Kausfiles: A mostly political weblog.

Guaranteed 50% Fox-Related Ingredients

Attention, "Fait Accompli" Brigade: This chart seems to be going in the wrong direction for health care reform, even if you discount the lopsided FOX poll (for Nate Silverish reasons--they only get the big support/oppose question after asking a series of spoiling questions). ... P.S.: Does this suggest that the much-derided insurance industry study (suggesting premiums would rise after reform) had an impact? ... It could also reflect increased dissent on the left, from public-option supporters, as hinted by the new WaPo survey. (See, for example, question 13.) ... 9:55 P.M.

___________________________ 

On Sunday, William Kristol argued it was "reckless" for Obama to delay surging in Afghanistan while he waits to see how legitimate our "Afghan partner" will be:

If the president issued the order now, he could always delay or revoke it later, if the political situation seemed truly insupportable....

Why do I get the feeling that if Obama ordered a surge of troops today and revoked it in two weeks, Bill Kristol would be among the first to savage him for being indecisive and prone to sudden reversal? There's a virtue in making the decision once, and then being able to stick with it, as Kristol surely knows. ... P.S.: I would suspect Kristol of adding his bad faith argument so he'd have three bullet points, but he already had his three. So no excuse! ... P.P.S.: Won't Kristol's post--which sneers that the White House had "failed" to improve the election process--look awfully silly if Obama's delay turns out to force Karzai to accept a cleaner runoff? ... 10:21 P.M.

___________________________

Gawker got hold of the first few words of ex-President Clinton's private twitters, including this entry:

Twitter / Bill Clinton:  John Edwards ... why did you ...

You'd think Clinton, of all people, would know that answer to that one. ...

Update: In a slyly invisible, joke-ruining revision, Gawker's Anthony De Rosa now says the twitters were probably captured from the account of a Bill Clinton imposter. ... P.S.: Is De Rosa the new night guy or the new ex-night guy? ... 10:50 P.M.

___________________________

Odd sloppiness in Monday's big N.Y. Times story with possible dirt on GOP N.J. gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie:

1) The Times writes that

interviews with federal law enforcement officials suggest that Ms. Brown [to whom Christie had loaned $46,000] used her position in two significant and possibly improper ways to try to aid Mr. Christie in his run for governor. [E.A.]

Motive is very hard to prove. The Times doesn't come close to showing that Brown was trying to aid Mr. Christie's run for governor if (as alleged) she a) supervised a FOIA request by the Corzine campaign of her and Christie's travel records and b) argued for making a big corruption arrest before Christie left office. In (a), she might have been trying to cover her own a--, since the FOIA request included her own records, no? In (b), maybe she just thought her friend and boss (rather than his successor) deserved to get full props for his hard work. I suppose the facts do "suggest" that Brown was trying to aid Christie's political run, but it's still a weird, easily abused way to write a lede. The first arrests at the Watergate suggested that the White House was a lawless operation headed by a crook who was trying to spy on his Democratic rivals, but I don't think that's how Woodward & Bernstein's nut graf read. The allegation about Brown's motive was hardly necessary to make a good story--all the Times had to say was that in both cases Brown seems to have taken actions that actually helped Christie's campaign.

2) In its tour of anti-Christie accusations, the Times refers to

reports that [Christie] discussed a run for governor with Karl Rove in 2006 led Democrats to assert he had violated the Hatch Act, which forbids candidates from “testing the waters” for a run for office. [E.A.]

The Hatch Act forbids candidates from "testing the waters"? There's your story! A whole lot of politicians are going to jail if that's the case. But maybe the Times "computer assisted reporting team" should hit the keyboards to find out what the Hatch Act says first. (And is talking to Karl Rove "testing the waters"?)

3) "$20,000 in mileage reimbursements during his seven-year tenure" is less than $3,000 per year--not that much. Even if it does include $79 to see a Mets game.

It would be wrong of me at this point to mention the famous Howell Raines Spike (of reports damaging to Democratic New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli when he was running for reelection) as evidence that the NYT is trying to elect Dems in New Jersey. It certainly "suggests" that! But we're in the age of partisan media and if the NYT wants to try to elect Dems the way Fox wants to elect GOPs, that's their right. ...

P.S.: If you believe the Feiler Faster Thesis, this story was dropped way too soon. Plenty of time before November 3 for Christie to change the narrative. But maybe in New Jersey Feiler is slower. ... 10:52 P.M.

___________________________

Edwards Blog Mystery Woman Vanishes?

Where's "Cherubim"? I've been skeptical of the New York Daily News report that Elizabeth Edwards--she about whom no ill can be spoken--has been anonymously slagging her enemies (and others) in Web comments sections under the pseudonym "Cherubim." But I would be more steadfast in this skepticism if a) there had been some kind of denial from the St. E camp and b) the previously prolific "Cherubim" hadn't mysteriously stopped posting after the Daily News story came out. ... At least I can't find anything. ... Not a peep on HuffPo. ... Nothing on Kos. ... You'd think that if Cherubim wasn't Elizabeth (or even if she was) she'd post something saying "I'm not Elizabeth." ... I'm still off board--it's too bizarre--but, hey, maybe Elizabeth Edwards really is the sort of person who thinks Michael Jackson was "murdered by powerful people in the record industry." That would explain a lot. ... It's also possible that the Cherubim story is some kind of trap, attempting to bait the blogosphere and MSM into jumping to irresponsible conclusions. ... Yes, I'm that paranoid. ... 10:57 P.M.

___________________________

Charles Peters argues that any health care reform bill should simply prohibit doctors from owning the outfits that administer expensive tests (like CAT scans and MRIs).** This seems like a simple prophylactic measure that could do a lot to curtail excess ordering-up of services--the sort of thing that got Atul Gawande (and through him, Barack Obama) so riled about McAllen Texas. And it would do it without the grand untested curve-bending suggestions--including "difficult democratic conversations" about end of life treatment--that have only succeed in scaring the elderly into opposing, and perhaps sinking, Obama's reform. 
 
But Peters tells me the ownership ban is not in the  bill. ... What, they can come after bloggers for conflicts of interest, but not doctors?

**--Update: Alert reader A.K. notes I've mis-summarized Peters' point. A 1992 law already prohibits doctors from owning the imaging outfits to which they refer patients. But there's an exception for when the X-ray or MRI device is located within the doctor's office, a loophole that's gotten bigger as the machines have gotten smaller. It's this "in-office" loophole that Peters (and some in Congress) would like to see closed. ... That still seems like a simple change that would save money. If doctors want to give patients instant service, they could contract to have machines owned by others stationed in their offices, the way some water coolers are owned by bottled water companies, no?. ...10:56 P.M.

___________________________
 
Here's an aerial photo of Iran's once-secret centrifuge facility at Qom. Does it look non-blowupable to you? Me neither. I suppose it depends on how deep its tunnels go--but those certainly don't look like mountains it's under. And, as Mike Murphy's twitter feed notes, American weapons experts have been developing fancy new non-nuclear bunker-busting bombs that seem maybe capable of doing the trick. (You have to like the one with the Gatlin' gun on its nose.) ... Obviously I'm not advocating a strike against Qom. Even if it wouldn't be a geopolitical calamity, we may not know what other secret, buried facilities Iran has.  I'm just saying that when pundits say we can't strike because the facilities are buried and hardened, I don't believe them. Do the Iranians? ... Bloggingheads discussion here. ... 10:55 P.M.

___________________________

Special Failure-Is-An-Option Edition

Robert Farago makes an obvious point that gets lost in all the rational b-schoolish discussions of General Motors' bloated dealer network: Often trust in the local dealer was the only reason people in rural America would buy one of GM's inferior cars:

"... well over a million fraudulent votes": Peter Galbraith on why he was recalled from his job with the UN's Afghan mission. ... 8:45 P.M.

___________________________ 

Sorry, DWELL. Prefab FAIL! You do miss things when you don't read the LAT. I missed Christopher Hawthorne's explanation of why high end prefab home designers suddenly seemed to close up shop. Economies of scale were not achieved! ... But that's the high end. You have to wonder whether the same fate has overtaken the makers of lower end kit houses, which often looked better anyway. ... 8:44 P.M.

___________________________

kausfiles Plays ... and Pays!

Unfortunately, our belief in the importance of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination is too often forgotten when it comes to the debate over whether and how to police the market for home mortgages. In poor and working-class communities across the nation, predatory mortgage lending has become a new scourge. Predatory lending is the practice of imposing inflated interest rates, fees, charges, and other onerous terms on home mortgage loans--not because the imperatives of the market require them, but because the lender has found a way to get away with them. These loans (which are often sold as refinance or home improvement mechanisms) are foisted on borrowers who have no realistic ability to repay them and who face the loss of their hard-won home equity when the all-but-inevitable default and foreclosure occurs. ...[snip]  

In these circumstances, government must step in to curb predatory lending and encourage the flow of fairly priced capital to sectors where it is needed and will be well-used. Filling a gap left by federal inaction, state enforcement efforts in this arena have centered on identifying the valid economic criteria considered in mortgage underwriting and compelling lenders to focus on those factors--not on preconceptions, prejudices, or predatory instincts--in determining how to price home mortgage loans. The point is not to protect people from their own bad decisions or, conversely, to guarantee that mortgages be granted to specific persons or groups on specific terms--that would violate the principle of market freedom. The point is to support equal opportunity and to ensure that borrowers are charged rates and fees based upon their status and qualifications as economic actors in the mortgage market, not upon their diminished access or market savvy or their race.

"We need President Obama and his auto task force to stand up for the interest of workers and retirees in these restructuring negotiations," according to the message, posted on uaw.org. [link added]  

___________________________

"I have no way to substantiate any of this ... I have no evidence of it."

But Castaneda challenged his critics to "offer a better explanation." ... How about that Raul was, in the manner of strongmen everywhwere, simply removing two popular officials who might pose a threat to his power? ... 7:03 P.M.

___________________________

Ambassador Kantor Not So Diplomatic

Yesterday's Lede: Far from being a man competent enough to run the fight against Taliban extremists, Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari is "not the man [you want] to run the meal at your home in the evening," said former U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor at a conference on the Obama presidency at USC yesterday.  Kantor suggested that the best thing would be for Pakistan's military to "reassert" control. ... #2 Lede from the conference: Conservatives with money are talking about starting a right wing imitation of Huffington Post. ... 1:53 A.M.

___________________________

Coming Soon: Another Castro Surprise?

Monday, April 6, 2009 

Are Cuba's Communist leaders eager to see the U.S. embargo end (as Marc Thiessen suggests) or terrified at the prospect (because it would unleash forces they can't control)? In 2003, Ann Louise Bardach noted that every time relations with Cuba seemed to be easing, Fidel Castro did something calculated to ratchet the tension back up: 

Consider what happened in 1996, after the Clinton administration and Cuba had settled on migration and drug interdiction accords.

Castro (after months of warnings) shot down two planes operated by the exile group Brothers to the Rescue, killing four people.

The upshot was the signing of the Helms-Burton Act, which significantly tightened the embargo and codified it into U.S. law.

Did Castro know this would be the result? Of course he did.

In 1980, president Jimmy Carter re-opened the U.S. Interests Sections in Havana as a de facto embassy. Castro responded by sending 125,000 refugees to Florida in the Mariel boatlift.

In the mid-1970s, in a remarkable and audacious act of diplomacy, then-state secretary Henry Kissinger and his assistant, William Rogers, conducted secret negotiations with the Cuban government on ending the embargo. Just as they believed they were closing in on a deal, Castro sent troops into Angola - scuttling the talks.

And gee, now that President Obama is preparing to lift family travel and remittance restrictions--and there's talk of lifting the entire travel ban--we hear about plans for Cuba to host Russian bombers, while Raul Castro conducts a dramatic, power-centralizing purge. But those surprises don't seem to have derailed the anti-embargo plans. If Bardach's theory holds, then, shouldn't we expect something even worse from Raul, and soon, no? .... 8:33 P.M.

___________________________

Huh? Ruben Navarette, explaining why "comprehensive immigration reform" failed, goes for the symmetrical condemnation prized by editorialists:

We learned that immigrant advocacy groups wanted an unconditional path to legalization for the undocumented, but that law and order conservatives would object to what they call amnesty. Although we need a new round of tougher and easier-to-enforce employer sanctions, it seems only right that they be accompanied by a tamper-proof identification card so employers know who is legally eligible to work. Conservatives fought the sanctions while liberals fought the ID card. In the end, we were back at square one. 

Conservatives fought the sanctions? Not the conservatives I'm aware of. Certainly not the "law and order" conservatives who opposed "what they call amnesty." ... 7:43 P.M.

___________________________

"Employee Free Choice On the Move" Part XVIII! Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln comes out against cloture for card check "in its current form." ... Again, it's not clear that "card check" has even 50 Senate votes at this point, let alone 60. ... 7:41 P.M.

___________________________