Don't Let GOP Cries About "Obamacare" Fool You. They're Really Against The Law's Real Benefits

One thing that really angers me is how Republicans so quickly dismiss the Affordable Care Act passed by Congress and signed by President Obama.
To hear Republicans tell the story, the act they call "Obamacare" is nothing but an evil scheme that dictates to Americans their health care choices and takes powers away from the states.
The problem is that you never hear Republicans say what the act really does.
You never hear Republicans tell about how the act prevents insurance companies from denying health care coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.
You never hear Republicans tell how the act allows families to keep college-age siblings covered under their policies until the siblings reach age 26.
You never hear Republicans tell how the act closes what's called the "donut hole" in prescription drug coverage that causes seniors to pay ever higher costs for their medications.
If you forced Republicans to respond to what the Affordable Care Act really is, they'd go into a psychiatric tizzy and would wind up losing the argument. That's why you hear all this demagoguery from them about the evils of "Obamacare."
These Republicans don't want folks also to know that the ACA is patterned after the Massachusetts legislation that was signed into law by that state's then-governor, Mitt Romney, who is trying to run away from what he did as a GOP presidential front runner.
There's too much good in the legislation that Republicans only want to yell "Obamacare" to the top of their lungs and spread all sorts of lies and disinformation about the law. They told these lies when the law was considered, and they're still telling those lies now that the legislation has become law.
Here's a sampling from a Republican candidate for my area's Texas House seat (district 115), Matt Rinaldi:

Fight ObamaCare and regain control of our health care system from Washington, D.C.
Federal healthcare mandates are threatening to overwhelm the Texas state budget, and taxpayers will be on the hook for the unintended consequences of ObamaCare. I support the current efforts of Attorney General Greg Abbott to challenge the Constitutionality of ObamaCare and will support legislation asserting the rights of the state under the Tenth Amendment to determine its own health care policy.

To Matt Rinaldi, it's evil for health insurance companies to be forced to cover folks with pre-existing conditions. It's also evil for health insurance companies to be forced to cover those they just don't want to cover. And furthermore, it's evil for the federal government to do its part to protect seniors from paying huge sums for their prescription drugs.

That's the Obamacare Rinaldi is fighting so hard against. It's not about government intrusion as Rinaldi and other Republicans claim. It's about keeping folks from getting health care, period, without having to pay a huge sum.

That's why Rinaldi and other Republicans will NEVER talk about what "Obamacare" really does. They are so bent on protecting the 1 percent that anything that benefits everyone else is dismissed by these Republicans as everything from budget busters on down.

My area and the rest of the country deserve far better from those who seek public office. If Rinaldi's campaign serves as any indication, the GOP will never do anything to really protect the 99 percent while pursuing policies that continue to allow the 1 percent to get even richer at our expense.

Rinaldi and the rest of the GOP is totally wrong. They are wrong for my area, they are wrong for Texas, and they are wrong for America.

Romney Can't Give Straight Answer When Questioned About His Mormon Faith

I frankly don't care what religion a man is when I vote on public office candidates. Yes, there a lots of evangelical Christians who believe that the Mormonism of Mitt Romney is akin to a cult, but are still willing to consider his qualifications to become president.
But one thing that irks me about Romney (among many other things) is his lack of authenticity. He doesn't seem to have a set of settled principles aside from saying anything to win votes.
No where was that more present than his interview on a Birmingham, AL, talk show. Here is a video clip of the interview:

Here's part of an account on the interview:

The hosts of the Birmingham-based radio program, Rick Burgess and Bill Bussey, pressed Romney on his Mormon faith, asking him if he believes the United States reigns over Israel as the true Judeo-Christian "Promised Land." The Book of Mormon teaches that America is a "land of promise."
"Do you as a Mormon believe that America is the new 'Promised Land,' yes or no?" asked Burgess.
"You're gonna have to go to the church and ask what they think about that," Romney responded with a laugh, referring to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, of which Romney is a member.

Why couldn't Romney give a straight yes or no answer to the question? Is he THAT insecure about who he is that he couldn't give a straight answer even if there was a possibility that whatever he said could cost him votes?
This is the same Mitt Romney who is bold enough to lie about President Obama's positions ('here's one example), but is so cowardly when it comes to standing up to the woman-hating Rush Limbaugh. 
He won't stand up to Rush Limbaugh, he'll say anything, including lie, to gain votes, and he is also willing to change his position no matter how bad he looks doing it. Is this someone you'd want to be president?
I say H--- no.

One Man's View About Republicans' War Against Women

I'm a man, and as one, I am appalled that the Republicans are fighting so hard to deny women essential health care benefits. Republicans starting with their presidential candidates and continuing down the line can shout as loud as they want about how they're defending "religious freedom." The question isn't religious freedom. The question is whether women should have access to essential health services, including contraception, as part of the Affordable Health Care legislation Congress passed and President Obama signed. The answer is a definite yes. That sure hasn't stopped Republicans from digging themselves into a huge political ditch with their latest moves designed to deny such health care coverage under the false guise of "religious freedom." Here's a telling passage from the Daily Kos post linked:

Even as they claim it's about something bigger than contraception, you can bet Republicans will keep the focus squarely on that—they want the public debate to be contraception (associated with sex and women's health, and therefore ... icky) against religious freedom (a noble abstract idea and essential constitutional principle). But they're going for something much bigger. They're simultaneously looking to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, turn over governance to churches—in fact, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is sponsoring a bill similar to Blunt's because of something he heard in church—and give employers yet another way to shaft their workers.

There's one big thing missing in the Republicans' thinking. Do these Republicans really understand that women aren't alone when it comes to their concerns about the threat to their benefits these out-of-touch elephants are pushing? Do they not understand that women have families too, and these families also include men (like, for example, womens' spouses)? Or do they not understand that the American people they claim to represent really want women to have access to health services that include contraception? Check out this poll from that Republican-friendly "news" organization called Fox:

For example, the poll contains a question regarding employer coverage of birth control:

The new Obama health care law requires that employer health plans provide birth control coverage as part of preventive services for women. Catholic and other religious-affiliated hospitals and universities typically have not provided any birth control coverage for their employees, and oppose the new requirement because it violates their religious rights. Overall, do you approve or disapprove of requiring employer health plans to cover birth control for women? Approve 61% Disapprove 34 (Don’t know) 5

As far as I'm concerned, let these Republicans continue to dig themselves deeper into the political ditch. The deeper they dig, the better the chance they will wind up partying like it was 1964 (when GOP nominee Barry Goldwater was trounced by LBJ and dragged down a bunch of Republicans with him) or even 1936 (when FDR won every state but two against Alf Landon. The Republicans have cast their lot for those wanting to deny women essential health care services. Let these elephants rot and die en masse under the heavy weight of a landslide victory led by President Obama.

Could American Airlines' Bankruptcy Make Romney's Texas Skies More Stormy?

I suspect we'll be seeing a lot of this photo between now and the November general election. If anything illustrates more Mitt Romney's undeniable linkage with the privileged 1 percent, it's the photo above.
Here in Texas, that photo has taken on an additional meaning. Check this out:

On Wednesday, February 1st, American Airlines announced that it will take the advice of Mitt Romney’s firm, Bain Capital, and lay off 13,000 workers -15 percent of its workforce- replacing their pension plans with 401(k) plans and ending company-paid retiree healthcare.
The lay off announcement came only seven days after American Airlines hired Bain Capital to guide it through a bankruptcy procedure for which the airline had filed last November.

The problem for Romney is this-- he has made his experience in the business world, particularly at Bain, as a selling point for his presidency. Although he claims to have created 100,000 jobs while working there, stories like this one do anything but reinforce the image Romney has been trying to present.
Instead of being a job creator, it seems that Romney has lost far more jobs than he has created. It sure calls into his question his gargantuan claim of having created 100,000 jobs.
And it calls even more for Romney to release far more years of tax returns than he has shown willingness to do so far (just 2010 and 2011). The question is not Romney's right to make money and profit from what he does, but how he made his money.
With stories like this one, the picture becomes even worse than anyone could imagine when it comes to the current GOP front runner.
One note: Since American Airlines is based in Fort Worth, I'd love to see Romney try to explain this one as he campaigns for votes here in Texas. Even in GOP country, Romney may find himself in deep trouble with revelations like this one.

Chrysler Super Bowl Ad: An Unintended Boost for Obama?

They just don't do it better than this.
It had no political overtones, no mention of President Obama or the Democratic party, and its speaker has in the past endorsed Republicans.
Even with all that, there are some who believe the ad may have crossed the line between non-political and political speech with the mention of the rebirth of the Detroit auto industry thanks in part to policies implemented over Republican opposition by President Obama.
Still, there are a lot of folks who support the president like I do who can't be anything short of pleased with the Chrysler ad.
Here is the ad:

The problem for the Republicans with this ad is not only that it was non-partisan with a narrator with a decidedly Republican political past, but it reinforces the President's message of economic recovery in the face of GOP opposition.
It makes it even easier for the Obama campaign and other Democrats to compare their record of recovery with the GOP's do-nothing approach and Mitt Romney's call to let the U.S. auto industry go bankrupt.
I'm wondering how Romney tries to spin his way out of this one (among many other things) as the presidential campaign progresses.