You are using an outdated browser.
Please upgrade your browser
and improve your visit to our site.
Skip Navigation

Today In Wrong

1. John Miller at National Review lambastes President Obama for his hypocritical praise for Waiting for Superman:

In a television interview this morning, President Obama explained that D.C. public schools aren’t good enough for his daughters. I won’t begrudge him that. But then there was this:
In the NBC interview, Obama was asked for his view on the documentary “Waiting for Superman,” which depicts some of the challenges of improving urban schools. Obama said it is “heartbreaking” that some parents have to rely on a lottery to get their children into a school that they believe will meet their needs.
Obama’s solution, of course, is basically to eliminate the lotteries, which is what he did when he moved to wipe out D.C.’s modest school-choice program for poor kids. When nobody in the hoi polloi has a choice and every school is mediocre, there won’t be a need for lotteries or heartbreak. Problem solved!

In fact, Waiting for Superman is about children trying to get into charter schools, not private vouchers. The Obama administration's education policies strongly support charter schools such as those depicted in the film.

2. Jane Hamsher of FireDogLake, in her diatribe against the Affordable Care Act, claims that David Axelrod somehow directed me to attack left-wing critics of the bill:

Axelrod said plenty during the health care fight actually. The self-described “populist” was feeding dutiful JournoList scribes like Jon Chait and Matt Yglesias, as well as John Cole, cues to attack the “left” for raising justified concerns about both the bill, and what it would mean for the Democratic Party

In fact, I have never had any contact with Axelrod or anybody working on his behalf. Hamsher continues, arguing that Senate Democrats could have passed a public option through reconciliation if they wanted:

I’m happy he can count to sixty but apparently he can’t read. The health care bill passed through reconciliation, it only needed 50 votes in the Senate. Hence all the giant headlines like this that appeared across the internet for months:

Reid: Dems will use 50-vote tactic to finish healthcare in 60 days

There were 53 Senators on record supporting the public option.

In fact, it is far from clear that the House still had the votes to pass a public option by March of 2010 after moderate Democrats had begun freaking out, and the number of Senators willing to enact a public option through reconciliation seemed to be less than 50, and probably well less than 50.

3. Matthew Continetti editorializes for the Weekly Standard that the economic performance of the last two years vindicates Bushian supply-side tax policy:

It’s a liberalism that believes all answers to political questions have been scientifically decided, in the liberals’ favor. Americans not only were handing the reins of government to a political party. They were handing those reins to a theory about how social and economic policy ought to work. The theory gave us the stimulus, Obama-care, and (in the House) cap and trade. The theory says you can raise taxes on high earners without damaging the economy. But the theory hasn’t produced the desired results.

In fact, the Bush tax rates have been continuously in effect, and it's not unlikely they will be extended for at least another year.