Garrett on McCain

Representative Scott Garrett gave an interview to the New Jersey Herald regarding Senator John McCain's acceptance speech.

"You have to recognize that, in all the time he's been a senator, at times he's been a thorn in the side of his own party," he said.

[snip]

"I've been willing to stand up to the (Republican) party and the president of the United States, when I felt what was in the best interests of the district might not be what the president was asking for," he said.

Actually, I remembered this morning that the "scolding" section of McCain's speech was very similar to one that Garrett gave at CPAC in 2007. Here's part of what I wrote at the time:

Anchoring a group railing against earmarks, in a matter of fact manner he attacked the President and the big government conservatives who cost the Republicans the Congress.

I think my favorite part of a today's long morning in the car was listening to Rush Limbaugh have a coronary over McCain scolding the Republicans for losing their way.

Granted, Garrett is no McCain. For starters, Garrett vehemently opposed McCain's immigration reform and attacked moderates in his own party for not falling in line. However, on the issue of Republicans only being able to blame themselves for what they did to Washington, it seems Garrett and McCain see eye to eye.

McCain 1.0

When I watched the speech tonight, I felt cautiously optimistic we still may see and may get the race I hoped for months ago. Granted, he needs to fire the advisers that have strayed from this John McCain, but part of me really hopes we get that race based on issues and solutions instead of attacks and division.

Garrett on Palin

Update: It was pointed out to me that, although not the first female for Vice President, it is the first from the Republican party, so therefore should count as being historic. I still think that's a stretch, but if the Congressman meant that it's the first VP nominee from Alaska, I agree that it is historic.

I was away for a couple days, so for those like me who missed it, Representative Scott Garrett not only received a nice bio piece from the Express-Times on Sunday; he shared his thoughts on John McCain's selection of Governor Sarah Palin as his runningmate on Saturday:

"Today, America witnessed a historic event," said U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett, R-Warren/Hunterdon. "In making this selection, John McCain has once again demonstrated his desire to change the dynamic in Washington."

Garrett's sense of political history is a little off, as Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman nominated for Vice President in 1984. While Gov. Palin was a good pick for McCain in terms of appeasing the right wing of the party, Ferraro's run was the historic one. However, after listening to a fair amount of conservative talk radio this weekend, it became clear that those on the right seem to have forgotten that.

What a McMoron

I've disagreed with Representative Scott Garrett and his stand on a number of health insurance issues (SCHIP primarily); however, I don't recall seeing him give as idiotic a suggestion as one of Sen. John McCain's closest advisers did yesterday. In response to the Census Bureau's latest figures on the uninsured, one of the architects of McCain's health plan put in his two cents (h/t Blue Jersey).

But the numbers are misleading, said John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a right-leaning Dallas-based think tank. Mr. Goodman, who helped craft Sen. John McCain's health care policy, said anyone with access to an emergency room effectively has insurance, albeit the government acts as the payer of last resort. (Hospital emergency rooms by law cannot turn away a patient in need of immediate care.)

"So I have a solution. And it will cost not one thin dime," Mr. Goodman said. "The next president of the United States should sign an executive order requiring the Census Bureau to cease and desist from describing any American - even illegal aliens - as uninsured. Instead, the bureau should categorize people according to the likely source of payment should they need care.
"So, there you have it. Voila! Problem solved."

Obviously, that's not a solution nor does it do anything to deal with rising health care costs. Glossing over the differences between functional coverage and coverage of last resort would make costs worse. Those of us with health insurance take the first hit, as our costs are artificially higher for insurance and care because hospitals hedge their fees to deal with unneeded uninsured emergency room visits. Then, as taxpayers, we're smacked again when the hospitals guess wrong.

Access to a doctor's office saves money compared to emergency room visits. This has been shown in study after study. For example, this is part of a policy study conducted at Duke University back in 2001 of the then 1.2 million uninsured in North Carolina:

The average charge for a non-urgent emergency room visit is roughly 2.3 times more than an office-based visit, meaning that an emergency room visit costs $58.36 more than an office-based visit ($103.25 versus $44.89) (ACP-ASIM, 2000). If the additional 26,000 persons who would be able to access primary care in an office-based setting under the first policy reduced non-urgent emergency room visits by 100 percent as earlier estimated, a cost savings of $1.75 million [$58.36 x 30,000] would be realized. In addition, if the number of preventable hospitalizations were reduced by 6.0 percent as previous estimated, a cost savings of $3.3 million would be realized, assuming that the average cost of one preventable hospitalization was $7,565

As with any issue, you need good numbers to see how big of a problem you have and how best to deal with it. Lumping functioning government insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP) with rescue payments for charity care would make determining the best course of action difficult to say the least.

If the Republicans want to reclaim the mantle of fiscal responsibility and point toward lower health care costs, shutting this guy up should be priority number one.

I have to believe that Garrett is smarter than to agree with McCain's McMoron, but Garrett and his colleagues have to come out against this idiocy or they are giving tacit endorsement with their silence.

We Need to Demand Better

Abortion seems to be finally showing up in the Presidential race. With the seminar at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church on Saturday night, the question has been most directly asked of each candidate. As reported by the AP:

Obama said he would limit abortions in the late stages of pregnancy if there are exceptions for the mother's health. He said he knew that people who consider themselves pro-life will find his stance "inadequate."

He said the government should do more to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to help struggling new mothers, such as providing needed resources to the poor, and better adoption services.

McCain expressed his anti-abortion stand simply and quickly, saying human rights begin the instant a human egg is fertilized. McCain, who adopted a daughter from Bangladesh, also called for making adoption easier.

Fair enough, and clear. People can take from that what they may and people on each side can actively support or oppose a candidate's position honestly.

However, there is a group out of Virginia that wants to be anything but honest in their discussing the campaign. A group called The Real Truth About Obama is planning on running ads against Sen. Obama that are flat out fake:

The ad features an "Obama-like voice" saying he would make taxpayers pay for all abortions, ensure minors' abortions are concealed from their parents, appoint more liberal Supreme Court justices and legalize the late-term procedure that abortion opponents call "partial-birth" abortion.

Other than the liberal Supreme Court justices (a given), this is complete garbage, and the group knows it. It's a classic case of taking one truth, combining it with a bunch of misrepresentations or exaggerations, and packaging it as one statement. Because the piece of truth is there, people give more credence to the rest of it.

The reason this is even hitting the news now is because the group is trying to be exempted from donation limits. Therefore, it's another moneymaking proposition Barry Goldwater used to warn us all about.

I would love to see a truth in advertising requirement for groups and candidates running political ads. If you want an exemption to limits, you have to submit your ads in advance to a non-partisan, confidential committee to establish whether or not what you're saying is true. Otherwise, limits it is.

Sure, there are those that might say it infringes on free speech, but to be telling such patently false assertions in order to pad your own wallets has nothing to do with strengthening the Republic as intended by the First Amendment. How many Representatives or Senators who would stand on the Floor of their respective Houses and say we must defend the right to lie to voters or constituents?

However, such a piece of legislation is unlikely to ever get to the floor, let along through Congress. Unfortunately, both parties have groups at the fringe who benefit financially from false attacks, and voters still get suckered into this stuff.

It then falls on us as voters to stop responding to it. Whether that will happen any time soon is obviously up in the air, but we have to take our responsibility as citizens seriously and not put up with this garbage.

McMoney over McPrinciple

Well, this cinches it. Those of us hoping for a different campaign on both sides have firmly received our answer from the John McCain Campaign: You're SOL.

The idea that McCain would embrace a fundraiser being given by the biggest scumbag in modern American political history is proof positive the straight talk express has left the tracks. As the ads have gone increasingly negative, it seemed we were headed down this path anyway, however doing a fundraiser with Ralph Reed is a whole other issue.

For those that don't know, or remember, Ralph Reed helped Pat Robertson launch his Christian Coalition, which McCain once called "agents of intolerance." Then, Reed was such a "good Christian", he funded faith driven opposition to casinos using money from competing casinos.

Part of me really hopes the Democrats, but more importantly the traditional media, beat the garbage out of the McCain campaign over this.

Shifting policy positions, as both sides have done is one thing as they dance toward the center. However, McCain's embrace of the very corrupting, completely disingenuous, and blasphemous forces he's spent the better part of the last decade fighting against is a whole other ballgame. These guys don't do anything for the glory of God, they do it for the glory of greed.

There are a lot of views out there people change their minds on, however to go from a clean government crusader to openly embracing corruption and those who perpetrate it is wholly irreconcilable. A conversion one way or the other on abortion or guns is one thing, but how does someone tell their conversion story to say they now believe corruption and taking advantage of people is a good thing?

If there was any hope of the McCain administration being any different than the Bush administration in terms of letting the foxes guard the hen house we now know it just isn't going to happen.

Obama vs. McCain

When I started telling people this was the race I wanted in the middle of last year, even I didn't believe it was likely to happen. I just hope it lives up to my expectations. Honest disagreements are what politics is about, but my sincere hope is that each side actively keeps it out of the gutter.