Why It's Hard to Believe in Lonegan, Even as Booker Begins to Stumble

Today on NRO

THE EDITORS: Obama evicts seniors and blames the GOP. Vindictive Shutdown Theater.

CHARLES C. W. COOKE: As the broken promises of Obamacare pile up — "Lower rates for all!" — the Left rolls out a new sales pitches. Obamacare Snake Oil.

ANDREW JOHNSON: Across the country, the ACA's new online marketplaces have hit major snags. Thirty Obamacare Fails.

ROBERT COSTA: While Boehner pushes for a bargain, many House conservatives remain skeptical. Conservatives Wary of Deal.

VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: Unlike classical liberals, the liberals of today hew to doctrine in the face of the evidence. Medieval Liberals.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

October 8, 2013

USA Today on Obamacare's Rollout: 'Incompetence . . . an Epic Screw-Up.'

The editors of USA Today are unimpressed with the administration's web skills:

Over the first four days the new online health insurance exchanges were open last week, more than 8 million people visited them, according to the Obama administration. At the very least, this casts doubt on the Republican claim that Americans hate Obamacare and want it repealed. It seems millions of people desperately want the coverage the law will allow them to get, regardless of their medical histories.

Alas, the administration managed to turn the experience for most of those visitors into a nightmare. Websites crashed, refused to load, or offered bizarre and incomprehensible choices. Even though the system was shut down for repairs over the weekend, Monday's early reports continued to suggest an epic screw-up.

They're being a little generous in that first paragraph, as we shouldn't be that surprised to see a site get 8 million hits (i.e., a good afternoon for the Drudge Report) for something that every American is now legally required to purchase. (You're not required to purchase through that web site, but you are required to be insured or to pay an extra tax that they insisted at the time of passage wasn't a tax.)

But that editorial gets better:

Park said the administration expected 50,000 to 60,000 simultaneous users. It got 250,000. Compare that with the similarly rocky debut seven years ago of exchanges to obtain Medicare drug coverage. The Bush administration projected 20,000 simultaneous users and built capacity for 150,000.

That's the difference between competence and incompetence.

Bush administration, competent; Obama administration, incompetent. That one is going to sting in the West Wing.

Say it with me: It's not just the software:

"I think there's growing consensus that it's not just volume," said Caroline Pearson, a vice president at the consulting firm Avalere Health who focuses on the healthcare law.

Healthcare.gov — the main portal for consumers in 36 states to compare their coverage options — was taken offline for maintenance over the weekend and was scheduled to come down for repairs again at 1 a.m. Tuesday.

… But a source close to the insurance industry said things aren't looking good so far. State and federal systems appear to have problems communicating with each other, and insurers aren't confident in the accuracy of subsidy calculations for the few consumers getting that far in the process.

"It just sounds like a nightmare," the source said.

What's more, they insisted they were ready:

Administration officials said they had relied heavily on contractors to build and operate the federal exchanges, under supervision of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. In the weeks before the marketplaces opened for business, those contractors expressed high optimism that their computer systems would work.

The prime contractor for the federal exchange — CGI Federal, a unit of the CGI Group, based in Montreal — and the company operating a "data services hub" for the government — Quality Software Services Inc., a unit of the UnitedHealth Group — told Congress at a hearing on Sept. 10 that they were ready for a surge of users when enrollment opened on Oct. 1.

The Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress, said that CGI had received $88 million for work on the federal exchange through March, while Quality Software Services had received $55 million for work on the data hub. The hub allows exchanges to get information about a person's income and citizenship from the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies.

Why It's Hard to Believe in Lonegan, Even as Booker Begins to Stumble

Does Steve Lonegan have a shot in New Jersey's special Senate election?

A lot of folks on the right got excited when they heard this news:

Mike Bloomberg, the billionaire mayor of New York, is spending $1 million on TV ads to promote Democrat Cory Booker in the U.S. Senate race in New Jersey.

Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser said that the ads are being paid for by Independence USA PAC, the independent-expenditure group to which Bloomberg is the sole contributor. The ads, first reported by the New York Times, will air in New York and Philadelphia.

Should that be seen as a sign of liberal panic? Or as an effort to get in on the ground floor of the Initial Public Offering of Senator Cory Booker, Inc.?

If Booker's in real trouble, it's not yet showing in the public polling in this race. The last two polls have Booker up 12 and 13 percentage points. To his credit, Lonegan is chopping away at that lead; the margin was in the 20s in the summer. But Lonegan remains a little-known, deeply underfunded, fundamentally conservative candidate in a heavily-Democratic state.

Brian Walsh, formerly of the National Senatorial Campaign Committee, notices a dog that isn't barking:

A review of its Federal Election Commission records suggests the SCF hasn't spent a dime to support Lonegan or to hold Booker accountable. In fact, even setting money aside given that Booker is still favored to win, the Senate Conservatives Fund doesn't appear to have issued a single fundraising appeal, a single press release, a single Facebook post or even a simple 140-character Twitter message regarding the New Jersey Senate race.

This stands in contrast to: the National Republican Senatorial Committee -- where I served as communications director -- which has hammered Booker in press releases and social media; respected leaders like Sen. Rand Paul and Govs. Rick Perry and Chris Christie, who have all campaigned with Lonegan recently; and other conservative SuperPACs like the American Commitment Action Fund. Meanwhile, conservative leaders like Club for Growth board member Frayda Levin have raised money for Lonegan and he's been profiled by respected conservative publications like National Review.

Walsh suggests the disinterest in Lonegan is because donating to him doesn't help the group's war-against-establishment-Republicans narrative. That could be -- it certainly will be disappointing if the conservative Lonegan loses; Chris Christie's 2013 gubernatorial campaign has been mostly a dress rehearsal for his 2016 presidential campaign.

But the Senate Conservatives Fund can also argue that Lonegan's down too far to invest valuable resources.

Then again, the issues are there. Booker's a ludicrously overhyped, pretty dirty, big-city politician, as Phil Kerpen notes:

In the first debate, Newark Mayor Cory Booker refused to disclose the agreement with Trenk DiPasquale that paid him nearly $700,000 while he, as mayor, controlled city agencies that steered the firm $2 million in contracts.

The moderator asked Booker three times whether he would disclose the agreement and three times he refused. Then former Bogota Mayor Steve Lonegan launched into this attack on the issue of Booker's outside income as mayor:

Mayor, you've made your entire fortune as the mayor of Newark. you've made over a million dollars in speaking fees. You earned over $700,000 in kickbacks from your prior law firm for diverting contracts to them and you won't tell the truth.

The only example of economic growth in Newark, New Jersey is you lining your pockets as mayor of Newark. Period. And you can talk about me but you know what I made as the mayor of Bogota? $1800 a year stipend and I basically donated every penny back.

You've made a six-digit salary, over six-digit salary, as mayor of Newark while you paraded around the country collecting speaking fees, collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars from your prior law firm.

You know this warrants being investigated. There's a lot more to this than meets the eye and we need to learn more about this. Because this man has made his entire fortune as the mayor of Newark. We simply cannot afford this kind of leadership in the United States Senate.

Booker responded not by disputing any of Lonegan's facts, but by claiming it was all for charity. Specifically, he said:

I'd like to correct the facts. First of all, he's absolutely right. I made money going around the country speaking and to the extent that I made money I gave the majority of that away.

Politico's Maggie Haberman immediately tweeted: "Booker on speeches: "To extent I made money I gave the majority of that away." Mostly false. Gave a bunch away this year."

Ruby Cramer reported at BuzzFeed: "From 2000, when Booker started giving speeches, to 2012, he has made $1,317,715, after taxes, addressing audiences. In that same time period, he has given $149,347 to charity." That's 11.3 percent, which is somewhat less than "the majority."

So Booker deserves to lose. Unfortunately, he's running in the state that elected and reelected Bob Torricelli, Jim McGreevey, and an all-star cast of Democrats.

Why, It's Almost as If No One in Washington Actually Wants to Reach a Deal.

Right now, we see some predictable playbooks in the government-shutdown fight:

John Boehner's strategy: Pass resolutions that would provide funding for the most high-profile, urgent, or popular portions of the federal government; watch Harry Reid refuse to bring them to the floor of the Senate; argue that Democrats don't want to fund the most high-profile, urgent, or popular portions of the federal government; and wait for the president to make concessions.

Harry Reid's strategy: Block all of the House resolutions on the popular portions of the federal government and protect his caucus from a difficult vote; insist this is all the House's fault; insist that there are gobs of House Republicans not-so-secretly terrified of the current course of action who are eager to vote for a 'clean' continuing resolution; wait for John Boehner to fold.

President Obama's strategy: Hold campaign-style rallies on college campuses, and use FEMA headquarters as a backdrop for an event blaming the shutdown on Republicans. Wait for John Boehner to fold.

Meanwhile, the government shutdown is turning into the second-tier story; the growing story is the debt ceiling.

As our Bob Costa reports, there's a strong possibility that there is no deal that could unite the House GOP:

Speaker John Boehner may be trying to finalize a plan to raise the debt limit, but House conservatives are already skeptical of his efforts. In interviews, several of them tell me they're unlikely to support any deal that may emerge.

"They may try to throw the kitchen sink at the debt limit, but I don't think our conference will be amenable for settling for a collection of things after we've fought so hard," says Representative Scott Garrett (R., N.J.). "If it doesn't have a full delay or defund of Obamacare, I know I and many others will not be able to support whatever the leadership proposes. If it's just a repeal of the medical-device tax, or chained CPI, that won't be enough."

"I think you'd see at least 50 to 60 Republicans break with Boehner if he went for something small," predicts a House GOP aide who works closely with conservative members. "They're also reluctant to even give Boehner a short-term debt-limit extension unless he gets something big in return. But that's the one area where Boehner may have room to maneuver. He could tell them, 'I'm with you fighting, but let's just extend the fight a few weeks.'"

Garrett's minimum threshold seems well beyond what Obama and Reid and the rest of the Democrats are willing to give. They might, under enough pressure, acquiesce to a repeal of the medical-device tax or chained CPI. But almost every Democrat knows the party's future is tied to the public perception of Obamacare, and thus they need it to be believed to be something besides . . . well, something like this:

Obamacare's appeal is in the eye of the Beholder.

If Democrats accept a full delay or defund of Obamacare, they might as well fold up as a party.

The New York Times is starting to notice that Harry Reid is not behaving like a guy who wants to reach a deal:

The poisonous relationship developing between Mr. Reid and Mr. Boehner has become a barrier to the resolution of the fiscal standoff. Loyalists to Mr. Boehner say they are mystified by Mr. Reid's attacks. If he foments a revolt in the House against Mr. Boehner's speakership, his successor would most likely be less compromising, not more. And with the Republican leadership on the defensive, surrender becomes more difficult.

Reid is planning on introducing a "clean" debt-increase bill that would raise the debt and keep the government borrowing and spending until after 2014.

The Federal Land That Isn't Closed off During the Shutdown

The delightful Amy Holmes notices:

Last week, we learned that the National Park Service is ordering privately run businesses that operate on federal land — from inns, to restaurants, private camp grounds, and even marinas — to close up shop until the government shutdown ends. Park Rangers have even gone so far as to physically block and patrol entrances to private concessions to make sure not a single, errant customer steps foot on the premises.

Then, today, comes the story of elderly couple, Joyce and Ralph Spencer, who have been thrown out of their Lake Mead home because, park officials say, it sits on federally owned land — which it has done for forty years. The Department of Interior insists that all federally owned land must be treated consistently.

But you know what else operates on federally owned land? A sizable portion of U.S. oil and gas production. And, yet, those commercial concerns have not been similarly and summarily halted.

So, it would appear that the White House doesn't dare send the land management goons to barricade our oil and gas wells. That would be a shutdown showdown too far. But they will harass Joyce and Ralph Spencer, war vets, mom-and-pop shop owners, and families on vacation to make their point — and make it as personally painful as possible.

Shhhhh! Amy, shush! Don't give them any more ideas!

ADDENDA: Be warned, I'm going to be insufferable this week:

To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com

Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here.

Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital.

National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.