Wb News

• Lindsey Graham's protestations aside, it seems clear that there's neither the will nor the numbers to filibuster the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I'm sure that won't stop Newt and Rush from alienating the rest of the country from the GOP, however.
  


• The president sent a letter to Max Baucus and Edward Kennedy reiterating his support for a public option for what feels like the inevitable health care reform bill that's slowly working its way through Congress. Meanwhile, Ezra Klein helpfully explains the relevance of MedPAC and why it might finally get some teeth, and Greg Sargent documents the Canadian influence.


• It's hard to disagree with the thesis of this Politico piece, that Obama is deliberately poaching GOP moderates for his administration in order to reduce the Republican party down to its core base of Southern supporters.
  


• The right has predictably been freaking out over a New York Times piece that asserts President Obama believes the United States could be "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." As usual, it helps to read the official transcript in these situations. The jury's still out on whether this is sillier than the latest mutterings coming from Michael Goldfarb.


• Mark Levin, last seen screaming at and berating a woman on the air, has a list of "The World's Most Deranged Bloggers." You'd think it would be a roll call of the Left's most pugnacious but actually it's four conservative pundits who tend to point out that people like Levin are nuts. It's odd to think that Levin, author of a book called "Liberty and Tyranny," apparently knows nothing about either subject, but we'll just call this Jonah Goldberg Syndrome from now on.


• Remainders: Tim Pawlenty suggests he'll do what the Minnesota Supreme Court tells him to do; Dave Weigel watches PajamasTV so you don't have to; and Stephen Colbert edits Newsweek?

--Mori Dinauer

CNN anchor Anderson Cooper conducted a five-minute long interview of Diane Elder, a woman who decided to let her infant daughter live despite her severe genetic defects, during his program on Tuesday evening. The interview came about after Elder wrote Cooper after watching a similar interview he conducted the previous night of Lynda Waddington, a ?Spro-choice? blogger for the Huffington Post and RH Reality Check, who decided to have a late-term abortion herself (the anchor did not mention Waddington?"s left-wing affiliations during the interview). (audio clips from the interview available here)

On Wednesday afternoon, the network?"s ?SSituation Room? program played an extended clip from the interview, which followed an additional segment with a different parent whose twins were aborted late-term at the hands of murdered abortionist George Tiller. During this second interview, the father of the twins described how Tiller had the two babies ?Swrapped up in a baby?"s blanket? and how the abortionist ?Sbaptized them.? Despite the two-to-one imbalance in the segments, CNN did at least try to balance the segments with the two supporters of late-term abortion with that of the interview of Elder.

During the interview with Cooper, Elder described her experiences during the four months after she found out that her daughter had Trisomy 18, a severe genetic disorder, and during the half-day that she shared with her daughter, whom she named Angela. Despite all the hardships that she and her family endured, Elder recounted how after her daughter was born, ?Swe were very taken aback when we found that, when she was placed in our arms, we were happy. We were- we were incredibly happy. And my husband was with me. A lot of family and friends showed up right after the birth. She was passed around from arm to- from arms to arms.? Cooper dealt with the subject very sensitively, and thanked her for her strength at the end of the interview.

The full transcript of Cooper interview?"s interview of Diane Elder, which began 20 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour of Tuesday?"s ?SAnderson Cooper 360? program:

ANDERSON COOPER: Diane Elder chose not to have an abortion, even though, medically and legally, she had every right to. She joins us now, and Diane, thanks so much for being with us. You actually sent me an e-mail earlier today because of- of an interview you read that we had on last night. We had a woman on who, in the 20- 20th or 21st week, chose to have a late-term abortion, because her baby had a severe- severe genetic defect. You had a similar situation. You made a different choice. Why?

DIANE ELDER, CHOSE NOT TO HAVE LATE-TERM ABORTION: Because I wanted my baby to have a natural death. I did not want my child to die at my hands. She-

COOPER: What did your baby have?

ELDER: My baby had a- had a syndrome called Trisomy 18, which is a very severe chromosomal abnormality that is incompatible with life. That?"s what -- that?"s the phrase doctors used to me.

COOPER: And you found this out what- at what stage of the pregnancy?

ELDER: I was somewhere in the fifth month of pregnancy.

COOPER: And, obviously, I mean, it?"s devastating news.

ELDER: It was devastating. I found out on Mother?"s Day, and all I can remember is collapsing to the floor, because I had been trying for this baby for a very long time. So, it felt like a cruel- almost a cruel joke to me that this happened. And so, I- I went forward with the pregnancy another four months, probably the most difficult four months of my life. We were prepared for basically a- a monster, because we were told she was going to not have a brain, and she was going to have possibly cleft palate, club feet, and she was born with all those things. She was born missing part of her brain. She had one club foot, one rocker-bottom foot. She had just everything that goes along with that condition, which is- is bad.

But we were very taken aback when we found that, when she was placed in our arms, we were happy. We were- we were incredibly happy. And my husband was with me. A lot of family and friends showed up right after the birth. She was passed around from arm to- from arms to arms. I told the hospital I did not want any extraordinary measures taken, because I wanted what happened to her to be natural. I didn?"t want to try to- to force her to stay alive with needles and tubes, if that would cause her pain and just prolong a very difficult life. But I didn?"t want to kill her either. So, I just decided to completely turn myself over to nature and let it take its course, and the resolution was really a very good resolution. She- she never suffered.

COOPER: How long did she live?

ELDER: Twelve hours. The nurse woke me up at 5 am, and said, ??Diane, I think you might want to get up now. The baby?"s having trouble breathing, and this might be her time, and she put Angela into my arms.

COOPER: You named her?

ELDER: Yes, Angela- Angela Diane Elder, and Angela looked- it was funny, because she was able to make eye contact with me, and it seemed as though she were looking into my eyes. I could hear her breath becoming more and more shallow, sort of a rattling breath, and then she took two large breaths, and then a very large breath, literally sat up, and then fell back, and she was gone. And it was a very difficult moment, even at this time.

COOPER: Do you- do you regret it, looking back on it?

ELDER: Not in one- not one minute of it. She died peacefully, with no pain. The suffering was ours. For two weeks, of course, at least two weeks, really a whole year, we were in mourning for her, as you would grieve over any loved one who dies. That?"s a normal part of life. You can?"t get away from the fact that- that people die and people get sick, and they die. And- but we felt very clean when it was over, and- and as though the situation was- there was closure. There was a resolution, and-

COOPER: Obviously, other women, other families in that situation make different choices.

ELDER: Right.

COOPER: Do you believe that- that women should have the right to make that choice?

ELDER: When a baby is a fully formed, living baby, I don?"t think that, really, we have ever had the choice to- to take a life at that stage. I think that- that?"s a -- that?"s a fully-formed baby. I mean, I think you had some of the pictures up there, and you saw her. She?"s a fully-formed baby. She was born early, by the way. She came out at eight months.

COOPER: And, when you heard about Dr. Tiller?"s death, your thought?

ELDER: Oh, I think that was awful. No one has the right to do that, particularly not someone who considers themselves to be an advocate for life. How can they take another life? It?"s inexcusable.

COOPER: Well, I- I appreciate you coming on and talking about this. I know it?"s not easy, and I appreciate you writing the e-mail to me and- and that we were able to have you on today. Thank you very much.

ELDER: Thank you so much.

COOPER: Thanks. Thanks for your strength.

ELDER: All right.?

Say you're a Harvard professor and you decide to dabble a bit in politics. You decide to move back to Canada in hopes of becoming prime minister. Shouldn't be that hard. Before you go, you tell the school paper that if things don't work out, you'll probably return to Boston and pick up where you left off.

That would appear to have been Michael Ignatieff's plan, but things might not work out the way he was hoping. Harvard is going through some tough times. According to Boston magazine, its endowment, onces a porcine $37 billion, is down about $11 billion due to some unfortunate investment setbacks. And since it's not making any money, Harvard has to withdraw about $1.4 billion from capital to cover its operating costs, which would normally have been paid for out of profits. Which leaves a relatively paltry $24 billion left in the fund.

Not bad by most standards, but Harvard is used to big-time spending, without worrying much about where the money comes from. (Hey, that reminds me of a federal political party here in Canada. No wonder Ignatieff felt at home with the Liberals!)  It has big expenses, and $24 bil isn't going to cover them. In fact, says the magazine:

 While Harvard officials are doing their public-face best to downplay the problem, the numbers don't lie, and this economic crunch will leave the school a profoundly changed place. Harvard will have to become smaller and academically more modest, and as it does it will chafe at having grand plans without the resources to fund them. For the first time in decades, it will worry about merely paying its bills. The university will have to decide: If it is no longer so rich that it doesn't have to make choices, what does it really value? What are its priorities? It won't be a comfortable debate.

"We are in trouble," says one Crimson professor. In the aftermath of deep and damaging cuts, "there is a real chance that Harvard will no longer be considered the best there is."

Uh-oh. If things take a wrong turn in Ottawa, the Liberal leader might have to reconsider Plan B. It's just possible the old school won't be waiting with open arms, or without an open chequebook anyway. Maybe he'll have to stick around Ottawa longer. Maybe he'll have to teach at a Canadian university. Oh, the shame. Hey, maybe that's why he's so eager to make it easier to collect EI.

Kelly McParland
National Post

... and today's comes from The New York Times, which describes why you should not take financial advice from The New York Times. Our heroine is 63-year-old laid-off office assistant Eileen Ulery, who demands in the name of all that's sacred that her mortgage lenders (Bank of American by way of Countrywide) haircut the $143,000 she owes them.

What supposedly makes Ulery the "face of the latest wave of troubled American homeowners" is that she wasn't just some arrogant house-flipper. The Times goes to great lengths to establish her Yankee frugality. (Do they have Yankee frugality in Arizona?) She visits yard sales. She has a "round face" and "staccato laugh." She drinks $6 screwtop merlot -- a mark of thrift in the eyes of the apparently Fred Franzia-hating Paper of Record. She "tracks her monthly expenses on a color-coded spreadsheet." (Does she dot the i in "debit" with a frowny face?). And the clean living doesn't end there:

Far from being one of those who used easy-money loans to speculate on homes proliferating across the desert soil of greater Phoenix, she has lived in the same modest, stucco-sided condo in suburban Mesa for a dozen years. She bought the two-bedroom home in 1997 for $77,500.

But somehow she now owes $143,000 on the dump, which after ballooning above $200,000, now assesses around $122,000. Where did the money go?

Like tens of millions of other American homeowners, she added to her mortgage balance as the value of her condo swelled, at one point exceeding $200,000. She refinanced to pay off some credit cards and settle into a 30-year, fixed-rate loan. Later, she took out a home equity line of credit to buy a new Hyundai. She refinanced again in 2007, borrowing $20,000, mostly for a new roof.

I think we need to see one of those color-coded spread sheets. Subtracting the current $143,000 mortgage from the closing price of $77,500, I get $65,000. According to HyundaiUSA.com, the MSRP for the most expensive Hyundai in the lot, the four-door Genesis, is a cool $32,250. Even if we assume the humble-as-Uriah Heep Ms. Ulery bought that top-line model, and we add that to the cost of the roof, there's still $13,250 unaccounted for. And I say it all went right up Ulery's nose!

I hope Ulery gets out of her predicament, but it is offensive to the proud tradition of true cheapskate-hood to see Times reporter Peter S. Goodman build this person up as a model of thrift who became a victim of circumstance. (Or not even that: Thanks to the inevitable "stress-related illness," Ulery has chosen not to "pursue another paycheck.") This is a protagonist who, after all her bargain-hunting and spreasheeting, looks in the mirror and realizes the true villain is the bank that lent her all that money when she asked for it:

As she sees it, the same banks that generated the mortgage crisis are now getting public money to fix it, while doing little more than seeking new fees.

"I don't think the government gets it," she said. "These are the same people you couldn't trust before."

Well, she's right about that last part; just not in the way she thinks.

I know there's nothing as inescapable as blogs that are indefatigably called "indispensable," but this link is courtesy of the truly indispensable Calculated Risk, which nicely explains the madness of leveraging your most valuable asset to pay your most insignificant debts -- which of course is the real story the Grey Lady buried here.

Jon Cohn sees an increased Obama emphasis on cost-controls in healthcare reform. Ezra seconds:

Salon has the story:

[T]here's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly thanks to the collusion of would-be sophisticated cultural elites, a bought-and-paid-for governor and scofflaw secular journalists. Tiller's name first appeared on "The Factor" on Feb. 25, 2005. Since then, O'Reilly and his guest hosts have brought up the doctor on 28 more episodes, including as recently as April 27 of this year. Almost invariably, Tiller is described as "Tiller the Baby Killer."

Tiller, O'Reilly likes to say, "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.

O'Reilly has also frequently linked Tiller to his longtime obsession, child molestation and rape. Because a young teenager who received an abortion from Tiller could, by definition, have been a victim of statutory rape, O'Reilly frequently suggested that the clinic was covering up for child rapists (rather than teenage boyfriends) by refusing to release records on the abortions performed.

Jed Lewison has the video from some of those 29 segments: