Krauthammer: GOP Shut Down the Government over Obamacare is Nuts

I don't often agree with Charles Krauthammer on many things - he drinks too much of the GOP Kool-Aid typically - but in a Washington Post editorial he assails the GOP threat to shut down the national government as a means to sabotage Obamacare.  As is now the norm for the GOP on almost every issue, the far right faction in the party has no proposed alternative to the Affordable Health Care Act - or the Senate immigration reform bill either.  They'd rather throw millions of Americans on the trash heap with no insurance coverage and keep America with the highest priced, least effectively delivered health care in the world.  Here are excerpts from the editorial:

A combination of early presidential maneuvering and internal policy debate is feeding yet another iteration of that media perennial: the great Republican crackup. This time it’s tea party insurgents vs. get-along establishment fogies fighting principally over two things: (a) national security and (b) Obamacare.

(a) National security

The more fundamental GOP divide is over foreign aid and other manifestations of our role as the world’s leading power. The Paulites, pining for the splendid isolation of the 19th century, want to leave the world alone on the assumption that it will then leave us alone. 

Which rests on the further assumption that international stability — open sea lanes, free commerce, relative tranquillity — comes naturally, like the air we breathe. If only that were true. Unfortunately, stability is not a matter of grace. It comes about only by Great Power exertion. 

In the 19th century, that meant the British navy, behind whose protection the United States thrived. Today, alas, Britannia rules no waves. World order is maintained by American power and American will. Take that away and you don’t get tranquillity. You get chaos.

(b) Obamacare

 

The other battle is about defunding Obamacare. Led by Sens. Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, the GOP insurgents are threatening to shut down the government on Oct. 1 if the stopgap funding bill contains money for Obamacare.

This is nuts. The president will never sign a bill defunding the singular achievement of his presidency. Especially when he has control of the Senate. Especially when, though a narrow 51 percent majority of Americans disapproves of Obamacare, only 36 percent favors repeal. President Obama so knows he’ll win any shutdown showdown that he’s practically goading the Republicans into trying.

Never make a threat on which you are not prepared to deliver. Every fiscal showdown has redounded against the Republicans.

Those who fancy themselves tea party patriots fighting a sold-out cocktail-swilling establishment are demanding yet another cliff dive as a show of principle and manliness. 

But there’s no principle at stake here. This is about tactics. If I thought this would work, I would support it. But I don’t fancy suicide. It has a tendency to be fatal.

As for manliness, the real question here is sanity. Nothing could better revive the fortunes of a failing, flailing, fading Democratic administration than a government shutdown where the president is portrayed as standing up to the GOP on honoring our debts and paying our soldiers in the field.

How many times must we learn the lesson? You can’t govern from one house of Congress. You need to win back the Senate and then the presidency. Shutting down the government is the worst possible way to get there. Indeed, it’s Obama’s fondest hope for a Democratic recovery.

Note how he touches on the issue of sanity.  Sanity is what the GOP has lost thanks to the Christofascists and Tea Party which now control the party base like a metastasizing cancer. 

Read More

Russian Sports Minister: Olympic Athletes Will Be Subject To Anti-Gay Laws

I continue to argue that rather than have people and nations boycott the 2014 Winter Games, the International Olympic Committee needs to find a backbone and simply announce that the venue for the games will be moved in light of anti-gay Russian laws that violate both the Olympic ideal of non-discrimination, but also international conventions to which Russia is a member.  The IOC has tried to dodge facing the reality that it is acting like it did in 1936 by not forcefully telling Russia to repeal the laws or the games will not be held in Russia.  New statements by the Russian Sports Minister (pictured at left) underscore that athletes and tourists will likely be arrested if they attend the games in Sochi.  Here are highlights from AFP:

MOSCOW — Gay athletes are welcome to participate in Russia's 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi but must obey a new law banning "homosexual propaganda", the country's sports minister said Thursday.

Russian President Vladimir Putin in June signed into law legislation that punishes the dissemination of information about homosexuality to minors but which activists say can be used for a broad crackdown against gays.

The comments by Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko appear to contradict assurances from the International Olympic Committee last week that no athlete attending the games would be targeted by the law.

"The law talks not about banning a non-traditional orientation but about other things, about propaganda and implicating minors," Mutko told the R-Sport news agency.

"No one is banning a sportsman with a non-traditional sexual orientation from going to Sochi. But if he goes out onto the street and starts to make propaganda, then of course he will be brought to responsibility.

Foreigners found guilty of violating the law can not only be fined up to 5,000 rubles ($156, 114 euros) but face administrative arrest of up to 15 days and eventual deportation.

Russian officials rarely use words like "gay" and "homosexual" and prefer to use the phrase "non-traditional sexuality" to describe same-sex love.

The law has aroused concerns among activists about whether Russia is fit to host the Games, the biggest sporting event it has held in its post-Soviet history, and even calls for a Cold War-style boycott.

Mutko's comments infuriated activists, coming after the IOC said last week it had received assurances at the "highest level" within the Russian government that the legislation would not affect those attending the games.

"Russian sports minister confirmed gay propaganda law WILL be applied at Olympics in Sochi! As I said Russian guarantees to IOC are b(expletive)!" leading Russian gay rights activist Nikolai Alexeyev fumed on Twitter.

Russia last week banned four Dutch nationals from entering the country for three years after accusing them under the controversial new law of spreading of "gay propaganda" to minors,

The solution again is easy: move the games.  Putin wants a self-congratulatory display via the games.  Give him a major humiliation instead. Moving the games might be complicated, but it could be done by returning to a past venue that has many of the needed facilities already in place.

Read More

Lambda Legal and ACLU File Federal Class Action Challenging Virginia's Gay Marriage Ban

Following up on their previously announced intention to challenge Virginia's anti-gay marriage ban, Lambda Legal and the ACLU filed a class action suit this morning in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Harrisonburg Division.  This comes in the wake of a suit filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, filed by a Norfolk couple.  The new lawsuit, as noted is a class action suit, and the plaintiffs are  Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff of Staunton and Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd of Winchester, and seeks to represent all same-sex couples in Virginia who wish to marry there or who have married in other jurisdictions.  Here are excerpts from Lambda Legal's blog that discusses the lawsuit:

“Virginia is home for us. Our families are here, our jobs are here, and our community is a great support for us, but it makes us sad that we cannot get married where we live,” said Joanne Harris, a lifelong Virginian and the daughter of Bedford, Va., farmers. “It hits me in the gut that two hours from our house same-sex couples in Maryland and D.C. can marry. I have a serious medical condition and we’ve had to spend lots of money to try to make sure that Jessi can make decisions for me if there were ever a crisis.”

"I’m an Air Force veteran, and if Virginia would just respect our marriage from D.C., it would ensure that my spouse and family could access all the benefits I’ve earned," said Christy Berghoff, from Winchester. "I’ve been with Victoria for almost a decade now; and it hurts to have our home state say we are not married when it recognizes marriages entered into by different-sex couples who may have only recently met.”

“More than half of the people of Virginia believe all Virginians should have the freedom to marry the person they love, said Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, Executive Director of the ACLU of Virginia. “Every day that same-sex couples in Virginia are denied the freedom to marry, the government sends a message that they are second class citizens and their families are not worthy of equal dignity and respect.”

The press release on the filing of the suit is here.  The complaint itself can be found here.  The following are some excerpts from the complaint:

The Named Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class, seeking declaratory and injunction relief for the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution caused by the exclusion of same-sex couples from the freedom to marry and from recognition of the marriages some Plaintiffs have entered into in other jurisdictions under the law of the Commonwealth of Virginia (“Commonwealth” or “Virginia”).

Marriage plays a unique role in society as the universally recognized and celebrated hallmark of a couple’s commitment to build family life together.   It confers upon couples a dignity and status of immense import.  Plaintiffs have formed committed, enduring bonds equally worthy of the respect afforded by the Commonwealth to different - sex couples through marriage. Yet, the Commonwealth, without any adequate justification, has enacted an unprecedented series of statutory and constitutional amendments to single out lesbian and gay Virginians by excluding them from the freedom to marry, or by refusing to recognize their existing marriages from other jurisdictions, based solely on their sexual orientation and their sex.

The marriage ban inflicts serious and irreparable harms upon same sex couples and their children.   Joanne Harris and Jessica Duff are unmarried, and wish to marry for the same reasons as different - sex couples to publicly declare their love and commitment before their family, friends, and community, and to give one another and their son J. H. D. the security and protections that only marriage provides.   Christy Berghoff and Victoria Kidd have married in another jurisdiction, but are treated as legal strangers in the state they call home a painful invalidation of their relationship that also deprives them and their daughter L. B. K. of  the protections that a legally recognized marriage most securely provides.

[T]he Commonwealth’s exclusion of  same - sex couples from marriage and refusal to recognize their valid marriages from other jurisdictions and Defendants’ enforcement of the marriage ban violate the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As the Supreme Court has made clear, the law cannot, directly or indirectly, give effect to private biases.   Liberty and equality, not moral disapproval, must be the guiding framework for a state’s treatment of its citizens.

Excluding same - sex couples from marriage does nothing to protect or enhance the rights of different - sex couples. Different - sex spouses will continue to enjoy the same rights and status conferred by marriage regardless of whether same - sex couples may marry, unimpaired by the acknowledgment that this freedom belongs equally to lesbians and gay men.

The Commonwealth’s interest in child welfare is affirmatively harmed rather than furthered by the exclusion of same - sex couples from marriage. That exclusion injures same - sex couples’ children without offering any conceivable benefit to other children.  . . . Other courts have found, after trials involving expert testimony, that there is no rational basis for favoring parenting by heterosexual couples over gay and lesbian couples.

 

Read More

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

Read More

Cuccinelli Will Not Return $18,000 in Gifts (Bribes?)

While Bob McDonnell is trying to save his ass by returning lavish gifts - some now being euphemistically called "loans" - the ever despicable Ken Cuccinelli has announced that he will not follow suit and reimburse Jonnie R. Williams, Sr., for the $18,000 in bribes gifts Cuccinelli recieved.  His reasoning?  Since the gifts were in the form of cash or tangible items like Rolex watches, they can't be returned.   Somehow he misses the point that he received what I am sure Williams viewed as payments for future political favors.  But then again, Cuccinelli always sees himself as exempt from the laws and rules that apply to others.   Here are highlights from a Washington Post article on Cuccinelli's bullshit position:

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli says he’s glad Gov. Bob McDonnell is returning all the gifts he received from a major political donor. But he has no plans to repay the more than $18,000 in gifts he received from the same benefactor.

Cuccinelli told reporters Wednesday that Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams didn’t give him the kind of gifts that can be returned. Among the gifts from Williams listed in Cuccinelli’s financial disclosure statements are a $1,500 catered Thanksgiving dinner, private jet trips and vacation lodging. Cuccinelli said, “There are some bells you can’t unring.”

The Republican candidate for governor made the remarks the day after McDonnell announced he and his family are returning all their gifts and repaying $125,000 in business and personal loans from Williams.

Cuccinelli misses the point that he could write a check to Williams to make things right.  But then again, Cuccinelli is all about money as demonstrated by his refusal to resign from office.  He wants taxpayers to underwrite his political campaign.  Perhaps he should have thought through the cost of having all the children he fathered trying to convince himself that he's not gay.

Read More

Republicans: Blinded by Self-Righteousness

Once again, one has to wonder when the swamp fever (i.e., the Christofascists and Tea Party) that has overwhelmed will be broken.  A new Pew Research Center poll released yesterday found that nearly 6 in 10 Republicans believe that the GOP need to reconsider some positions, while just over a third - again, the Christofascists and Tea Party lunatics - want the party to merely to make a stronger case for its current positions: anti-gay, anti-women, anti-immigrant, etc.  Candidly, until sane Republicans (or at least what ones are left) are willing to stand up to the Christofascists and Tea Party, or better yet, kicking them to the curb, I do not see meaningful change happening.  A column in the New York Times looks at the situation.  Here are highlights:

Two-thirds of Republicans recognize that the party needs to change in order to do better in future

But that’s where things get tricky. Fifty-four percent believe that party leaders need to move in a more conservative direction, while only 40 percent believe that they need to move in a more moderate direction.  There’s the deflator. I knew this was too good to be true. 

The poll specifically asked Republicans whether the party’s position was too conservative, not conservative enough or about right on five issues: gay marriage, immigration, abortion, government spending and gun policy. 

In all cases except one a plurality thought that the party’s position was about right. The lone exception was government spending, on which a plurality thought that the party was not conservative enough. In fact, “not conservative enough” beat “too conservative” on every issue but gay marriage.

presidential elections, but they’re torn over what that change should be. 

Tea Party supporters were significantly more likely than Republicans who don’t support the Tea Party to say that the party was not conservative enough on these issues. 

[T]he problem the Republicans still have but many don’t seem to recognize is that the extreme arm of the party has an outsize role in selecting a nominee, and they don’t like anyone who smells of moderation.  . . . . .  most don’t have a favorable opinion of Chris Christie. In fact, among Tea Party supporters Christie had the highest unfavorable rating of the seven Republican leaders mentioned in the poll. 

This is the perpetual Republican Party conundrum: moderate, or go harder right. And many still seem to believe that going harder right is the best way to go. They have learned nothing. They can see no other way. They are so convinced that their way is the right way, but it’s just misunderstood, not clearly explained, not persuasively advocated. 

That’s what can happen in political echo chambers — faltering positions are reinforced rather than rightfully abandoned. Voices for moderation are maligned as agents of moral erosion. Giving a little feels like giving up.

In this world few leaders, particularly ones that could win a national election — which would require the winning of moderates and possibly the sloughing off of some conservative Democrats — would ever be sufficiently conservative to pass the purity test. 

So long as these voices — those of the most conservative Republicans — warp nominees who emerge from primaries on the right, they are doomed to an uphill climb toward the White House. 

It is  sad that a once rational party has been hijacked by crazy people who relish ignorance, racism, homophobia and bigotry in general as all the while they pat themselves on the back for their godliness.  The hypocrisy is stunning.

Read More

Rand Paul's Isolationist Views Rebuked by Senate

Rand Paul may be a Tea Party darling, but he went down in flames in a vote in the U.S. Senate.  And that doesn't even take in the tongue lashing he received from Chris Christie on the issue of federal aid to a state - i.e., New Jersey receives 77 cents for every $1 sent to Washington - that gives much more money to Washington than it receives versus a state - i.e., Paul's Kentucky which receives over $1.5 for every $1 sent to Washington - which is a freeloader in comparison propped up by federal money.  The overall effect is to show that Paul is not ready for prime time outside of Tea Party circles.  The Washington Post looks at the rebuke in the Senate.  Here are excerpts:

Chris Christie, the popular GOP governor of New Jersey, last week called Paul’s libertarian views “dangerous.” And on the Senate floor Wednesday, Republican colleagues dealt the junior senator from Kentucky what can be described only as a resounding rebuke. 

Even the 86-13 vote against Paul’s proposal to strip Egypt of its foreign aid doesn’t capture the lopsided nature of the defeat. In the final seconds of the roll call and long after the outcome was obvious, a bloc of six GOP lawmakers led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) quietly cast their votes with Paul — not in agreement with him but in fear of the tea party voters who adore him.

But whether Paul’s position had seven Republican votes or 13, the isolationist gadfly found himself in the decided minority of the 45-member Senate GOP caucus. And in the hour-long debate that preceded the vote, Paul was alone on the floor defending his position against an emotional onslaught from his party’s most respected voices on foreign policy.  

The result reinforced the proud tradition of internationalism in the body, and in the GOP. For all the talk of a Republican civil war over foreign policy, Wednesday’s vote showed that the internationalists still dominate. McCain portrayed Paul as the heir to the America Firsters. 

Paul, attempting to attach his proposal to a domestic spending measure, made his familiar argument for “nation-building here at home” instead of overseas. “Detroit crumbles. Chicago is a war zone,” he said. 

His colleagues had different ideas. Sen. Jim Inhofe (Okla.), the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said he might have agreed with Paul 15 years ago, “before we realized the threats that we have in the Middle East.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) tried a practical appeal, saying the aid cutoff would mean “you lose leverage.” And Graham read aloud a letter from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee opposing Paul’s amendment.

Paul responded to all this with rambling speeches and wild gestures, refusing to yield when colleagues asked him to and accusing his opponents of “empty thoughts and empty promises.”

For the Republican internationalists, this wasn’t about winning but dominating.

Read More