Freedom Line Blog

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal nails a specious legal argument by at least two GOP governors trying to convince their Republican legislatures to approve the ObamaCare Medicaid expansion now, with the intention of opting out when the state’s bill comes due in three years.

The argument, a product of a private law firm in Ohio, makes some nice lawyer’s points, but ultimately fails to take into account how government programs – and the politics that drive them – actually work:

But there’s no evidence in the original law or the Supreme Court opinion that states can join or leave at their own whim. The logic of Justice Roberts’s opinion  [upholding ObamaCare] suggests that once states adopt new Medicaid, the program immediately becomes the old program for the purposes of the law and then states can’t leave.

The Becker memo also cites “guidance” from the federal Health and Human Services Department that states “may decide later to drop the coverage.” But these informal documents on the HHS website lack the force of law or even of regulation; they aren’t part of the Federal Register. In any case, HHS doesn’t have such authority. Congress didn’t grant the Administration any more statutory leeway than it did the states.

We wouldn’t be surprised if HHS is promising flexibility now only to revoke it later as a deliberate bait and switch. That wouldn’t be any more deceptive than Mr. Kasich’s legal claims. Republicans tempted to sign up for ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion had better think twice because once they do, the likelihood is they’re ceding control forever.

The decision facing Republican legislatures is straightforward: Either continue with Medicaid as it is and have (some) discretion over your state budget, or accept ObamaCare’s expansion and get ready to lose control.

It’s time for the GOP flip-floppers to be honest about the implications of this decision and debate the choice, and the consequences, on the merits.

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) did the Constitution and the nation it protects a service earlier this week by asking Dianne Feinstein, California’s senior liberal Democratic senator and gun control advocate, two simple questions:

SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX) The question that I would pose to the senior Senator from California is would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?

Feinstein’s responses were (1) “I’m not a sixth grader,” and (2) “You know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for your lecture.”

Note that Feinstein completely fails to articulate either a general principle of constitutional lawmaking, or a reason why regulations pertaining to the Second Amendment could be unique.

This, in a nutshell, is the core problem with modern liberalism. Although liberals pay lip service to the Constitution, they cannot defend their policy positions from the text, structure or purpose of the very document that gives them the power to govern.

A sixth grader knows that kind of logical breakdown creates a serious problem of credibility. A U.S. Senator serving for more than 20 years, not so much.

Click here for the video and transcript of the exchange.

H/T: RealClearPolitics

A day (or a quarter of a day) early, Happy Birthday (262nd) to the “Father of the Constitution.” He’s my favorite American, ever. All of us are in his debt.

That is all.

I’ve never understood why John McCain is so irascible, so prone to truly nasty remarks and actions towards colleagues and towards those on the right who may disagree with him on certain issues, and in general such an unpleasant person so much of the time. I’ll never understand it. But I do know this: McCain is a patriot and a brave and courageous man who suffered for his country. Yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of his release from brutal captivity at the hands of the North Vietnamese. He wrote about it in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, here. Showing the considerable better angels of his nature, he focused not at all on his suffering, but on reconciliation with the Vietnamese. It was a gracious and generous column, thoroughly admirable.

I salute McCain for his column, and for his service. So should we all.

In this week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino offers a dose of reality in response to the administration’s sequester hysteria.

A few weeks ago I wrote on the income-for-sale-tax swap some conservative governors are pursuing as an alternative to Washington’s income tax rate debate.

Today, Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, a big proponent of the sales-for-income-tax swap, announced his plan in Baton Rouge.

A press release from Jindal’s office lists the estimated benefits:

The plan will ensure revenue neutrality by:

• Eliminating~$2.7 Billion in personal income tax and corporate income and franchise tax
• Eliminating over 200 exemptions, resulting in $114 Million in additional revenue
• Broadening the state sales tax base and raising the state rate to 5.88%, which will result in ~$2.1 billion in revenue
• Maintaining vital local tax offsets and business competitiveness incentives
• Implementing targeted tax offsets, including a change in the cigarette tax rate, and tightening severance tax exemptions

But there are also some possible drawbacks. As I mentioned in my column, moving to a heavier reliance on the sales tax often requires lawmakers to carve out lots of exemptions. The danger is that, over time, a sales tax code could become as special interest driven as the current income tax code with all its byzantine deductions and exemptions.

Without agreeing to the substance of this critique, Jindal’s press release gives a clue as to what might be in store if his plan passes:

To keep the sales tax rate as low as possible, the plan will expand the sales tax base to many services that are already taxed in other states in addition to eliminating over 200 current exemptions. Many of these exemptions are no longer relevant since they were related to the personal income tax and/or corporate income and franchise tax.

Reducing the number of tax exemptions has many benefits, including limiting the state sales tax rate increase required to generate sufficient revenue and greater stability in revenues. The sales tax exemptions retained under the plan will help protect low-income residents and also preserve Louisiana’s business competitiveness. These include:

• Constitutionally protected sales tax exemptions, including food for home consumption, residential utilities, prescription drugs and fuel.
• Manufacturing, machinery, and equipment (MM&E), non-residential utilities, farm and agriculture, drilling rigs, vessels greater than 50 tons, tangible personal property for lease or rental, manufacturers’ rebates and trade-in value on new vehicle purchases, and preservation/rehabilitation of historic structures.
• Exemptions for vendors compensations
• Exemptions for certain non-profit organizations (religious, military, disabled)
• Sales tax exemptions on purchases whose cost is already borne by the taxpayer: those made by federal, state and local governments.

Reasonable people can debate the merits of which kind of tax reform is best to make the code simpler and fairer. Personally, I prefer a flat tax on income with few if any exemptions because it leaves the least amount of room for special interest mischief.

That said, Jindal’s plan deserves a hearing. If it passes and works in practice, expect to see Jindal’s tax reform model – if not Jindal himself – on the 2016 presidential campaign trail.

Kudos to Sarah Kliff at Wonkblog for tracking down a draft copy of an ObamaCare application. It’s the one a person would use to get access to a state-based health insurance exchange, and the subsidies to buy coverage that go along with it.

At 21 pages and asking for lots of sensitive information, the document is likely to be much more cumbersome than most people bargained for. That’s one of the biggest hurdles facing implementation, according to Kliff:

The administration is caught in a bit of a bind here. On the one hand, Obamacare is tricky business. In order to figure out how much Americans will pay, the federal government needs to collect lots of information, everything from the size of the family to its income to whether any family members are Alaska Natives (which would make them eligible for additional services through the Indian Health Service). It’s hard to collect all that data in a way that isn’t a bit complex.

At the same time, the whole goal of the Affordable Care Act is to maximize health insurance enrollment. That puts a premium on making the applications simple and easy to use—not the kind of documents that you’d get half way through and give up on.

To find a space between the two of these, there are likely a lot of support services that will start springing up over the next few months. This could include traditional agents and brokers, whose whole line of business is understanding applications like this one.  The Affordable Care Act also envisions a group of navigators, financed by state exchanges, who will—as the name implies—help navigate the insurance system.

Meet the new middle men, the same as the old middle men.

True, cost-efficient health insurance reform would reduce reliance on “navigators” in order to eliminate the transactions costs they generate. If a product is so hard to buy that it requires help to do so, you can bet that the cost of said product will go up. And up, up, up…

The bright side? At least there will be thousands of health insurance broker jobs that the Obama Administration can claim credit for creating or saving.

This has some really important stuff in it. Please read.

Below is a section of the IG report on the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, amply confirming longstanding allegations by Christian Adams, Chris Coates, Hans von Spakovsky, and others that the division is full of people who are openly hostile to the very notion that civil rights laws merit race-neutral enforcement. The section is chilling.

B. Treatment of Members of the Noxubee Case Team (2006-07)

As discussed in detail in Chapter Three, in 2006 the Voting Section filed

a complaint under Sections 2 and 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act against the

Noxubee County (Mississippi) Democratic Election Committee and its

chairman, Ike Brown. The Noxubee case was developed and litigated by thenSpecial Litigation Counsel Christopher Coates along with two trial attorneys

and an intern. This was the Department’s first lawsuit under Section 2 of the

VRA against Black defendants alleging denial or abridgment of the rights of

White voters on account of race. Numerous witnesses told us that there was

widespread opposition to the Noxubee case among the Voting Section career

staff because it was being brought against Black defendants on behalf of White

voters. We found that as a result of their hostility to the Noxubee case, some

career staff harassed a Black Voting Section intern who volunteered to travel to

Mississippi to assist the trial team, and mocked Coates for his work on the

case.

The intern told the OIG that two career Voting Section employees made

disparaging comments directly to him about his involvement in the trial. In

particular, the intern recalled being questioned directly and indirectly about

why he participated in this trial and told the OIG that Voting Section personnel

made comments like: “You know why they asked you to go down there,” “They

used you as a token,” and “People are saying, ‘Why did you go down there?’”

According to a memorandum drafted by Section management summarizing the

incidents, the intern told a Section manager that the Voting Section employees

informed him that someone who was attending the trial was reporting his

activities and, therefore, the employees knew exactly where he was sitting in

the courtroom and what he did at the trial.

Section Chief Tanner subsequently announced that files on one of the drives would be locked

to prevent employees from accessing such documents without permission. It appears that the

decision to lock the computer files most likely resulted from the discovery of what the team

member had done. However, we were unable to question Tanner regarding this matter because

he refused to be interviewed by the OIG.

121

B. Treatment of Members of the Noxubee Case Team (2006-07)

As discussed in detail in Chapter Three, in 2006 the Voting Section filed a complaint under Sections 2 and 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act against the Noxubee County (Mississippi) Democratic Election Committee and its chairman, Ike Brown. The Noxubee case was developed and litigated by thenSpecial Litigation Counsel Christopher Coates along with two trial attorneys and an intern. This was the Department’s first lawsuit under Section 2 of the VRA against Black defendants alleging denial or abridgment of the rights of White voters on account of race. Numerous witnesses told us that there was widespread opposition to the Noxubee case among the Voting Section career staff because it was being brought against Black defendants on behalf of White voters. We found that as a result of their hostility to the Noxubee case, some career staff harassed a Black Voting Section intern who volunteered to travel to Mississippi to assist the trial team, and mocked Coates for his work on the case.

The intern told the OIG that two career Voting Section employees made disparaging comments directly to him about his involvement in the trial. In particular, the intern Read more…

Wow, the new information on apparent Labor Secretary nominee Thomas Perez is coming fast and, uh, furious, today. The new IG report, referred to in the post below, includes this conclusion about Perez’ truthfulness under oath:

we found that

Perez’s testimony did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of

political appointees in NBPP decision-making. In particular, Perez’s

characterizations omitted that Associate Attorney General Perrelli and Deputy

Associate Attorney General Hirsch were involved in consultations about the

decision, as shown in testimony and contemporaneous e-mails. Specifically,

they set clear outer limits on what King and Rosenbaum could decide on the

NBPP matter (including prohibiting them from dismissing the case in its

entirety) without seeking additional approval from the Office of the Associate

Attorney General. In addition, Perrelli and Hirsch advised against a course of

action that Acting DAAG Rosenbaum said he was considering – namely,

submitting an amended complaint to address certain factual assertions – and

Hirsch edited the motion papers to be submitted to the court.

we found that Perez’s testimony did not reflect the entire story regarding the involvement of political appointees in NBPP decision-making. In particular, Perez’s characterizations omitted that Associate Attorney General Perrelli and Deputy Associate Attorney General Hirsch were involved in consultations about the decision, as shown in testimony and contemporaneous e-mails. Specifically, they set clear outer limits on what King and Rosenbaum could decide on the NBPP matter (including prohibiting them from dismissing the case in its entirety) without seeking additional approval from the Office of the Associate Attorney General. In addition, Perrelli and Hirsch advised against a course of action that Acting DAAG Rosenbaum said he was considering – namely, submitting an amended complaint to address certain factual assertions – and Hirsch edited the motion papers to be submitted to the court.

….[AND]

In his OIG interview, Perez said he did not believe that these incidents constituted political appointees being “involved” in the decision. We believe that these facts evidence “involvement” in the decision by political appointees within the ordinary meaning of that word, and that Perez’s acknowledgment, in his statements on behalf of the Department, that political appointees were briefed on and could have overruled this decision did not capture the full extent of that involvement.

Republicans in the Florida house and senate have rejected Governor Rick Scott’s plan to expand the state’s Medicaid population.  Under ObamaCare, states are promised three years worth of federal funding to cover the cost increases.  Last week, Scott reversed his earlier opposition and accepted those terms.

The move by Florida’s Republican legislators is a welcome corrective to the knee-buckling capitulation of Scott and other GOP governors.  Borrowing a play out of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposals, State Senator Joe Negron is using his no vote to pivot in a new direction.

“This will be the beginning of a transformation of the entire Medicaid system,” committee Chairman Sen. Joe Negron said. “My goal is that we will get out of the federal Medicaid system as we know it. Now, we can’t do that all at once, but we have an opportunity to begin that process.”

Negron wants the state to create a basic health insurance plan for the expanded Medicaid population and require recipients to pay a sliding scale premium based on their income. He suggested using Florida Healthy Kids, a managed care program that provides health insurance to low-income children, as the vehicle for delivering the new system.

Negron and his colleagues are showing real policy leadership.  Now that Scott’s dash for cash is on hold, it’s time for the former health care executive to rediscover his private sector creativity and help Negron put Florida on a path toward sustainable social safety net spending.

H/T: Tampa Bay Online

A new report is hot off the presses. Virginia’s veteran U.S. Rep. Frank Wolf, whose admirable pressure was largely responsible in the first place for the DoJ Inspector General to open an investigation into the department’s Civil Rights Division, just put out a release describing it:

FOLLOWING REPORT, WOLF CALLS ON ATTORNEY GENERAL

TO CONDUCT REVIEW OF CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

Long-Awaited Report Details Dysfunction Within Human Rights Division

Washington, D.C. (March 12, 2013) – Following the long-awaited release of a report by the Department of Justice (DOJ) Inspector General on abuses within the Civil Rights Division of DOJ, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) today called on the Attorney General to appoint an outside panel to conduct a review of all officials and correct the systemic dysfunction that exists within the division.

Today’s report validates the concerns Wolf raised in 2009 and 2010 about the politicization and inappropriate activities within the Civil Rights Division, including the dismissal of the New Black Panthers Philadelphia voting intimidation case and the subsequent investigation of this matter by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 2010.

On Thursday, March 14, DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who released today’s report, will testify before Wolf’s Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) Appropriations subcommittee at 10 a.m. in H-309 in the Capitol.

Wolf’s full statement is below.

“I was deeply troubled, but hardly surprised, to learn from today’s report on the Justice Department’s Inspector General that very serious abuses and politicization are prevalent in the department’s Civil Rights Division.  The report makes clear that the division has become a rat’s nest of unacceptable and unprofessional actions, and even outright threats against career attorneys and systemic mismanagement.

“Above all, I believe that Attorney General Holder has failed in his leadership of this Justice Department.  As the head of the department, he alone bears ultimate responsibility for the serious abuses that occurred on his watch over the last four years.  Notably, the report also confirms that the attorney general was made aware of efforts to dismiss the voting rights case against the New Black Panther Party in 2009, which was apparently dismissed with his blessing.  Holder has failed the American people, and he must be held responsible for the prevailing dysfunction that has occurred under his leadership.

“Today, I am calling on Holder to immediately appoint an outside, independent panel, led by someone of integrity and experience like former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, to conduct a 60-day in-depth review of all officials, attorneys and policies within the division and make recommendations to the department and to the Congress on how to address the systematic dysfunction that has taken root within the division.

“Additionally, all of the individuals cited for improper conduct should be immediately removed and appropriate action should be taken.

“I take these issues very seriously, both because of my responsibilities as chairman of the House CJS Appropriations subcommittee, which funds the Justice Department, but also because I have been a stalwart supporter of voting rights enforcement.

“I was the only member of the Virginia congressional delegation – Republican or Democrat – to vote for the Voting Rights Act in 1982.  I was heavily criticized by state newspapers, including the Richmond Times-Dispatch, for my vote. I was criticized again by editorials in my district when I supported the Voting Rights Act extension in 2006, but I stuck by my vote because I strongly believe that voting is a sacrosanct and inalienable right of any democracy.

“I first contacted former Inspector General Glenn Fine in July 2009 to request this report.  Nearly four years after my request – and two inspectors general later – this report has finally been released.  Although I was disappointed the IG’s office was initially slow in its review of this case, the pace noticeably accelerated under the leadership of the current IG Michael Horowitz, who assumed this position last spring.  I appreciate Mr. Horowitz’s leadership and believe he has produced a good report.

“I was particularly disheartened by the dismissal of the New Black Panthers case by the Obama Justice Department.  The dismissal was wholeheartedly opposed by the four career attorneys managing the case, as well as the Division’s own appellate office, which is also staffed by career DOJ attorneys.  In a 2009 memo penned by career Appellate Chief Diana K. Flynn, she wrote that DOJ could make a ‘reasonable argument in favor of default relief against all defendants, and probably should.’  She further noted that the complaint’s purpose was ‘to prevent the paramilitary-style intimidation of voters, while leaving open ample opportunity for political expression.’

“Today’s IG report makes clear the degree to which politicization and mismanagement influenced the inexplicable dismissal of this case.  The Civil Rights Division should be beyond reproach, and in my capacity as CJS chairman I will continue to work to finally achieve an ethical, functioning Justice Department that Americans are once again proud of.”

At The American Spectator today, I detail in exhaustive fashion the outlandish record of Justice Department official Thomas Perez, who is rumored to be President Obama’s choice to be Secretary of Labor. At NRO, the incomparable Peter Kirsanow provides even more details on an important aspect of that record.

Here’s part of Kirsanow’s:

The Civil Rights Division refused to answer 18 separate interrogatories pertaining to the substance of the NBPP case. The Division also failed to provide witness statements for twelve key witnesses and refused to respond to 22 requests for production of documents. Further, DOJ barred two Civil Rights Division attorneys from testifying before the commission (the two later defied the department and testified at considerable risk to their professional careers).

Here’s part of mine:

Perez has overseen most of the unprecedentedly naked politicizationof DoJ’s Civil Rights Division, as detailed in an exhaustive series of reports at PJ Media. In short, of 113 “career” (meaning supposedly apolitical) civil-service hires for the Civil Rights Division under Obama and (mostly) Perez, every one of those 113 weredemonstrably liberal activists. (The New York Times effectivelyconfirmed this report: “None of the new hires listed conservative organizations.”) In fact, many of them hailed from backgrounds with outfits such as the “Intersex Society of North America,” or wrote essays about “Genital Normalizing Surgery on Intersexed Infants,” or fiercely advocated the “rights” of prisoners in Arizona to perform Hawaiian chants and rituals. Since Dec. 3, 2009, Perez has insisted on personally approving each of these new hires.

He has aggressively continued a series of lawsuits against various municipal police and fire departments to try to force them to jettison written tests for membership – including a suit against the heroic Fire Department of New York in which the Obama team has argued in favor of what amounts to strict racial quotas – at the expense of public safety. Amazingly enough, Perez actually arguedthat black firefighter applicants who fail 70 percent (!!!!) of the entrance exam still be admitted to the fire academy.

From what I hear, more on Perez, quite devastating, might be coming out as early as this afternoon.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez. 

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

In Alabama two weeks ago, the state Legislature pulled an old switcheroo in conference committee to push through a sweeping but focused statewide school choice bill. The bill provides a tuition tax credit (refundable) to any students in districts where there are officially “failing” schools, to attend any school, public or private, of their choice (assuming they meet any other eligibility requirements). It also allows individuals and businesses to take a tax credit for donations to what amounts to a scholarship fund, to be used for the same purpose.

The problem is, the “choice” elements of the bill were not part of the original bill in the state House or the state Senate (instead, it was a narrower “school flexibility” bill, good in itself, but not involving any widespread parental choice). The broader elements of the bill were appended to the bill in conference committee, with almost no debate, and then rushed through both the House and Senate floors with almost no debate, but with huge majorities.

The state education union filed suit, claiming the procedures used violated both the state Constitution and the sate’s unique “Open Meetings” law. While I don’t discuss the constitutional issue here (I don’t think the complaint holds water), I do explain on WKRG-TV in Mobile why schoolchildren will be the winners, and why the law will probably succeed legal challenge based on the Open Meetings law, but also be a short-term political detriment to the Republicans who pushed it through.  For school choice advocates, not just locally but nationally, this Alabama brouhaha won’t fade away any time real soon, and it bears close scrutiny on numerous levels. I personally think it is a wonderful bill. But the politics of it all are likely to be dicey for a while. Anyway, again, please watch this very short news segment (3:39) for an overview.

In a remarkable editorial six weeks ago, The NYT attacked new U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), arguing the Republican Party “should marginalize lawmakers like Mr. Cruz.” Last week, the hyper-mercurial (to put it kindly) John McCain included Cruz among the group of younger lawmakers he labeled as “wackos.” Very nice. Those are both the sorts of non-endorsements that should make Cruz a hero among all correct-thinking Americans.

With last week’s strong questioning of AG Eric Holder, then on the Senate floor supporting Rand Paul’s filibuster as the second longest speaker (about two hours), and now with his amendment to defund Obamacare, which is rallying conservatives and gaining support from Senate Republicans (so far Lee, Paul, Rubio, and Inhofe, plus supportive comments from Mitch McConnell), Sen. Cruz — along with his friends Rand Paul and Mike Lee — is emerging as a smart, proactive force on policy and message. And, despite the howls from the likes of McCain and Chris Matthews (again, birds of a feather), there is not a thing that Cruz has done or said that, in any reasonable context, have been remotely objectionable (as National Review noted here, saying Cruz had “ably and aggressively executed his duty as a United States senator).

Cruz also has put together a staff of rising conservative superstars (who I won’t list here because good staffers usually are loathe to draw attention away from their boss), more than a few of whom I know personally to be among the savviest and most principled of public servants.

All of which is to say that this new senator continues to bear watching, and applauding.

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez. 

View more of Michael Ramirez’s cartoons on CFIF’s website here.

A very well-written report at the Huffington Post details how a few decisions by Gallup administrators caused the venerable polling company to miss key pockets of support for President Barack Obama in the run-up to last November’s presidential election.

Going into Election Day, Gallup had Mitt Romney leading Obama 49-48, but the actual result was 51-47. According to analysis by HuffPost, the reason for the bad call was because Gallup’s polling methods failed to keep up with how Americans are using their telephones.  This is potentially a huge problem because calling via telephone is the primary method for contacting people for public opinion polls.

Since the number of people screening calls by using unlisted landlines and/or cell phones has risen dramatically over the last few years, polling firms who fail to find a way around the barriers run the risk of missing large segments of voters who are avoiding unsolicited calls.

It just so happens that people using unlisted numbers only (i.e. not cell phones as well) planned to vote for Obama last year by a margin of 58 to 36 percent.  But because Gallup’s methodology didn’t correctly measure this subpopulation, the company never got a chance to put this data in their polls.  Consequently, Gallup’s opinion polls did not accurately reflect the intentions of the voting public which ultimately influenced who won the presidency.

Gallup is no stranger to embarrassing poll predictions.  The famous “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline from 1948 was based on polling data that stopped being collected two weeks before Election Day.  The thought was why keep polling if the predictions haven’t changed?  Of course, that decision didn’t account for the voters who broke late for Truman and made the false headline iconic.

Gallup rebounded from the fiasco to become arguably the world’s most reliable polling agency.  As the process of regaining that crown unfolds, this new breakdown is a good reminder to heed the words of the Gipper – “Trust, but verify” when it comes to public opinion polls.

As a supplement to my column this week criticizing John Kerry’s $250 million in economic aid to Egypt, Charles Krauthammer dings the Secretary of State for apparently sleeping through Foreign Aid 101:

We have no particular stake in Egypt’s economy. Our stake is in its politics. Yes, we would like to see a strong economy. But in a country ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood?

Our interest is in a non-Islamist, nonrepressive, nonsectarian Egypt, ruled as democratically as possible. Why should we want a vibrant economy that maintains the Brotherhood in power? Our concern is Egypt’s policies, foreign and domestic.

If we’re going to give foreign aid, it should be for political concessions — on unfettered speech, on an opposition free of repression, on alterations to the Islamist constitution, on open and fair elections.

With Egypt’s newest strongman following the same script as his predecessors by taking money and failing to reform, the only thing missing here is to remind America’s chief diplomat that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

In a very thoughtful but eminently necessary takedown, Jennifer Rubin takes John McCain to task, quite effectively, for his recent conniption fit against Rand Paul. (Actually, Rubin was comparatively gentle on McCain: She could have blasted the bejeebers out of him for his ongoing rants against Paul, Ted Cruz, and others on the right. McCain really does need to take a chill pill — or maybe about a dozen chill pills, while listening to soothing music, and return to public discourse only after a few Lenten confessions about his ill disposition.)

Here’s a key passage from Rubin’s blog post:

It is a mistake for conservative hawks is to view any limitation (constitutional, fiscal, real world) as a threat to their well-meaning effort to maintain U.S. influence in the world. In fact, it is only with respect for some limits on the executive, understanding of fiscal restraints and, most important, an appreciation for whom we are dealing with (friend or foe) that an internationalist foreign policy can be sustained.

At some point McCain begins to hurt more than help that endeavor.

Do read the whole post. I do take issue with one thing, however. In the course of making a larger point, she wrote:  ”If you want to promote pro-life views you better not nominate Richard Mourdock….”  It is time to set the record straight on Mourdock, who disastrously lost the Senate seat in Indiana that Richard Lugar had held for 36 years. It is true that Mourdock proved to be an inept (or less than fully, uh, ept) general election candidate, struggling mightily in what should have been an easy race even before he stumbled in a discussion of rape and abortion. But, unlike in some other cases that shall here go nameless, there was every reason to believe that Mourdock would be a solid candidate. Elected statewide as Treasurer of Indiana, he had shown political skills beyond a narrow constituency; he had a good record in office; his main claims to fame were fiscal/economic rather than social-issue hard-liner issues; and he ran a primary campaign based on broad themes rather than narrow appeals. Then, when he did stumble on rape, the reality is that what he said, in context, was almost perfectly acceptable. It only sounded awful when taken out of context — and then, mostly because it occurred in an atmosphere poisoned by Todd Akin’s truly idiotic rape/abortion statements in Missouri. After Akin’s screw-up, of course, Mourdock should have been prepared to avoid even wandering into the thicket he wandered into — but he shouldn’t be lumped in with Akin as having said something obnoxious, or of not being, on paper, a thoroughly acceptable candidate.

But that’s an aside — just something I had to say, because those who backed Mourdock in the primary had every reason to think they were getting a very solid candidate.

Back to the main point. As Rubin wrote, in criticizing McCain:

Whatever the reason, he is making an serious error of the type that recently has plagued many conservatives in a variety of policy arenas. A policy with no limits is not sustainable. And an approach to foreign or domestic policy that shuns prudence, balance and recent experience isn’t conservative.

This is a lesson all of us should take to heart. Politics is the art of the possible. And temper tantrums, like McCain’s, often make fewer good things possible than they otherwise would have been.