Senator Claire McCaskill nailed it in her debate with Rep. Todd Akin late last week -> http://bit.ly/QIl8o4
Women voters want a daddy, women voters want a sugardaddy - the Republican pundits are floundering for a reason women won’t vote for their party. They want any excuse that isn’t the truth: the GOP is terrible for women.
Hearing about Willard’s notion of foreign policy, I cringed in disgust. “This must be an American Century” took me back to the Neocon days, before PNAC (Project for a New American Century) went defunct, thoroughly discredited by their failures and lies. Neocon policies made our nation an international pariah from wars of aggression, based on lies, and my way or the highway diplomacy. All Willard has to offer is a return to those days… (videos)
It might be time for Republicans to take a look back at their own record of health care legislation that they did like — and that forced American people, particularly women, into a lot of things:
Forcing women to get transvaginal ultrasounds: Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wanted to force every woman seeking an abortion to go through the extremely uncomfortable and medically unnecessary procedure of a transvaginal ultrasound — sticking a medical wand far into a woman’s vagina to get a clearer ultrasound image.
Ordering women to cremate and bury their miscarried fetus: A huge abortion omnibus bill in Michigan could force women who miscarry tocremate the miscarried fetuses. This comes at no small expense to the woman: cremation of a fetus costs hundreds of dollars, and interment can be additional thousands. The bill has been passed by the Michigan House, and is awaiting a vote by the Michigan Senate.
Requiring doctors to lie to female patients: In Kansas, Republicans tried to force doctors to tell women that they faced risk of cancer from having an abortion. That is patently untrue, and making doctors say that it was true would be, in effect, requiring them to lie to their patients.
Making a dying woman consult two doctors before she can get a life-saving abortion: The New Hampshire legislature just overrode a veto by the Governor, forcing through a law that bans “partial birth” abortions. The law only reinforces federal law, but has the additional requirement that any woman who is exempt from the abortion ban because her life is at risk must visit not one but two doctors before she can get the procedure to save her life. For many rural women, especially those facing life-threatening conditions, this is near impossible.
Mandating people pay extra to give medical device companies a tax break: Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) worked so hard to protect medical device companies from having to pay, that he has instead passed their costs onto the consumer — regular Americans — by increasing the cost of health coverage.
Mitt Romney doesn’t think he should be held accountable for his dismal job record during the first three years he was governor, but thinks the President is responsible for job losses that happened in the month he took office.
Obama for America Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter breaks down this hypocrisy and explains how, even by Romney’s own standard, President Obama still has a stronger record on job growth than Romney did in Massachusetts. Take a look, and then share this video with your friends and family.
written by Garance Franke-Ruta for The Atlantic.
“Bisexual sustainable development activists working to prevent climate change-related sea-level rise better watch out: Just about all the preceding words have been flagged by conservatives and Republicans as liberal buzzwords that need to be stricken from public conversation, according to a spate of recent news stories.Sure, it’s a time-honored GOP practice to seek to replace a perfectly good description, such as “the estate tax,” with a more inflammatory phrase, but the new fight against liberal words does not appear to be seeking to replace them with an alternative so much as to deny the existence of a thing.”CLICK for three examples.
Thomas Magstadt, Op-Ed:
“Late this summer, August 27-30, the world will once again be treated to the spectacle of a Republic National Convention. It’s only fitting that this one will be held in Tampa, Florida, the state that made it possible for George W. Bush to steal the election in 2000. The convention is a sure bet to be a theater of the absurd, but this year the candidate it anoints and the speeches that sing his praises will highlight the hypocrisy of the new Grand Old Party like never before.”
Of all the hypocritical hype resonating through the rhetoric of these Republicans, none is more damaging than the myth of free market and the jive about private-sector job creators. A vibrant economy operating without state intervention or regulation is one of the most pernicious, pervasive, and persistent myths in contemporary American politics. […]
Glenn Beck is hoping to single-handedly orchestrate his own “day the music died” by stamping out the diverse singing circle from “Glee.”
Speaking at the Faith & Freedom Coalition conference in Washington Friday, Beck ignored the chalkboard that had been rolled out on stage to assist him, and instead focused on prime-time television.
“A year ago I was watching the show ‘Glee’ with my wife and we watched it like this,” Beck said making the motion of his jaw dropping. “It’s horrifying some of the things that they’re teaching high schoolers.But it’s brilliantly done. It’s brilliantly done.”
At first, Beck says he was despondent.
“I said at the end of it, we lose,” he said. “There’s no way to beat that.”
But it didn’t take long for Beck to snap out of his funk and start devising a way to defeat “Glee.” Beck’s secret weapon: what he jokingly calls “the Oedipus Project” (“because the left will be making out with me,” he explained to BuzzFeed this week). Essentially, the plan is to produce a conservative alternative to “Glee” that is covert enough in its conservatism to not turn people away.
Beck has faded from the national stage following his departure from Fox News in 2010. But he’s still extremely popular among many in the conservative community.
Slightly different from the “Mitt’s Own Words” he’s pushing himself, huh?
Comic credit Nick Anderson / Houston Chronicle.
One of the hard facts about public opinion during the health-care debate was that, while the public quickly soured on health-care reform, it remained quite sweet on the concept of health-care reform. This is why Republican opponents took care to insist at all times they only opposed the particulars of President Obama’s plan, and wanted instead to reform the system their way, with all the popular things and none of the unpopular stuff. Republicans declared they had a “moral imperative” to reform the system, robotically insisting their plan was not merely to repeal health-care reform but “repeal and replace.” As Jonathan Bernstein notes, just last January, Republicans in Congress promised to have their all-gain, no-pain alternative ready and raring to go for the summer so they could move if the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare.
But, in a development that received almost no attention at all, Republicans quietly conceded last week that they aren’t going to replace Obamacare at all.
Insisting they absolutely must replace it was necessary in order to make their totalistic opposition to health-care reform palatable. The political dynamics are such that you can loudly promise to craft an alternative a million times, and then quietly take back that promise in a small article published in The Hill.
Huge majorities of the public support, in the abstract, the idea of universal coverage. But they turn much more negative when presented with specific measures to offset the costs, like taxes or cuts to Medicare. Republicans have been claiming to support the general goal of expanding coverage but simply opposing any specific measure to do so. But conservatives actually oppose the idea of universal health insurance on moral principle. They tend not to concede this straight out, but the belief pops up from time to time.
The central argument against Obamacare was that it cost too much, and, regardless of what the Congressional Budget Office forecast, would doubtless increase the deficit. Paul Ryan has insisted over and over that the cost-control methods put in place by the Affordable Care Act would certainly fail because they entailed bureaucracy. As it happens, health-care costs have slowed dramatically, and there is strongly suggestive evidence that health-care reform has helped drive the slowdown. James Capretta, an adviser to Ryan, wrote a blog post disputing this conclusion. I find his reasoning unpersuasive, but that’s really beside the point. The interesting thing is Capretta’s fallback position, which is that he opposes Obamacare even if it succeeds in controlling health-care costs beyond its most ambitious goals:
… in the unlikely event that we could stop worrying about unaffordable premium increases, federal health spending would still be unaffordable because of the massive rise in enrollment scheduled for Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare’s new premium-subsidy entitlement program. There’s no getting around the fact that the federal budget is overloaded with entitlement promises that must be scaled back even if health spending rises only commensurate with the economy.
Is there no getting around the “fact” that the government cannot cover the 50 million uninsured Americans? It’s not a fact at all. It’s an ideological preference. What Capretta is conceding is that the facts don’t matter to him at all. He doesn’t think government should guarantee health insurance as a right. He’ll oppose any universal coverage plan on affordability grounds, but should those grounds prove incorrect, he’ll oppose it anyway.
Likewise, Andrew Ferguson has a piece in the Weekly Standard on an unrelated topic. (Political psychology, if you must know.) Ferguson defends his fellow conservatives’ various misapprehensions, including the misapprehension that Obamacare increased the deficit. In Ferguson’s view, of course it increased the deficit:
It’s perfectly reasonable for conservatives to assume that offering health insurance to 43 million people will cost a lot of money, and thereby increase the deficit; and it’s perfectly reasonable to distrust notoriously mistaken budget forecasters who say it won’t.
Obviously it costs money to cover 43 million people, or even the 30 million people actually covered by Obamacare. But there are ways to offset those costs such that it does not increase the deficit, by raising taxes or cutting other spending, which Obamacare in fact did. Now, it is surely possible that those projections would prove incorrect. But what Ferguson is defending is the supposition that increasing the deficit is an inherent feature of any universal coverage scheme. This obviously is not the case, but his offhand statement is telling. They may debate over the particulars, but the particulars don’t ultimately matter. Conservatives just don’t want to lay out the resources to provide universal coverage. They think of health insurance the way I think of flat-screen televisions — a nice thing to have, and something I’d like everybody to have, but not something to which everybody is entitled. I’d like to see conservatives defend that philosophical position openly rather than couch it in easily cast-aside particulars.
[Obama] was very critical of his predecessor for the debts his predecessor put in place…. he was very critical of his predecessor because the predecessor put together $4 trillion of debt over eight years.
Mitt Romney, St. Petersburg, FL, May 16, 2012.
—It is perhaps worth noting that President Obama’s “predecessor” Romney was referring to was George W. Bush. Or, to put it another way, “He Who Must Not Be Named.”
Between 1840 and 1900, there were 16 filibusters.
Between 2009 and 2010, there were more than 130.
Stuff that the complicit MSM will not talk about.
What the Debt Clock would look like if Romney were actually president. We’d owe trillions more because of tax cuts across the board.
I used to think he was faking being stupid to play to his audience. I don’t think so anymore. Dude is actually really dumb.
In an awkward move Wednesday, Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly for two GOP-written budgets that would each let student loan interest rates spike in July, even as they insist they want to avert such an outcome. Budget measures by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) went down 41-58 and 42-57, respectively. Both let Stafford loan rates double from 3.4 to 6.8 percent, which President Obama and Democrats have been pushing to prevent. Mitt Romney and GOP leaders say they want to extend the existing rate but differ on how to pay for it. (via Senate Republicans Vote To Hike Student Loan Rates They Oppose Hiking | TPMDC)
—-There is nothing surprising here.