Pages

Friday, February 10, 2012

Obama revamps contraceptive policy



President Obama details a decision that excuses religiously-based institutions from covering contraceptive service costs for women.
Updated at 12:53 p.m. ET- President Barack Obama announced Friday that the administration will not require religious-affiliated institutions to cover birth control for their employees.
Capping weeks of growing controversy, Obama said he was backing off a newly announced requirement for religious employers to provide free birth control coverage even if it runs counter totheir religious beliefs.
Instead, workers at such institutions will be able to get free birth control coverage directly from health insurance companies.
"Under the rule, women will still have access to free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where they work. That core principle remains," he said from the White House briefing room.
"Religious liberty will be protected and a law that requires free preventative care will not discriminate against women," Obama added.



An announcement from the White House reveals that later today the President will announce contraception rule changes. NBC's Kristen Welker reports.
Planned Parenthood responded Friday with a statement, saying, "The Obama administration has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring all women will have access to birth control coverage, with no costly co-pays, no additional hurdles, and no matter where they work ...  we will be vigilant in holding the administration and the institutions accountable for a rigorous, fair and consistent implementation of the policy ..."
Following an intense White House debate that led to the original policy, officials said Obama seriously weighed the concerns over religious liberty, leading to the revamped decision.
It was just on Jan. 20 that the Obama administration announced that religious-affiliated employers -- outside of churches and houses of worships -- had to cover birth control free of charge as preventative care for women.
These hospitals, schools and charities were given an extra year to comply, until August 2013, but that concession failed to satisfy opponents, who responded with outrage.
Catholic cardinals and bishops across the country assailed the policy in Sunday Masses. Republican leaders in Congress promised emergency legislation to overturn Obama's move. The president's rivals in the race for the White House accused him of attacking religion. Prominent lawmakers from Obama's own party began openly deriding the policy.


The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson and MSNBC's Chris Matthews join a conversation on how the White House will respond to the Catholic Church's demands.
The sentiment on the other side, though, was also fierce. Women's groups, liberal religious leaders and health advocates pressed Obama not to cave in on the issue.
The furor has consumed media attention and threatened to undermine Obama's re-election bid just as he was in a stride over improving economic news.
Political reality forced the White House to come up with a solution to a complex matter must faster than anticipated.
The fact that Obama delivered the news himself was a sign of the stakes.

2804comments below

That is a lot of comments

Rick Santorum Sweeps Colorado, Missouri, Minnesota, Embarrassing Romney

Jon Ward

House OKs insider trading ban; faces differences with Senate





Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
Sen. Charles Grassley, seen here in a file photo, said Wednesday it was "astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street's wishes ..."
The House on Thursday passed its version of a bill already approved by the Senate to make clear that members of Congress and congressional employees are not exempt from insider trading prohibitions under securities laws.
House and Senate leaders are likely to appoint members to a conference committee during the next few days to reconcile the differences between the two bills.
Using an expedited procedure requiring a two-thirds vote and allowing no amendments, the House voted 417 to 2 to pass the bill which was drafted by House GOP leaders.
The bill resembles the one passed by the Senate last Thursday but differs in a few ways.

Recommended: First Thoughts: Romney retools his message

One is that the House bill would require public disclosure of stock transactions by fewer executive branch officials – about 28,000 – than the Senate bill, which would require public disclosure by 360,000 executive branch officials.
More controversially, the House bill omits the Senate bill’s requirement that “political intelligence professionals” register, just as lobbyists are required to do.
The political intelligence amendment, sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R- Iowa, exempts the news media, but applies to information gathering “intended for use in analyzing securities or commodities markets, or in informing investment decisions,” and done on behalf of clients who want to keep track of pending legislation or federal agencies’ rule-making.
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D- N.Y., who has been advocating her own congressional insider trading ban for years, told the House Thursday that House GOP leaders had succumbed to pressure from lobbyists and information gatherers on K Street, center of Washington’s lobbying industry, to remove the Grassley amendment from the bill.
“It appears that the Republican leadership couldn’t stomach the pressure from the political intelligence community,” she said on the House floor.
She said the political intelligence industry “is worth $400 million a year. It is unregulated, unseen, and operates in the dark.”
Grassley said in a statement Wednesday that it was “astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision. The Senate clearly voted to try to shed light on an industry that’s behind the scenes. If the Senate language is too broad, as opponents say, why not propose a solution instead of scrapping the provision altogether?”
But House Majority Leader Eric Cantor indicated that the Grassley amendment was one of the parts of the Senate bill that “would have made the bill unworkable or raised far more questions than they would have answered.”

Recommended: Republicans regroup during primary lull

And Senate Governmental Affairs Committee chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, who shepherded the bill to passage in the Senate, also opposes Grassley’s amendment, saying last Thursday that registration of political intelligence gatherers might run afoul of the First Amendment. "We're going to have to try to fix it in conference," he told reporters.
Lieberman prefers to ask the Government Accountability Office to do a study of the activities of political intelligence gatherers before Congress moves ahead on any regulation of them.
In his State of the Union speech on Jan. 24, President Obama said, “Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress; I will sign it tomorrow.”
The rapid pace of enactment of the bill was spurred by a CBS “60 Minutes” report last year and a book by Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, on alleged insider trading by members of Congress.

First Thoughts: Romney retools his message

1

Romney retools his message -- with his biography and even his policy… GOPers and conservatives tell Romney to step it up… Dems break ranks on the contraception issue… Yet polling (for now) shows the issue isn’t as controversial as the noise machine suggests… Jim Fallows on Obama’s first three years… CPAC is back... And Chamber up with House and Senate ads. 

Gerald Herbert / AP
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney speaks to the traveling press corps after arriving in Atlanta, Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012.
*** Romney retools his message: Beginning with Romney’s speech on Tuesday night, we can point to four examples how he and his allies have begun to retool his biographical message, trying to expand it beyond the simple “economic fix-it man.” So in his address on Tuesday night, he talked about his father’s humble roots and past work as a carpenter. (It was a little forced and the “pointy end forward” nails example is not his best stump moment, but we digress). Then the campaign released a statement yesterday commemorating the 10th anniversary of the Salt Lake City Olympics and reminding everyone of Romney’s role with it. (“I was deeply honored to have been asked to lead the Olympics and am proud that the games were such a memorable success,” Romney said in the release.) Then, campaigning in Atlanta, he talked about his time as a Mormon lay pastor, something he rarely does. (“In that capacity, I had a chance to work with people who lost their jobs, in some cases, or were facing other financial distress.’) And finally, his son Tagg tweeted an article about how Romney rescued a 14-year-old kidnap victim (a story we heard more about in the ’08 race than the ’12 one). You add up these four things, and it’s an obvious attempt in a 24-hour span to humanize Romney and add more texture to his biography -- beyond the guy who’s good at giving a PowerPoint presentation.
*** And the retool is biographical, policy-based, and anti-Washington: But you also get the sense that Romney’s retool after his losses in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri is going to go well beyond biography. He is now set to deliver an economic speech at Ford Field -- where the Detroit Lions play -- on Feb. 24. You don’t create a setting like that unless you have something new to say. Don’t be surprised if this economic speech is used to make a better sale with conservative voters. And when it comes to attacking his GOP rivals, he’s casting both Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum as Washington insiders. But there’s one problem here: If you’re going to criticize your opponents as being DC insiders, you probably don’t want to come to DC -- as Romney is doing today -- and raising money from these same insiders. As the New York Times writes, “The timing of Mr. Romney’s aggressive assault on Washington was hardly ideal. He is scheduled to spend Thursday in the capital, surrounded by lobbyists and other donors who are each asked to raise $10,000 in contributions before attending a policy discussion. His campaign has designated “Industry Finance Chairs” from the energy, defense and financial sectors.” By the way, don’t expect the same “Empire Strikes Back” style of attacks on Santorum and Gingrich going forward as we saw in Florida. The campaign seems to get that, while effective at defeating Gingrich in Florida, it did damage to Romney as well.
*** GOPers and conservatives tell Romney to step it up: This retooling comes as GOP leaders and conservatives are asking Romney to step up his game. Politico's Martin writes, “A day after Romney was convincingly defeated by Rick Santorum in non-binding contests in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri, high-profile Republicans voiced long-simmering worries that the would-be standard-bearer lacks a compelling message for conservatives — and must be bolder to capture the party’s nomination.” (And don’t miss this quote from Sen. Jon Kyl in the piece: “Every time he defends his health care action in Massachusetts and every time he says something like [indexing minimum wage], conservatives wonder whether he has the instincts to usually take the conservative position on issues.) And today, the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page hits Romney’s “inability, or unwillingness, to defend conservative principles. He seems to retreat at the first sound of a liberal moral argument.”



Rick Santorum is trying to capitalize on the momentum from his clean sweep in Tuesday's Republican presidential contests. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
*** Dems break ranks on the contraception issue: You know where the politics are on this contraception brouhaha -- at least for now -- when Republicans are uniting and when some Democrats are breaking ranks. Tim Kaine, the former DNC chair who’s now running in Virginia’s Senate race and has been searching for a way to show some distance from his former boss, said that he disagreed with the Obama administration’s decision. “I think the White House made a good decision in including a mandate for contraception coverage in the Affordable Care Act insurance policy, but I think they made a bad decision in not allowing a broad enough religious- employer exemption.” Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, who’s up for re-election, also opposes the policy. And West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, also up for re-election, called it “un-American” and a “direct affront to the religious freedoms protected under the 1st Amendment,” Politico says. If these Democrats running in tough (or potentially tough) races were looking for a way to create some distance from Obama, they certainly found it.
*** Yet polling (for now) shows the issue isn’t as controversial as the noise suggests: That said, supporters of the policy are pointing to polls showing that it isn’t as controversial -- even among Catholics -- as the DC noise machine suggests. A recent Public Religion Research Institute poll found that a majority of Catholics think employers should be required to provide health-care plans covering birth control at no cost. And a Democrat sent First Read a poll conducted by Dem pollster Celinda Lake -- from Aug. 2011 -- showing that 53% of Catholics say that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposition to free birth control in the health-care law makes no difference to them. Also, the Democratic National Committee will hold a conference call at 1:30 pm ET hitting Mitt Romney on this contraception issue with two Massachusetts health-care experts. “Romney is a politically calculating hypocrite, and we're gonna call him out for it tomorrow as a pre-buttal to his appearance at CPAC,” DNC Communications Director Brad Woodhouse says. Still, the White House is well aware they’ve fumbled the roll-out of this policy, and they know they can’t afford to let this debate linger beyond the weekend. Expect to hear something from them -- perhaps from the president himself -- that indicates they are open to finding compromise to implement this policy. And expect to hear something before the weekend.
*** Obama’s first three years: Here’s a good read today: Jim Fallows’ piece in The Atlantic on the first three years of Obama’s presidency. His conclusion: Obama was unready for the presidency (as almost all new presidents are) and temperamentally unsuited to it in several ways. But he also argues that many of his accomplishments -- as well as how quickly he’s learned on the job and from his mistakes -- has been underappreciated. And Fallows makes another point about the importance of 2012 for Obama: The outcome of the election will determine how his first three years in office will be later viewed. “If a year from now Obama is settling in for a second term, a halo effect will extend back to everything he did during his first four years... Yet if a year from now a just-beaten former President Obama is thinking about his memoirs … the very same combination of missteps and achievements will be viewed as a narrative leading inexorably to defeat.”

Slideshow: Obama's third year in the White House

*** CPAC is back: The three-day Conservative Political Action begins today in DC, and here are some of today’s more notable speeches, NBC’s Adam Perez reports: Jim DeMint (9:25 am ET), Marco Rubio (10:35 am), Mitch McConnell (11:50 am), Michele Bachmann (12:20 pm), Rick Perry (1:20 pm), House Speaker John Boehner (1:35 pm), Herman Cain (4:25 pm), and Paul Ryan (7:30 pm). The current presidential candidates speak tomorrow, and Sarah Palin delivers the keynote on Saturday.
*** On the 2012 trail, per NBC’s Adam Perez: It’s a relatively slow day: Santorum stumps in Oklahoma, rallying in Oklahoma City and Tulsa… Romney visits Washington, DC for a reception with VA Gov. Bob McDonnell… And Paul and Gingrich are off the campaign trial.
*** The Chamber goes up with ads: Turning away from the presidential contest, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is beginning a TV ad blitz in 12 House and eight Senate contests. “The goal is to help Republicans win a majority of seats in the Senate while protecting the GOP majority in the House,” the Wall Street Journal writes. The ads are here.

Countdown to Super Tuesday: 26 days

Countdown to Election Day: 271 days
u


These are just a few of the comments, if you want to read more click here
Ron Indiana
The Underlying Issue:
Santorum has won four primaries; Romney has bought two, and Gingrich hoodwinked South Carolina. It seems that the conservatives view Gingrich as too flawed and are beginning to gravitate toward Santorum. Consequently, Romney will now set his sights on Santorum and do all he can to destroy Rick with a plethora of negative ads. That's just how it works in politics; attacking your opponent instead of saying what you believe and stand for. It's no wonder that politicians are right down there with used car salesmen.
But as ugly as the Republican primaries have become, dirty politics is not the underlying issue. The underlying issue is legal. In a 5 to 4 decision the Supreme Court decided in the Citizens United case that corporations can operate like people, set up political action committees (PAC's). and support politicians with complete anonymity. At this point no one knows where the money comes from, with the exception of casino mogul Sheldon Adelson who is bankrolling Newt Gingrich. It has been estimated by Forbes that Mr. Adelson makes about 7 billion dollars a year, which translates to around 3.3 million dollars per hour. So the millions he has donated to the Gingrich campaign is really chicken feed.
Most progressives are disappointed that President Obama has accepted the notion that PAC money is needed to win an election and he too has signed-off on forming a PAC. I don't for a minute believe he wanted to, but under the new campaign rules he also has to dance with the devil (PAC money).
In the very first Presidential election since the Supreme Court ruled on the Citizens United case, we are seeing the consequences of that decision. With unlimited money it is now truly possible to buy an election. Most Americans oppose the Supreme Court ruling and abhor the idea that elections can be bought.
Candidates running for office, Republicans and Democrats alike, need to address our current way of electing our President and Congressmen and women. It is time for election reform that both limits the amount of spending by PACs and reveals the source of their donations.
  • 54 votes
#1.1 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:05 AM EST
Comment author avatarJoe in AlbanyExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community
Gee, listening to lefty liberals that believe in political unicorn fairy tales I got the distinct impression that their Messiah, Barry Obama, was going to transform Washington, not the other way around. The actual truth is that Barry is just another full of sh!t politician looking to keep his hold on power in Washington.
FR lefty liberals repeat after me: As Rick Perry said “Oops”
LMAO!!!!
Excerpts from Politico:

The political transformation of Barack Obama
By: Jim VandeHei

February 9, 2012 04:41 AM EST
There are two indisputable facts about politics.
The first is that every modern president in the fourth year of his presidency resorts to the cheap political stunts, broken promises and truth-fudging it takes to win reelection in what has been and will be a 50-50 nation. The reason is simple: Politics is not clean-living; it’s survival.
The second is that Barack Obama, for all his talk of moving beyond conventional political tricks, is doing just that, which wouldn’t be so glaring had it not been for his incessant call for a newer, cleaner and more transparent paradigm for American politics.
So much for the high road: Victory is more important than purity.
It’s debatable whether Obama is more crudely political than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan. But what’s transpired over the past several weeks isn’t debatable: He’s made a series of calculated, overtly political gestures that are far more transactional than transformational.
Here’s just a sample:

Sucking up to Wall Street — again

The president better hope those Occupy Wall Street voters don’t read Bloomberg News. Hans Nichols, who covers Obama for Bloomberg, has a richly reported piece that Obama’s most important advisers are privately pleading with the same Wall Street titans they vilify to help fund their reelection campaign.

A super flip-flop

Obama needs the millionaires in the financial services industry to buy his go-easy-on-you-guys spin because they can cut limitless checks to super PACs.
Super PACSs are the newest way for rich people to influence elections. Obama was vehemently opposed to them, calling them a “threat to our democracy.” That vehemence was heartfelt and consistent — until Monday night, when it wasn’t.

The State of the Union is … very political

No one accuses Obama of playing small ball quite as cynically as Bill Clinton did — no school uniforms this year, thanks. But Obama’s January speech to the country was more like a slam dunk contest than a blueprint for sober governance, with no-miss poll-tested proposals that won’t translate into points on the board unless Democrats win super-majorities in both houses, and even then maybe not.

Jamming the pipeline

Never has Obama more angered an essential part of his political coalition than when he decided last year to punt on stricter ozone regulations — without even alerting Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, until the decision had been made. Environmentalists were apoplectic.
So when it came time last month to pick between environmentalists and supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would move oil and jobs through a key part of the country, Obama had no choice but to go green.
He wanted to punt until after the election, but Republicans forced a decision. Presidents face these political jams all the time. Like it or not, they often choose the path of least political resistance. So Obama did.

The contraception conundrum

The administration’s decision to require Catholic hospitals and universities to provide workers free contraceptive coverage seems on its surface to buck the trend of this story — a principled protection of reproductive rights that risks sparking a culture war with white independents, the critical swing-voter bloc.
But even if you accept the premise that Obama’s original decision was apolitical — and conservatives don’t, accusing him of kowtowing to women’s groups — the president’s advisers are scrambling to defuse an endless stream of attacks from church officials, presidential hopefuls and House Speaker John Boehner, who cast it as an assault on religious liberty.
And that, at the very least, makes the administration appear to be playing politics with a sensitive personal and religious issue.
  • 20 votes
#1.2 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:06 AM EST

Bill, Fairfax VA
Culture Wars
What was the motivation of California voters who passed Proposition 8 banning gay marriage? Were they being punitive by singling out gays and denying them their "right" to marry? Or were they just giving electoral expression to their belief in the need to honor and preserve the integrity of traditional marriage? The distinction is important because the Ninth Circuit has chosen to rule that folks who expressed their belief in traditional marriage can only have done so based on animus towards others – an unwarranted exercise of bigotry that resulted in taking away "rights" guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Said the Court:
"The people may not employ the initiative power to single out a disfavored group for unequal treatment and strip them, without a legitimate justification, of a right as important as the right to marry."
If there was ever an example of judicial overreach, this is it. The court decided they knew what was going on in the minds of California voters, and they didn't like what they saw. The court decided voters had targeted a "disfavored group" so they smacked those voters upside the head and told them they are evil people who had done constitutional harm to others. Apparently the court saw fit to ignore any harm experienced by those who take a more traditional view of this issue, a view expressed by a majority of California voters. Indeed, anyone who defends traditional marriage is now on notice that their beliefs –no matter how legitimate the manner of expression – can be interpreted as targeting a "disfavored group" and thereby subject to the intervention of a judiciary that would impose its own values in such matters.
The Ninth Circuit has trampled all over anyone who believes in traditional marriage. In their Alice in Wonderland world, folks who subscribe to the outlandish belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman have actually become the "disfavored group" while the folks who engage in deviant behavior have their unions legitimized under the guise of equality under the law for all citizens. But while "all citizens" includes men and women who practice matrimony the old fashioned way, the majority view of the citizens in California has been found to be less equal than others.
We have met the enemy and he is us. Good grief.
  • 16 votes
#1.7 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:18 AM EST



Obama was unready for the presidency

Not true. It was the Republicans and right wing bigots who WEREN'T READY FOR HIM. Same could be said for much of the media and Hillary supporters. They sat there for 3 years boo hooing every single thing he did.
This is a man who was willing to work WITH ANYONE in Congress to get things done. The right aisle refused. And they were all wrong. He continues to prove it every single day.
Someone who stands practically alone and tells the Nation that the Iraq War was the wrong war IS 
INDEED READY TO BE PRESIDENT.

He's a leader, not a follower, like most of the media is. They are stenographers to the Republican Party. Just check out most cable programs on any given day.
It's sad. They aren't ready for real journalism. That's the problem in this country. They are afraid to stand up to the GOP and have been for years.
President Obama is changing the course of our Nation, slowly but surely.
The GOP and media weren't ready for it, or him. They are gloom and doom pundits and journalists for the most part. They can't get the concept of our President challenging each other to bigger and better things. To forge ahead into the 21st Century.
The auto industry and Iraq are perfect examples.
btw, men: Stay out of women's private lives as they plan their futures for their families. Okay? We're talking about the law here. There is no room in their lives for religious middle ages bigotry. It has to stop.
************

DailyKos:
The Department of Labor reported this morning that seasonally adjusted first-time claims for unemployment insurance benefits fell to 358,000 for the week ending Feb. 4. That was a drop of 15,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 373,000, and the second-lowest level since April 2008. The 4-week moving average that flattens volatility in the weekly numbers was 366,250, a drop of 11,000 from the previous week's revised average of 377,250.
  • 58 votes
#1.9 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:20 AM EST
David Walker
It didn't take John Boehner very long to break his promise to honor the United States Constitution. It didn't take many of us any longer to realize that it really didn't matter, because Boehner doesn't understand the Constitution anyway; something he has proved once again.
However, he does understand Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and he has dragged out a tried and true tactic in the current tempest in a teapot about the Obama Administration "attack on religion". There is no attack on religion. That's BS, but such lies have fabulous appeal to the RINO's who live in Republoworld. Freedom of religion is not under attack, but that doesn't matter to Boehner. All he needs to do is pull out Alinsky tactic number 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." Republicans love to be victims. They don't just enjoy it, they love it.
So it is, Mr. Boehner promises to fight the forces of evil that threaten the sanctity of the First Amendment. Suddenly, Mr. Boehner has discovered the separation of church and state. He just doesn't understand it.
When President Obama offers that dazzling smile, we remember the promise of hope and change. We forget that he is a politician, and the best one in Washington, D.C. Once again, he has laid waste to the weak minds of the right. Boehner's contention that the Obama Administration's insistence that health insurance include contraception infringes on religion is beyond simple-minded. It is embarrassingly stupid.
However, economic indicators clearly favor the President, and Republicans are now desperate for a diversion. This is it, and it is utterly ridiculous. The "new rule" from the Feds is already a rule in 28 of the 50 states. Boehner and his states' rights friends must have missed that fact. Contraception is a non-issue. Does anyone who is remotely in touch with reality honestly believe Catholics are listening to the Pope on this issue?
This is a labor issue, not a religion issue. Every Catholic is still free to practice his religion EXACTLY as he or she did prior to the Sebelius decision to notify employers about their responsibilities. It's about employers, not clergymen. Indeed, the rule ends Catholic employers' discrimination against their employees of other religions, who are atheists, or non-believers that do not have issues with contraception. No Catholic is obligated to use contraception. There is no attack on faith. There is no attack on religion.
It would certainly be wonderful for the country if Boehner would stop this silly posturing and grandstanding. We have more than enough problems without Boehner and company creating red herrings and straw men.
  • 47 votes
#1.19 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:32 AM EST




Obama Diary/PM Carpenter:
Appearing on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show last night, the unflappable David Boies, of Bush v. Gore fame, calmly and damn near indifferently explained to his host that there is no — repeat, no — Constitutional, First Amendment issue at stake in the most recent Inquisition into ‘Obamacare’s’ purported tyranny, this time over the Catholic Church’s holy conscience.
To put it idiomatically, this is a no-brainer. Which is also why, of course, culture-warring demagogues like Rick Santorum and suddenly Mitt Romney and virtually half the U.S. House will ride it to absolute exhaustion.
Still, that's what demagogues do. That's what they're expected to do. And who among us cares to fritter much time in blaming lizards for crawling or bats for flapping or black widow spiders for mariticide?
Should we not, however, expect something a bit more honorable from the Church? -- you know, the one worried about its integrity and conscience?
****************
Yes, we should expect something a bit more honorable from the Church. We always sat around talking as kids about the Catholic Church and how the Church liked big families, in order to keep up membership which equals more $$.
They didn't necessarily treat the kids very well who were from these big Catholic families.
Which didn't make a whole lot of sense to us.
  • 25 votes
#1.32 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:53 AM EST

This is a man who was willing to work WITH ANYONE in Congress to get things done. The right aisle refused. And they were all wrong. He continues to prove it every single day.
_________________________________
More of the same old, same old, lefty liberal wishful thinking from the fantasy world of Planet Liberal. Within a few days of his inauguration Barry was telling those "anyone's he was willing to work with" who was the BOSS:
Politico 01/23/09:
President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning - but he also left no doubt about who's in charge of these negotiations. "I won," Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.
Barry saying "If you want to sign on to what I have already decided, it's OK with me." is definitely NOT being "willing to work with anyone".
Except on Planet Liberal, where the only religion allowed is Barryism.
Barry was unqualified to be President and he remains unqualified to be re-elected.
  • 12 votes
#1.33 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:54 AM EST


Romney retools his message
Translation: He is finding lies that would look good in front of the people. After putting his foot in his mouth several times, he needs more than a PR person to re-write his speeches. He need a miracle.
His lies are turning to be so ludicrous. They remind me of those soap operas where people are so desperate, they will do anything or said anything, just to get what they want.
Poor Romney. If only he knew that at this point, the more he tries, the worse he looks.He is going to end up looking pathethic.
He should "thank" Donald Trump for the endorsement. I am sure that it went well that a couple of billionaries "reached for each other" in -from all places- Las Vegas.
Morons
  • 17 votes
#1.34 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 9:56 AM EST



Another Thought is Ramney is a tool.
The Labor Department said seasonally adjusted claims dropped by 15,000 to 358,000 in the week ended Feb. 4. That's the second lowest level since April 2008, before the financial crisis that sent the U.S. economy into its worst recession since the Great Depression.
With these numbers, I envision Ramney and all the other Republicans running around as if their hair is on fire saying, "Argggghhhhhhhh... the numbers are good, the numbers are good!! The Spin is just too much!! How do we beat this guy now?!!! Somebody, quick call David Gregory and Chuck Todd and tell them to spin, SPin SPIN!!!!!!!"
Oh this is just too good, good for America and good for the President.
The GOP do not stand a chance and they know it. That's why Jeb, Mitch and Christy did not run.
We stand united behind the President hell or high water.
No you're the tool. To simply see the good fortune of Americans returning work as good, or bad, for any Administration just shows how shallow you are. I'll bet you cheered when there was a military setback in Iraq or Afghanistan because it was bad for Bush.
I am happy for the rise in people working (although there are still more people out of work than 5 years ago), because it's good for them, good for the country and at the end of the day good for me.
But you can stay in your sick little world and see everything through the prism of Obama.
  • 8 votes
#1.36 - Thu Feb 9, 2012 10:00 AM EST

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Why White House sees political opportunity in the contraception battle

at 09:30 AM ET, 02/08/2012





(Public Religion Research Institute)
The controversy over the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation’s decision to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood—and subsequent reversal— continues. Catholic leaders are blasting the health reform requirement that insurance plans to cover contraceptives. Commentator Mark Shields joined other liberals in blasting the provision, saying it could have “cataclysmic” fallout for President Obama come November.
Numerous pundits have predicted that the requirement —and its narrow exemption for churches — will be a political liability for Obama. But where Shields sees “cataclysmic” fallout, the White House sees something quite different: a chance to widen the reproductive health debate beyond abortion to issues like contraceptives, winning over key demographics of independent voters in the process.
And that could explain why the White House, alongside the Obama campaign, has engaged eagerly on the issues. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was in USA Today earlier this week, praising the new provision. The Obama campaign meanwhile hasn’t been shy either, drawing up an infographic praising the new regulation. While there are some signs of a potential compromise for religious groups, the White House has made it pretty clear it plans to stand firm behind the current regulation.
But while Catholic leadership has blasted the new regulation, polls show that a majority of Catholics are actually more supportive of the provision than the rest of the country. A poll out Tuesday from the Public Religion Research Institute finds 52 percent of Catholic voters agreed with the statement, “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” That’s pretty much in line with overall support for the provision, which hovers at 55 percent - likely because Catholics use contraceptives at rates similar to the rest of Americans.
A majority of Catholics - 52 percent - also agree with the Obama administration’s decision to not exempt religious hospitals and universities from the provision. “Outside the political punditry, most Catholics agree with the administration on the issue,” says one Obama campaign official, explaining the view that this could be a political win.
And a lot of this likely isn’t about Catholic voters at all.
Rather, it may well be about the demographics that are most supportive of this particular health reform provision: young voters and women. In the PRRI poll, both groups register support above 60 percent for the provision.
Those two demographics are important here for a key reason: they were crucial to Obama’s victory in 2008. Third Way crunched the numbers earlier this month and found that the “Obama Independents” — the swing group that proved crucial to his 2008 victory — are, as Ryan Lizza put it, “disproportionately young, female and secular.”
“In 2012, Independents are likely to comprise the highest proportion of the electorate since 1976, and winning them will be crucial to victory,” write Third Way’s Michelle Diggles and Lanae Erickson. “If President Obama woos the vast majority [of his independent voters] back, he can be reelected.”
These voters have tended to be difficult for abortion rights supporters to engage on reproductive health issues like abortion. Research from NARAL Pro-Choice America, which I wrote about last weekend, found a significant “intensity gap” there, with abortion rights supporters much less likely to see it as a crucial voting issue than their anti-abortion counterparts.
But when the conversation moves away from abortion to contraceptives - as it has this week - the intensity gap flips: A much larger segment of voters are willing to penalize a legislator who votes to defund family planning. That became apparent in polling that Democratic firm Lake Research Partners did earlier this year, which found that 40 percent of voters would be less likely to support a member of Congress who votes to defund family-planning programs. Just 22 percent would be more likely to support such a lawmaker.
That particular poll isn’t a perfect analogy for the current debate about the contraception mandate. But it speaks to something I’ve heard a lot in recent interviews with abortion right supporters: When the reproductive health debate moves away from abortion, it becomes easier to message and connect with voters. Unlike abortion rights, an issue that tends to split voters, most polls on contraceptives and birth control tend to find Americans solidly in support. That Lake Research poll I mentioned earlier found that 84 percent of Americans view family planning, including contraceptives, as basic health care.
Young voters and women were key demographics for Obama in 2008. By hitting hard on a policy they strongly support, and moving the conversation away from abortion politics, the campaign may have found a new way to reach them.

Super PAC supporting Ron Paul is operated by a 9/11 'truther'





Revolution PAC
Gary Franchi has warned of a 9/11 cover-up, FEMA concentration camps and the New World Order.
As Libertarian Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul looks for a state he can win, some of his supporters have turned to a new theme: voting fraud.
A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are "outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American." The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.
We first noticed Revolution PAC last week, when it told the Federal Election Commission that it couldn't meet the deadline to identify its donors, because of an error by its bank. Now Revolution PAC has filed its report.
As with many other so-called "independent" Super PACs, which can receive unlimited donations outside the normal rules of campaign finance, the pro-Paul group is operated by people with close ties to the candidate. The group's advisory board members include Penny Langford Freeman, Paul's political director from 1998 to 2007, and Joe Becker, chief legal counsel for Ron Paul 2008.
The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.
The 34-year-old political activist from the Chicago suburbs told msnbc.com that his goal is a "non-violent intellectual revolution, which results in a full restoration of the federal Constitution."
Online videos produced by Franchi, and online interviews with him, add specifics:
  • Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were an inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes. Franchi founded the Lone Lantern Society (a reference to Paul Revere indicating that foreign enemies are on American soil). The group supports "the birth of freedom and the death of the New World Order," a secretive elite that is supposedly trying to set up a world government. Lone Lantern has held street demonstrations on the 11th of every month in Chicago and elsewhere, demanding an investigation of 9/11. In New Hampshire in 2008, a video shows Franchi asking Tom Ridge, the former secretary of Homeland Security, who was campaigning for Sen. John McCain, whether Ridge would support an investigation of the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Center. Ridge was having none of it, saying, "I just don't buy into that. That's a conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. It's almost out of the Twilight Zone."
  • According to a 2010 report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks domestic fringe groups, "Gary Franchi is one of the leading promoters of a resurgent Patriot conspiracy theory that alleges the government is creating concentration camps for U.S. citizens." In 2009 he co-wrote and co-produced the video "Camp FEMA: American Lockdown," which claims that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is creating concentration camps on air bases and in vacant buildings to house political dissenters when the federal government proclaims martial law. "Your church may have already signed a deal with the devil," reads promotional material for the film. The film questions whether Census data will be used to round up Americans. Clips from Franchi's film on YouTube show Hitler youth marching while the narrator ominously describes President Obama's plans to expand AmeriCorps and the USA Freedom Corps, the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after 9/11.
  • Franchi operates Restore the Republic, which opposes the Federal Reserve, the IRS and the income tax, decries the control of the economy by the Rockefellers and the "banking cartel," and warns of government plans to plant RFID microchips into all Americans. The group was founded by Franchi and filmmaker and Libertarian presidential candidate Aaron Russo, and has been operated by Franchi since Russo's death from cancer in 2007. RTR shares an address with Revolution PAC in Northbrook, Ill. The group, which describes itself as a social media platform for like-minded individuals, promotes Russo's film, "America: Freedom to Fascism," in which Ron Paul declares, "If that's the definition of a police state — that you can't do anything unless the government gives you permission —we're well on our way." In a YouTube video interview with Franchi in 2008, Paul credited the Russo video with bringing a lot of people to his presidential campaign. The group has also placed billboards fueling the bogus claim that Obama is not an American citizen, asking, "Where's the REAL birth certificate?"

YouTube 
Gary Franchi's film "Camp FEMA: American Lockdown" shows Hitler youth marching while the narrator ominously describes President Obama's plans to expand AmeriCorps and the USA Freedom Corps, the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after 9/11. 


Franchi has been a frequent guest of Texas talk show host Alex Jones, who warns about the New World Order on his infowars.com and other websites. In a videotaped interview with Jones, Franchi explained that at 17 he began to read about "the committee of 300, the Club of Rome, the Council of Foreign Relations," and other groups of the New World Order.
He said his parents, thinking he was mentally ill, had him heavily medicated for 10 years. But he continued his reading, particularly about the implantation of RFID microchips by government, and formed the Lone Lantern Society to tell people that "the enemies are here."
"It's the truth, it's the message, that's piercing the darkness," Franchi told Jones. "Anything that's done in darkness, anything that is hidden in secret will be revealed. It's having an impact. People are waking up by the millions, Alex, by the millions! The New World Order does not stand a chance."

'Derogatory'

Franchi agreed to answer questions from msnbc.com, but only by email.
He said labels are distracting, and the description of him by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "conspiracy theorist" is "derogatory and inflammatory language."
In regard to Sept. 11, he said his view is that "I personally, alongside Russo, 9/11 Family members, and thousands of architects and engineers do advocate for a more thorough investigation, preferably free from the Executive Privilege invoked during the Bush Administration."
Of Paul, Franchi said, "Ron Paul is my candidate because he understands what is affecting this nation, i.e. the Federal Reserve, an unsustainable foreign policy, and the loss of civil liberties under the guise of security."


Orlin Wagner / AP
Ron Paul has credited Franchi for bringing in more supporters for his presidential campaign.

Paul has had a vague and uncertain connection with fringe views and conspiracy peddlers for decades. In several cases he has welcomed their support, neither repudiating their views nor explicitly endorsing them.
For example, in 2004 Paul was asked by a student and 9/11 skeptic, "We've heard that you have questioned the government's official account." Paul replied, "Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever."
When asked if that meant that he wanted an additional investigation, he added, "I think we have to keep pushing for it. And like you and others, we see the investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and no real explanation of what went on."
The year-end accounting to the FEC by Revolution PAC shows that it brought in $518,201 during the second half of 2011, since its founding last summer, and spent $434,432 supporting Paul, with $83,770 in cash on hand at the end of the year.
These amounts are small compared with the official Paul campaign, which raised $26 million (second to Romney among Republican candidates) by year end, and another pro-Paul Super PAC, Endorse Liberty, which spent $3.3 million. A third pro-Paul Super Pac, Santa Rita, spent $320,000.
Larger donors to the Revolution PAC include Texas rancher Margaret Bowman, who gave $50,000; and Scott Banister, an early investor in PayPal, who gave $10,000. Another $10,000 came from Judy Kay Gray, of Buffalo Grove, Ill., who paid $2.5 million to settle a false advertising claim by the Federal Trade Commission in 2008 regarding her company, North American Herb and Spice, and its claims that its oregano oil treated cold and flu.
Large donors received a free book signed by Thomas Woods, an author and member of the Revolution PAC advisory board. Woods is a senior fellow at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Mises is one of the members of the Austrian School of Economics, whose ideas have influenced Paul, such as his call for a return to a gold standard. The PAC paid Woods $1,200 to sign his books for donors.


Gary Franchi on his webcast Reality Report.


The Revolution PAC paid $41,487 to Franchi or his group Restore the Republic, including $3,000 a month in management fees, $1,766 a month in rent at their shared office in Northbrook, Ill., and a 10 percent commission on large financial donations solicited. Franchi, the group's chairman and treasurer, said in response to questions that these are reasonable charges, much lower than is common, and that he has provided more support to the PAC than it has paid to him, considering the value of his in-kind donations of his time and services.
"I am personally not a representative for Dr. Paul nor should my beliefs be construed to be his," Franchi told msnbc.com. "Nor am I sure if Ron Paul believes in all the issues that concern me, however I do know I stand with him on the constitutional issues he continues to highlight throughout this election cycle and as he has done for over 20 years. That is why I formed Revolution PAC and produce content that I feel highlight his principled consistency and advocacy of fidelity to the Constitution."
---
Should Ron Paul accept support from Revolution PAC? Post your comment below.

The Poll: Catholic hospitals and birth control

by LIBN Staff
Published: February 9, 2012



The Obama administration, as part of its health-care reform initiative, is set to require employer-provided group health insurance to cover preventive health services, including prescription contraception.
Catholic hospitals, universities and charities are included in this mandate, causing an uproar among Republican Party leaders.
On Long Island, the requirement would affect, among other groups, Catholic Health Services of Long Island, which runs six hospitals in Nassau and Suffolk counties, including St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center in West Islip, Mercy Medical Center in Rockville Centre, St. Charles Hospital in Port Jefferson, St. Catherine of Siena Medical Center in Smithtown and St. Joseph Hospital in Bethpage.

Click view results


Should Catholic hospitals be required to offer free birth control and morning-after pills in their health-care packages?

Recent Polls Show Majority Of Catholics Support Insurance Plans That Cover Contraception ...

Public Religion Research Institute: "Majority Of Catholics Think Employers Should Be Required To Provide Health Care Plans That Cover Birth Control At No Cost." 

A poll released by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) on February 7 found that "[r]oughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception." From PRRI:
Majority Support Requirement that Employer Health Care Plans Include Contraception Coverage
  • A majority (55%) of Americans agree that "employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost." Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.
  • There are major religious, generational and political divisions:
    • Roughly 6-in-10 Catholics (58%) believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception.
    • Among Catholic voters, support for this requirement is slightly lower at 52%.
    • Only half (50%) of white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 47% who oppose it.
  • Among other religious Americans, 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans believe that employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception, compared to only half (50%) of white mainline Protestants and less than 4-in-10 (38%) white evangelical Protestants.

The news release about the poll included the following graph:
prri CHART
[PRRI, 2/7/12]

PRRI: "Majority Of Catholics (52%) Say That Religiously Affiliated Colleges And Hospitals Should Have To Provide Coverage That Includes Contraception." From PRRI's press release:
  • Nearly half (49%) of Americans say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost. Forty-six percent say they should not have to provide this type of coverage.
  • A majority of Catholics (52%) say that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide coverage that includes contraception.
  • Among Catholic voters, however, only 45% support this requirement, while 52% oppose it.
  • Only about 4-in-10 (41%) white Catholics support this requirement, compared to 58% who oppose it. [PRRI, 2/7/12]
Public Policy Polling: "A 53 Percent Majority Of Catholic Voters" Support "Providing Women With Prescription Birth Control Without A Co-Pay." A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released February 7 found that "a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters" support providing birth control to women without a co-pay, and a 53 percent majority also agreed with the sentiment that "women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women." From PPP:
A solid 56 percent majority of voters support the decision to require health plans to cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket fees, while only 37 percent are opposed. It's particularly noteworthy that pivotal independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age, and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.
[...]
- A similarly strong majority (57 percent) of voters think that women employed by Catholic hospitals and universities should have the same rights to contraceptive coverage as other women, while only 39 percent say these institutions should be exempted from the requirement that health plans cover prescription birth control with no additional out-of-pocket costs because contraception runs counter to Catholic teachings. Notably, a 53 percent majority of Catholics agree with this sentiment, including 60 percent of independents. [PPP, 2/7/12, via Planned Parenthood, emphasis original]

... As Have Past Polls

Catholics For Choice Poll Found 63 Percent Of American Catholics Support Coverage For "Contraception, Such As Birth Control Pills." According to a 2009 poll conducted for Catholics for Choice, 63 percent of American Catholics said that "health insurance policies -- whether they are private or government -- should cover ... contraception, such as birth control pills."
Health insurance - contraception
[Belden Russonello & Stewart, September 2009]

And Several Catholic Groups Found A "Silver Lining" In HHS Rule

Catholic United's Executive Director: "There Is A Silver Lining In Today's Ruling. Increased Access To Contraceptive Services Will Dramatically Reduce The Abortion Rate In America." 

 James Salt, executive director of the group Catholics United, issued this statement in response to the contraception ruling:
Although we recognize the authority of Catholic teaching on the issue of contraception, we also acknowledge that there is a silver lining in today's ruling. Increased access to contraceptive services will dramatically reduce the abortion rate in America. Reducing abortion should be a goal recognized by both sides of this highly polarized debate. Furthermore, we look forward to working with the administration in finding a win-win solution that will both meet the medical needs of women while protecting the religious liberty of Catholic institutions. [Catholics United, 1/20/12]
Catholic Democrats President Whelan: "These New Regulations ... Will Certainly Help Reduce The Number Of Unintended Pregnancies" And "Decrease The Incidence Of Abortion." Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats, issued a statement on the Department of Health and Human Services ruling that noted, "These new regulations, providing for greater access to contraception, will certainly help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies across the country, and correspondingly are likely to further decrease the incidence of abortion." From Whelan's statement:
As a physician and pediatric specialist, I know that news of the HHS regulations today means that more women will have access to the kind of health care that has been denied to millions over the years because of the high cost. Over 50% of girls and women who use contraceptives take them for reasons other than the prevention of pregnancy. Since the beginning of his first presidential campaign in 2007, President Obama has emphasized the importance of preventing unintended pregnancy as the most moral approach to solving the abortion problem. These new regulations, providing for greater access to contraception, will certainly help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies across the country, and correspondingly are likely to further decrease the incidence of abortion.  [Catholic Democrats, accessed 1/26/12]