Heads Up: Nikki Haley

There are few conservative bloggers whose viewpoints are as important as Erick Erickson's. In anticipating the most important political stories, Erickson is often light-years ahead of the pack. Example: Erickson, a conservative from Georgia, was regularly blogging about Doug Hoffman and NY-23 in July.

Now, Erickson draws our attention to a rising star in South Carolina:

I want to make sure you all knew that Jenny Sanford, wife of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, has endorsed Nikki Haley for Governor.

This is a big deal in the Palmetto State. Jenny Sanford has long been viewed apart from her husband as solidly conservative, both fiscally and socially. It’s not just that Jenny Sanford is instinctually conservative, but she is truly a conservative — unashamed to be in the trenches, getting her hands dirty, fighting for the conservative cause without apology.

In an open letter to South Carolina voters, Mrs. Sanford says, “Our state’s future is too important to leave to just another go-along-get-along career politician. Nikki Haley is the best person to be South Carolina’s next Governor.”

Nikki Haley in 2010. Pay attention to this one. Learn more here, here, here, here and here.

Erickson: "I don’t care which state you are in. We need to support the good guys nationwide where their election will impact conservatives across the board."

More:

.

Obama and The Fat Cats

In less than a year, we're back to square one.

Just a few days after ascending the throne, still coasting on the momentum of his campaign, Obama signed a massive bailout bill into law.

At about the same time, Obama chose to go to war with Wall Street fat cats. The time was right. Fearing that the economy was sinking like the Titanic, America was ready to take the fat cats down.

Riding on that wave of populist angst, Obama punished financial industry executives, many of whom were simply cleaning up a mess not of their own making. The move was a semi-successful attempt to distract the angry mob from the notion that Obama & Friends were saving the skins of the very same scoundrels who were thought to have been responsible for trashing the economy in the first place.

With the lukewarm success of his early scapegoating, Obama moved on to an alphabet soup of fall guys: America, Bush, Cambridge Police, Doctors, Fox News, the GOP, Israel, Kanye West, Limbaugh, Media Coverage, the New York Times, Scare Tactics, Tea Parties, Victory, etc.

Now, less than a year into his rule, Obama is right back where he started: criticizing successful, law-abiding members of the financial industry. "I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Obama said in an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" program on Sunday. (Judging from the results of his first year in office, Obama did not run for office to help anyone.)

At this point, Obama has become well acquainted with the law of diminishing returns. Ever since the White House called on Americans to turn on each other in the fishy email initiative, White House stigmatization has lost its political potency. In fact, for some, feuding with Obama became quite profitable.

If you haven't been called out by Obama yet, be patient. He'll probably get to you at some point in the next 3-7 years.

Hide THIS Decline!

Hide this decline, Barry O:

Today is the second straight day that Obama’s Approval Index rating has fallen to a new low.

Forty-two percent (42%) of the nation's voters Strongly Disapprove of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Only 23% Strongly Approve, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -19.

The 23% who Strongly Approve matches the lowest level of enthusiasm yet recorded.

And here's a jaw dropping statistic: Among those who consider fiscal policy issues the most important, just 1% Strongly Approve and 81% Strongly Disapprove (clearly just a big bunch of racists).

Obama's Approval Index rating was +30 in January.

Democrats in Congress aren't doing much better than their buddy in the White House. Support for Democrats is down from a 10-point lead in August, and a 25-point advantage at the beginning of the year. Democrats and Republicans in Congress are now locked into a statistical tie.

Americans want Obama and his cronies in Congress to focus on the economy and the deficit. But instead of listening to the voters, Democrats remain obtusely focused on their wildly unpopular health care power grab.

In the latest CNN poll, 61% opposed the Senate health care bill, compared to just 36% who supported it. Americans know this is a bad bill loaded with hidden taxes. Beneficial aspects of the bill are especially well hidden. Only 22% of Americans say that the Democrats' health care scheme would help their family. 79% of Americans say that the Senate bill would increase the federal budget deficit, and 85% of Americans think the Senate bill would increase their taxes.

...And so the decline in support for Obama and his party continues.

Democrats are going need to come up with a very clever trick in order to hide this decline. Where's Dr. Mann when you desperately need him?

More

Kids in government-run health care program get powerful antipsychotic medicines at a rate four times higher than other children.

Pro-life nurse forced to assist an abortion.

“Avatar” …A three-hour lecture on imperialism starring Smurfs

'Hide the Decline' music video parodies Climategate, Michael Mann and Al Gore

Global Warming: A Historical Perspective

Climategate: the video everyone should see

Stupid but amusing: I guess I'm a racist!

Medical Economics for Dummies

Occasionally, a liberal blogger publishes a post that is so stupid, but so perfectly representative of the deranged thinking of the hard left, I have no choice but to respond. It's a dirty job, but somebody needs to do it.

Today Matthew Yglesias posted an ode to Medicare that typifies the willful ignorance of those who contend that a command-and-control economy will save us from the evils of the free market:

...it’s important to understand that [Medicare's] low reimbursement rates are a feature not a bug.

Try explaining that to patients who can't find a doctor who participates in Medicare! Yglesias ignores their plight...but he continues:

Probably the single most persuasive conservative critique of the social democratic agenda is that programs to provide public services have a tendency to become tilted in favor of the interests of public service providers rather than public service users.

I would argue that government-run "public service programs" tend to tilt not necessarily in favor of productive providers, but in favor of politicians and their crooked, politically powerful allies (see: ACORN, labor unions, etc.).

Yglesias builds his case:

Poor people have very little political clout in the United States, anti-tax activists have a lot of political clout in the United States, and public sector unions have a medium amount of clout. So when you set up a program to help poor people, the tendency is for it to be starved of revenue and also for the most powerful advocates for the program to be the providers rather than the clients, meaning that labor costs wind up being a big part of the bundle.

Wow. It almost sounds like liberal Yglesias is saying that public sector labor unions hurt poor people almost as much as stingy rich people do. Interesting...but here's Yglesias' main point:

Medicare is an important exception to all these trends. It’s not a program for poor people, it’s a program for old people. Including lots of old people with high levels of social capital and a large proclivity to participate in the political process. Consequently, there’s strong political pressure for generous benefits...

...there’s a reasonable amount of interest in getting as much health care services per dollar as possible. Consequently, providers are paid enough to make it worth their while to see Medicare patients, but much less than they’d like to make. The result is not a perfect program (far from it) but this particular aspect of Medicare is an example of big government at its best—serving clients’ interests rather than those of providers.

In the private sector, there is a delicate balance between the interests of the provider and the interests of the customer. This balance is constantly adjusted to changes in the market. If a greedy provider charges too much, customers will go elsewhere. If a stingy customer is unwilling to pay enough, the provider can sell the goods and services to another customer. With a competitive market, free from distortions created by power-hungry politicians, the harmony of interests keeps goods and services flowing freely at reasonable prices.

It’s win-win, not zero-sum.

Governments use low reimbursement is an insidious form of rationing. In the health care sector, it’s a form of rationing that will continue to create dire shortages of health care providers and health care resources.

Many on the political left seem to believe that legislators and bureaucrats will somehow be supremely effective, humane, rational, responsive and judicious if given the opportunity control our health care dollars. But legislators and bureaucrats are no more altruistic, beneficent or wise than are clinicians, hospitals and corporate executives. Politicians’ decisions are no less arbitrary, greedy or narrow-minded.

There is one fundamental difference between government and private entities: if you rely exclusively on government for your needs, you can’t shop around when your needs have not been met.

If Medicare is an example of big government at its best, we should all be afraid of big government. A system that “serves clients’ interests rather than those of providers” is no good. If the providers’ interests are slighted, the products and services will dry up. As our wasteful and inefficient Medicare system begins to go bankrupt, we are already seeing this happen. Because of low reimbursement rates and administrative hassles, physicians are opting out of Medicare in droves.

When government chooses winners and losers, the whole system crumbles.

More

The only doctor in town...Health-care reform hits a small-town reality: Even with insurance, you need somewhere to go.

Medicare Bankrupt in 6-8 Years Without Rationing

Is political self-interest nobler than economic self-interest?

Rich bureaucrats keep getting richer!

Medicare fraudsters rake in billions.

Mayo Clinic alone lost $840 million last year under Medicare.

Why isn't the GOP doing everything it can to stop ObamaCare?

Senate Still Tweaking Plans for Power Grab

In a tentative Senate deal, the "public option" has been dropped from ObamaCare. Instead, Medicare would be expanded to include the 10% of the U.S. population that is between the ages of 55 and 65. The Senate Minority Leader ridiculed the scheme: "If your goal was to come up with a plan for financial ruin, you couldn't come up with a better idea than cutting a program by $500 billion and simultaneously expanding the number of people it is required to cover."

We won't know much about the details until it has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. But like any other Democrat scheme, it will undoubtedly be an expensive, ineffective, irreversible, impractical, unrealistic plan that gives more power to the federal government and takes freedom and choice away from taxpayers. The plan won't cut total spending on health care, reduce the Federal deficit, or help Americans to enjoy longer life or better health.

The primary objective is to pass anything that has the words "health care" in the title, and to pass it quickly enough to allow Obama to brag about it in his State of the Union teleprompter reading next month. (Higher taxes and bigger government will be the icing on the cake.)

By passing their health care bill, power-greedy Congressional Democrats will temporarily satisfy their thirst for power, but nothing else will be accomplished.

More

Copenhagen Turning Into 'Circus' Sideshow, Critics Say

Blame the economy for Obama's low ratings if you like, but the Great Depression never caused FDR's approval to go this low.

A little history: 80% of those who filibustered civil rights were Democrats, including Robert Byrd...

Free Christmas Music

Free Christmas music:

God Rest Ye, Merry Gentlemen

Jars Of Clay

From the Album Christmas Songs

Silent Night

Sixpence None The Richer

From the Album The Dawn Of Grace

It Came Upon A Midnight Clear

MercyMe

From the Album The Christmas Sessions

Christmas Song

Mogwai

From the Album EP+6

O Holy Night

Mark Harris

From the Album Christmas Is

It Really is (a Wonderful Life)

Mindy Smith

From the Album My Holiday

Toy Packaging

Sara Groves

From the Album O Holy Night

The Night Before Christmas

Brandon Heath

From the Album The Night Before Christmas

Silent Night

House Of Heroes

From the Album Silent Night

I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day

Casting Crowns

From the Album Peace On Earth

Silent Night (Emmanuel)

Matt Maher

From the Album Silent Night (Emmanuel)

God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen

Jars Of Clay

From the Album Drummer Boy

Pat A Pan

Mannheim Steamroller

From the Album Mannheim Steamroller Christmas 25th Anniversary Collection

Why Can't It Be Christmastime All Year

Rosie Thomas

From the Album A Very Rosie Christmas

Winter Wonderland - Album Version

Point Of Grace

From the Album Winter Wonderland

It Came Upon A Midnight Clear

Frank Sinatra

From the Album Sampler Claus

Silent Night, Holy Night

Mahalia Jackson

From the Album Sampler Claus

What Child Is This?

Barlowgirl

From the Album Home For Christmas

Do You Hear What I Hear (Featuring Patrick Wilson)

Mary McBride

From the Album Every Day Is A Holiday

I Celebrate The Day (Album Version)

Relient K

From the Album Let It Snow Baby...Let It Reindeer

Wishing For This

Leigh Nash

From the Album Wishing For This

Snow Angel

Tori Amos

From the Album Midwinter Graces

Oh Come Emmanuel

Aliqua

From the Album All I Want

The Coventry Carol

Mediaeval Baebes

From the Album Mistletoe & Wine

O Come, O Come, Emmanuel

Big Daddy Weave

From the Album Christ Is Come

Carol and the Kings

Alison Brown Quartet with Joe Craven

From the Album Evergreen

Hark! The Herald Angels Sing

The Robert Shaw Chorale; Al Chernet

From the Album Sampler Claus

O Come, All Ye Faithful

Norman Luboff Choir

From the Album Sampler Claus

Panis Angelicus

Robert Goulet

From the Album Sampler Claus

The Nutcracker Suite, Op. 71a: XIV. Waltz of the Flowers: Tempo di valse (from Summer Interlude)

Bonn Classical Philharmonics

From the Album Classical Music from Ingmar Bergman Films

*All tracks can be downloaded for free...no strings...

More

I Can Has Transparency?

Just in time for consideration for our 2009 end-of-the-year "top ten" lists, Team Obama provides us with another great moment in political ineptitude:

Today's workshop on government openness is closed to the public...

The event Monday for federal employees is a fitting symbol of President Barack Obama's uneven record so far on the Freedom of Information Act, a big part of keeping his campaign promise to make his administration the most transparent ever. As Obama's first year in office ends, the government's actions when the public and press seek information are not yet matching up with the president's words.

Don't worry, there's a good reason for the stunningly ironic hypocrisy:

The closed conference will provide tips for FOIA public liaisons on communicating and negotiating with people who make requests, and introduce the new Office of Government Information Services to them, said Melanie Ann Pustay, director of the Justice Department's Office of Information Policy, which takes the lead on government openness issues.

Pustay said she planned to say the same things at the private workshop that she would say publicly. She offered these reasons to explain why it was closed: She wanted government employees to be able to speak candidly, and the conference would be in an auditorium at the Commerce Department, where she said a government ID was required to be admitted.

The AP and others news organizations routinely enter government buildings to cover the government.

[emphasis added]

Now it makes perfect sense. When coaching bureaucrats on evasive tactics communicating and negotiating with the public, you want to keep the public at a safe distance.

More

PROMISES, PROMISES: A closed meeting on openness

Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Promotes Child Porn in Class…See Kevin Jennings Reading List

ObamaCare mayhem: GM was destroyed by the unions. Is America next?

Following recommendations of Federal Panel, state ends subsidy for mammograms to women under 50.

Excellent video: If the government cuts health care spending, they will spend that money on something else. But that won't save lives.

Two minutes and 18 seconds is all it took to undo 11 months of Obama's hype.

Is Soros gearing up to steal the 2012 election for Obama by installing left-wing secretaries of state across the nation?

Obama's Global Warming promise would take us back to the year 1875.

15 Failed Predictions about the Future

New Low For the Democrat-Run Media

MSNBC is apparently trying to compete with Al Jazeera for viewers:

"It seems like in this case, there isn't a lot of excitement," Matthews said. "I watched the cadets, they were young kids - men and women who were committed to serving their country professionally it must be said, as officers. And, I didn't see much excitement. But among the older people there, I saw, if not resentment, skepticism. I didn't see a lot of warmth in that crowd out there. The president chose to address tonight and I thought it was interesting. He went to maybe the enemy camp tonight to make his case. I mean, that's where Paul Wolfowitz used to write speeches for, back in the old Bush days. That's where he went to rabble rouse the "we're going to democratize the world" campaign back in '02. So, I thought it was a strange venue."

[emphasis added]

Thanks for at least being honest, Chris.

Via Memeorandum

Obama's West Point Afghanistan Speech

Obama's "blame it on Bush" Afghanistan Speech:

Full transcript here

Some analysis:

Obama did not miss the opportunity to blame Bush for the problems in Afghanistan: "Throughout [the duration of the Iraq war], our troop levels in Afghanistan remained a fraction of what they were in Iraq. When I took office, we had just over 32,000 Americans serving in Afghanistan, compared to 160,000 in Iraq at the peak of the war. Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive."

Speaking defensively in reference to his dithering, Obama stated that "...there has been no delay or denial of resources necessary for the conduct of the war."

Apparently, Obama doesn't understand the impact of a delay in decisiveness.

Obama also set a timetable for withdrawal, letting the enemy know exactly how long to hold out: "After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."

Obama then threw a bone to the pacifist left and obliquely defended his dithering a bit more: "If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow. So no - I do not make this decision lightly."

After assuring us he can begin to pull out of Afghanistan in a mere 18 months, he painted a grim picture of the task ahead: "Since 9/11, al Qaeda's safe-havens [including Afghanistan] have been the source of attacks against London and Amman and Bali. The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered. And the stakes are even higher within a nuclear-armed Pakistan, because we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons, and we have every reason to believe that they would use them."

Then Obama stated his intention to partner with the Taliban: "We will support efforts by the Afghan government to open the door to those Taliban who abandon violence and respect the human rights of their fellow citizens."

Surprisingly, Obama made mention of America's positive contribution to the world over the past several decades: "But more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades - a time that, for all its problems, has seen walls come down, markets open, billions lifted from poverty, unparalleled scientific progress, and advancing frontiers of human liberty."

More

Who would equate an audience of West Point cadets with an "enemy camp"?

Move along, nothing to see here: UK climate scientist to temporarily step down…

Obamacare: The Jurassic Media Keeps on Spinning

While many on the left are brazenly asking whether the Democrats' health care legislation is worse than the status quo, some of the Democrats' best friends in the media are still defending ObamaCare with quasi-religious zeal.

A new report on the Senate health care bill from the CBO estimates that the cost of individual health insurance would increase by an average of 10-13% if the Democrats' plan is implemented.

"In dollar terms, in 2016 an individual policy would cost $5,800 and a family policy would cost $15,200 if the Senate bill were enacted, according to the CBO, compared with $5,500 and $13,100 under the status quo."

The government would manipulate insurance premiums by throwing taxpayer-funded subsidies to preferred groups, but health insurance costs would change very little for most Americans, and costs would rise significantly for many others:

Click to enlarge.

"Never fear," say Obama's cheerleaders in the Democrat-run media. "We'll force healthy people into the market, and we'll do some Enron-style accounting tricks." Ezra Klein explains:

First, the new rules governing the insurance market are expected to make the market more efficient, lowering prices by 7 to 10 percent.

Government will make the insurance market more efficient? You're kidding, right? Even Obama knows that's a joke.

More from Ezra:

Second, the individual mandate, alongside the subsidies and the increased ease of purchasing insurance, is expected to bring in healthier folks, which should save another 7 to 10 percent. Add it all together and we're looking at a 10 to 12 percent increase in premiums for insurance that's about 30 percent better than what people are getting now. It's a steal.

So liberals are finally admitting that ObamaCare is theft? Finally, some progress. But stealing isn't saving. And letting Uncle Sam take money from taxpayers (and from future generations) in order to redistribute trillions of dollars in the name of "health care reform" isn't progress. The Democrats' schemes do nothing to make health care less expensive, more efficient or more effective.

Here are three take-home points for ObamaCare apologists:

1. Forcing young, "healthy folks" to buy more insurance than they need at artificially inflated prices won't bring down the total cost of health care in this country. In fact, as a percentage of GDP, ObamaCare will increase health care spending faster than the status quo.

2. Money for health insurance subsidies won't come from thin air, and it won't come exclusively from "the wealthy."

3. The shell games aren't fooling most Americans (they're certainly not fooling most American voters).

More

ObamaCare bending the cost curve…upward.

CBO report predicts hike in insurance costs.

Big Wig Democrat: ObamaCare would be worse than the status quo.

Obamacare: "It's a steal."