Meghan McCain Gives Being Disingenuous Another Shot

Meghan McCain has a fun new piece up at the Daily Beast today on RNC Chairman Michael Steele.

She begins her piece by saying that Steele is "alarmingly immature", "indecisive", and has had "...one snafu after another" giving the impression that he is "disorganized" and "full of mixed messages". McCain points to Steele's comments about how he "didn't seek" the Chairmanship and contrasts them with earlier quotes where Steele indicated that he wanted the job and was ready to lead. Pretty honest critique from a fellow Republican right?

Not so fast:

But let’s hold off on the firing squads. He’s had his role for only one year, and, like the rest of the party, is still adjusting and struggling to find his identity. I understand from personal experience how hard it is to be criticized by fellow Republicans. There is something that particularly stings about negative comments by people whose side you are on. And there is plenty to respect, starting with his call on Fox News Sunday this weekend for Harry Reid to give up his position as Senate Majority Leader because of his racially insensitive comments about President Obama not having a “Negro dialect.”

Ohhhh, McCain wrote her piece to defend Steele. Sorry about that. I was confused for a moment because her reasoning strikes me as a little odd. In another one of McCain's recent pieces she tears into President Obama for his decision making:

Let me be frank—I am angry. I am angry and frustrated, in a way I haven’t been in a long time. During the election, I remember the biggest fear I had about an Obama presidency was his lack of experience in foreign policy and specifically with the military. (Even as recently as two weeks ago, he showed astonishing insensitivity and naïveté when he joked with soldiers in Korea, “you guys make a pretty good photo-op”).

Shouldn't she "hold off on the firing squads"? After all, Obama has only been in his role for less than a year and, like the rest of the Administration, is finding his identity as a War President right?

Furthering her defense of Steele, McCain gives him credit for calling for Sen. Majority Leader Reid's resignation over racial comments that have caused a stir over the weekend, yet one paragraph later, contradicts herself by saying of Steele:

And he is willing to admit when he is wrong, as he did a week ago when he used the slang term “honest Injun” in an interview, and apologized for his mistakes.

For those of you keeping score at home, Sen. Reid should resign because:

- He said that Obama doesn't speak with a "Negro dialect" and despite the media noting the same thing during the campaign, this is now somehow obviously racist. Not to mention that Reid backed Obama for President, has worked to pass legislative priorities for the President and has apologized to Obama for the remarks.

and Michael Steele should be given another chance because:

- Even though he used a slur against Native Americans ("honest injun") on television, he apologized and "is willing to admit when he is wrong".

According to Meghan McCain, one action is worthy of resignation and the other is worthy of giving a leader another shot. From all indications, she is being serious.

Harry Reid's Racial Comments May be the Icing on the Cake for Republicans

The upcoming release of the book "Game Change" by journalists John Heilemann and Mark Halperin next Tuesday is already creating a stir. The book chronicles the 2008 Presidential campaign and one of the items that has received some press attention is this snippet from Page 37 about Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) saying that his:

encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination.

If you are wondering whether this is true, you don't have to wonder very long as Sen. Reid's office put out this statement apologizing for his "choice of words":

I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments. I was a proud and enthusiastic supporter of Barack Obama during the campaign and have worked as hard as I can to advance President Obama's legislative agenda. Moreover, throughout my career, from efforts to integrate the Las Vegas strip and the gaming industry to opposing radical judges and promoting diversity in the Senate, I have worked hard to advance issues important to the African American community.

So what does this mean for Reid? Chris Bowers at OpenLeft makes some good arguments that this incident may be the icing on the cake for Reid's political opponents who are licking their chops at the prospect of defeating him:

It is very difficult to see how Harry Reid can win re-election at this point.

At the base of Harry Reid's problems are the unemployment and foreclosure rates in Nevada. In terms of foreclosures, "Nevada is #1 in the entire country, and has been so for years. Further, the Silver State has significantly higher unemployment than the rest of the nation. Even the recent drops in unemployment in Nevada have come as a result of tens of thousands dropping out of the Nevada workforce, not from an increase in jobs.

There are few places in the country, if any, that have been hit harder by the recession that Nevada (and that includes Michigan). In that environment, it would be difficult for any longstanding, powerful, well-known politician in the state to be re-elected.

[...]

While at one time there was an argument that Reid could still have won re-election by using his vast monetary advantage to go nuclear on his unknown Republican opponents, thus driving up their unfavorables, this latest incident now makes that much more difficult. This is a sort of scandal has the potential to cut right at the heart of Reid's base, which is mainly the 30% of state voters who self-identify as non-white. It may not turn into a big deal, but it will be something of a deal. Given his current position, taking any hit, especially among his base, is virtually fatal to Reid's chances.

Given this, I would not be surprised to see Reid pull a Chris Dodd in order to save face politically. However with no standout Democrat to take his place at the moment, it is very easy to see how this seat may already be a lost cause come November for Democrats.

Lieberman Reverses Self On Medicare Buy-in, Insurance Stocks Soar

In case you were looking for something to make your stomach turn at the start of your week, I want to point to the recent comments made by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT).

Over the weekend, Lieberman told Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that he would vote against any health care legislation that would include the Medicare buy-in compromise and that would contain a public option.

This is interesting consider that Lieberman supported a Medicare buy-in in 2000:

He said during the interview that the fastest growing group of
uninsured are those 55 to 65. For that reason, the ticket proposes
an expansion of Medicare to allow those and older to buy into the
public program. There would still be a buy-in price but it would be
less than buying private insurance, he said.

and from an interview with the Connecticut Post in September of this year:

Lieberman added that he supports mandating that no one can be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions and that everyone be required to have health insurance.

As to how 47 million uninsured will afford coverage, Lieberman said only 12 million don't have insurance because they cannot afford it.

By allowing citizens who are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid to buy in for a rate below the private market, the government can extend coverage to more of those who are currently uninsured, he said.

Why the sudden change? Ezra Klein has some ideas:

Incoherence is no crime, of course. But it is telling. Lieberman could have simply opposed the public option because it implied too much government involvement in the marketplace. Instead, he opposed it based on things that wouldn't happen, or weren't happening, and never softened his position as those statements were successively exposed as fraudulent. That, again, suggests something more fundamental than a policy argument.

Or take Lieberman's procedural decisions. The Medicare buy-in compromise was developed by the so-called "Team of Ten": the five liberals and five moderates that Harry Reid asked to meet and develop a path forward. Lieberman was asked to join the original group. He skipped the meetings, eventually being replaced by Tom Carper. That puts his opposition in a different category than Nelson and Snowe, both of whom dug deep into the process, working on issues and in groups and signaling clearly what they could and could not support.

[...]

If you had attempted to forecast Lieberman's behavior based on his past positions, you would have failed. His support for Medicare buy-in, and for various other health-care bills, would quickly have misled you. If you had attempted to forecast his behavior based on the attitudes of his constituents, you would also have failed. They support the public option and oppose health-care reform, while Lieberman professes to believe the opposite. But if you had attempted to forecast Lieberman's positions based on his ongoing grudge match with the liberals who defeated him in the 2006 primary, you'd have nailed it perfectly. He has, at every point, taken aim at the policies that liberals support, even when they are policies that Lieberman himself has supported.

Lieberman's obstructionism certainly points more toward his seemingly insatiable appetite for sticking it to liberals rather than a principled objection to the current legislation. How does the White House respond? By telling Sen. Reid to compromise with Lieberman:

The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill, according to an official close to the negotiations.

But Reid is described as so frustrated with Lieberman that he is not ready to sacrifice a key element of the health care bill, and first wants to see the Congressional Budget Office cost analysis of the Medicare buy-in. The analysis is expected early this week.

The White House is denying the report but as Jane Hamsher observes:

It’s quite convenient that what Joe Lieberman is demanding — no public option, no Medicare buy-in — happens to look just like the Senate Finance Committee bill that the White House wrote with Baucus...Joe gets his way by giving Obama what he wanted anyway. Sweet.

Wall Street thinks it is sweet too:

Wells Fargo Securities analyst Matthew Perry said Lieberman’s comments are good news for managed-care stocks as anything that delays health-care reform is a positive for the group.

“Every time the reform seems less likely that it will happen, the entire group trades higher,” said Perry, who has advised his clients to buy shares of Wellcare Health Plans Inc. (WCG), recently up 1.3% to $36.74, and Humana Inc. (HUM), up 1% to $42.26.

Among the other recent gainers in the sector, Aetna rose 2.7% to $32.65, Cigna Corp. (CI) added 2.3% to $36.41 and Well Point Inc. (WLP) gained 2.7% to $58.07. Meanwhile, UnitedHealth Group Inc. (UNH) added 1.6% to $30.99.

UPDATE: Video of Lieberman supporting a Medicare buy-in just three months ago: