Who are Republican senators talking to now
Insurance companies, of course

post from Daily Kos on 03 July 2012 01:26:44 PM. © Daily Kos

Republicans are hell-bent on moving forward with repeal as a political issue, even if it's not realistic goal. But just in case, insurance companies are hedging their bets. Here's Sen. Bob Corker, asked about the provision that adult children can stay on their parents' plans until they're 27.

"They're going to continue that [provision] anyway," he said. "I think the insurance companies have all kind of decided that that's an okay thing. They were in our office, they've been in our office in the last few weeks."

So now you know who Republicans are listening to in this. No wonder they don't care about the uninsured or people with pre-existing conditions. They're going to be working for the insurance companies on repeal.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/dktcbAQH5mU/-Who-are-Republican-Se
nators-talking-to-now-Insurance-companies-of-course

Digg this

Republicans in disarray on Obamacare Good. Now
let's sell the benefits.

post from Daily Kos on 03 July 2012 01:25:56 PM. © Daily Kos

Contradictory sign pointing to the left for Yesterday, Mitt Romney's campaign said the individual mandate is not a tax, probably because it was developed by ... Mitt Romney. Today, appearing on CNN's Starting Point, the chairman of the RNC agreed with Romneyland ... but just as quickly disagreed. He said they still have the opinion they had yesterday ... but then said that they've actually got a different one. And he said that while he doesn't believe it is a tax, he'll call it a tax because he thinks the Supreme Court said it was a tax. If you're confused, join the club.

On the issue of whether to call the individual mandate a "tax" or a "penalty," Republicans?like Democrats before last week's Supreme Court ruling?are trying to have it both ways. In a Tuesday morning interview, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus joined the conflicted chorus.
Appearing on CNN, Priebus insisted that, like Mitt Romney, he disagreed with Chief Justice John Roberts' ruling that the individual mandate was constitutional under Congress' power to tax, but that that disagreement would not stop Republicans from accusing President Barack Obama of hiking taxes.

And even though he doesn't believe it's a tax:

"Our position is the same as Mitt Romney's position. It's a tax," Priebus went on to say. "That's the only way the Supreme Court came up with the decision it did in order to make it constitutional; otherwise it would fail."

I guess that means Priebus is also acknowledging that Republicans were wrong to oppose Obamacare on constitutional grounds? Haha, just kidding. Of course not! Because if you try to make sense of the illogical gibberish these clowns are spewing your head is going to hurt so bad that ... you'll be glad the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare, because you're going to have a preexisting condition when you try to get or use health insurance.

So given that Republicans are a complete mess right now on Obamacare, with Romneyland saying repeal is their top priority last week and agreeing with Obama on the tax issue this week and now with Priebus saying they actually don't agree, what should Democrats be doing? Well, certainly making sure that the media notices the clown show is important, and they are doing a good job of that.

But with the Republican message machine in disarray, this is also a golden opportunity to sell the benefits of Obamacare. And the best way to sell the benefits of Obamacare is to talk about the real people whose lives have been helped because of the legislation?and the people who will be helped in 2014 once everyone is guaranteed access to affordable health insurance coverage. Our very own Susan Gardner told her story on Thursday, and there are thousands of other stories to tell. Now is the time to be telling them.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/bv2RCp98Ef0/-Republicans-in-disarr
ay-on-Obamacare-Good-Now-let-s-sell-the-benefits

Digg this

Anderson Cooper is WHAT

post from The American Prospect on 03 July 2012 01:21:05 PM. © The American Prospect

Did anyone even notice, yesterday, that Anderson Cooper came out as gay? One person I know said, "You mean he wasn't out?' She wasn't kidding; she really thought he was as out as Ellen, who was indeed a trailblazer back in the day, and took a lot of hits for it?making it possible for Cooper's news to be just another item in everyone's Twitter feed. As June Thomas wrote, "The news was met with a whole lot of 'duh!' and a little bit of bitterness. It?s not like Cooper?s sexuality was a big secret?just last week I referred to him as 'openly closeted.'" (Andrew Sullivan, whose email to Cooper purportedly spurred the announcement, got this comment as a response.)

So here's something even more groundbreaking, which I missed until now. Last month, the UConn men's hockey team posted a video announcement, as a team, saying that they welcome anyone who can play, gay or nay. As ESPN reported:

... the players pledge to support "any teammate, gay or straight, that can help us win games."
The program was created by Patrick Burke, a scout for the Philadelphia Flyers and son of Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke. It was launched in memory of Patrick's brother, Brendan, who died in a car accident in 2010. Brendan made headlines when he came out in November 2009 while serving as the manager of Miami of Ohio's college hockey team.
So far about 100 athletes, including 50 from the NHL, have signed on to pledge they would play with gay or transgender athletes, Patrick Burke said. But UConn is one of just eight teams that have joined as a group....
Connecticut coach Bruce Marshall said the videos were not done to be "a nice beacon for the university." He said it was the players' idea, and he told them not to do it unless they were ready to stand behind their words and deal with any negative fallout.

We all know that professional sports and the military have been, in the past, bastions of anti-gay attitudes, harbors for the kind of chest-beating hypermasculinity that trashes women and gay men alike. It's a big deal that the military is shifting?but sports isn't subject to the same top-down mandates. As far as I know, no male professional athlete has yet come out while still playing. We also know that young people are more accepting on LGBT issues every year. To have an entire team of jocks willing to take a stand like this?well, all I can say is: Dude, that's awesome.

My wife is a former jock and sports fanatic from Maine, so I am required to root for the Maine Black Bears. But my deeper allegiance might just have shifted slightly south.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/anderson-cooper-what

Digg this

Anderson Cooper Is WHAT

post from The American Prospect on 03 July 2012 01:21:05 PM. © The American Prospect

... the players pledge to support "any teammate, gay or straight, that can help us win games."
The program was created by Patrick Burke, a scout for the Philadelphia Flyers and son of Toronto Maple Leafs general manager Brian Burke. It was launched in memory of Patrick's brother, Brendan, who died in a car accident in 2010. Brendan made headlines when he came out in November 2009 while serving as the manager of Miami of Ohio's college hockey team.
So far about 100 athletes, including 50 from the NHL, have signed on to pledge they would play with gay or transgender athletes, Patrick Burke said. But UConn is one of just eight teams that have joined as a group....
Connecticut coach Bruce Marshall said the videos were not done to be "a nice beacon for the university." He said it was the players' idea, and he told them not to do it unless they were ready to stand behind their words and deal with any negative fallout.

My wife is a former jock and sports fanatic from Maine, so I am required to root for the Maine Black Bears. But my deeper allegiance might just have shifted slightly south.

Read The Full Article:
http://prospect.org/article/anderson-cooper-what

Digg this

Conservatives want to campaign on health care,
but look at who they nominated

post from Daily Kos on 03 July 2012 01:19:24 PM. © Daily Kos

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney addresses supporters during a Despite going through the trouble of printing up that poster backdrop, Romney is crying "uncle" on health care. (Reuters)This seriously cracks me up!

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court health care ruling, the early conventional wisdom was that an unfavorable health care ruling at the court would be good for Republicans politically, even as it was a serious policy setback for conservatives. But that's not shaping up to be the case. Mitt Romney, after giving a brief statement decrying the decision, has been virtually silent on criticizing the health care law. He's been on vacation and his campaign has been giving off clear signals that it doesn't want to make health care a major part of the election.

Conservatives are furious! The Breitbarts ran a piece headlined:

CONSERVATIVES TO MITT: QUIT NOW IF YOU WON'T FIGHT OBAMATAX!

Too bad Romney can't fight this shit. The "tax" was created by the conservative Heritage Foundation, enthusiastically adopted by Romney in Massachusetts, and upheld by the Supreme Court's foremost corporatist justice. And there would be even more Roberts on the court if Romney wins in November. He's promised it.

If conservatives have a problem with any of this, then maybe they shouldn't have nominated him in the first place. It's not as if they didn't have a choice. They just made a crappy one.

Their big idea, their candidate.

Why are they angry again?

On the other hand, it WOULD be awesome for Romney to quit now. Maybe we'd get Herman Cain redux!

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/6eDuUtgWhh8/-Conservatives-want-to
-campaign-on-health-care-but-look-at-who-they-nominated

Digg this

'Message Dichotomy'

post from Talking Points Memo on 03 July 2012 01:00:36 PM. © Talking Points Memo

No getting around that Team Romney and national Republicans are not on the same page about trumpeting Obama's individual mandate as a tax. It's for reasons that have less to do with the politics of the moment than with Mitt's repeated descriptions over[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Talking-Points-Memo/~3/53VCJwuVzuk/message_dichoto
my.php

Digg this

The Elephant in the Car Elevator: Mitt Romney
Doesn't Want to be President

post from Crooks and Liars on 03 July 2012 01:00:32 PM. © Crooks and Liars

Right Wing Complains About Mitt Romney's Staff

Click here to view this media

I've been arguing this for weeks on The Professional Left Podcast, and want it to be in writing, on the record:

I don't think Mitt Romney wants to win this election.

It's not just that an obviously competent businessman (in terms of making capitalism work for him) is having such a hard time managing a staff of incompetents. Your own spokesman claims your message is like an etch-a-sketch and goes completely off message on whether Obamacare is a tax. You claim you like firing people, but this guy is still on your staff.

Another staffer misspells "America" and "Reagan" and more on campaign projects. You claim you like firing people who don't provide good service. Even Rupert Murdoch can't figure out why you're holding on to these staffers. The elephant in the car elevator is, you don't want to be President.

enlarge Credit: Blue Gal

And really, Mitt, who can blame you? You're a billionaire who has a newly renovated house in California (one of six) and a great life ahead of you as a grandfather, dressage horse investor, and glad-handing board room man about town. Being the Republican nominee against Barack Obama in 2012 puts you in the history books without inconveniencing you into having to, you know, govern.

And trust me, Mitt, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh don't want you to win, either. Their bottom line is only secured with four more years of Obama bashing. And betcha ten thousand dollars Michelle Malkin already has a book contract for Spring 2013 to write some lie-fest entitled "Eric Holder, Worse than Seven Hitlers." You'll ruin all her plans if you actually win.

In the meantime, we can't wait to watch the horse ballet that is called the Romney 2012 campaign. Hint: make Bachmann your running mate. And put her in charge of messaging.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/bluegal-aka-fran/elephant-car-elevator-mitt-romney

Digg this

Busy, Inc.: Is being busy a lifestyle choice

Women never retire.That was my holiday epiphany last Christmas, or Thanksgiving, when I noticed that all the men in the house were watching TV, playing Xbox, or napping, while the women were busy cleaning house and making dinner for a gazillion relatives.Even mom, at the ripe age of 81 (or 82?) doesn't get a respite. It seems no one told her at age 65 that she could stop doing all...

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Americablog/~3/5u2YyJ3Fhrw/busy-inc.html

Digg this

Blue America Welcomes Matt Heinz

Democrats generally cheered when Ron Barber won the special election in AZ-8 a couple weeks ago-- or at least when Jesse Kelly lost it-- to finish out the remainder of Gabby Gifford's term. No one paying attention exactly expected her district manager to be a progressive voice in Congress but I don't think anyone expected him to get into the House and immediately start voting for the Republican agenda-- against the environment on this first day and then against Eric Holder a few days later.

On August 28 there's a primary in Arizona and Democrats will be asked to pick a candidate for a new congressional seat, AZ-2, that includes much of the old 8th. It's significantly more Democratic and there's no need for a Blue Dog or anyone else who caters to Republicans and kicks his own party's values and principles to the curb. We covered it yesterday. Today at 11am (PST) Blue America is welcoming a young Arizona doctor and state Rep., Matt Heinz for a live blogging session at Crooks and Liars. Matt is the newest candidate to be endorsed by Blue America.

Like many Democrats in the district, he was disgusted when Barber jumped right on the Boehner-Cantor team, giving them an opportunity to call their anti-environment jihad "bipartisan." Matt had a very different perspective. ?I understand the importance of securing our borders,? explained Matt, ?We cannot do it at the expense of our environment and civil liberties. Our environment is irreplaceable. We must be stewards of our natural wonders, particularly the unparalleled beauty of Southern Arizona's Sonora desert. We must stand on our convictions and principles to make the right decisions and not be cowed by hollow Tea Party claims that we need to degrade our environment in order to ensure our security and prosperity.?

Apparently Barber thinks he knows better than Mo Udall and senior agents of the Border Patrol. There is a difference between true bi-partisanship and caving to ideologues that are out-of-touch with the very agency they claim to support. Ron Barber failed to see that distinction. Matt had a 100% rating in 2011 with the League of Conservation Voters and a 100% rating with the Humane Voters of Arizona. Unlike Barber, people know where Matt stands on conservation, environmental and wildlife issues. Bipartisanship is about putting aside your politics for the greater good, not throwing out conviction for political gain.

Like most of us, Matt-- Doctor Heinz-- had mixed emotions when the 5-4 came down last week upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, which he supports as a step in the right direction (and which Barber has more positions on that lead no where than Mitt Romney does).

?I feel strongly that every American has the right to see a doctor. I am dedicated to the solutions that ensure access to medical service for all Americans regardless of socioeconomic status.

"While I cheered the Supreme Court for finding most of the Affordable Care Act constitutional, I paused to consider the ramifications of Court?s ruling on the Medicaid expansion. The Supreme Court found that the federal government cannot penalize states for refusing to expand Medicaid eligibility to under-served populations. Without this incentive for states like Arizona to expand eligibility, the health and wellness of our most vulnerable populations remain at risk. This is a situation that we cannot stand for any longer. It is a glaring problem I promise to do all I can to fix.

?One day, a woman named Bobbie Thayer entered my legislative office and told me tested positive for breast cancer and had no idea how she could afford the treatment she needed to save her life. Her provider said because of a loophole and bureaucratic red tape, she did not qualify for insurance coverage for the treatment.

"As a legislator and a physician, I had to find a solution-- not only to help save Bobbie's life, but to make sure other women did not have to face near certain death because of byzantine loopholes because so many people face similar situations. No woman should be denied breast cancer treatment because of her income level.

"At that very moment, we embarked on our journey to change the law. Before our efforts, if a woman was not screened by a Well Woman Healthcheck Program provider (WWHP), she couldn?t receive treatment through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (our local Medicaid program). Uninsured women were denied lifesaving medical attention simply because they unknowingly walked into the wrong clinic.

"The law I passed will broaden WWHP access and lift age restrictions so we can save Arizonan women?s lives."

Matt has taken it on himself, as a doctor and as a lawmaker, to make sure women don't get pushed around by misguided right-wing ideologues. Arizona's state government, completely dominated by far-right Republicans with no checks and no balances, has been passing crackpot laws that have targeted the most vulnerable among us. Matt went on Fox News with Greta Van Susteren show to counter ultra-conservative attacks on women's privacy after Gov. Brewer signed HB 2625, a law requiring women to provide proof that prescribed birth control are taken for reasons other than the prevention of pregnancy in order to receive reimbursement. Under the guise of employer's rights, conservatives attacked women and Matt took them to task for it. I doubt I have to remind people that women are facing the same battle nationally and need someone who has proven themselves. Matt also denounced Arizona HB 2800, a ban on reimbursements paid to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion services provided to low-income women. That ban will impact thousands of women who rely on Planned Parenthood for preventive treatments and evaluations, including mammograms, cancer screenings and vaccinations. Matt: "Proponents of this law created a problem that does not exist in order to infringe upon a women?s privacy and freedoms. I am committed to efforts to repeal this
law.? So it probably won't surprise you to know that Matt is also standing up for equal pay for equal work.

?Promoting a woman's right to equal pay and societal status is another fight that is near and dear to me. It is egregious that an estimated 18% payroll gap exists between men and women who perform the same job. I support Congressional efforts to pass measures like the Paycheck Fairness Act. This law would ease wage dispute procedures and do more to hold employers accountable for salary gaps.?

Again, the primary is August 28. Early voting starts August 2-- exactly one month from today. Please consider making a contribution to Matt's campaign here on the Blue America ActBlue page.

Read The Full Article:
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2012/07/blue-america-welcomes-matt-heinz.html

Digg this

Romney Adviser Struggles To Offer Iran Policy
That Differs From Obama’s

Dan Senor

Top foreign policy aid to Mitt Romney Dan Senor today continued the Romney campaign’s increasingly difficult task of trying to differentiate its foreign policy from President Obama’s. When asked what Romney would do differently from Obama on Iran, Senor first mentioned a speech Romney gave on Iran five years ago and then boiled the difference down to more sanctions and some abstract notion of getting “serious about military action”:

SENOR: So to answer your question, one he’s for tougher sanctions, two, he is for projecting to the Iranians that the threat of military action is credible. It is not to say to we should use military force or that the Israelis should use military force but it is important that the Iranians believe that it is serious. No one in the world believes today that the U.S. is serious about military action and if no one else believes it it’s hard to believe that the Iranians believe it.

Watch the clip:

Of course, because Iran with a nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, the Obama administration has declared numerous times that the military option is on the table. And Senor must have missed reports this morning that the U.S. is building up its military presence in the Persian Gulf to check Iran. It appears that the problem for Senor is that the Obama administration has also been very open about the consequences of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities — which is something war supporters seem to want to ignore.

And on the sanctions front, “[f]ew countries have experienced such intense external pressure” as Iran is currently facing. And it’s unclear what “tougher sanctions” Romney would put in place because Senor never offered any specifics.

But this isn’t the first time one of Romney’s advisers has had trouble providing an alternative to Obama’s Iran policy. Last month Richard Williamson said a ?President Romney will seek a negotiated settlement” to the Iranian nuclear stand-off, which incidentally the Obama administration also considers the ?best and most permanent way? to end the crisis.

Transcript:

KATY KAY: The Romney campaign has been very critical of this president in his handling of Iran but I’m not entirely clear what Romney could or would do differently when it comes to Iran.
SENOR: Well I would say two things. If you look at a speech governor Romney gave in 2007 at the Herzliya conference, which is the big security conference in Israel, he laid out a pretty ambitious sanctions agenda, both economic sanctions and diplomatic sanctions, that he was advocating for the U.S. government to impose on the Iranians, which was far more comprehensive than the sanctions we have today. Don’t get me wrong, the sanctions that are in place today are important and they’re doing damage. But Gov. Romney would say that they’re not comprehensive enough. And he was arguing for this four or five years ago. In fact he was to the right of the Bush administration … on the importance of putting in sweeping sanctions. So while the sanctions now are having some effect, he raises questions about whether it’s too late, that the president did drag his feet the first couple years of his administration, didn’t implement these very tough sanctions Congress was pushing. So to answer your question, one he’s for tougher sanctions, two, he is for projecting to the Iranians that the threat of military action is credible. It is not to say to we should use military force or that the Israelis should use military force but it is important that the Iranians believe that it is serious. No one in the world believes today that the U.S. is serious about military action and if no one else believes it it’s hard to believe that the Iranians believe it. If you look to the extent to which administration officials over the last couple of years have gone out of their way to say in public … that if the Israelis took military action it would be a disaster for the global economy. They wouldn’t be able to meet their objectives and it would provoke all sorts of reactions that would be dangerous. That sends a message to the Iranians that the U.S. will do anything and everything possible to prevent military action.

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/07/03/510322/senor-romney-obama-iran-polic
y/

Digg this