The Healthcare Industry's Vested Interest in Obamacare Succeeding

The Republican Party is so busy prostituting itself to the Christofascist/Tea Party elements of the party base that oppose the Affordable Health Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare - many of whom are frankly motivated primarily by a racist base hatred of Barack Obama - that they seem to be ignoring another powerful interest group that has significant reasons: the healthcare industry.  Many powerful players in the healthcare industry realize that repealing Obamacare and going back to the increasingly broken system that was previously in place is simply not acceptable.  With the ranks of the uninsured soaring but for Obamacare and healthcare costs out of control, at some point the entire structure will collapse without change.  The Los Angeles Times looks at why the healthcare industry will ultimately strive to make Obamacare work.  Here are excerpts:

WASHINGTON — President Obama's healthcare law, struggling to survive its botched rollout, now depends more than ever on insurance companies, doctor groups and hospitals — major forces in the industry that are committed to the law's success despite persistent tensions with the White House.

Many healthcare industry leaders are increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration's clumsy implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Nearly all harbor reservations about parts of the sweeping law.

But since 2010, they have invested billions of dollars to overhaul their businesses, design new insurance plans and physician practices and develop better ways to monitor quality and control costs.

Few industry leaders want to go back to a system that most had concluded was failing, as costs skyrocketed and the ranks of the uninsured swelled.

Nor do they see much that is promising from the law's Republican critics. The GOP has focused on repealing Obamacare, but has devoted less energy to developing a replacement.  Healthcare industry officials generally view several GOP proposals, such as limiting coverage for the poor and scuttling new insurance marketplaces created by the law, as more damaging than helpful to the nation's healthcare system.

"The principle of providing the opportunity for everyone to get health coverage and of joining everybody together in shared responsibility is the right one," said James Roosevelt Jr., president of Tufts Health Plan, one of Massachusetts' largest insurers. "No one has presented a credible alternative."

The value of the alliance between the administration and major insurers, hospitals, clinics and others in the healthcare industry can readily be seen in steps they have taken to help the White House overcome the rocky start of the law's new insurance marketplaces.

Major retail pharmacies, such as CVS Caremark, have agreed to market the law's benefits in their stores. And hospitals and health clinics in many states are helping patients sign up for coverage.

For many of these organizations, the prospect of new customers and a more rational system outweighs their sometimes intense irritation with the Obama administration.

Despite the frustrations, most insurers remain committed to moving to a new market that would achieve the central promise of the Affordable Care Act: that all consumers can buy health plans even if they have preexisting medical conditions.

Even the chief executive of WellPoint, the nation's second-largest health insurer, which spent heavily in 2010 to help defeat Democrats in Congress who had voted for Obamacare, signaled optimism this week about the prospects for people signing up for coverage under the law in coming months.

"The potential is there for a significant uptake," Joseph Swedish said in an interview this week at a conference for corporate executives sponsored by the Wall Street Journal.

Hospitals, which provided crucial backing for the law in hopes it would reduce the number of uninsured patients, have been redesigning the way they deliver care to keep patients out of the hospital, another goal of the law.

We are still not entirely sure where we are going," said Judy Rich, chief executive of Tucson Medical Center in Arizona, which has been partnering with local doctors to help patients stay healthy so they don't need to be hospitalized.  "But every time we reevaluate the options, we come back to one conclusion: This is fundamentally the right thing to do."

"The fact is that doctors and hospitals around the country are committed to achieving the goals of the health law: expanding coverage and, more importantly, raising quality … and making healthcare more cost-effective," he said.  "There is no going back."

Washington Post on Health Care Ruling: A Ruling That’s Good for the Country

The main Washington Post editorial on today's ruling by the Supreme Court summarizes why the ruling is good for the country.  And that's not even factoring in how the provision of health care coverage for the poor and those with pre-existing conditions is in full accord with the Gospel message. I truly had feared that the extremism - dare I say insanity? - of Antonin Scalia might prevail and tens of millions of Americans would have been relegated to the status of disposable trash.  Ironically, I saw an SPCA ad while blogging and the way in which the GOP and its "godly Christian" supporters relegate so many Americans to a status akin to animals scheduled for euthanizing  truck me as telling.  Conservatism - or at least today's version under the GOP and the Christofascists - is truly evil.  It's all about greed and hording one's possessions and money and an utter disregard for the common humanity of other citizens.  Here are highligts for the Post editorial:

THE SUPREME COURT’S 5 to 4 decision upholding the core of the Affordable Care Act is good news for the court and the country. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was statesmanlike in choosing to side with four more liberal justices in finding that the law’s most controversial provision, the mandate that individuals obtain health insurance, was a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power “to lay and collect taxes.”

[R]ather than use that finding to invalidate the law, as his four colleagues would have done, Justice Roberts cited precedent that instructs the court to resort to “every reasonable construction” that may “save a statute from unconstitutionality.” 

In so doing, he also protected the court itself. It avoided playing the uncomfortable role of overturning a legislative solution four decades in the making, full of choices and tradeoffs among competing approaches and goals.

In the only defeat for the administration, the court curtailed the government’s power to compel states to expand coverage under the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor. 

Even if President Obama is reelected, many practical questions remain. Is the penalty — now tax — imposed on those who fail to obtain insurance big enough to induce the uninsured to buy coverage? Are insurers permitted to charge different enough premiums based on age? These, and many more, are important practical questions whose answers will become known only now that the court, wisely, has allowed the law to go forward.

In an editorial Thursday, we said that many Americans would be watching the court to see whether, at a time of extreme partisanship, it could craft a decision that impressed as an act of law, not politics. In our view, the court passed that test of legitimacy. Now the arguments over Obamacare can continue where they are best fought out, in the political arena.

George W. Bush: Barack Obama’s Best Friend in the 2012 Election

Some political writers such as the author of a piece in The Daily Beast believe that Barack Obama has a recurring gift in his re-election bid: George W. Bush, a/k/a the Chimperator at this blog. Bush's disastrous eight years are a period that most Americans outside of heavy Kool-Aid drinkers would just as soon forget. The Bush/Cheney administration authored the fiascoes in Iraq and Afghanistan and took a national surplus and turned it into a crushing deficit. The Chimperator and his crowd also did much to further empower the religious extremists who now make up so much of the current GOP base. Needless to say, Republicans would like to pretend that the Bush/Cheney years never existed. Democrats, however, need to make sure that the Chimperator's years of misrule remain a part of the political discourse as we head into the 2012 general election. Here are some column highlights:

So George W. Bush, reports Politico, is laying low these days, avoiding the spotlight that shone briefly on his father and his brother Jeb recently as they endorsed Mitt Romney’s candidacy. This whole subject of the post-Bush GOP and its relationship to No. 43 is pretty fascinating. Like a crazy, drunk uncle shooting an epileptic dog because he has fleas, the current GOP shuns him for all the wrong reasons. Since the GOP will presumably spend the next few months trying to pretend the man never existed, Democrats ought to remind people that he did. In fact, the Democratic Party should spend the next 20 years talking about Bush, turning him into the new Jimmy Carter and making the memory of those eight squalid years quadrennially fresh to everyone with living memory of them for as long as is humanly possible.

[P]eople should know that the economy didn’t exactly boom from 2002 to 2008, except of course for the 1 percent of the population the policies were designed to aid. Bush’s job-growth record was the worst of any president going back to the Depression. The table you can see here goes back to Truman. Obviously, Roosevelt grew jobs at a fairly significant rate, since unemployment under him went from 24 percent to essentially zero during the height of the war. So you have to go back, I’d suppose, to Herbert Hoover to find someone who did worse than Bush’s .01 percent growth in jobs per year.

A poll released only last week from CNN showed 56 percent blame Bush, while just 29 percent finger Obama. The fact that we’re still clawing our way out of the darkness that Bush set upon us is the reason he is still relevant. Recently, Romney made him even more so, by insisting to an audience that it was Bush and Hank Paulson who actually saved the country from a depression.

Romney’s campaign staff and advisers are so full of Bush people—on political strategy, the economy, foreign policy, and other areas—that one former Bush speechwriter (who is not on the Romney bus) has called it “a restoration of the Bush establishment.”

Democrats really need to keep Bush in the frame here. And Dick Cheney. I know everyone says “but elections are about the future.” Well, maybe. But the Bush years were so uniquely bad, so plainly and emphatically horrible on so many fronts for such a vast majority of citizens, that to fail to mention the era would just be missing a free whack.

Bush really just stank up the joint for eight years. Mention him, and the pundit class might bray about it, but most people will react by thinking: Yeah, that guy really just stank up the joint for eight years.

[S]ome rich Texas buddies undoubtedly stand ready to pour millions into a PR-rehabilitation campaign when they sense the time is right, he can reemerge in the public eye, smirk intact, smiting Democrats like in the good old days of 2002. Democrats must make sure that that rehabilitation never, ever happens.

Mitch Daniels Lied in His SOTU Response

Try as I might, I find little to like in the GOP. While Mitch Daniel's delivery of his response to Barack Obama's SOTU address, it was flawed from the get go because Daniels started off immediately lying when he accused Obama of proliferate spending. That type of spending did not occur under Obama. but it did under Chimperator Bush as the chart set out above aptly demonstrates. If one wants to witness pathological liars, one need look no farther than the "godly Christian" set and their allies in the Republican Party. As regular readers know all too well, I am not an Obama cheerleader. But nothing pisses me off more than deliberate and shameless lying. Again, it's one of the reasons I fled the GOP a number of years ago.

Are Republicans Beginning to Lose the Messaging War?

The inability of the Democrats to counter the generally untrue messaging put out by demagogues in the GOP such as Eric Cantor has driven me to distraction all too often. Part of the problems has been that Democrats and the spineless occupant of the White House are far to reticent about flat out calling the GOP mouth pieces out as liars. I'm sorry, but if a politician is disseminating lies, he or she needs to be called out and labeled as a liar. Playing nice with the Republicans gets one nowhere and merely sets one up to be rolled yet again. Are the Democrats finally waking up to this reality and fighting back more effectively? A piece in the Washington Post conjectures that perhaps they are based on the increasing crankiness of some Republicans. Here are some highlights

We may be reaching an inflection point, the moment when the terms of the political argument change decisively. Three indicators: an important speech last week by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the increasingly sharp tone of President Obama’s rhetoric and the success of Occupy Wall Street in resisting attempts to marginalize the movement.

The most telling was Ryan’s address at the Heritage Foundation. House Republicans regard Ryan as their prophet, their intellectual and their resident wonk. . . . . So it was jarring to see Ryan used as the principal counterattacker against the president, who has been making the injuries of class inequality clear and pointing to the costs of the Republicans’ just-say-no strategy in Congress.

Ryan spoke of his “disappointment” that “the politics of division are making a big comeback.” He accused Obama of using “divisive rhetoric” and of “going from town to town, impugning the motives of Republicans . . .

Now it takes some temerity for a Republican to charge Obama with divisiveness, given the GOP’s willingness to promote or countenance assaults on the president as “a socialist,” as someone not even born in the United States, as a supporter of “death panels,” and on and on.

But what’s most instructive is that Ryan would not have given this speech if the Republican Party were not so worried that it is losing control of the political narrative. In particular, growing inequalities of wealth and income — which should have been a central issue in American politics for at least a decade — are now finally at the heart of our discourse. We are, at last, discussing the social and economic costs of concentrating ever more resources in the hands of the top sliver of our society.

Ryan offered the classic defense of inequality, arguing that what really matters is upward mobility . . . . The only problem is that upward mobility has declined as inequality has grown, and social mobility is now higher in Europe than it is in the United States. That’s shameful. And don’t believe me on this: Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum brought this up at a recent debate, backed by a study from the Economic Mobility Project.

All of this explains why efforts to taint Occupy Wall Street as nothing more than a bunch of latter-day hippie radicals haven’t worked. It’s also why Obama, by sharpening his arguments about what’s fair and what’s unfair, has finally stopped his slide in the polls.

A recent survey by The Washington Post and the Pew Research Center showed Occupy Wall Street to be more popular now than the Tea Party, which keeps losing ground. . . . on many of Occupy’s core issues (favoring higher taxes on millionaires and believing in a more even distribution of income and wealth), public opinion strongly supports the anti-Wall Streeters.

Obama’s aides have a habit of congratulating themselves too much when things start going well. The president has a long way to go, and he is pursuing a strategy now that he resisted for a long time. But it ought to encourage him that Paul Ryan is terribly upset. Telling the truth about inequality is politically wise, and morally necessary.

Obama Calls Ryan's Budget Bluff

It is definitely entertaining to watch the GOP/Tea Party Crowd react to Obama's budget deficit proposals. While the GOP plan was a mix of smoke and mirrors, bogus financial projections, and attacks on progressive programs and programs that aid the poor and disadvantaged. Enter Obama and his proposals and the GOP staged fiscal aggressiveness has been called out. Paul Krugman has a piece in the New York Times that looks at the interesting dynamics that have developed. Here are some highlights:
*
Paul Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, sounds upset. And you can see why: President Obama, to the great relief of progressives, has called his bluff.
*
Last week, Mr. Ryan unveiled his budget proposal, and the initial reaction of much of the punditocracy was best summed up (sarcastically) by the blogger John Cole: “The plan is bold! It is serious! It took courage!
*
Then people who actually understand budget numbers went to work, and it became clear that the proposal wasn’t serious at all. In fact, it was a sick joke. The only real things in it were savage cuts in aid to the needy and the uninsured, huge tax cuts for corporations and the rich, and Medicare privatization. All the alleged cost savings were pure fantasy.
*
On Wednesday, as I said, the president called Mr. Ryan’s bluff: after offering a spirited (and reassuring) defense of social insurance, he declared, “There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I don’t think there’s anything courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.” Actually, the Ryan plan calls for $2.9 trillion in tax cuts, but who’s counting? And then Mr. Obama laid out a budget plan that really is serious.
*
[T]he contrast between Mr. Ryan last week and Mr. Obama on Wednesday wasn’t just about visions of society. There was also a difference in visions of how the world works. And nowhere was that clearer than in the issue of how Medicare should pay for drugs.
*
Mr. Obama declared, “We will cut spending on prescription drugs by using Medicare’s purchasing power to drive greater efficiency.” Meanwhile, Mr. Ryan held up the existing Medicare drug benefit — a program run through private insurance companies, under legislation that specifically prohibits Medicare from using its bargaining power — as an example of the efficiencies that could be gained from privatizing the whole system.
*
What happened over the past two weeks, then, was more about staking out positions than about enacting policies. On one side you had a combination of mean-spiritedness and fantasy; on the other you had a reaffirmation of American compassion and community, coupled with fairly realistic numbers. Which would you choose?

What Obama Has Squandered and Why/How the Democrats (And the Rest of Us) Will Likely Lose Big Tomorrow

John Aravosis at America Blog has several good posts that enunciate what I feel is the narrative of the last two years since the Liar-in-Chief was elected president. Combined, they also lay out the case why the Democrats deserve to lose in a major way even though the likely massive losses will be harmful to a majority of Americans. Personally, I view Obama as bearing the principal responsibility for the betrayal of those who put him in office since he should have been a leader instead of a follower. The nation had a once in multiple generations opportunity and the Congressional Democrats under Obama's spineless and groveling leadership pissed it all away. For that, Obama should never be forgiven. Here are some highlights from two different posts John wrote earlier today:
*
[T]he 2008 elections were the chance of a lifetime for Democrats and they blew it, on health care (where they might have gotten much more had they simply tried) and on everything else. Even the stimulus was botched (asking for half of what was needed, then giving away another 35% in near-useless tax cuts) - thus the 9.6% 9.2% unemployment rate that's dooming Democratic control of Congress. And, if you're gay, an enviro, an immigration advocate/Latino, a civil libertarian, an AIDS activist, or a union member, to name a few categories of the Democratic base, the results of the 2008 election weren't nearly so laudable, since most of the big biggest promises made to you were broken, and now are toast.
*
It didn't have to be the reality. The President, and Democrats in Congress, chose not to push the agenda they promised, and they chose not to fight back when the Republicans repeatedly lied about the weak-tea agenda the Dems were in fact pushing. You bet that's dispiriting. But was it inevitable? Only to the extent that today's Democratic leaders have no backbone, yes. But it's not inevitable in the sense that our leaders couldn't have fought back harder. Yes, they could have. They simply chose not to.
*
It is all very disheartening and for younger voters, I can understand how many now feel that voting makes no difference in what happens based on the litany of broken and/or half kept promises of Obama and the Congressional Democrats. The GOP could have become a long term minority party. Instead, the Democrats have made sure that at least for now, that will not happen. And with the Liar-in-Chief in office for another two years, it is safe to assume that nothing positive will happen. If he couldn't get things done with the Democrats holding both houses of Congress, he assuredly will not get anything done if the GOP controls the House. Here are highlights from a Huffington Post column that says it well:
*
One of the myths of this stunted political moment is that Barack Obama "tried to do too much," and that purist, ungrateful liberals are mad at him over things like the absence of a public option in his heath bill. This is dangerous nonsense, and it matters because these widespread views among the pundit class will influence what lessons the media and Obama himself draw from what is likely to be an epic partisan defeat on Tuesday.
*
[L]iberals are dismayed with Obama not because this or that initiative was insufficiently lefty. They are mad at Obama for blowing what had to be a Roosevelt moment, and thereby ushering in a totally needless period of far-right resurgence, dominated by a lunatic right that makes Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove look like moderates.
*
Obama did not decide to be bold in his first two years in office. He decided to be timid and conciliatory. People on his own economics team, such as Christina Romer, were telling him that the stimulus was far too small, and that it was too tilted to tax cuts.
*
Politically, it fed right wing populism by putting Obama in bed with Wall Street. Economically, it led to the Japan scenario that we are now suffering, in which even zero interest rates can't pull the economy out of the ditch.
*
[I]t isn't Obama's putative boldness that alienated centrists, but that Obama let the economy slide far deeper into protracted stagnation. Boldness that put the economy on the road to recovery would have increased his support, left, right and center.

If, as widely expected, Democrats lose the House and barely hold the Senate, we will hear a lot more of this commentary. Obama supposedly governed too far to the left, liberals were insufficiently grateful, and now he needs to govern in coalition with the Republicans. How he might actually accomplish that is never quite specified, given that the Republicans' main goal is to destroy his presidency and their electoral success will only whet their appetite.
*
The stakes are even higher now, because America is on the brink of a second banking crisis about to be triggered by the revelation that much of the securities on the books of America's biggest banks can no longer be disguised as sound investments. One of the very few silver linings in a truly ugly turn of events is that some Republicans in line to assume key committee chairmanships, such as Rep. Darrell Issa who will likely chair the powerful Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, are no fans either of Wall Street or of the Federal Reserve.

House Votes to Allow Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

The House of Representatives voted last night to pass the conditional "repeal" bill that hopefully begins the process for the ultimate death of this discriminatory policy. The vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, and 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats against the measure. It is disturbing that 25 Democrats voted with the party of Pat Robertson and in apparent agreement with hate filled theocrats at Family Research Council who would not be able to tell the truth if their lives depended upon it. Fortunately, my Congressman, Glenn Nye of Virginia's 2nd District came through and voted in favor of the measure. Unlike apparently closet theocrat Jim Webb who voted the same way as local Congressman Randy Forbes, a former law school classmate, who has become a total Kool-Aid drinker. The New York Times has an interactive map here so that readers can verify how their member of Congress voted on the bill. Here are highlights from the Times story:
*
WASHINGTON — The House voted Thursday to let the Defense Department repeal the ban on gay and bisexual people from serving openly in the military, a major step toward dismantling the 1993 law widely known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
*
The House vote was 234 to 194, with 229 Democrats and 5 Republicans in favor, after an emotionally charged debate. Opposed were 168 Republicans and 26 Democrats.
Supporters of the repeal hailed it as a matter of basic fairness and civil rights, while opponents charged that Democrats and President Obama were destabilizing the military to advance a liberal social agenda.
*
Like the House amendment, the Senate measure would allow Pentagon leaders to revoke the ban 60 days after the military study group completes its report and President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, certify that it would not hamper military readiness and effectiveness or “unit cohesion.” Mr. Obama and Mr. Gates favor repealing the ban, as does Admiral Mullen, who, in testimony before the Armed Services Committee in February, called for a repeal.
*
"Bottom line,” Mr. Lieberman, added, “thousands of service members have been pushed out of the U.S. military not because they were inadequate or bad soldiers, sailors, Marines or airmen but because of their sexual orientation. And that’s not what America is all about.”
*
Democrats who backed the repeal compared the vote to the racial integration of the military and hailed the action as allowing all Americans who wanted to serve to do so.
*
“In the land of the free and the home of the brave, it is long past time for Congress to end this un-American policy,” said Representative Tammy Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat who is openly gay.

Senate Puts Off Action On 'Don't Ask Don't Tell'

It seems that the gay community continues to mean nothing to the DNC, Barack Obama or Congressional Democrats as demonstrated by their own actions or inaction. And yet they blame bloggers and others for the growing "problem with the gay community." These dimwits ought to take a good look in a mirror if they want to see the source of the problem. First they - particularly Obama - made campaign promises they apparently never intended to keep. Then, even with control of the White House and majorities in both houses of Congress, the National Democrats can get little accomplished. Certainly, little on the gay rights front.

*

Yes, the Hate Crimes Act was enacted, but that has little impact on the day to day lives of LGBT Americans most of whom can still be fired or denied housing because they are gay. Meanwhile, the sad truth is that the armed forces are accepting individuals with felony records (some for violent crimes), gang members, and those without a high school diploma even as qualified and honorable LGBT service members are thrown out of the military because Obama and the Democrats are spineless wimps. And they wonder why there is a problem with the gay community? We are not as stupid and easily manipulated as the like to believe - at least those of us who are outside of the HRC leadership. Here are highlights from Yahoo News on the latest betrayal:

*

A planned November hearing by the US Senate Armed Services Committee to consider ending a ban on gays serving openly in the US military will be postponed, a spokeswoman indicated Friday. "We do not have a date" for the hearing, said the aide, Tara Andringa. Committee staff have been working on Afghanistan issues ahead of President Barack Obama's decision on whether to send more troops, and more recently on the aftermath of the shock rampage at the sprawling Fort Hood military base.
*
The panel's chairman, Democratic Senator Carl Levin, had said in late October that it would hold a hearing in November and that he hoped to "to find a way to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" as the policy is widely known. . . . About 13,000 US service members have been discharged under the policy since then, and estimated costs through 2003 run at 95.4 million dollars in recruiting costs and 95.1 million in training replacements, according to the US Government Accountability Office. An overwhelming number of Americans support allowing openly gay men and lesbians to serve in the US military.

Another Retrospective on Today's GOP

While it still unclear whether the Obama stimulus plan will be enough to pull the economy out of its nosedive - Martin Wolf at the Financial Times laments that the plan is not large enough and will not get enough money into the economy quickly enough (listening to him today on CNN, I suspect that he may be right given the increasingly huge drops in private sector spending ) - one thing that is clear is that the GOP seems totally out of touch with reality. Indeed, the Party's main fixation appears to be political games and stunts that excite the Lunatic GOP base which has no concept of economic issues and remains focused on God, guns, abortion and gay bashing. Frank Rich has a great column that looks at the increasingly marginalized GOP. Here are some highlights:

*

The good news for Obama is that he needn’t worry about the Republicans. They’re committing suicide. The morning-after conservative rationalization of Jindal’s flop was that his adenoidal delivery, not his words, did him in, and that media coaching could banish his resemblance to Kenneth the Page of “30 Rock.” That’s denial. For Jindal no less than Obama, form followed content.

*

The Louisiana governor, alternately smug and jejune, articulated precisely the ideology — those G.O.P. “policies” in the Times/CBS poll — that Americans reject: the conviction that government is useless and has no role in an emergency. Given that the most mismanaged federal operation in modern memory was inflicted by a Republican White House on Jindal’s own state, you’d think he’d change the subject altogether.

*

But like all zealots, Jindal is oblivious to how nonzealots see him. Pleading “principle,” he has actually turned down some $100 million in stimulus money for Louisiana. And, as he proudly explained on “Meet the Press” last weekend, he can’t wait to be judged on “the results” of his heroic frugality. Good luck with that. He’s rejecting aid for a state that ranks fourth in children living below the poverty line and 46th in high school graduation rates, while struggling with a projected budget shortfall of more than $1.7 billion.

*

If you’re baffled why the G.O.P. would thrust Jindal into prime time, the answer is desperation. Eager to update its image without changing its antediluvian (or antebellum) substance, the party is trying to lock down its white country-club blowhards. . . . What such G.O.P. “stars” as Sanford and Jindal have in common, besides their callous neo-Hoover ideology, are their phony efforts to portray themselves as populist heroes. Their role model is W., that brush-clearing “rancher” by way of Andover, Yale and Harvard.

*

Rich, however, also notes that the GOP's self-destruction does not guarant Obama success in and of itself. The nation has great hopes in him and he must find a way to deliver. In doing so, I hope he will ignore the far right, abandon "bipartisanship" and be more bold in his programs. Here are Rich's further remarks:

*

But that good news for Obama is countered by the bad. The genuine populist rage in the country — aimed at greedy C.E.O.’s, not at the busted homeowners mocked as “losers” by Santelli — cannot be ignored or finessed. . . . Therein lies the Catch-22 that could bring the recovery down. As Obama said, we can’t move forward without a functioning financial system. But voters of both parties will demand that their congressmen reject another costly rescue of it.

*

Handing more public money to the reckless banks that invented this culture and stuck us with the wreckage is the new third rail of American politics. If Obama doesn’t forge a better plan, neither his immense popularity nor even political foes as laughable as Jindal can insulate him from getting burned.

Anchorage Daily News Endorses Obama

Sarah Palin's more or less home town paper has endorsed Barack Obama for president in its editorial today. Of note is the fact that the paper flat out states that Palin is NOT ready for prime time noting that putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time. If anything, the Anchorgae Daily News was too easy on Palin, but given her history of seeking vengence, the thrust of the editorial is focused on why Obama is the better choice. Here are some highlights:

*

Gov. Palin's nomination clearly alters the landscape for Alaskans as we survey this race for the presidency -- but it does not overwhelm all other judgment. The election, after all is said and done, is not about Sarah Palin, and our sober view is that her running mate, Sen. John McCain, is the wrong choice for president at this critical time for our nation.
*

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

*

Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery.

*

Sen. Obama warned regulators and the nation 19 months ago that the subprime lending crisis was a disaster in the making. Sen. McCain backed tighter rules for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but didn't do much to advance that legislation. Of the two candidates, Sen. Obama better understands the mortgage meltdown's root causes and has the judgment and intelligence to shape a solution, as well as the leadership to rally the country behind it.

*

Sadly, maverick John McCain didn't show up for the campaign. Instead we have candidate McCain, who embraces the extreme Republican orthodoxy he once resisted and cynically asks Americans to buy for another four years. It is Sen. Obama who truly promises fundamental change in Washington.

*

[F]ew who have worked closely with the governor [Palin] would argue she is truly ready to assume command of the most important, powerful nation on earth. To step in and juggle the demands of an economic meltdown, two deadly wars and a deteriorating climate crisis would stretch the governor beyond her range. Like picking Sen. McCain for president, putting her one 72-year-old heartbeat from the leadership of the free world is just too risky at this time.

The Demise of the GOP?

I have maintained for some time - going all the way back some years ago when I resigned from the Party - that the Republican Party's increased intertwining with the lunatic elements of the "Christian" Right - which is neither Christian nor right on the issues - would have disastrous consequences in terms of driving away moderate Republicans and independents. With the constant coverage of the true hate, religious extremism and and anti-intellect nature of the Republican base over the last couple of months, moderates and independents are learning just how scary these people are in fact.

*

What I pray will be John McCain's losing bid for the White House seems to be bearing out my prediction from seven some years ago even though it sadly took 8 years of the Chimperator to set the stage. Now, leading Republicans who do not fall into the Kool-Aid drinker element of the Party are jumping ship as if they were fleeing the Titanic or Lusitania. David Frum, who was a speechwriter for George Bush and now works at the right wing American Enterprise Institute, has a column in today's Washington Post that basically trashes McCain/Palin and - if one reads between the lines - ultimately the lunatic Christianists of the party who are proving themselves to be radioactive with moderates and independents. Here ar some highlights:

*

There are many ways to lose a presidential election. John McCain is losing in a way that threatens to take the entire Republican Party down with him. . . .[I]n August, McCain tried a bold new gambit: He would reach out to independents and women with an exciting and unexpected vice presidential choice. That didn't work out so well either. Gov. Sarah Palin connected with neither independents nor women. She did, however, ignite the Republican base, which has come to support her passionately. And so, in this last month, the McCain campaign has Palinized itself to make the most of its last asset. To fire up the Republican base, the McCain team has hit at Barack Obama as an alien, a radical and a socialist.

*

Sure enough, the base has responded. After months and months of wan enthusiasm among Republicans, these last weeks have at last energized the core of the party. But there's a downside: The very same campaign strategy that has belatedly mobilized the Republican core has alienated and offended the great national middle, which was the only place where the 2008 election could have been won.

*

I could pile up the poll numbers here, but frankly . . . it's too depressing. You have to go back to the Watergate era to see numbers quite so horrible for the GOP. McCain's awful campaign is having awful consequences down the ballot. I spoke a little while ago to a senior Republican House member. "There is not a safe Republican seat in the country," he warned. "I don't mean that we're going to lose all of them. But we could lose any of them." In the Senate, things look, if possible, even worse.

*

In these last days before the vote, Republicans need to face some strategic realities. Our resources are limited, and our message is failing. We cannot fight on all fronts. We are cannibalizing races that we must win and probably can win in order to help a national campaign that is almost certainly lost. In these final 10 days, our goal should be: senators first.

*

What should Republicans be doing differently? Two things: 1. Every available dollar that can be shifted to a senatorial campaign must be shifted to a senatorial campaign. . . . . 2. We need a message change that frankly acknowledges that the Democrats are probably going to win the White House -- and that warns of the dangers of one-party, left-wing government. . . . It's the only argument we have left. And, as the old Washington saying goes, it has the additional merit of being true.

Harold Meyerson: McCain's Ploy

Apparently, I am not the only one who see's John McCain's bogus "suspend my campaign" and delay the debate charade for what it is. As I posted last night, this is ALL about avoiding facing the press and tough questioning and finding a reason to NOT have Sarah Palin debate Joe Biden who will be able to demonstrate his fitness for the VP slot and at the same time show Palin to be a mindless pagent girl who is unfit to govern anything larger than a small village. What is truly disturbing about McCain's disingenuousness is that he and his advsors apparently believe all Americans are cretins. I hope voters recognize how badly they have been insulted. Here are some highlights from Meyerson's Washington Post column:

*

Slipping in the polls? Concerned that Americans may be paying more attention to the declining economy -- and even supporting economic regulation again -- than to your own stellar leadership abilities? What's a Republican presidential nominee to do?

*

If you're named John McCain, the answer became apparent yesterday afternoon -- make the solution to the economic crisis all about you. Suspend your campaign. Pull out of tomorrow's debate -- a trivial exercise merely allowing Americans to judge the two candidates side by side. Change the terms of the nation's economic discussion from the course we should take, and the defects of the laissez-faire model that got us here, to the indispensability of John McCain, leader of leaders.

*

Yesterday's Post-ABC News Poll showed Barack Obama opening a nine-point lead over McCain, chiefly because of the economic anxiety flooding the nation and the belief of most Americans that Obama is more in touch with economic realities than McCain is and has a better sense of how to navigate both the current crisis and America's long-term economic challenges. But the McCain plan for victory this November never counted on Americans picking McCain on the basis of the issues.

*

As his strategists saw it, they had to confine the discussion to a comparison of the character of the two candidates. Alas for McCain, reality intruded over the past week, distracting the public from McCain's stellar attributes as a decisive leader with news of an impending economic collapse. So the task for his managers has been to diminish this new story to just one chapter in the ongoing saga of John McCain, the man who rides to the rescue.

*

Can McCain pull this off -- persuading the public to forget how he and his fellow Reagan Republicans changed the nation's economic rules in ways that allowed Wall Street to run amok, and refocusing its attention on his decisiveness at this moment of crisis? I doubt it.

*

For one thing, America may be a republic of amnesiacs, but deep in some seldom-used brain lobe, it does recall that its two political parties have differed on questions of regulation and stimulating the economy, a comparison that does not now work in Republicans' favor. For another, presidential debates aren't distractions from the business of the nation.

*

McCain's ploy was transparent. To counter the public's preference for Obama's economics over his own, he would get both of them in a room and emerge proclaiming that they had reached agreement, that they had no differences. In fact, they have very real differences.

*

Comparisons such as these are odious, however, to McCain's prospects. He cannot win on the strength of his positions. He can only win on the strength of his character. Problem is, McCain's character, as we have seen in his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate, is heavy on decisiveness and weak on judgment. In this, despite his campaign's protestations, a McCain presidency would be very much an extension of George W. Bush's. . . . . Obama, Lord knows, has his flaws, but he does not seem to believe that the nation's crises are primarily about him.

Clinton Blames RFK Remark on Everyone But Herself

I am increasingly coming to believe that Hillary Clinton, a/k/a Akash, is as delusional as the Chimperator. Like the Chimperator, to Hillary reality is what she thinks it is regardless of the objective facts that indicate otherwise. Not only will she not accept the reality that she has lost and should graceful withdraw from the primary campaign and retain some tiny amount of class, but anytime she makes statements that reflect what she's really like, it's everyone else's fault that (1) she made the statement and (2) that people are outraged. Of course her designated mouthpieces likewise seem to be drinking the Kool-Aid in large quantities too. For all herfaux apologies, I think personally, Akasha opes something DOES happen to Obama. I hope he has very good security and a food taster. Today's Washingtom Post has a story that looks at the phenomenon of Hillary's refusal to accept responsibility for her vile remark. Here are some highlights:

*

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton tried again yesterday to explain her reference last week to Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, while her campaign aides accused Sen. Barack Obama's advisers of taking the comment out of context and exploiting it.

*
Her campaign chairman, Terence R. McAuliffe, was more explicit in his criticism. "It's unfortunate -- a hyped-up press over Memorial Day weekend, the Obama campaign inflaming it, tried to take these words out of context," he said on "Fox News Sunday." On Friday, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, Bill Burton, said Clinton's statement was "unfortunate and has no place in this campaign." On Saturday, Obama told a Puerto Rican radio station that he took Clinton at her word when she said she meant no harm in invoking Kennedy's assassination.
*
Neither Clinton nor McAuliffe -- nor Obama or his spokesmen -- mentioned the concern about his safety, particularly among African Americans, that the reference to Kennedy touched on. In a Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in March, nearly six in 10 Americans said they were worried that someone might try to harm Obama (Ill.) if he were the nominee -- more than double the percentage who said they were worried about the same for Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive Republican nominee.
*

Some interesting comments at the Washington Post on Hillary's bizarre behavior can be found here (natuarlly, there are also few Hillary Kool-Aid drinker comments too).

Eisenhower's Granddaughter Endorses Obama

In yet another display of why I believe Obama would be the better candidate for the November, 2008 election, as opposed to Hillary Clinton, Susan Eisenhower has come out and endorsed Obama. To win a general election in November, the successful candidate must be able to attract independents and better yet, some members of the other party. Like it or not, Hillary will not be able to do this and instead will unify the GOP. Here are some highlights from Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/107476):

Susan Eisenhower is more than just another disappointed Republican. She is also Ike's granddaughter and a dedicated member of the party who has urged her fellow Republicans in the past to stick with the GOP. But now Eisenhower, who runs an international consulting firm, is endorsing Barack Obama. She has no plans to officially leave the Republican Party. But in Eisenhower's view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her—energy, global warming, an aging population and America's standing in the world.

"Barack Obama will really be in a singular position to attract moderate Republicans," she told NEWSWEEK. "I wanted to do what many people did for my grandfather in 1952. He was hugely aided in his quest for the presidency by Democrats for Eisenhower. There's a long and fine tradition of crossover voters." Eisenhower is one of a small but symbolically powerful group of what Obama recently called "Obamacans"—disaffected Republicans who have drifted away from their party just as Eisenhower Democrats did and, more recently, Reagan Democrats in the 1980s.

Former GOP congressman Joe Scarborough, who anchors MSNBC's "Morning Joe," says many conservative friends—including Bush officials and evangelical Christians—sent him enthusiastic e-mails after seeing Obama's post-election speeches in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. "He doesn't attack Republicans, he doesn't attack whites and he never seems to draw these dividing lines that Bill Clinton [does]," Scarborough told NEWSWEEK.

Michigan Results Reveal Some Dangerous Trends For Clinton

Tom Edsall has an interesting piece at Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/16/michigan-results-reveal-s_n_81713.html) that looks at some polling results from Michigan which supports my continued fears that if Hillary Clinton wins the Democrat nomination, she will lose the general election in November 2008. Of course her resorting to tactic worthy of Karl Rove in smearing Obama also give great concern that she will alienate some voters and cause them to stay home or vote against her out of spite. The reality is that without winning independent voters no nominee of either party can win the general election. I hope the Democrats keep that in mind. Here are highlights of Edsall's analysis:

The Michigan Democratic primary was on the surface a non-event. The national party has ruled the state's delegation will not be seated. Of the major candidates, only Hillary Clinton was on the ballot, pitted against "uncommitted" in a seemingly meaningless race (she won by 15 percent). Yet the exit poll results from this strange contest reveal some troubling trends for the New York Senator.

Among black voters, Clinton was crushed by "uncommitted," 26-70. If that kind of margin among African Americans continues into future primaries, she faces major problems in the heavily black January 26 South Carolina primary and in the states with large black populations going to the polls on February 5 -- so-called Tsunami Tuesday. Clinton carried whites in Michigan by a 61-30.

Clinton ran poorly among young voters of all races, losing those under the age of 30 by 39-48 percent; splitting voters from 30 to 44 by 46-48 percent; solidly carrying the 45 to 56 age group by 54-34 percent; and winning voters 60 and older by a landslide 67-31 percent.

In a warning signal if she becomes the Democratic nominee, Clinton did much better among committed Democrats, winning them 57-37, than among independents, losing them 32-51.

Clinton Campaign Mimics Karl Rove Tactics - Stop It Hillary!!

I am increasingly concerned by things being done by the Clinton Campaign to harm Obama’s image. One would almost believe that Karl Rove was advising Hillary, not that she does not innocently claim to have no knowledge of the dirty tricks. From my years in politics and working on campaigns, I realize that politics and campaigns can be dirty at times. However, the candidate is ultimately responsible for the actions of EVERY campaign worker and advisor. Smiling denials of ignorance on the action just does not cut it. Hillary, we want CHANGE and that includes integrity in one’s campaign.

One example of what I am talking about is this the picture posted above that I received from a friend who was really pissed off – and he’s been a Hillary supporter to date and received an e-mail (not officially from Hillary’s campaign). The following caption was under the photo:

Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem. Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name)......the article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next Commander-in-Chief????

Notice the wording’s emphasis on Obama’s middle name? In addition to the cheap shots about Obama’s name, Clinton minions have been talking up his drug use as a teenager on TV interviews and stressing his immaturity, even though he is four (4) years older than Bill Clinton was when he ran for President. I do not know too many people Barak’s age – or mine for that matter – who have not briefly tried drugs in their youth other than perhaps some of the Christianist nutcases. Give it up Hillary!!

As for the photo, a good friend reports that although the Flag Code is U.S. Federal law, there is no penalty for failure to comply with the Flag Code and it is not widely enforced—indeed, punitive enforcement would conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. IPlus, it was during the national anthem, not the pledge of allegiance.

In other words, can we move past this? And can we stop acting like Karl Rove is calling the shots? Or should we rather support another future president (such as (Bush) is unfortunately titled today) that can salute the flag or national anthem but cannot admit when he is wrong when he makes a mistake- i.e, middle East Wars, highest deficit ever, personalization of retirement accounts, weakening economy & dollar, - etc, etc, etc...

Obama: Hospital Visitation for Gay Spouses is Not a 'Special Right'

I am glad to see that Barack Obama stood up to the "special rights" bull shit refrain routinely thrown out by the wingnut Christianists. These hypocritical modern day Pharisees routinely contend that anything that would allow LGBT citizens full legal rights akin to anyone else is a "special right." They make my blood boil. Thankfully, more and more younger Americans are coming to view Christianity - or at least the hate-filled Christianist version - negatively. I personally hope the trend continues because in my opinion, these folks are anything but true followers of Christ. Followers of Satan, perhaps, but not Christ. Here are some highlights of Obama while on the 700 Club (http://pageoneq.com/news/2007/Obama_Hospital_visitation_for_gay_spouses_is_not_a_special_r_1121.html)::

During an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), seeking the presidency in 2008, responds to a question on "special rights" for LGBT citizens. Obama disagrees with the notion that things like hospital visitations for same-sex spouses are "special rights."

"How would Jesus feel about somebody not being able to visit somebody they love when they're sick?" the Senator asks. "Certainly, as a public official," he continues, "it's important for me to make sure that those basic rights--that basic equality--is available."

Even reactionary Virginia has now passed legislation (it became effective July 1, 2007) that allows couples - gay or straight - to designate and grant anyone they want with hospital visitation rights.