Where's the outrage?

The sideshow

Now, Rush Limbaugh and the WSJ opinion editors are many things, but probably not fools. So why do they continue to push this thing?

I have a straightforward question, which I hope you will answer in a straightforward way: Is it your intention to censor talk radio through a variety of contrivances, such as "local content," "diversity of ownership," and "public interest" rules -- all of which are designed to appeal to populist sentiments but, as you know, are the death knell of talk radio and the AM band?

You have singled me out directly, admonishing members of Congress not to listen to my show. Bill Clinton has since chimed in, complaining about the lack of balance on radio. And a number of members of your party, in and out of Congress, are forming a chorus of advocates for government control over radio content. This is both chilling and ominous.

Ah, right, Bill Clinton. Since little else is working for them, the Mighty Wurlitzer attempts to work up some of the old passion by invoking Clinton's name and accusing him and Obama of secretly trying to muzzle their spokesman.

Umkay.

Whale on, man.

The Mighty Wurlitzer makes its first sound check

NPR has an interesting story on the curious case of "comparative clinical effectiveness research" which basically monitors the effectiveness of medicines and medical devices. The point is to improve care by figuring out what works and what doesn't. And this is regardless of cost, though it does, theoretically, lower costs by figuring out what procedures are a waste.

This would generally be considered a good thing. Indeed it had bipartisan enthusiasm, not just support, including the support of the John McCain health care adviser.

Seems, though, that Republicans now smell the sulfuric hint of universal health care in this small whiff of health care sanity. So the jukebox starts playing those familiar songs: an op-ed in the WSJ, Limbaugh (himself a self-medicating expert on drug efficacy) picks it up, and soon House Republicans begin their inevitable braying.

Of course, it would have been nice if NPR had been a little more direct in calling "bullshit" on this, but it is a potentially useful preview of the battle to come over health care.

Nevertheless, because this is nothing if not a public service blog, we turn to Steven Pearlstein (via Klein) for the aforementioned calling of "bullshit."

There's nothing particularly new about comparative effectiveness research -- the National Institutes of Health, along with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, have been doing it for years, with a budget last year of about $335 million. But with the strong backing of the Obama administration, House Democrats are anxious to ramp up the effort, which nearly all experts agree is a necessary first step to reforming a broken health-care system.

To some, however, the wording in last month's House report was anything but innocuous. To them, it was a warning shot across the bow, the camel's nose under the tent of a government-run health system, the dangerous first step on the slippery slope toward European-style health-care rationing.

" 'Stimulus' bill may change health care forever," blared the headline in the Washington Times over a commentary written by Amy Menefee, communications director for the Galen Institute, a nonprofit think tank that aims to bring free-market ideas to the health-care debate.

"Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan," warned Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York and adjunct senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute, in a commentary distributed by Bloomberg News several days later.

No sooner had the McCaughey commentary hit the tape then -- what a coincidence! -- radio bloviator Rush Limbaugh was quoting it on his syndicated show, warning that under the world envisioned by the Obama stimulus bill, old people would be denied all costly medical treatments under a new "duty to die" regime meant to save taxpayer money. The McCaughey commentary also got a prominent mention by uber-blogger Matt Drudge.

The next day, the Wall Street Journal's senior economics writer, Stephen Moore, was on Fox News warning that the stimulus bill would put the government in control of what medical treatments you and your family would be allowed to receive. That set the stage for Megyn Kelly's interview with Sen. Arlen Specter, who was virtually browbeat by the anchor until he promised that "we are not going to let the federal government monitor what doctors do."

The Journal's editorial page picked up the campaign the next day, drawing the line of causation from electronic health records -- another beneficiary of the stimulus bill -- to comparative health records to government price controls and then a government-run "health tech monopoly."

This right-wing brushfire didn't start on its own, of course. It was a work of political arson by the country's drugmakers and medical device makers, which have the most to lose if there is solid research showing that some of their most expensive and high-margin products aren't really better than the low-priced spread. The flames were also fanned by "disease groups" like Easter Seals and the American Cancer Society, which fear that any attempt to determine what works best will inevitably lead to a one-size-fits-all approach to treating people with serious chronic conditions.

It's not that these various groups have no reason for concern. If comparative effectiveness research is done badly, or if the results are used simply as an excuse to deny insurance coverage for all expensive treatments, then there would be plenty of reason to get out the pitchforks and storm Capitol Hill. And there are surely examples from Britain and other countries of people being denied access to the latest drugs and procedures, including some that are significantly more effective than other treatments.

What the critics don't have, however, is any shred of evidence that the professionals who do this research are incompetent or have any but the best intentions in trying to figure out what treatments are the most effective for patients. There is no reason to believe that once this clinical research is completed, it cannot be used in a disciplined, scientific way by physicians, economists and medical ethicists to determine whether there are drugs, tests, surgical procedures or devices that simply don't deliver enough benefit to justify their cost. And there is no reason we cannot set up reasonable procedures, overseen by independent health professionals, to protect patients who can demonstrate a special need for a treatment that is not normally cost-effective.

Maybe it's not 1993, but I don't think we should be too complacent about that.

Magic realism

Somewhat surprisingly, it turns out that minstrel show politics is not a qualification for RNC chairman.

WASHINGTON — Chip Saltsman, the candidate for national Republican Party chairman who came under fire late last year for distributing a holiday CD with the parody song “Barack the Magic Negro,” dropped out of the contest Thursday on the eve of the vote.

Mr. Saltsman, a former Tennessee Republican chairman, sent an e-mail message to members of the Republican National Committee announcing his decision. The message made no mention of why he was leaving the race, but Republicans have said for days that he was struggling to collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Mr. Saltsman was always viewed as something of a long shot, but his prospects dimmed after the disclosure that he had distributed the CD with the parody song.

Now, I don't think that last bit is 100% accurate. Yes, many of the party "leadership figures" -- if such a thing currently exists -- were aghast, but many of the rank & file expressed solidarity with the creep.

The Obama recession

It's already begun!

"The Obama recession is in full swing, ladies and gentlemen," Limbaugh told his radio audience of 15 million to 20 million on Thursday. "Stocks are dying, which is a precursor of things to come. This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression."

Via Roy.

I've worried in recent days about what role this humble blog should play in a Peoples' Republic of Obama regime. An optimistic skeptic? A pessimistic supporter? Or just an observer of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy, which seems oddly restoked by last Tuesday's election results after so many years of demoralizing...um... power?

Mickey Mouse

The campaign to deligitimize an Obama victory continues apace.

“Obama has a responsibility to rein in ACORN,” Palin said during an interview with conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Palin said the group is responsible for the “unconscionable situation we are facing now with voter fraud” and attacked the Obama campaign for not addressing the problem after the McCain campaign sent a letter to the Democratic camp urging action against voter fraud in September.

Shortly before Palin went on the air, the Obama campaign e-mailed around its response, dated Sept. 23, characterizing the McCain campaign’s concern as “a starkly political maneuver to deflect attention from the reality of the suppression strategies pursued by national, state and Republican Party committees.”

First of all, voter registration fraud is not the same thing as voter fraud. Secondly, a temp worker adding a few names to registration lists is shoddy, but ACORN has flagged suspicious names before handing the lists over to registrars. Thirdly, because the name "Mickey Mouse" shows up on the list, does not mean that a cartoon character will show up at the polls.

Finally, it is the Republicans who should be investigated for suppressing the votes of minorities, the poor, and ex-cons. That's the crime.

But the Republicans know this race is almost over and it is vital that they do all they can to cast suspicions on the popular vote totals. If they aren't successful in intimidating voters at the polls and getting votes overturned, then they'll at least have the cold comfort of knowing the rubes who follow them will not believe Barack Obama is the President of the United States.

In the meantime, why hasn't Barack Hussein Obama denounced Pacman Jones?

UPDATE: Edited for coherence.

Rush!

"What you say about his company, is what you say about society."

Or something.

In that vein, the daily spankings Mr. Limbaugh has been administering over the air to Mr. McCain are about more than the host’s practiced outrage over the senator’s olive branch to liberals and moderates. Mr. Limbaugh has also seized on the ascension of Mr. McCain to remind the world that his nationally syndicated program still matters and that he has not lost his long-demonstrated penchant for making mischief.

“Folks, can we agree, just between us,” he told his listeners, sotto voce, on Wednesday, “has it not been brilliant how strategically I have inserted myself in this campaign?”

His appropriate namesake.

"Making mischief." So that's what they call it?

Dittoheads

VoteVets gets fan mail from Rush listeners.

White like me

Limbaugh and Imus must really be pissed. I mean, those two crackers were made to pay for attacking individuals. Imus made "a funny" about a few young women who'd just won the NCAA women's basketball tournament, while Limbaugh used his mad football analysis skillz to perform a hit job on a professional quarterback. And what happens? Imus loses his job (temporarily), and Limbaugh his MNF gig. O'Reilly thinks big. He doesn't go after individuals who might fight back; instead, he takes on an entire group of people.

And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A. There's no difference. There's no difference. There may be a cultural entertainment -- people may gravitate toward different cultural entertainment, but you go down to Little Italy, and you're gonna have that. It has nothing to do with the color of anybody's skin. (...)

That's right. That's right. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-Fer, I want more iced tea."