East Norriton's own NY-23 Part 2

As I find out more about the East Norriton's supervisor race I originally posted about here, I become more and more puzzled about this "old fashioned campaigning" article that appeared in Saturday's Times Herald. A quick perusal of the campaign finance records for winners Harris Dainoff and John Zurzola reflects a campaign well financed by union interests.

Zurzola and Dainoff combined raised about $30,000 for their bid for the "powerful" East Norriton Supervisor slot. I am not in any way suggesting that unions should not be permitted to donate to political campaigns. However, it is interesting that with the limited campaign finance records I have, on Zurzola's report alone, I was able to identify some $6,100 in donated from 13 different unions. Unions that would, presumably, all have jobs building the new Einstein Hospital.

It is also noteworthy that a New Jersey-based engineer, Thomas Beach, Jr., donated $1,000 to Dainoff's and Zurzola's bids for supervisor. The engineering firm of Mr. Beach, Remington, Vernick and Beach, raised eyebrows in Pittsburgh back in February of 2008 when some local municipalities suddenly dropped their long-time engineering firms and hired Remington, Vernick and Beach. From the PPG:

"When I asked for a proposal all I got was a rate sheet with the costs plus 10 percent," Moon commissioner Marvin Eicher said at the time.

When Robinson switched engineering firms Feb. 11, it was done on a 3-2 vote amidst charges that the information provided was sketchy and the move seemed pre-determined.

The firm hired was Remington, Vernick & Beach. It replaced Lennon Smith Souleret, which had served the township for 16 years.

The move so disgusted Commissioner Jerry Brouker that he walked out of the meeting. He said he believed the hiring had been decided before the board even talked, and said that "right and reason went out the window tonight."

In both cases, the three voting for the contract were Democrats, and the two voting against were Republicans. In neither case was anyone critical of Lennon Smith Souleret; both board chairmen said the move was made to save money.

In neighboring Kennedy, meanwhile, the HRG engineer that had served the township left the firm to take another job last summer. Kennedy, which is heavily Democratic, dropped HRG and hired Remington, Vernick & Beach.

Coincidence? Perhaps. The Philadelphia-based firm recently opened a Pittsburgh office and is aggressively looking for work. Its parent firm, New Jersey-based Remington & Vernick, is a large firm with a long list of awards and projects to its name. And in Robinson at least, its proposal really was the lowest in terms of dollars and cents.

But Michael Vennum isn't buying it. A failed candidate for Robinson commissioner, he does believe that money was a factor -- but thinks it's more about money contributed to statewide Democratic candidates.

"It's curious to me how a New Jersey-based firm comes into Pennsylvania, starts contributing bucketloads of cash to statewide campaigns and now is getting work here," Mr. Vennum said.

And the firm does indeed make heavy contributions, and primarily on the Democratic side in high-profile Pennsylvania races.

(...)

There are two ways to look at that.

On the bright side, the firm boasts of having friends in government, which can help it obtain grants for its clients and can help streamline the regulatory process. "Mr. Remington himself said they were well-connected politically," Mr. Brouker said.

On the dark side, it smacks of a practice called "pay for play," in which professional firms fill political coffers and get government work in return.

Such activity is legal unless there is a direct quid pro quo -- an agreement ahead of time that a contract will be given in exchange for a contribution -- but has become enough of a concern in New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania that dozens of municipalities have passed local ordinances forbidding it, and New Jersey in 2005 passed a statewide law to limit it.

Press coverage of the problem in that area has repeatedly focused on Remington & Vernick and its subsidiaries

"In addition to the hidden costs of this practice, pay-to-play also promotes the selection of contractors based on their political contributions instead of their professional merits. It's been a prime source of political corruption in New Jersey and Philadelphia," said a May 2007 Philadelphia Inquirer editorial supporting laws curbing the practice.

The editorial went on to say the proposed limits "would impact firms such as Remington & Vernick of Haddonfield, which has received as much as $1 million in no-bid engineering work from Cherry Hill Township over a three-year period and has been a generous campaign donor to both the Camden County Democratic committee and to township candidates."

I'm not suggesting here that the campaign contributions of Thomas Beach, one of the principals of Remington, Vernick and Beach, are some kind of pay to play. But I am saying that the idea that this was some kind of a grass roots, old fashioned, knocking-on-doors political success story gets more far-fetched with each passing moment. There was big special interest money backing the Democratic Lawyers' bids for the EN supervisors slots.

Mr. Zurzola's wife is an admissions counsellor for Belmont Center, a fact that the Times Herald reported in their "meet the candidates" article that ran on September 8. Conspicuously missing from that article, however, is what "The Belmont Center" is:

Belmont Center for Comprehensive Treatment is a 147-bed private psychiatric hospital offering a full array of services for the treatment of behavioral health and addictions disorders in adolescents, adults and older adults.

Oh, yes. And I forgot to mention: It's part of the Einstein Healthcare Network.

Mr. Dainoff's father is an abortion provider in South Jersey who is also affiliated with Einstein.

I think that this information would have been material to East Norriton voters to help make their decision on election day.

Which begs the question: what was the purpose of this fluff piece that ran in Saturday's Herald? Why were the connections of these candidates ignored or glossed over by the Herald? As Dainoff himself said,

[I]t was important that the new supervisor’s board carefully monitor the construction of the new hospital to insure Albert Einstein Healthcare Network fulfills all its obligations to East Norriton. The Philadelphia-based hospital has agreed to build sewer facilities to handle sewage overflows in the Germantown Pike neighborhood and off-site traffic improvements to ease traffic generated by the hospital.

Cronyism and connections are nothing new in politics, to be sure, but these facts came to my attention solely because of Saturday's TH whitewash article and are now particularly newsworthy in my eyes simply BECAUSE of that article. In the interest of full disclosure, a perusal of Mr. Papiernak's campaign finance report will reveal my donation of $25 to his campaign. And because I know the candidate and had a bit of familiarity with the obstacles he faced in his bid for supervisor, the Saturday Whitewash piece just raised a huge red flag with me. That's why I am pursuing it.

Barry Papiernak was fighting a battle on two fronts: the well financed Philadelphia Lawyers and the entrenched old boys (and girls) network in the East Norriton GOP committee. These are facts that may, perhaps, have benefitted the good people of East Norriton before the election, had an enterprising reporter, with an ounce of curiousity, had the gumption to pursue them. They are facts that I have accumulated with little more than a laptop, fax machine, telephone and public records. Resources, I'm sure, that Carl Rotenberg at the Times Herald has access to as well. Stay tuned.

I report so the Times Herald doesn't have to.

East Norriton's own NY-23

If there was one message from election day 2009 that seemed to resonate, it is the struggle for the soul of the Republican Party between old guard GOP cronyism and Conservatives. The movement began with the purging of Arlen Specter, but there is still much work to be done. That struggle was vividly illustrated in NY-23 in the race between Scozzofava, a liberal RINO and Hoffman, a non-district resident and conservative. Both parties are paying very close attention to this phenomenon (and the Dems, at their peril, focus exclusively on NY-23 and ignore the implications of the NJ and VA gubernatorial races. But it’s all good.) I see the defeat of Hoffman was not so much a defeat for conservatism, but as a defeat for the entrenched business-as-usual GOP, as the Democrat won that office simply because of an unfocused local party.

The struggle seems to be with the GOP old guard, those entrenched Republicans in politics for sake of preserving the power base to which they have become accustomed. The old guard is getting in the way of newcomers, many of whom are true conservatives and threaten the old boy network; they are dedicated only to keeping themselves and their cronies in power despite the wishes of their constituencies. And they will go to great lengths to maintain that power, including campaigning for the opposition. Scozzofava was not the only Republican who undermined her own party this year.

In this year’s East Norriton supervisor’s race, we had our own old guard Republicans in conflict with a party outsider. Republican Barry Papiernak ran a clean, positive campaign for supervisor based on opposition to the controversial Einstein Hospital construction project impending at the old Woody’s Golf Course site. Mr. Papiernak spent $3,400 on his entire campaign. He was defeated by a mere 14 votes by a pair of Democratic Philadelphia lawyers who spent over $30,000 on their campaign for supervisor.

Let that sink in for a moment: $30,000. On a local supervisor’s campaign.

Who are these guys? See here. And this is Dainoff's father.

It’s important to remember that these Philadelphia Lawyers only won by 14 votes. And they only got that far because the East Norriton Republican committee was actively campaigning against Mr. Papiernak. The following flyers were mailed out to East Norriton households and were handed out at several polling places by local Republican Committee members.


Shenanigans characterized this campaign, which included, among other things, lawn sign shenanigans and Lewis McQuirns, the incumbent candidate Papiernak defeated in the primary, placing blue tape over Papiernak’s name at a polling location, and Republican committee members and supervisors actively overheard vocally campaigning for “the two Kevins.”

Here is the a nice snapshot of the Old Guard in action: the East Norriton Board of Supervisors:

"I'm not going to let you speak".....?? Really? No wonder they are so desperate to remain in power.

Further adding to the intrigue, in a head scratching piece appearing in today’s Norristown Times Herald, Carl Rotenberg praises the “old fashioned campaigning” that won the election for these two Philadelphia Lawyers.

Old-fashioned, door-to-door campaigning, a dedicated group of volunteers and a well-financed campaign chest helped get two Democrats elected to the traditionally all-Republican Board of Supervisors on Tuesday.

Democrat John Zurzola topped the East Norriton field with 1,291 votes and running mate Harris Dainoff received 1,271 votes. The two lawyers, who practice in separate Philadelphia law firms, beat Republican Barry Papiernik, who received 1,257 votes; Republican Kevin McDevitt, who received 1,216 votes and Independent candidate Kevin Dyson, who received 455 votes.

Clearly, the tone of this article is “Rah! Rah! Democrats are making inroads into Republican territory! Pay no attention to other elections which may reflect Dear Leader’s sagging approval ratings!” But what puzzles me is that all of the information cited above is out there for public consumption. In fact, the Times Herald has received all of this information in great detail. Yet, this is the piece it runs as a follow up to the election.

Is the Times Herald in such great financial shape that it can afford to ignore a legitimate news story, about which it has detailed information, in favor of a fluff piece on the victory of a couple of Philadelphia Lawyers who outspent their opponent by 10 to 1?

Is that the real story here? I think not.

Don't Jump to Conclusions II

Sunday Telegraph:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan worshipped at a mosque led by a radical imam said to be a "spiritual adviser" to three of the hijackers who attacked America on Sept 11, 2001.

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Great Falls, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother's funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan's eyes "lit up" when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday's horrific shooting spree.

There's still a possibility that it was PTSD.

H/T Kathryn Jean Lopez on the Corner

Don't Jump to Conclusions

The President cautions us about the Fort Hood shooter:

"We don't know all the answers yet. And I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts," Obama said in a Rose Garden statement otherwise devoted to the economy.

However, it is ok to say that Hasan "acted stupidly."

What Tuesday meant to Republicans

Thousands of words have been written, but nothing quite captures the message like this, eh?

Get to work

Just to be clear, I was not inclined to indulge the Septa strike from day one. Now, hearing TWA union boss Willie Brown whine about how he's the "most hated man in Philadelphia" and listening to him call Mayor Nutter "Little Ceasar" for "bringing nothing to the table" and claiming "He has destroyed any good faith we had to try to negotiate a contract," I'm really done with this tone deaf union.

Does the TWA remember remember the tears of Philadelphians as the city was forced to close the libraries? How about the city pools? How about closing some of the city's fire stations, for God's sake?

Maybe you think that this is all about power hungry unions who are feeling their oats in a Democratically controlled union sympathetic national leadership. Or perhaps you are thinking that that they are just being greedy, looking to secure their pensions and a 4% raise in an age when most private sector employees have seen their pensions frozen or eliminated and have seen cuts in their pay (if they are lucky enough to still be employed).

You are missing one important subtlty.

As with seemingly everything these days, race is, of course, a factor:

Observers familiar with the delicate, racially tinged interplay between SEPTA and the TWU see more at issue than money. Brown is a first-term president facing an election in 10 months. In taking his membership out on strike, observers said, he shows he's tough enough to stand up to SEPTA.

Many union workers are African American, the agency managers largely white. Everything between the sides filters through a prism of suspicion and distrust. Last year, Brown said contract negotiations would center on getting workers "the respect and dignity they deserve."

Yesterday, he hammered at what he said was an unfair disparity in how SEPTA funds pensions for managers and workers.

"We were forced into a strike," he said. "We will stay out as long as it takes to secure our pension."

"Forced into a strike," indeed. They held the city hostage over the weekend with the threat of transportation shortage during a potential World Series victory. They are blocking service at those suburban bus and rail stations that are running and what public transportation is running is running with heavy delays. Traffic for commuters is a nightmare not only in the city, but in the surrounding counties. A train fire on the R5 Paoli Thorndale line shut the line down yesterday; Septa claims this was an electrical fire; however, most of the public's initial reaction was suspicion that this incident was union mischief. What does that thought process say about the relationship between the TWA and the City they serve?

But back to those "racially tinged" negotiations. I'm not sure I can see how race plays into this, other than as a another bludgeon the union is using in order to guilt money out of the government where there is none. I'm done with this overplayed strategy, too.

As this strike rolls on, let's not forget one important thing: Septa survives only because they are heavily subsidized by tax payer money. If they win, we lose. And the longer they don't win, we lose. The union knows this and they don't care.

Give me the bat, Wendy

Here's the secret of every Michael Moore film ever made: editing. It's all a matter of using the right clips with the right music in the right order to evoke the desired emotional response.



Sorry if you've seen it before, but it's too good not to share.

H/T Jonah Goldberg on the Corner

Healthcare Horror

with Mary Katherine Ham


H/T Hot Air

Last Call at the Spectrum

In January 2008, the Wachovia Center announced it would be demolishing the Philadelphia Spectrum after 43 years. In the intervening year, the folks at Wachovia, recognizing what this venue has meant to the Delaware Valley, have arranged a series of concerts and sports events to send off the City’s beloved Spectrum in style. That series of special events is drawing to a close this week, and I had the privilege of attending one of the more uniquely Philadelphia-flavored events last evening: Last Call at the Philadelphia Spectrum featured a concert headlined by Philadelphia pop legends Darryl Hall and John Oates, who were joined on the stage by the Hooters and Todd Rundgren. With the event hosted by John DeBella and Pierre Robert, the radio deejays who defined the Philadelphia music scene in that era, it was like stepping back in time to the late seventies and eighties: arguably the heyday of the Spectrum.

Having nineteen years pass since the last time I had stepped into the Spectrum (for an Eric Clapton Concert), I had forgotten that, for all its capacity of some 20,000 seats, it really was an intimate space to enjoy a concert. The event opened with the Hooters, a band I had seen often in the smaller club venues back in the eighties. The Hooters were, and still are, a great party band, and their trademark sound featuring the mandolin and the “hooter” gives all of their songs a signature stamp. They had the crowd on their feet, and it was obvious from their enthusiasm, and the fact that the crowd sang along to all of their songs, that this was audience of local music faithful.

Todd Rundgren took the stage next, and to my mind, concert promoters would have done better to schedule him first. Rundgren’s heyday was the early seventies and his music, especially his playlist for the evening, falls decidedly in the more “psychedelic” camp; a genre not quite as appreciated by the crowd who had come to see Hall and Oates. Though they played “I Saw the Light” and “Open my Eyes”, Rundgren mostly stuck to deep album cuts instead of the crowd pleasing “Hello, It’s Me” and “Bang on the Drum”, a decision with which the always opinionated Philly crowd made their displeasure known.

Hall and Oates opened their set with a spirited version of “Maneater”, showing off a professional and talented band in the best possible light. Unlike with Rundgren, the Hall and Oates hit list is so deep, there was no danger of coming across a song that wasn’t immediately and intimately familiar to every member of the audience. The standout number was “She’s Gone”, a song that defined the duo and earned them the moniker that stuck with them throughout their long career: “blue-eyed Philly soul.” It was also a song which, Darryl Hall related, had not been performed live since the year of its release. That was followed up by a satisfying version of “Sarah Smile” that evolved into a rocking showcase for solos by the lead guitarist and saxophonist.

After their first set, the Hall and Oates and their band came back on stage and were joined by Eric Bazilian and Rob Hyman of the Hooters (on bass saxophone and “hooter”, respectively) and Philly boys Charlie and Richie Ingui of Soul Survivor for a rousing rendition of “Expressway to Your Heart”. The audience, in a true moment of Philadelphia cynicism regarding our own Schuykill Expressway, was particularly spirited in singing along with the chorus of “It’s too crowded! It’s much too crowded!” Todd Rundgren then joined the rest of the ensemble for a set of seventies era Philly Soul classics highlighted by “Didn’t I Blow Your Mind This Time” and “Back Stabbers” and closing with an encore performance of “Disco Inferno” that left the crowd on its feet.

A uniquely Philadelphia send off for a venue that holds a special place in the hearts of Philadelphians. Goodbye Spectrum. Thanks for the memories.

The Untied States of America, Part II

One of the effects of Administration’s implicit endorsement of the marginalization of half the country is that it not only legitimizes the far left fringe, but it emoboldens the weak-minded, intellectually lazy bullies who can't come up with legitimate, logical arguments for their positions and conveniently resort to character attacks on their opponents as a means to "win" an argument. See this enlightening thread for a vivid illustration of this dynamic on a local level and how it turns neighbor against neighbor.

On a broader local level, the race card has, perhaps inevitably, been played in the Philly DA race. The article is worth quoting at length so you can judge for yourself whether charges of racism are warranted or are just another attempt to smear a white Republican for the very great crime of being a white politician running against a black politician in a heavily Democratic city:

Three prominent African American supporters of Seth Williams, the Democratic candidate for Philadelphia District Attorney, today accused his Republican opponent, Michael Untermeyer, of "lacking the racial sensitivity" required of a top prosecutor "in an ethnically diverse city."

Untermeyer, who is white, immediately branded the charge "ludicrous" and "a smokescreen" meant to obscure examination of the campaign's substantive issues.
"This election isn't about race ... What's important is that we have the third highest homicide rate of any big city" in the nation, and a bail system that is broken, he said.

Untermeyer showed up uninvited, unannounced and unwelcome at a news conference called by State Sen. Anthony Williams, NAACP President J. Whyatt Mondesire and Rev. Audrey Brunson, president of Black Clergy of Philadelphia and Vicinity.

The GOP candidate said he was there only to defend himself, but his presence in the meeting room at the National Constitution Center led to a brief flaring of tempers over whether he had a right to speak at an event planned and paid for by his opponent's supporters.

The allegations leveled today by Anthony Williams, Mondesire and Brunson stemmed from a comment Untermeyer made two weeks ago in a televised debate. The moderator cited what appeared to be a statistically disproportionate number of blacks from Philadelphia on Pennsylvania's death row, and asked if "racial profiling" figures into the D.A.'s decisions to seek the death penalty.

"The question is, is there racial profiling, and the answer is no, there is no racial profiling," Untermeyer had answered.

Williams, the senator, quoted today from a 2003 Pennsylvania Supreme Court study of racial and gender disparities in the criminal justice system. The high court, he said, had found "strong indications that Pennsylvania's capital justice system does not operate in an evenhanded manner."

Labeling someone a racist is a terrible smear, and the cavalier way it has been done in the last ten months is criminal. Obama’s insertion of himself into the heart of the Skip Gates vs. the Cambridge police matter, despite his "not having all of the facts" and his subsequent and continued silence on all matters racial, speaks volumes; for Obama, and quite possibly Obama alone at this point, has it within his power to put an end to this this harmful, divisive and inappropriate tactic. And yet he chooses not to. And by choosing not to address inappropriate charges of racism, the first “post-racial” President implicitly endorses them. I have no doubts that this is an intentional strategy on behalf of the administration, especially in the wake of Cambridge.

Commenting on the Barack Obama who addresses the nation as a whole versus the Barack Obama who addresses his wealthy, liberal elite fundraisers (video posted By John Lewandowski on PAWatercooler, here) Jay Nordlinger explores this divisiveness a little further in this post, wherin he dismisses the idea that Democrats all think for themselves:

O’s New York commentary reminded me of the notorious Washington Post line, that conservative Christians are “largely poor, uneducated, and easy to command.” When you think about it, Obama has a pretty easy time commanding people — millions of them, including important people in media and academia. Including, almost, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee! But some of us, he cannot command — and he seems not to like or respect us all that much.

Long ago, I grew tired of the conceit that Democrats think for themselves, while the rest of us just take orders from some politburo: composed of Rush, Fox, and whoever. All my life, I’ve heard Democrats quote an old Will Rogers line: “I belong to no organized party, I’m a Democrat.” Ha, ha, ha! Oh, aren’t we grand, we Democrats? We beautiful, smart, unorganizable Democrats! Well, Rogers may have had it right at one time; but in my own time, the Democrats have been a pretty disciplined bunch — and pretty ruthless, when it comes to dissent. When it comes to odd-men-out.

I have 30 more things to say, of course, but here’s one more: Do you recall President Bush insulting Democrats, as Obama has insulted us, explicitly? Sometimes our post-partisan president can be a rather nasty piece of work.

Nordlinger continues with a follow up post, further making the case for a bigger sheeple population on the left:

I think about what I call the “shaping institutions.” For the last several decades, virtually all of them have been controlled or dominated by the Left — meaning, education, K through grad school; the movies; entertainment television; popular music; the big newspapers; the small newspapers (!); television news; etc.

Conservatives have to swim against a pretty strong stream. And we’re the ones who are supposed to drift along? I don’t think so.

And then there's this delicious anecdote:

Sometime in the late ’70s, Norman Mailer came to Zellerbach Hall at UC-Berkeley to give a talk. The place was sold out. This was during the period when he was writing pieces refuting Germaine Greer. He walked onstage wearing cowboy boots, Levis, and a shirt and jacket . . . and he had a rolling sort of John Wayne gait.

As he stepped up to the microphone, he said approximately the following: “I know that about half of you here tonight hate my guts because of my stand on feminism. So let’s get that out of the way. I want you to hiss me. I want you to let all of your feelings toward me out. Come on, hiss me!”

And the most spine-chilling hiss arose from the audience. It lasted ten seconds. I’d never heard anything like it before, and I haven’t since. It was authentic and deeply felt. And when it subsided, Mailer leaned into the microphone and said, softly, “Obedient bitches.”

The grim reality is that we are a deeply divided nation, and that we are divided on the very question of what our nation should be. We have drifted far from the pure representative republic our founding fathers originally envisioned. As congress has repeatedly overstepped it's constitutional limits over the years, conservatives should find themselves just as guilty of this big government creep as liberals, since conservatives have only been successful (when they HAVE been successful) at slowing the encroachment of big government rather than stopping it or reversing it.

What exists in this country today is a fundamental difference of opinion on the role of government in American life. About half of the country seems to be in favor of government solutions to just about every problem; the other half seems to be adamantly opposed to more government intrusion in their lives.

Conservatives have what’s left of the Constitution on our side while Liberals are engaging in a fundamentally dishonest campaign. If they want to change the foundations of our country, if they want to toss out, en mass, the limits that the Constitution places on government power, they should be forthright in their campaign. But this is not what they are doing. They claim that the changes they are seeking will leave America intact but this is an outright falsehood. I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that what the liberals in power are proposing is a paradigm shift tantamount to a bloodless revolution. And they are counting on the majority of people to be the weak-minded, unthinking sheep that has allowed this big government creep to advance this far. Instead of engaging debate on their agenda, the Administration and liberals in congress are resorting to an organized campaign of bully tactics: silencing their opposition with charges of racism or marginalizing the opposition. In case you didn’t recognize it, this is Chicagoland politics on a national scale.

Here's Andy McCarthy on the Corner discussing the outrageous existence of a "Pay Czar" (A "Pay Czar"! In America! Who would have ever thought it???):

What they're trying to establish is the power to control compensation levels, period. In fact, more and more Democrats are making the insane argument that doing this, and much, much more, is within Congress's purportedly limitless constitutional power to "promote the general welfare." This is really scary stuff, and I'm afraid I don't see a silver lining.

I'm gonna plagiarize Mark Levin here. Mark has been recounting how, when FDR foisted social security on the country, his administration told the public it was an insurance program. This was legally dubious — the government has no constitutional authority to force people to buy insurance — so his Solicitor General told the Supreme Court it was a tax, an argument the justices bought.

The moral of the story is that the public pretty quickly loses track of the legal niceties involved when government power expands. They just get used to the idea that this is something government does, and they accept it. That, I think, is what's going on with the pay czar . . . and health-care "reform" . . . and auto-company takeovers . . . and government taking equity positions in banks . . . and . . . and . . . and . . .

Thinking people of all ideologies should be asking themselves why this Administration needs to silence the opinions of the right instead of engaging them.