GM Reverses On Climate Change

General Motors, in a move drawing hope others will follow, pulled funding from the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based think tank publicly attacking the science behind climate change. The Heartland Institute has received support from GM for over 20 years, but the nation's largest auto-maker is now basing their business models under assumption that global warming is real, and will no longer donate to the non-profit. You can read more here and here.

Supreme Court Hears Case Against the Affordable Care Act

The dust is still settling inside the Supreme Court. With all arguments now present before the nine justices in the case against the Affordable Care Act, pejoratively dubbed Obamacare by its opponents, and with still so many railing against it, including the activist conservative judges currently sitting on the Court, and a near-equal chorus in and out of Washington, it bears a moment to step back and look at where things now stand.

With so much media focus on the Affordable Care Act, there are still wide misperceptions of what exactly the law will do. Many of these misconceptions center around a simple premise: “I don’t want to pay for someone else’s health insurance.” Think of Rush Limbaugh’s vitriolic attack on a Georgetown law student two weeks ago, ignorantly claiming this woman a “slut” because she wants the university to pay for her contraception since they mandate that she purchase health insurance through the school. Limbaugh displayed a complete and total lack of understanding of how contraception works, as well as how insurance companies under the Affordable Care Act are supposed to cover these basic medical needs. And it stands to reason this ignorance extends to his listeners’ understanding of the implementation of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, whether intended by Limbaugh and other opponents of the ACA or otherwise.

It is the individual mandate at the heart of the case heard before the Supreme Court. The mandate is that every individual would be forced to get insurance, and if the government is justified in compelling an individual to purchase health insurance, what is the ‘limiting principle’ stopping the government from compelling people to buy broccoli, GM cars, or something else. Those who brought the suit against the Department of Health and Human Services argue that compulsion by the government violates individual freedom and is thus unconstitutional. The government argues that this mandate is non-compulsory because every individual gets sick and is in essence already a participant in the health insurance industry and cannot be compelled to join a group they are inherently a part, and that by the powers vested in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Congress has a right to regulate this industry and those participants therein.

That’s the arguments for both sides in a nutshell, but it doesn’t necessarily address the premise that one person is paying for another’s health insurance, i.e. the well-off are subsidizing the poor. This, sadly, is a simple talking-point hounded and harped by those opposed to the bill, and is grounded with no factual basis. The truth is no one is paying for another’s health insurance under the law. The individual mandate forces the person without health insurance to purchase insurance from a private supplier. So, in essence, this is assisting the free market. If the person fails to purchase health insurance, the government retrieves a fee from them off their yearly tax return. Here’s the kicker in all this: without the law, you, me, and everyone else are already paying for other people’s health insurance. When someone without health insurance walks into an emergency room, those visits are paid by other taxes. The government spends over $100 billion per year to cover the uninsured. The additional revenue of mandating all individuals to have some form of health insurance far outweighs these costs.



So how did these arguments go over in the Court? Mostly in accordance with pregame analysis. Conservative judges hit hard against the bill. The Liberal Justices hit back hard against the States. There were moments of trepidation on Day Two of the hearings when Donald Verilli nearly collapsed beneath the pressure of arguing before the Court and many reporters in the room thought for sure the bill would be struck down that very day. Luckily, the Liberal Justices were there to bail Verilli out, and he gathered himself up for the third day of arguments and delivered a more forceful defense of the law. But the Court is tilted in Conservative favor and it seems likely the bill rests on the pen of Justice Kennedy alone. To paraphrase a Robert Reich tweet: how is it democracy when the fate of 30 million people’s health insurance rests in one man’s hands? But it’s not completely lost for the individual mandate, nor health care reform overall. Even if the individual mandate was struck down, many analysts believe most or all of the rest of the bill can stand. Then again, many think the Affordable Care Act hinges directly on the individual mandate and that if the mandate goes, the entire law crumbles after. Would this spell complete doom for President Obama, to repeal his signature social legislation before the 2012 election? Hardly. Thousands, if not millions, of Americans have already benefitted from aspects of the law that have gone into effect, from college graduates having the ability to stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, to millions of Americans now with access to coverage because insurance companies can no longer deny someone with a pre-existing condition, to many other benefits. More and more Americans are beginning to understand that this bill serves to help, not to hinder. Also, if health reform should fall, many do not think the private insurance industry could last. It would almost certainly open the door to a single-payer system, or Medicare for everybody, and that’s a win for us all.

A Lift for the Mandate?

"The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that. A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress. They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform. The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself..." continue reading here.

Ban Fracking in New York

Credo Action is taking a stand against fracking in New York State and they have a new email blast urging their followers to call Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office telling him to ban fracking statewide. Follow the link to make your call.

Jonathan Cohn Worried in the Supreme Court

Jonathan Cohn, one of the leading voices covering the Health Care Reform debate, expresses his trepidation Wednesday afternoon after hearing the final arguments in the Affordable Care Act case before the Supreme Court.

"If there was one thing of which I was certain going into this week’s Supreme Court hearings, it was that, at worst, the justices would strike down the individual mandate and related coverage positions. In other words, they’d get rid of requirements that insurers cover everybody at a uniform price, on the theory those reforms don’t work without the mandate. But the other major pieces of the law – the expansion of Medicaid to cover 15 million people, the changes to the way Medicare pays hospitals, and so on – would stay..." continue readin here.

Obamacare in Trouble

Jonathan Cohn is nervous that after today, Day Two of arguments before the Supreme Court in the case against the Affordable Care Act, the individual mandate will be struck down and very likely the entire law will fall with it.

"My first impression from day two at the Supreme Court: I was more confident yesterday than I am today. With the caveat that I know health policy a lot better than I know law, I can still imagine the justices upholding the individual mandate. But, at this point, I can just as easily imagine them striking it down.

"Tuesday's hearing was energized and contentious, from start to finish. But while the justices hammered lawyers from both sides with difficult questions, Solicitor General Don Verrilli seemed to struggle more than Paul Clement, attorney for the states. And although the liberal justices were able, more or less, to carry the case on their own, there are only four of them – and the conservatives number five..." continue reading here.

Krugman: "Lobbyists, Guns, and Money"

Paul Krugman's New York Times Op-Ed this morning glanced at the Trayvon Martin case, calling into question the 'Stand Your Ground' law in Florida and the political organization(s) that conspired to get the law, or ones similar to it, enacted, not only in Florida, but in numerous other states across the country. Specifically, he looks at ALEC and questions the lobbying efforts behind the bills, which, in essence, are written by the organization and introduced in state legislatures almost verbatim. So, who exactly is in office here? Elected officials? It doesn't quite seem that way.

"What this tells us, in turn, is that ALEC’s claim to stand for limited government and free markets is deeply misleading. To a large extent the organization seeks not limited government but privatized government, in which corporations get their profits from taxpayer dollars, dollars steered their way by friendly politicians. In short, ALEC isn’t so much about promoting free markets as it is about expanding crony capitalism..." continue reading here.

Against Obamacare

The Weekly Standard has an exceptional and detailed piece up, "Without Precedent: The Supreme Court Weighs Obamacare," navigating not only the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but addressing several other historical Court precedents at stake as the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments today on Obamacare. I certainly don't agree with everything here, but there is a compelling case why the Court should strike down the "individual mandate" in the Affordable Care Act, and by extension the entire bill itself.

"But to think of the Obama-care case (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, as the lead case is captioned) as just the latest Commerce Clause dispute is to deprive it of crucial context. NFIB v. Sebelius is much more than that. Obama-care entails an unprecedented reformation of the very structure of federal government, one that strains prior doctrines to their breaking point. The Roberts Court will have to make a judgment not just on the basis of legal text or precedent but on something more fundamental..." continue reading here.

Supreme Court Battle Over Health-Care Law Begins On Monday

Brett Smiley over at New York magazine dissects what is at stake as the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments on the Affordable Care Act today (Monday morning).

"But before argument about the actual legislation begins, the court must address whether the case, brought by opponents including 26 states and officially titled Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Petitioners v. Florida, et al., may be addressed at this time, i.e., is it "ripe." That's an issue because the so-called individual mandate, which would require Americans to buy health insurance, is not scheduled to take effect until 2014. There will be 90 minutes of argument on this point alone on Monday..." continue reading here.

Where Your Tax Dollars Go

The National Priorities Project last week released an easy-to-read guide to where exactly the government spends our tax dollars. In light of the vitriol of austerity now, now, now in order to fix our debt problem, this seems an apropos piece of data to examine when talking about, if anything, should be cut from the federal budget in order to balance the budget and bring down our national debt. When it comes to those most ardently pursuing austerity measures, they want to cut the programs and institutions least costly. In effect, it's not so much about balancing the budget and reducing our debt, it's just about cutting programs for the vulnerable in order to further subsidize corporations and the wealthy.

You can read the whole article here.

Medicare and Obamacare

The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn last week questioned the notion put forth by the opposition to the President Obama's Affordable Care Act that the 'individual mandate' is an "unprecedented" over-reach of congressional power. Cohn argues that if Medicare is okay as law, the individual mandate must also be upheld in the Court.

"I’m speaking, of course, about Social Security and Medicare. Each program is a form of “social insurance” and each serves the same basic function: To protect us from financial shocks that we cannot anticipate or avoid. With Social Security, the shock is reaching retirement without enough income. With Medicare, the shock is high medical bills during old age. During our working years, we pay into these programs by handing over portions of our incomes, in the form of payroll taxes. And we don't have a choice about it, unless we want to start evading taxes..." continue reading here.

Richard Trumka: Unions Required to Make Public Disclosures

Richard Trumka, President of the AFL-CIO, one of the largest unions in the country, was featured Friday morning in The Wall Street Journal's Op-Ed page discussing the idea that the "assault" on corporations to disclose their campaign financing is unfair and unfounded. Proponents of keeping political expenditures secret for businesses and corporations argue 'shareholder interest' in their reasoning to not disclose expenditures. However, Trumka highlights unions have long been required to disclose their political campaign contributions in order to maintain integrity and trust in our democratic process. If unions are required to do it, it only seems logical to believe that corporations can and should disclose their political expenditures to uphold some basic tenets of democracy.

"Unions have long been required to make public disclosures of their political and other spending. Corporations that spend to influence politics have no legitimate gripe against shareholder disclosure resolutions that would require them to publicly disclose that spending—and they have ample opportunity and resources to explain why that spending advances shareholder value and the public interest."

You can read the entire article here.

Jonathan Chait: "Barbarism" to Repeal Health Reform

New York magazine's Jonathan Chait examines the crusade against the Affordable Care Act and delves into the deeper question of whether health care is a right or a privilege. This is something my friends and I debated over Facebook last week.

"It is one thing to simply ignore the problem of the uninsured, by failing to act on it when you have power. But to actively crusade to throw vulnerable people off their newly-won health insurance is a higher sin, a sin of commission rather than omission..." continue reading here.

White House Releases Affordable Care Act Accomplishments

From a study released today from the White House regarding the Affordable Care Act:

Health reform is already making a difference. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act:

•2.5 million more young adults have health insurance on their parent’s plan.

•In 2010 and 2011, over 5.1 million seniors and people with disabilities on Medicare have saved over $3.1 billion on prescription drugs. These savings include a one-time $250 rebate check to seniors who hit the "donut hole" coverage gap in 2010, and a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs in the donut hole in 2011. And everyone with Medicare can get key preventive services like mammograms and other cancer screening tests for free.

•Insurance companies can no longer drop your coverage when you get sick because of a mistake on your application, put a lifetime cap on the dollar amount of coverage you can receive or raise your premiums with no accountability.

•Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children because of a pre-existing condition. And in 2014, discriminating against anyone with a pre-existing condition will be prohibited.
Even as some Republicans refuse to except the basic accomplishments of the law, the White House is adament to show how important this law has become for many Americans. You can read the rest of the study here.

Affordable Care Act: Two-Year Anniversary

Today marks the two-year anniversary of President Obama's signature legistlative accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform package still wrapped in controversy, and coincidentally, the Supreme Court begins hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the law. With so much opposition against the Affordable Care Act, it's easy to lose sight of what the law is actually supposed to achieve. But, over the course of the law's first two years of life, it's really easier to point to the things the law has achieved rather than the fear-mongering of how it will deteriorate this country. This piece highlights some of the key accomplishments of the health care law and seeks to delineate some common misconceptions.

"Here are a few simple questions to test your knowledge. TRUE or FALSE?
1) The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.
2) Health care costs have gone up because of health reform.
3) Preventive benefits no longer require co-pays or deductibles.
4) The state health care exchanges are not going to be implemented.
5) Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children because of pre-existing conditions."

Continue reading here...

"If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon"

President Obama weighed in on the tragedy of the Trayvon Martin killing early Friday morning during a Rose Garden news conference nominating a new head to the World Bank. Here's part of what he had to say:

"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin: If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and we're going to get to the bottom of what happened."

Clear details have yet to surface as to why this 17-year old was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch member. The controversy really ignites over police handling of the case. With luck, the truth will be revealed, and those guilty will be brought to justice for this senseless crime.

Paul Krugman: "Paranoia Strikes Deeper"

"Oil prices are set in a world market, and America, which accounts for only about a tenth of world production, can’t move those prices much. Indeed, the recent rise in gas prices has taken place despite rising U.S. oil production and falling imports..." continue reading here.

Energy Policy: "All of the Above Strategy"

Joe Scarborough: "We all know at this table the Keystone Pipeline is not going to lower gas prices at the pump."

Sandra Fluke Reflections on the Affordable Care Act

With the 2nd anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act on Friday, there's been much reflection and enumeration on what exactly the Affordable Care Act has thus far accomplished, and will accomplish in the next two years as full implementation of the law goes into effect. Sandra Fluke, the victim of Rush Limbaugh's heinous character assassination, reflects on what the Affordable Care Act has meant to her and other women like her.

"This law, also known as health reform, will benefit over 45 million women in our country through increased access to preventive care services without copays and deductibles. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act's new requirements that private insurance and Medicare cover these services without cost-sharing, by the time the law is fully implemented in 2014, women will benefit from, among other services: mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, pre and post natal care, flu shots, regular well-baby, well-child and well-woman visits, domestic violence screening, and the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives..." continue reading here.

Romney credits Bush for Economic Recovery?

Wow! Here's a case of the most virulent flip-flop in political history. Okay, it's probably not. But seriously! Mitt Romney has done nothing on the campaign trail but spoken of President Obama's failure to bring the economy out of the recession and that with Romney's business background, he's the best choice this fall to fix the economy. But, whoops! The economy is doing better now (though still a long way from recovery) and most economic projections are pointing to a sustained recovery from here on out. So, what do we get?

Mitt Romney: "I keep hearing the president say he's responsible for keeping the country out of a Great Depression," Romney said at a town hall in Arbutus, Maryland. "No, no, no, that was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."

Here's what Jonathan Chait at New York magazine has to say in response: "[T]he Wall Street bailout is actually a huge political liability for Obama because it’s incredibly unpopular and most Americans think Obama, not Bush, signed it. So having Romney run around reminding people that Bush bailed out Wall Street is actually Obama’s prayer answered..." continue reading here.

Not to worry though. This is all part of the Romney campaign's Etch-A-Sketch tactic. They'll just give Romney a little shake tomorrow and it'll be like it never happened!

Fracking: EPA's Dimrock Announcement

The EPA released preliminary results of a 60 home study in Dimrock, Pennsylvania over the contamination of the town's water supply, specifically homes who have leased out their land to Cabot Oil & Gas. Residents say the company's fracking has contaminated their drinking water with such things as methane, arsenic, and sodium, among other chemicals. The issue with this report from the EPA is that they have only so far tested 11 homes, a fraction of the total they plan to test. Activists wonder why the EPA is releasing such preliminary results at this time and if this is to suggest Cabot is not responsible for the contamination.

"The EPA completed only a fraction of the testing it plans to do in Dimock, but industry groups and mainstream media outlets quickly jumped on the preliminary announcement as if it were proof that fracking was not to blame for Dimock's water troubles. Reuters, for example, ran a headline declaring that "fracking did not pollute water near homes" even though the EPA has not released the actual test results or drawn any conclusions from a study that has yet to be completed..." continue reading here.

"JOBs" Act: H.R.3606 - "Return Greed to Wall Street Act"

The House is set today to vote on H.R.3606, the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act, a.k.a. the JOBs Act. (UPDATE: the bill passed with bi-partisan support.) According to many sources, this is a terrible bill that once again deregulates Wall St., essentially returning investment in small businesses to the days of Enron and WorldCom, where fraud and investment protection will run rampant.

Here's Simon Johnson over at his blog, BaseLineScenario:

"Markets with weak investor protection and little effective disclosure are subject to a great deal of volatility. They also do not typically do well over time – there might be a boom for a while, but fraud and excess generally prevail, resulting in a big collapse. Well-connected people, including many stock brokers, can do well – this was the experience in the US stock market frenzy of the 1920s. But ordinary investors do not thrive in this environment – and ultimately everyone suffers, as in the 1930s..." continue reading here.

And here's what Eliot Spitzer has to say:

"Ten years ago, virtually all of the major investment banks on Wall Street were charged with a monumental deception of the American investing public: touting stocks as great investments when in truth the banks believed the stocks to be “dogs,” “pieces of ----,“ and worse. The banks did this because of the conflicts of interest woven into their business model. They were underwriting the very stocks they were also touting, making the investing public dupes helping the banks generate enormous fees..." continue reading here.

Budget Woes

Here's an interesting Op-Ed from back on July 23, 2011 in the New York Times. With the release of House Republican's budget today by Paul Ryan, it's important to remind ourselves that GOP initiatives (such as tax cuts and two wars) got us into this deficit mess and that cutting government programs will never balance the budget.

"Despite what antigovernment conservatives say, non-
defense discretionary spending on areas like foreign aid, education and food safety was not a driving factor in creating the deficits. In fact, such spending, accounting for only 15 percent of the budget, has been basically flat as a share of the economy for decades. Cutting it simply will not fill the deficit hole..." continue reading here.

House GOP Release Their Budget

The House GOP released their budget today. In other words, if you're healthy and if you're rich, nothing will change except you'll likely get more rich. If you're not these things, pay up, because you're the reason this country is broke. Read more about the article here.

Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee Chairman says, "It's up to people to demand from their government a better budget, a better plan, and a choice between two futures. The question is: which future will you choose?"

Let's choose the one that does not balance the excesses of the rich and well-off, those corruptors of government who complain taxes are too high yet have millions and millions to spend on elections, lobbying, and laws, on the backs of the most vulnerable citizens this country has, the citizens whose livelihoods are diminished because of unfettered greed in corporate America.

Fracking: Truthout's Fracking Expose, Part 2

Here's part 2 of Truthout.org's fracking expose examining the claims from the industry and even President Obama's administration that fracking does not have as detrimental consequences for the environment and health as being reported. However, any objective observer knows otherwise.

"The natural gas industry defends hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, as safe and efficient. Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a pro-industry non-profit organization, claims fracking has been “a widely deployed as safe extraction technique,” dating back to 1949. What he doesn’t say is that until recently energy companies had used low-pressure methods to extract natural gas from fields closer to the surface than the current high-pressure technology that extracts more gas, but uses significantly more water, chemicals, and elements..." continue reading here.

I find this article particularly interesting because it delves into the change in the industry over the last few years to switch from low-pressure drilling to these high-pressure techniques that have shown to contaminate well water in towns, rivers and streams, to the point where people can light their tap water on fire, as well as a major contributor to recent seismic activity (earthquakes) in such states as Alabama, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The rhetorical question is: why did they need to switch to this new technique? Money, money, money...

How Obama Tried to Sell Out Liberalism in 2011

By Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine

"Last summer, President Obama desperately attempted to forge a long-term deficit reduction deal with Congressional Republicans. The notion that he could get the House GOP to accept any remotely balanced agreement was preposterous and doomed from the start, but Obama responded to the increasingly obvious reality by reducing his demands of the Republicans to virtually nothing..." continue reading article.

Obamacare Haters Angered By Facts

By Jonathan Chait at New York magazine.

"This hostility to empiricism has defined the conservative approach to health care. How else could a concept developed by a conservative think tank, implemented by a Republican governor, and largely uncontroversial within the conservative world suddenly become the death of freedom? Because the conservative movements's understanding of concepts like "freedom" is a hazy ideological abstraction, unmoored from factual grounding, that can attach itself to nearly any partisan position. If you're uninterested in the details...then your disposition toward one idea can easily lurch from mildly supportive to hysterically in opposition..." continue to article.

Review: Bernard Malamud's "The Assistant"

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Book 57/100 from Time Magazine's "100 Best Novels: 1923-present"



Maybe it was fate that I'd read a story laced with inevitablity while going through diffculties in my own life. I, like Morris Bober, feel the winds of inevitability in constant force against me these days, that no matter which way I turn or direction I take feels wrong and ill-advised, but utterly unavoidable in retrospect. But, like Frank Alpine, the assistant, who too feels the crushing density of fate against him, he strives to break the shackles of vice he has known all his life. He struggles to transform himself, completely self-aware of his faults yet reticent to thwart his destiny as a thief. Yet he is autonomous, he is free, like the bird widdled from a chunk of wood, and if he so chooses can lift himself high and far.



View'>http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/573562-jason-owen">View all my reviews

Fracking: Truthout's Fracking Expose, Part 1

Truthout.org has started a 3-part expose on the dangers of horizontal hydraulic fracturing, otherwise known as fracking in the industry. Here's part 1:

"A new Pennsylvania law endangers public health by forbidding health care professionals from sharing information they learn about certain chemicals and procedures used in high volume horizontal hydraulic fracturing. The procedure is commonly known as fracking..." continue reading here.

I'd also note that Rick Santorum is from Pennsylvania. Something tells me he'd be okay with all of this.

Primary Preview: Newt and Santorum on Edge

Tuesday’s Alabama and Mississippi primaries are all-important for Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Each are staking their campaigns on how well they perform Tuesday night, and bolstering that whoever loses should drop out.

Gingrich has essentially been banking his campaign on his performance in the South since the Florida primary loss to Mitt Romney. Gingrich at the time knew the northern contests in Michigan and Ohio would not play well to his favor and never put much into those primaries. Now Gingrich has a chance to prove his candidacy, and legitimize his reluctance to drop from the race, by showing he’s a strong favorite through the south and that, for instance, if Rick Santorum were to drop out, Gingrich could sway a large portion of Santorum’s voters his way to defeat Romney.

This is ostensibly the same argument Rick Santorum is making. In light of last week’s primary wins in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, and his near victory in Ohio, the Santorum campaign has publicly pressured Gingrich to drop out, arguing voters will coalesce behind him to defeat Romney.

Both candidates have strong cases for the other to concede defeat. Anti-Romney sentiment runs high in the GOP, seeing his wealth as a bulwark to connect with the average voter – and his gaffe-prone campaign cements that image nearly every day. Romney also does not have strong support in the south. Gingrich is from Georgia and can easily wrap up several southeast states in the general election. If voters are given Romney as the candidate, they may be willing to vote for Obama simply based on the improving conditions of the economy. Santorum, in contrast, polls well with southerners on social issues and can pull the evangelical vote his way throughout the south and the beltway. The evangelical voting-block could be essential for republicans this fall if they stand any chance of winning the White House. A poll today of likely GOP voters shows that a large majority of Alabama and Mississippi voters do not believe the President’s continued stated admission of his Christian beliefs and think he is a Muslim. But let’s be honest, Mississippi and Alabama also rank in the bottom 5 in education with some of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country. So, there’s that.

But maybe Romney still has the best argument for both Santorum and Gingrich to drop out. According to weekend polling in Mississippi and Alabama, Romney is virtually in a dead-heat with these other candidates. If he doesn’t win either state outright, he’ll still secure some delegates and inch ever-closer to the magic 1,144 needed for the nomination. And after last week’s big Ohio victory, the Romney campaign began making their case that they should be the nominee. Of course, it’s not about policies or that he really is the better candidate. It’s math! The Romney campaign thinks the others should drop out because they can’t possibly reach 1,144 delegates now, so, just get out! I know nobody wants me to win, but I’ve got a twenty run lead. You should just forfeit now in the bottom of the third. I’ll pay you…

~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker and AmericanLP

President Obama Weekly Address: High Gas Costs

Will Obama End Super PACs If Re-Elected?

Bill Burton, former White House Press Secretary, and current head of Priorities USA Action, a Democratic super PAC, discusses the notion that even if a super PAC helps President Obama win re-election, the President will not work to achieve campaign finance reform to rid the political system of inhindered money in politics.

http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/bill-burton-defends-president-obama-stance-on-super-pac-funding-for-the-2012-campaign

Super Tuesday Not Super For Mitt Romney

Super Tuesday offered a chance for Mitt Romney to finally secure the Republican nomination. It didn’t happen, despite narrowly winning the all-important Ohio contest. Here’s a round-up of the Super Tuesday results:

Mitt Romney won the crucial Ohio race, but it was neck-and-neck with his top contender Rick Santorum. Romney beat Santorum by a slim 1% margin, further proof of anti-Romney sentiment. This win was much less impactful than if Santorum had been the one to eek out a victory, especially in light of other key losses. But the former Governor did manage to win his other “home” state, Massachusetts, with a resounding 72% of the vote. Vermont, Alaska, and Idaho also fell his way. Virginia should have been a solid win for Romney, but comes with a heavy asterisk: Romney and Rep. Ron Paul were the only two candidates on the ballot. Romney earned 60% of the vote, but Paul’s 40% again shows the public’s timidity when it comes to their trust of “two-Cadillac” Romney.

Rick Santorum, by most counts, had a great night. He may not have won Ohio, but he came close, and it stands to reason if Newt Gingrich now drops out, Santorum will pick up most of the anti-Romney supporters. But what made Santorum’s night particularly noticeable were his wins in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakota, showing he still has the key evangelical vote. Santorum, however, is still having trouble garnering attention from more moderate republicans with his wild, dangerous social issues campaign. He has tried repeatedly to shift the message of this election from the economy to social issues. It worked in Tennessee last night and could be crucial for wins in the southern primaries next week.

Newt Gingrich had a terrible night. He won Georgia, his home state, a surprise to no one, but failed to make an impact anywhere else on the board. He might have shown strong in Virginia, but he wasn’t on the ballot, and his campaign is hurting financially. He needs wins in the next couple of weeks in key southern states: the Missouri and Kansas caucuses, as well as Alabama and Mississippi. However, Santorum is polling high in those states and it doesn’t look likely that Gingrich will muster enough votes for a victory. More reason the Santorum camp is urging Gingrich to drop out.

Ron Paul suffered a harsh blow on Tuesday night. He did well in Virginia, but didn’t persuade republicans that he can beat Romney head-to-head. In North Dakota, Vermont, and Alaska, he also performed well, but failed to win any of the decisions. He managed only 9.3% of the vote in Ohio, and only picked up 21 delegates. Paul has a strong backing, but it looks like he’ll never get the delegates needed for the nomination.

President Obama was perhaps the biggest winner of Super Tuesday. Republican voters are so un-energized and dissatisfied with their nominees that, come November it will be difficult for conservative operatives to rally behind just one person. Romney did inch closer to the nomination to face off against Obama this fall, but Romney is still not generating any kind of excitement from the republican base. This reinforces the fact that Obama’s reelection is in his own hands and he may just cruise to victory.

~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker at AmericanLP

The Daily Show - "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Gross

As usual, The Daily Show offered unparalleled insight into the Rush Limbaugh controversy surrounding his incendiary comments about Georgetown law student, Sandra Fluke. Stewart manages to hit every important aspect of this story, from the complete misunderstanding Republicans seem to have regarding birth control, to the absolutely appalling way in which the Republican candidates responded to Limbaugh's attack. This is an absolute must-watch. Enjoy.

     

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Gross
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

     

Limbaugh Controversy a Big Win For Dems

A recovering economy is bad news for Republicans in 2012. If Republicans address social issues as virulently as they have the ‘contraception controversy,’ it will be a long, sad election season for them. Provisions in the Affordable Care Act made it so all employers had to cover contraceptive care. Republicans cried foul on infringing religious freedoms. This seemed a win-win for republicans: attack an already unpopular legislative bill, at least with conservatives, and pin the bill to a social issue they care deeply about.

But it didn’t really turn out that way. President Obama compromised. This consolation by the administration seemed a straight-forward alternative, but many still argued insurance companies would pass the costs of contraceptive care to the institutions through higher premiums, but this simply isn’t true. Furthermore, it’s in the insurance companies’ best interest, i.e. benefits their bottom-line, to offer free contraceptive care for ALL women.

The controversy should have died there, but, republicans kept on it. At a Congressional hearing, Darrell Issa actually barred a woman named Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student, from giving testimony. Democrats, days later, held a congressional forum where Ms. Fluke finally gave her testimony. Republicans responded by letting Rush Limbaugh do the talking.

Limbaugh’s tirade has only served to help President Obama and the Democrats this fall. First of all, Limbaugh’s idiocy only proved how little he understands contraception and how women use it. Rachel Maddow expressed this brilliantly on her show Friday night. Limbaugh, and many other conservatives, do not seem to have a basic grasp of how contraceptive coverage works, and almost universally think contraception is solely used as an abortifacient, and ignore hormonal contraceptive use as a therapeutic drug, evidenced by Ms. Fluke’s testimony. Nobody is paying for somebody else’s contraceptive care. The taxes paid through your employer cover the health care benefits that YOU receive. If your employer objects to contraceptive coverage, or maybe they don’t like the diet pills you’ve been taking, or maybe the painkillers that you’re prescribed are too costly, and you have to go out of network to get those drugs then you’re essentially paying TWICE for medical insurance. As the Fluke testimony shows, going out of network can have disastrous consequences for women.

The right’s draconian furor against contraception will only further secure the women’s vote in 2012, especially the independent vote. Limbaugh, personally, is suffering. At least 9 advertisers, including AOL, Sleep Number, and a tax services company, have pulled their ads from his show. Limbaugh’s half-hearted (and now “left-blaming”) apology has been almost universally condemned as “insincere.” Even Ron Paul thinks it was all about ad revenue: "I don't think he's very apologetic. It's in his best interest, that's why he [apologized].” When a majority of Americans support the contraceptive requirement and conservative blowhards make such inexcusable comments, republicans are not only hurting their chances of winning the White House, but damage any chance to take the Senate or hold the House.

Rachel Maddow: Limbaugh "doesn't know what contraception is."

Rachel Maddow delved into the Rush Limbaugh controversy on her show last night and took the conservative political pundit to task for his incredible misunderstanding of how contraceptives work and how women use them. It's a long video, but watch the whole thing. You won't be disappointed.

Amreican LP News Brief March 2, 2012

American LP Daily News Briefing March 2, 2012

Republicans are begrudgingly coming to grips with the presidential candidacy of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Tuesday night, Romney won both the Michigan and Arizona primaries and it’s becoming clear that Romney should be able to secure the nomination. These wins though do not bode well for republicans when it comes to the general election. Republicans still seem hesitant to throw overwhelming support behind Romney, or any of the 4 remaining candidates. Romney has regained the lead in nationwide polls, but his support is sitting at an anemic 35%. His chief rival, Rick Santorum, has fallen quickly in the last two weeks, now sitting at 24%. The two have flip-flopped (much like Romney does on just about every policy issue) since the last major polls two weeks ago, where Santorum held 34% of voters’ support and Romney was at 24%. And speaking of flip-flops, Romney once again added another swift policy shift to his growing list, first by coming out and saying he opposed the Blunt Amendment in the Senate, and literally within the hour reverting to the most extreme position saying he was in support of the amendment.

The Blunt Amendment (at the 2:00 mark), a rider attached to a transportation bill in the Senate that would have allowed any employer to refuse health care coverage of any kind based on religious or moral reasons, failed in the Senate this week, a vote accurately reflecting public opinion polling. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 63% of Americans support the new Obama federal regulation requiring health insurance plans to cover the costs of birth control; 8 out of 10 democrats support the Obama requirement; 4 in 10 republicans support the ‘Obamacare’ regulation; and what seems most important in this upcoming election, the independent vote, shows that 6 in 10 registered independents support the Obama policy for insurance companies to pay for contraceptive care for people they cover.

Finally (the 3:05 mark), it came as a shock to learn that Andrew Breitbart, prominent conservative blogger and muckraker, died suddenly Wednesday night of natural causes, according to his spokesperson. Maybe more surprising, was the immediate swarm of conspiracy theories surrounding his death. Breitbart reportedly was to release a video on Thursday, March 1, of President Obama back in college that would have “destroyed” the President and significantly ruined his reputation before this upcoming election. Now, it’s still all hearsay as to how damaging this video might have been (remember Breitbart is the same person to selectively edit the Shirley Sherrod video that caused a phony outcry of racism, and also had his hand in the James O’Keefe fabrication that eventually led ACORN to close its’ doors), but it seems that if there were some strange insidious character trait President Obama has been hiding through over 3 years in office, and this video would expose him as a fraud, or a fake, or something worse, this video seems dubious to expose him as such. And even more preposterous is this idea that Breitbart was ‘taken-out’ because of the knowledge that he supposedly possessed. The autopsy will hopefully shed some light on the true cause of Breitbart’s death, but as evidenced throughout the last few years by the ridiculous spectacle surrounding President Obama’s birth-certificate, republicans may just scoff at any true evidence found in relation to Breitbart’s death.

Stick around to the end of the video for a new campaign ad by republican presidential candidate Ron Paul lampooning his rivals in the GOP race. We don’t like Paul anymore than the other candidates, but it’s always nice to see the republicans grilling one another.

~ Jason Owen with TJ Walker