as the multiculturalists, cultural relativists, and blame-America-firsters have tried, they have not yet succeeded in killing that uniquely American spark of individualism. It is ingrained in the American culture: we just don’t want the government telling us how to live our lives. If snuck in through the back door, if held up to us in the name of helping our neighbors, we might allow it to pass. But to so blatantly advocate, in such precarious times, with such crushing debt, a takeover of such a crucial part of our industry — and moreover, an industry that has truly set us apart as a country — is too much for the American people to handle. And the vital center, that cultural thermometer, burst. The plan fell through, and the last to get on board with Obama — blue-collar workers, the elderly (truly, the preservers of our culture at its most fundamental level) — have been the first to get off.
Republicans didn’t kill Obamacare. The American tradition did. It ain’t dead yet.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
November 13th, 2009 at 6:44 am
Alex, no one wants Obamacare dead any more than I do,and I share your belief in the American culture. However,I’m less optimistic about Obamacare being dead at this point in time. Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress have a clear socialist agenda, they have control of our government, and they believe that they can dictate what they believe the American people should want. As wrong-minded and anti-American (as in culture, tradition, Constitution, freedom, etc.) as their agenda is, they are dead-set on taking us down the road of statism, at the very least, and Stalinism if we fail to stop them.
In other words, I haven’t yet heard the fat lady sing on Obamacare, and fear that the fight isn’t yet over. I do have faith in the American people but have no faith any voluntary restraint by the Democrats’ in their pursuit of power and “dramatically transforming America” into statism. There’s still much work to be done and the American people need to make their voices louder so that the tradition you speak of can in fact be preserved.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:17 am
Obama has so much stimulus money to throw around. I wonder if he could entice senators with that.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:12 am
I have to agree with Richard, as much I would like to see this healthcare bill killed, declaring it dead at this point is extremely premature. The Fat Lady not only hasn’t sung on thgis one, she hasn’t even warmed up yet. Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the gang are determined to ram this through reagrdless of the feeling of the American people or the long term consequences.
We conservatives still have a lot of work to do to stop this liberal trainwreck.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Sorry, but I’m not ready to declare the burial of DemHealth a “shovel-ready project.”
I think we’re just a slight nudge away from reviving the patient and pushing his gurney through the Senate. Although he may still undergo substantial cosmetic surgery. See #2 above.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:57 am
Supposedly, Nancy didn’t have the votes. Now Harry doesn’t. We’ll see. It’s not dead yet.
November 13th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Never underestimate the power of some weasel Repubs in the Senate to snatch defeat from victory.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I won’t feel like this debate is over until around Easter next year. If a bill still hasn’t made it through the Senate by then, I’ll join you in a victory lap. By the time Easter rolls around, politicians will be so engrossed in their primary and general election campaigns that nothing meaningful is going to happen.
The path forward for Democrats on this is pretty clear. Put together ANYTHING in the Senate that clears the filibuster, then take this bill to reconciliation. Once there, you no longer have to worry about the filibuster, so you only need simple majorities. More arm twisting in the House, and you’ll have enough votes to pass the bill, with or without the Stupak Amendment. Get a bare majority in the Senate, and Pres Obama signs an abomination of a bill that will kill the private healthcare industry in the US (and, reciprocally, in the rest of the world, as they mooch horrendously off our innovations in medicine).
November 13th, 2009 at 9:05 am
“Never underestimate the power of some weasel Repubs in the Senate to snatch defeat from victory.” Bingo, which is why we tell those clowns that we are not going to tolerate any weasel behavior.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:07 am
On another note: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/texas/election_2010_texas_republican_primary
November 13th, 2009 at 9:21 am
Richard,
The Senate cannot filibuster a final reconciliation bill?
November 13th, 2009 at 9:37 am
#10 My understanding of when you can and can’t filibuster is limited, but that’s my current understanding. Perhaps it has to be a budget bill (I’m not sure of how you can designate bills as “budget” or not). Think back to ‘93, and the fact that VP Gore broke the tie in the Senate. That bill could not be filibustered, or it would have been. I could see the Democrats using this tactic to bypass Sen Lieberman’s filibuster threat.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:44 am
Richard,
I think you’re referring to Clinton’s tax increases? My understanding is that budget bills can’t be filibustered, period, whether reconciliation or not.
This would be an important point to clarify. If this is our only shot to filibuster, that certainly raises the stakes to stop a vote in the Senate. In that case, the Dems can toss up anything that will break a filibuster, and then create what they really want at Conference, and ram it on a straight up or down vote. But if we can filibuster the reconciliation bill, the Dems are in a tough position, as the House and Senate are staking out mutually exclusive demands (assuming the Senate needs 60)
November 13th, 2009 at 9:48 am
Obama certainly has 51 votes for reconciliation. It is so disgustingly premature to call Obamacare dead. What is your purpose in writing this Knepper? Do you want us all to let our guard down?
November 13th, 2009 at 9:50 am
As to the reconciliation, it hasn’t been used for anything other than budget bills so far. The republicans threatened to use it to push through Bush’s judicial nominations (aka the nuclear option), but then McCain butted in with his gang of 14 and stopped it. Yes the dems have threatened to use this option to push through Obamacare, and no it cannot be filibustered.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Alex, your post today makes me proud to be an American. And for some odd reason I’m shouting “Wolverine!” in my head.
November 13th, 2009 at 9:51 am
The bill will pass. The Democrats from conservative districts are putting no a show for their constituents.
Most Blue Dogs are make-believe moderates and have over 90% ratings from liberal groups.
This is an elaborate show to keep Democrats in conservative districts from facing responsiblity for their actions.
At the end we’ll have something functionally the same as what Obama wanted. If we’re smart we’ll kill Obamacare as soon as we retake power by any means.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Dan,
When I said “reconciliation bill” I was referring to what comes out of the House/Senate conference that reconciles differences between the separate bills that each chamber passed, which must go back to each chamber for a final vote, before it goes to the President’s desk.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:03 am
MWS, thanks for the clarification. I misread it as a reconciliation vote. But I still argue that they will use the reconciliation vote to pass this bill. So I still say that it won’t be filibustered.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Anyone know when Sen. Hutchinson will leave the Senate?
November 13th, 2009 at 10:26 am
I don’t know if “reconciliation bill” is technically the right term for what I was describing. It might be “conference bill.” I shoulda’ been more specific, esp. since people have talked of Dems forcing a bill through the Senate using “reconciliation.”
But a run down on the FP on when a bill can or cannot be filibustered be extremely helpful.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:58 am
#20: It’s a “conference report.”
Wikiknowitall says:
November 13th, 2009 at 11:03 am
It appears to me that whenever the health bill gets flogged through the Senate, it’s probably 9/10ths of a done deal.
Anyone know of any instances where a conference report has failed to pass?
November 13th, 2009 at 11:05 am
Thanks for the great link Mark G. BTW, do not money bills need 60 votes to pass the Senate?
November 13th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Mark,
Thanks for the info. I think that answers our questions.
Although I’m sure the failure of a conference report is rare, this issue is so big, and has such enormous implications on all sides, I think its possible that a Senator or two who did not filibuster the Senate bill might filibuster the conference report if it was changed in ways they don’t like. Likewise, if the Stupak amendment is stripped, perhaps some pro-life Democrats switch sides.
Although it’s hard to see Democrats who already stuck their necks out on the House and Senate bills joining Republicans in a goal line stand. They’d just get crap from both sides in the election.
November 13th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Off topic:
Ideological child abuse: Barf!
November 13th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Any theories as to why the administration is bringing the “illegal combatants” to trial on US soil? I know the administration is eager to fulfill at least one campaign promise, so they’re now apparently in a rush to shut down GTMO at least.
The Ft. Hood killer is going to face military justice. The self-proclaimed Holy Warriors of 9/11 get a civilian court, civilian lawyers, and a civilian jury trial.
Is the aim here to get Islamist wackos to leave the military before committing mass murder by dangling civilian trials in front of them?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Lieberman: Bringing terror suspects to U.S. for trial ‘inconceivable’
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67665-lieberman-inconceivable-to-bring-terror-suspects-to-us-for-trial
GOP reacts angrily to trial move
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EE5CD133-18FE-70B2-A881AC4FB2A08B18
Obama decision to try 9/11 defendants already drawing fire
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/11/obama-decision-to-try-911-defendants-already-drawing-fire/1
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/kristol_off_to_court_we_go.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/11/ksm_gets_to_new_york.asp
Sen. Cornyn: Putting Political Ideology Ahead of the Safety of the American People is Irresponsible
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=57170f29-7d27-4ef1-82cb-dcfd0805663d
Boehner Statement on the Obama Administration’s “Irresponsible” Decision to Prosecute 9/11 Mastermind in NYC
http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=154935
November 13th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
#24 MWS, it appears that it will depend on whether they can claim this is a budget resolution or not. Even if it fails here, could it be inserted wholesale into a budget bill and bypass all questions of a filibuster? I know Pres Obama said he wouldn’t go that route earlier this year, but since when can we trust him to stand firm on ANY promise he’s given?
November 13th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Is ObamaCare in trouble in the Senate?
Just talked to a very insightful Capitol Hill Watcher who doesn’t think Harry Reid has the votes in the Senate to pass anything resembling comprehensive healthcare reform. You can count out Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson and maybe even Bayh.
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/2009/11/12/is-obamacare-in-trouble-in-the-senate/
Health-care reform ’still on life support,’ Rep. Cooper says
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091113/NEWS02/911130353/-1/NEWS01/Health-care+reform++still+on+life+support+++Rep.+Cooper+says?template=printart
Who Are the Blue Dogs?
By Michael Tomasky
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23432
November 13th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Health-care reform ’still on life support,’ Rep. Cooper says
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091113/NEWS02/911130353/-1/NEWS01/Health-care+reform++still+on+life+support+++Rep.+Cooper+says?template=printart
“If you peel back the layers further, you realize it may be difficult for the Senate to vote on anything,” Cooper told The Tennessean’s editorial board. “I’d say health reform, despite the House vote, is still on life support.”
***
GRAHAM: House Bill DOA in the Senate
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/08/ftn/main5576519.shtml?tag=contentBody;featuredPost-PE
BOEHNER: House Bill DOA in the Senate
http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/AB/20091112/NEWS0108/911130332/
***
Specter is playing defense: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67529-specter-healthcare-not-dead-on-arrival-in-senate
***
November 13th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
This post is, in some strange way that I can’t fully explain, oddly beautiful in form.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
It’s not dead yet, but it’s gettin’ there. Stay on your Senators backs, folks! ; )
November 13th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Richard,
“Even if it fails here, could it be inserted wholesale into a budget bill and bypass all questions of a filibuster? ”
I don’t know. I’ve wondered myself why talk about the “nuclear option” died down and everyone is talking about 60 votes again. I don’t know if it was a political decision where ramming it through as a budget bill is their last option, or if it is considered unlawful or unconstitution or whatever.
It would be interesting to know what Republicans’ options are if the Democrats try such a tactic. Can they take them to court? Is it a separation of powers issue where the court can’t rule on it? In which case, will it be decided by a brawl in the well of the Senate like they do in Asia?
November 13th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
#32 “It would be interesting to know what Republicans’ options are if the Democrats try such a tactic. Can they take them to court? Is it a separation of powers issue where the court can’t rule on it? In which case, will it be decided by a brawl in the well of the Senate like they do in Asia?”
From what I know, the filibuster is a Senate rule, not Constitutional law. As such, the only legal route they could conceivably have is whether changing the Senate rules is in accordance with the Senate rules, and I’d bet the Courts would take a pass on that, telling them to settle it themselves. The option, of course, would be to go to the Democrats who were in the “Gang of 14″ and beg them to help, since they were shown great courtesy when they were in the minority.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
As to the point of this post, even if you think the odds of killing this monstrocity are 80% now, you shouldn’t say and act like it until it’s been buried completely. Remember, there’s still the chance that, after the ‘10 elections put the Republicans back in charge in the House, Spkr Pelosi and SML Reid could hold a lame duck session and try to force this through. We aren’t safe until we retake the House or the Senate, and the House is a lot more likely right now.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Richard,
“Spkr Pelosi and SML Reid could hold a lame duck session and try to force this through.”
Excellent point I hadn’t considered. Once a couple dozen Blue Dogs are already voted out, what do they have to lose, unless they are going to try to resurrect their careers?
I think the public backlash would be enormous, however (especially if voters expressed their will by giving Republicans the House), and would probably cripple Obama’s Presidency. Perhaps if the Dems just lose a bunch of seats, but retain the House, they would have the figleaf of saying “the voters still want us in charge, so we’re going to do this” and lame duck Congressmen send them over the top.
But I think that would be more nuclear than the Senate’s “nuclear option.” Voter’s aren’t too keen on lame duck Congresses doing much, especially reinventing 1/6 of the economy through an enormously unpopular bill. Obama, Pelosi, and Co. would have start the next session with negative political capital, and Obama’s popularity would probably plummet, insuring that strong GOP contenders step up and run.
November 13th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Richard,
Bear in mind that if they can’t break a filibuster now, they probably can’t in a lame duck session either, and so they would have to resort to the nuclear option in the Senate during a lame duck session. People would burn down the Capitol……
Plus, they’d have a scant few weeks to pass a Senate bill (through reconciliation probably) form a conference committee, and then pass the conference report in both chambers. Given the speed at which this has moved so far, that seems unlikely.
November 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
MWS, you’re right that they might not be willing to deal with the absolute storm of protest, but I wouldn’t put it past them. Spkr Pelosi has not shown one whit of concern about what the people want, and if SML Reid isn’t invited back (of which the odds continue to improve), what do they care? Voters aren’t paying much attention at that point, and it’sba full 2 years before another election would be held. Is it likely? No, I’d say not. Could it hapen? Absolutely.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I wonder what the single most consequential bill ever moved through a lame duck Congress was.
November 13th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Richard,
Just a final thought on that lame duck nightmare (which I agree is plausible).
If the Republicans do take the House, they could likewise dig in and refuse to pass any budget that funds ObamaCare. If the voters were also outraged, Obama might have to cave.
November 13th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
America’s unique identity shows in how we absorb foreigners into our culture and immigrants tend to be welcomed for their virtues, not rejected because of a distinct ethnic heritage. We are only the second nation in the history of the world (the first was Rome) to believe that citizenship is not common ethnicity but rather common devotion and common loyalty.
Europe, Asia, Africa, and the more indigenous parts of Latin America are far more divided on ethnic lines.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
You could not be more wrong. You and many others say being American is about believing in free enterprise and all that. But it is junk. If that’s the case then 1/2 the citizens of America aren’t Americans. Heck, 1/3 of Republicans aren’t Americans. Indeed, since 1928 only 1 president was an American by that standard. It’s questionable at best to say the PC line that Americans have “absorbed” immigrants into our culture. In fact, all the conservatives who dislike Hollywood should know that it was created by Jewish & E. European immigrants. Most of the people who opposed the immigration wave before 1924 were 100% right about what happened. And if you think immigrants are becoming assimilated you are dead wrong. If they all love liberty and all then why do they vote 80% Democrat. In 1790, congress declared that only Europeans could become citizens. The truth is that if it had been up to actual Americans, there never would have been a melting pot. We would be a Anglo-saxon protestant nation. And the poster of above me is laying the PC game too. We don’t dislike Mexican immigrants because they’re Mexican, we dislike them because of how they act. I.e. we reject them (the people not politicians) because of their LACK of virtues. As in, their presence hurts America, it does not help at all. Now, some Indian doctors might help (Hindus not Muslims) and this might actually help to lower healthcare costs. The bill was not shut down because Americans are all into freedom and liberty. Unfortunately Americans only stand for limited government when it helps THEM (Notice GM didn’t ask for a tax cut this time last year, they asked for our $). So when they knew that 100 million of them would lose their insurance, they went nuts. Of course I’m sure 90% of the people w/out insurance supported the bill. Alex Knepper you can NOT say that individual merit, self responsibility, and free markets are in the conscious of all, or even a plurality of Americans. You can’t even say that about most Republicans. Under Republican administrations we have (1) started and increeased affirmative action (2) accepted illegal immigration BECAUSE they were Mexican, not in spite of it (3) increased entitlements (4) faith-based initiatives aka welfare for churches that are losing members (you can guess to what churches they are going) (5) Against MPC americans don’t have a common loyalty. The Israel & La Raza lobby and their influence just 2 of many examples of this. We did before 1900, not anymore. Furthermore Rome was not a nation, it was a authoratarian empire, that had nothing in common. That’s why it collapsed although financial reasons were a facotr too, like America will soon. The national debt, entitlement programs, and illegal immigration will bring about th ecollapse of America, because GWB did not deal with them, and instead was busy spreading democracy. Sadly, Alex the fact that 40% of people support this monstrosity shows the lack of liberty loving in America. It’s time we reralized, while 40% of Americans may claim to be conservative, they need to be woken up to see what conservatism is. NO “tax credits”. NO Medicare- I can’t stand the Repubes who defend this junk. NO spreading democracy. NO mass 3rd world immigration. NO minimum wage. NO farm subsidies- farm bill costing $500 billion passed senate in 2008 80-14. NO Dept. of Marxist “Education”, Dept. of HUD, Dept. of “homeland security”, Dept. of no energy.
November 13th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
on the plus side we aren’t total commies like France, Germany, etc.That is one valid point by Knepper, we ar every different from most of Europe, in some good, some bad ways. Honestly, when i look at most of europe & s. america, i feel that the cold war was lost.
November 13th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Larry,
You’re a racist idiot, and your comments are an embarrassment.
November 14th, 2009 at 12:31 am
Larry: Please slither back under your rock.
November 14th, 2009 at 3:42 am
FACT CHECK: Palin’s Book Goes Rogue on Some Facts
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/11/13/us/politics/AP-US-Palin-Book-Fact-Check.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
November 14th, 2009 at 3:52 am
McCain camp: Book ‘petty and pathetic’
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EFBC962E-18FE-70B2-A8CC09E1D92A427D
November 14th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Hutchison won’t resign Senate seat
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) will announce she’s delaying her resignation from the Senate so that she can continue to represent Texas in the Senate while pursuing the Republican nomination for governor in the Lone Star state.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EFA57894-18FE-70B2-A8CF9F58BB781CAA
November 14th, 2009 at 4:12 am
Newt warns of ‘destructive’ primaries
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted disaster for his party if the conservative wing of the GOP continues to field independent candidates to the right of the party’s nominee.
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=EF0DA787-18FE-70B2-A820336D03A884E8
Tancredo To Enter Governor’s Race
Democrats Welcome Republican Primary
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/21602922/detail.html
Graham: WH asked me to keep mum on 9/11 trial
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who led an effort last week to prevent the Obama Administration from doing just what it did today in directing prosecution of the alleged Sept. 11 plotters into federal court, says he’s keeping mum about that decision for now at the request of the White House.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1109/Graham_WH_asked_me_to_keep_mum_on_911_trial.html
Fmr. Atty. Gen. Michael Mukasey Remarks at Federalist Society Lawyers Convention
Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey spoke at the Federalist Society’s 2009 National Lawyers Convention in Washington. He reacted to Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that five Guantanamo detainees accused of planning the 9/11 attacks will be tried in civilian federal court and responded to questions.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/11/13/HP/A/26023/Fmr+Atty+Gen+Michael+Mukasey+Remarks+at+Federalist+Society+Lawyers+Convention.aspx
Mukasey: ‘very high’ risk of attack over NYC 9/11 trial
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1109/Mukasey_very_high_risk_of_attack_on_NYC_911_trial.html
Mukasey: Obama ‘unlawfully’ sacked IG
In his speech to the conservative Federalist Society today, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey was expected to blast the Obama administration today over its decision to prosecute Sept. 11 plotters in federal court. Indeed, Mukasey wasted no time taking on President Barack Obama for his illegal conduct, but the first punch thrown was on an unexpected subject–his firing of Americorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1109/Mukasey_Obama_unlawfully_sacked_IG.html
November 14th, 2009 at 5:08 am
“Newt warns of ‘destructive’ primaries
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich predicted disaster for his party if the conservative wing of the GOP continues to field independent candidates to the right of the party’s nominee.” Maybe Mr. Gingrich should have thought about before he declared war on Conservatives. A litle late to put the worms back in the jar now.