SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (78725)2/4/2010 12:12:23 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224755
 
House Passage Of Health Bill Will Be Suicidal
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON AND ANDY WICKERSHAMPosted 06:42 PM ET

In his State of the Union address, President Obama advised Democrats not to "run for the hills" on ObamaCare, but to pass it regardless of what the voters think. Imploring Congress to resist public opinion, he said: "We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election," or do "what's best for the next generation."

ObamaCare can pass only if House Democrats heed his advice. Whether the Democrats try "reconciliation," try to pass a skinnier (still fat) version of ObamaCare or try to sneak elements of their proposed overhaul into law when people aren't paying close attention, this much is true: ObamaCare can't pass without passing the House.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, "I don't see the votes for it at this time." She'd better hope she's right. For if Pelosi coaxes House Democrats into passing ObamaCare, she'll become Minority Leader Pelosi next January — or just Rep. Pelosi. Passing a bill would be political suicide for Democrats.

As Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts demonstrated, ObamaCare is not popular. By better than 2-to-1, Americans think ObamaCare would cause their costs to rise and their quality of care to decline.

President Obama would like House Democrats to overlook these inconvenient truths. They won't, however, oblige him — unless they don't care whether they, or their fellow Democrats, get re-elected.

Consider this: Of the Democrats who voted yes on the House version of ObamaCare, 39 of them represent districts that Republican presidential candidates carried in at least two of the past three elections.

Ten of these 39 members represent districts where Republican presidential candidates won by double digits in at least two of the last three elections. These members include Tom Perriello (Va.), John Salazar (Colo.), Chris Carney (Pa.), Zack Space (Ohio), Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), John Spratt (S.C.), Bill Foster (Ill.), Melissa Bean (Ill.), Brad Ellsworth (Ind.) and Baron Hill (Ind.).

Think these 10, all residing deep in GOP territory, want to vote for ObamaCare again after seeing what happened in Massachusetts? More likely, they're just hoping that their prior support will slip their constituents' minds come November.

Furthermore, the Democrats got only 220 votes last time. With the loss of their lone Republican vote and of a member who has since left the chamber and won't be replaced for a couple of months, they are now down to the magic number of 218. So, every vote lost would have to be replaced with another.

But from where? Those who voted against ObamaCare last time did so for a reason.

For an indication of how toxic ObamaCare likely seems to these members, consider this: Of the 39 Democrats who voted no on the House version of ObamaCare, all but four represent districts where the average margin between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates over the last three elections has been at least 30 percentage points worse, from a Democratic perspective, than in Massachusetts.

And now, with ObamaCare's popularity at its nadir, President Obama would like these members to turn a blind eye to what happened in Massachusetts and come aboard.

Most members who voted against ObamaCare also voted for the Stupak Amendment, which the House passed to preserve long-standing protections against using Americans' tax dollars to pay for abortions. The Senate scrapped that amendment and has made clear its opposition to it.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., describes the Senate bill as providing a "radical shift in policy that will require taxpayers to pay for abortion." Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius says the Senate language "was negotiated by Sens. Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray" and would "take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak Amendment" in "making sure there are choices for women."

Pro-life Democrats in Republican districts would have an awfully hard time swallowing that change — as would their constituents.

So, how many of the House Democrats who voted no on ObamaCare (a) didn't vote for Stupak, and (b) represent districts where Democratic presidential candidates have come within even 10 points of victory, on average, over the last three elections?

Just nine: John Adler (N.J.), Larry Kissel (N.C.), Scott Murphy (N.Y.), Michael McMahon (N.Y.), Eric Massa (N.Y.), Allen Boyd (Fla.), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Glenn Nye (Va.) and the retiring Brian Baird (Wash.).

These members' constituents might want to applaud their prior opposition and make clear to them the merits of staying the course.

But even without such constituent feedback, it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to jump on the ObamaCare train as it steams toward the cliff — not after a previously unknown Republican rode his opposition into Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

• Anderson was senior speechwriter for Secretary Mike Leavitt at the Department of Health and Human Services.

• Wickersham is a writer and consultant.






To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (78725)2/4/2010 9:25:56 AM
From: Ann Corrigan1 Recommendation  Respond to of 224755
 
Lib scientists fiction:Penn State opens probe into climate-change researcher's work

2010-02-04 -- The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
By Mike Cronin

Feb. 4--Fearing erosion of public confidence in research climate-change scientist Michael Mann conducted, Penn State University officials said Wednesday they will formally investigate the co-winner of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
School officials dismissed three allegations against Mann that questioned whether he suppressed or falsified data, deleted or concealed e-mails, or misused privileged confidential information.
But three authors of a Penn State internal inquiry could not "make a definitive finding whether there exists any evidence" that Mann deviated from accepted research practices, said a report they published yesterday.
"I fully support the additional inquiry, which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts," Mann, director of Penn State's Earth System Science Center and a meteorology professor, said in a statement. "I intend to cooperate fully in this matter, as I have since the beginning of the process."
Five Penn State professors will investigate whether Mann violated the school's research misconduct policy, the report said. The panelists must submit findings and recommendations within 120 days.
Controversy embroiled Mann in November when a hacker stole e-mails from computer servers at Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and published them on the Internet.
The e-mails contained communication for at least 10 years among climate-change researchers, including Mann. He won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with several hundred other scientists for his work on the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In one e-mail, Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit who resigned after the e-mails became public, specifically asked Mann to delete e-mails he wrote to another scientist. Mann did not respond to that e-mail, he said, and did not delete any e-mails.
Penn State officials thought the e-mail incident "raised questions in the public's mind about Dr. Mann's conduct of his research activity," and those questions could undermine confidence in Mann's science, in climate science specifically and in science generally.
"There has been more than a whiff of corruption that has followed Mann for years," said Marc Morano, executive editor of Climate Depot, a Web site published in Washington skeptical of global warming. "The fact that even his own university could not clear his name does not bode well for Mann."
Morano said "Mann represents everything that is corrupt and unethical in climate science today. He is one of the prime reasons that the global warming movement lay in tatters. Mann will go down in scientific history as a statistical charlatan."
But Mann said he is happy with his employer's procedures.
"I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me," he said. "Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the university administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures.
"This is very much the vindication I expected, since I am confident I have done nothing wrong."
Aaron Huertas, press secretary for the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, called Morano's attack "a perfect example of substituting climate science for character assassination."
Huertas applauded Penn State for its process.
"When you're transparent with the science and the evidence, that's what builds the public trust," he said. "The contrarians have failed on the merits of climate science, so instead they've attacked the scientists themselves. It's morally bankrupt, and it's not going to work."
Lisa Powers, a Penn State spokeswoman, said the remaining allegation "speaks to how a scientist exchanges information with fellow scientists and if their actions undermine the public trust in the science itself."
She emphasized the university would not examine the science of climate change, only the way Mann conducted research.
This isn't the first scrutiny of Mann's research. His work was chronicled in the 2006 documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" about former Vice President Al Gore's public campaign on global warming.
The film showed a graph Mann created, commonly called the "hockey stick" because of its shape, that depicts global temperatures skyrocketing during the past century. It appeared in the 2001 U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.
Global-warming skeptics criticized the graph and Mann's research methods. The National Academy of Sciences investigated Mann's work and in 2006 found it valid, though it questioned some conclusions by Mann and other researchers, including that the 1990s were the warmest decade of the past 1,000 years.