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.

Is It Now "Country Last" As Far As GOP Loons Are Concerned?

When I was growing up in Southern California, there was a prominent Hollywood actor who starred in westerns and also excelled in portraying military figures.
He was also a staunch conservative Republican, but after then-Vice President Richard Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy in the closely-fought 1960 presidential election, John Wayne made the following statement referring to Kennedy:

"I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

It is sad to see what the Republican party has become in the three decades after Hollywood's legendary Duke died. Instead of putting partisan differences aside, leading Republican figures have cheered for the failure of Barack Obama's presidency.
A whole range of GOP and GOP-supporting voices, most notably Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Matt Drudge, reacted with glee when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics.
On his radio talk show, Limbaugh crowed, "The ego has landed," while Beck proclaimed the defeat as "sweet." Drudge, on his blog, echoed Limbaugh's comment in a banner headline.
Whatever became of the "country first" mantra that they and other Republicans repeated over and over again while John McCain campaigned for president? Whatever became of the old sentiment that partisanship stopped at the shorelines while the president was conducting foreign policy or otherwise promoting American interests overseas?
That sure has been missing from the sentiments echoed by these right-wingers and the other peddlers of their propaganda.
Can they please explain their glee to thousands of folks who could have had Olympics-generated jobs doing things like constructing the various Games sites that would have to be built in the years leading up to 2016? Can they also explain their glee to those in Chicago and beyond who would have benefitted tremendously from the Games being in the United States?
If they really believe Chicago's loss was a big defeat for President Obama, they are dead wrong. Many following the competition understood that Chicago faced an uphill climb against a city on a continent that never hosted an Olympics (while the United States has hosted both summer and winter Games through much of the 20th century).
For all the benefit the Games would have generated for Chicago, the state of Illinois, and the United States, Obama was right to help out in pitching the city. Although the bid was not successful, Obama's presentation (and that of Chicago) was both powerful and poignant.
Had he not come, I suspect these same right-wingers who are crowing about Chicago's loss would have barked the loudest about Obama betraying his home town and letting the rest of the Chicago delegation carry the water while he stayed home.
To these right-wingers, this wasn't about winning or losing. This was about their personal hatred of the President of the United States who was freely elected and who doesn't cower to their every command.
This was about their refusal to accept the fact that Barack Obama was elected fair and square by a clear majority of Americans last November.
And this is also about their demonstrated jealousy and resentment toward a moderately progressive president who also happens to be well-educated and intelligent as well as a successful author of two books ("Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope.")
When he came back from Copenhagen after Chicago's loss, Obama was gracious in defeat and congratulated Rio de Janiero for its accomplishment. He showed far more manhood in that brief moment then these right-wing crybabies have demonstrated in their lifetimes.
Obama will continue to do well in his presidency and beyond, but what about these right-wingers and the Republican party that looks up to these folks? If Republicans continue to embrace those who celebrated Chicago's loss and continue to root for Obama's failure, they will corner themselves even more in the fringes of American politics.
John Wayne at least had the sense to understand that one he didn't agree with was elected and that his success was in our nation's best interest. The same can't be said about the clowns who are currently the most prominent Republican party spokesmen and propagandists. The quicker the GOP disassociates itself from the Becks, Limbaughs and Drudges of the world, the better it will eventually be.

Anti-American Right Wing Shows True Face in Olympics Loss Celebration

These right-wing nut jobs who are cheering Chicago's defeat in its bid to win the 2016 Summer Olympics really need to have their heads checked out.
Are they really happy because all the jobs Chicago would get in the years before the Games even would have come won't be coming?
Are they really happy because of the positive press Chicago (and the U.S.) would get from the Games but won't since Rio de Janiero wound up winning?
Somehow, these goons who cheered Chicago's loss and yelled "The ego has landed" like Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge did need serious mental counseling.
Besides all that, it sure makes me wonder where the Republican party these guys have been front and center off since Barack Obama became president are really mainstream...or has the GOP (and the farce of a "news" channel called Fox) really gone so right-wing that it has fallen far out of the reality map (or even the mainstream map).
I hoped Chicago (which my wife and I visited a few years ago) would win, and I was disappointed that it didn't, but the classless and juvenile display of glee from these right-wing clowns and their allies in and out of the media must not be forgotten either.
In fact, they show conclusively that they, and the Republican party it supports, don't give a rat's a-- about providing real and compelling solutions to America's problems. They also don't give a rat's a-- about promoting goodwill of the very country that gave them the platform to gain the followings (and resulting monies) they've gotten.
To take it a step further, the Glenn Becks, Rush Limbaughs, and the Fox "newses" of the world have proven beyond a doubt that they are anti-American subversives who deserve to be thrown into the trash cans of history and beyond.