About US Liberal Politics

Pro-Choice Advocates Are Wrong to Block House Health Care Bill

2009-11-11T19:21:59Z

Despite the self-absorbed overreaction by some pro-choice Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was absolutely correct to allow the Stupak-Pitts pro-life amendment to be introduced for a full House vote.

The hard fact is that without the Stupak amendment, the House health care reform bill would have gone down to defeat last weekend.

Without the Stupak amendment, presumably most of the 64 Democrats (representing 25% of all House Democrats) who supported the measure would not have been able, out of principled conscience, to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act, H.R. 3962.

And health care reform, which Democrats have fervently urged for more than 70 years, would have been dead under the Obama administration and possibly for many decades to come.

This is an inevitable consequence of the "big tent" philosophy that allowed Democrats to take back the White House and control both houses of Congress in the 2008 elections.

Briefly, the Stupak amendment mandates:

"No funds authorized or appropriated by the Act... may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion...

"Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting any nonfederal entity... from purchasing separate or supplemental coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this section... "

(For more, see Full Text of Stupak Amendment to Prohibit Government-Funded Abortions.)

Certainly the intentionally clever wording of the Stupak amendment would make it considerably more difficult for uninsured women who purchase the public plan option or receive low-income subsidies for their coverage to make the unnecessarily difficult arrangements to pay for abortion services.

Given that abortion is a legal right extended in 1973 to all Americans under the Roe v. Wade decision, it's wrong for Congress to attempt to block American women, including lower income women, from exercising their legal rights.

But there's plenty else wrong with the imperfect House health care reform bill. And the Stupak amendment is hardly the most undemocratic or unfair element of this legislation.

But the Affordable Health Care for America Act is the best we have today to provide health care access to 36 million uninsured men, women, and children. It's the best we've had in 100 years.

Frankly, pro-choice overreaction on the Stupak amendment belies a certain trite liberal elitism. Think about it: does anyone honestly believe that given a choice between health care with no abortion coverage or no health care access, lower income women would choose to forgo all health care services?

Further, the truth is that uninsured and lower-income women of child-bearing age are but a fraction of Americans who would benefit from the House health care reform bill. And there's no assurance that these women would either want or seek abortions.

The whiny egocentrism of the pro-life liberals who wrote a letter to Speaker Pelosi "firmly pledging to vote against the bill if it contains an anti-abortion amendment" are evincing the same extreme lack of political maturity as the Sarah Palin-faction of conservatives that threatens to destroy the Republican party for not evoking enough hyper-partisan purism for their tastes.

Enough with the selfish dramatics! Be patient, work the process (which, by the way, has a VERY long way to go before this bill can become law), and spare the Democratic party your excessive antics and public threats that drive people away from all liberal causes.

And remember: millions of Democrats in 2009 are pro-life, including a significant portion of Democratic members of Congress. Pro-life Democrats no longer exclusively own the Democratic party mantle, if they ever did.

Essential Reading

Pro-Choice Advocates Are Wrong to Block House Health Care Bill originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Wednesday, November 11th, 2009 at 19:21:59.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

White Males Were 36 of 39 Democratic House Health Care NO Votes

2009-11-09T13:03:28Z

The 39 Democrats who voted against passage of the House health care reform bill will be as indelibly remembered politically as the 29 Senate Democrats who foolishly voted in 2002 to support the Iraq War.

Both were were political choices, not choices made in the best interest of the American people. And both votes were about viewpoints foundational to the Democratic party, and to the essence of being a Democrat.

(See the list of 39 DINOs at Who Voted NO on the House Health Care Bill?)

Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination because she fatefully cast her 2002 vote to support George Bush's and Dick Cheney's oil-based attack and occupation of Iraq. John Kerry had no credibility on the Iraq War during the 2004 presidential race since he also voted YES on the Iraq War.

Yet, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was among the 23 senators who wisely voted NO on the Iraq War, prophetically called it "the best vote I have cast in the United States Senate since I was elected in 1962."

Likewise, the 39 House Democrats who voted NO on the sole issue that has united all Democratic presidents for more than 75 years, health care reform, will be remembered for their lack of good judgment, and especially for their lack of compassion and support for everyday Americans.

I've carefully reviewed and researched the 39 Democratic naysayers, and found two common attributes: the group is almost entirely white and male:

House Health Care Bill Basics and Key Provisions

2009-11-06T17:33:05Z

After reviewing details of the revised House health care reform bill, I agree with Dr. Howard Dean's sentiment that "The House bill is actually very good."

(See Key Provisions of the House Health Care Bill for a one-page summary of the House health care reform bill.)

Commented Dean, former Democratic party chair and a longtime physician, last week on MSNBC:

"The fact is, this is real reform. That's all I really care about, is real reform. ... It's not the kind of reform that I would have loved, but this is pretty good stuff, and it really is going to make a difference."

AARP, representing senior citizens, and the AMA, representing physicians, both endorse the House's revised, post-negotiations "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," H.R.3200.

And the Congressional Budget Office states that the revised House bill would "slightly reduce federal budget deficits." President Obama hailed the House bill as " 'a historic step forward' and said it met two important criteria: 'It is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term,'" per the New York Times.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer have wisely committed to a quick vote over this weekend, before the week-long Congressional break for Veterans Day. President Obama plans a rare trip to Capitol Hill tomorrow, to push moderate, pro-business Blue Dog Democrats to vote for the bill.

Democrats need at least 218 House votes to pass legislation. After the November 3, 2009 elections in which Democrats won two seats, the House currently counts 258 Democrats and 177 Republicans. No Republicans are expected to vote for health care reform under the Obama administration.

Get informed at my one-page Key Provisions of the House Health Care Bill. Then email or call your Congressman or Congresswoman TODAY to tell them to vote for "America's Affordable Health Choices Act," H.R.3200.

House Health Care Bill Basics and Key Provisions originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Friday, November 6th, 2009 at 17:33:05.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

President Obama Watched Basketball While Democrats Got Drubbed

2009-11-04T12:52:30Z

Democrats took a drubbing yesterday in two key governor's races in states which President Obama won just one year ago... and yet Press Secretary Gibbs said the President was "not watching the returns."

Instead, top advisor Axelrod haughtily sniffed to CNN that "Obama is more likely to watch Tuesday night's Chicago Bulls game."

(Question: Is Obama watching basketball rather than devastating election returns akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burned?)

A perfect symbolism of the whole problem for Democrats these days: the President isn't listening to the American people. Or apparently watching, either.

Instead, on fiscal matters, Obama holes up with sycophant economists Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Christina Romer, an oddball clutch of ivory-tower elites who seem to possess little heartfelt grasp of this economy's devastating effect on most Americans.

Meanwhile, this trio's Wall Street friends, who caused the near-cataclysmic collapse of the U.S. economy, get richer and richer while the rest of America endures crippling economic hardship.

Democrats Delighted as Republicans Eat Their Own in New York Race

2009-11-02T13:04:48Z

One of the best things Democrats may have going for their 2010 electoral chances is Republicans.

Take New York's 23rd Congressional district special election set for tomorrow: a month ago, the race in this historicallly Republican rural district included:

A Democrat given scant chance to win
A seasoned Republican state legislator endorsed by the local Republican party, RNC chair Michael Steele, House Republican leader John Boehner, and Republican opinion leader Newt Gingrich
A third party candidate supported by the radically ultra-conservative crowd, including self-righteous wingnuts Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman.

The third party candidate, Doug Hoffman, chose Fox News' Glenn Beck Show last week on which to gush:

"HOFFMAN: I'm not cool with ACORN or the working families' party, or people that vote like democrats and run on Republican lines.
BECK: How do you -- I mean you have Sarah Palin that endorsed you. Was that a surprise to you?
HOFFMAN: Yes, it was. It was also a big honor."

Like pre-schoolers gleeful at the prospect of getting their way at any cost, the conservative smashmouth gang absurdly nitpicked and exaggerated the record of Republican Dierdre Scozzafava, who Frank Rich noted in his New York Times column has a "voting record slightly to the right of her fellow Republicans in the (state) Assembly." She departs from partisan conservative orthodoxy on only a few social issues, including pro-choice and gay rights stances.

Death Penalty Support Falling in U.S.

2009-10-30T16:11:50Z

As U.S. support for the death penalty slowly fades, states are taking a renewed look at capital punishment in 2009, which is an extraordinarily expensive proposition in this era of catastrophic state revenues.

ABC News reported on October 22, 2009:

"In the latest ABCNEWS.com poll, just more than six in 10 Americans favor the death penalty for people convicted of murder, unchanged from January. Still, support for the death penalty is at its lowest level in 20 years, down from a high of 77 percent in 1996.

"An ABCNEWS poll in January found that support for the death penalty slips further, to just under half of the public, when life in prison without parole is offered as an alternative."

Personally, I abhor that the United States is the only western industrialized country, with or without democracy, to still believe that it's morally acceptable to engage in the pre-meditated taking of a human life, ironically usually in punishment for the taking of a human life.

To illustrate how heinously out-of-step with our allies the U.S. is on the death penalty, take a gander at the list of 2008 executions worldwide, by country:

Executions in 2008, by Country

China - 1,718
Iran - 346
Saudi Arabia - 102
United States - 37
Pakistan - 36
Iraq - 34
Vietnam - 19
Afghanistan - 17
North Korea - 15
All others - 66

Two-thirds of all countries worldwide, have abolished the death penalty on moral grounds, while the U.S. continues, instead, to fall on the side of countries we hypocritically revile as having no respect for freedom or human life.

But if states choose to repeal the death penalty for understandable economic reasons, so be it. At least they're doing the right thing, even if not for the morally best motives.

In fact, two states recently repealed death penalty laws: New Jersey in late 2008 and New Mexico in March 2009. As of October 2009, 26 states have no statutes permitting capital punishment.

However, 34 states officially sanction the death penalty, as does the federal government. And each has widely, and unfairly, differing laws regarding its methods, age limits and crimes which qualify.

The death penalty is extremely controversial, especially among the eye-for-an-eye crowd. For a quick-reading summary, read my Pros & Cons of the Death Penalty.

As for the eye-for-an-eye crowd, I fervently wish they would meditate on Gandhi's wise words: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."

Essential Reading

Stanley "Tookie" Williams & the Death Penalty - What Is the Purpose of the Death Penalty?
Readers Respond: Why Should, or Shouldn't, the U.S. Abolish the Death Penalty?
Readers Respond: Should Stanley "Tookie" Williams have been executed by the state of California?

(Photo taken on June 29, 2009 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Death Penalty Support Falling in U.S. originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Friday, October 30th, 2009 at 16:11:50.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Why Liberals Aren't Celebrating Harry Reid's "Public Option" Support

2009-10-28T12:14:20Z

Political watchers are scratching their heads in confusion that liberals aren't exuberantly celebrating their apparent victory in the healthcare reform debate since Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid "sided with his party's liberals on Monday and announced that he would include a government-run insurance plan in health care legislation that he plans to take to the Senate floor within a few weeks," per the New York Times.

The Times continued:

"Just weeks ago, the prospects for such an approach seemed remote, reflecting all-out opposition from conservatives to what they considered an excessive government role in the economy and a lack of enthusiasm from many moderate Democrats. But the idea has consistently drawn strong support in national polls, and it has backing from President Obama... "

My response is that we've secured no victory, outside of convincing leadership that the position promulgated by the Democratic party base merits serious deliberation... a position supported by a majority of the American people.

Only inside the D.C. bubble would a position that bucks rich lobbyists, but is firmly supported by both a majority of Americans and the party that controls Congress, be considered radically daring leadership or a momentous event. Instead, it should be a political no-brainer...

MSNBC's Chuck Todd asked his Facebook friends this week, "Curious, why isn't left declaring victory on public option? Idea of "no" pub option is off table." Responses to his inside-the-beltway wonderment etch a perfect portrayal of the reasons for continuing liberal angst over healthcare reform legislation.

"Because no one knows what the final outcome is of the negotiations."
"Because a watered down public option trigger is a blatant success for the insurance companies and a disaster for the American People. There will be no celebrating until there is a true legit public option!"
"Don't want to look arrogant--I know, a novel idea in politics."
"Because it's not a victory. A compromise public option is not a public option. Just a way for the right to try to satisfy polls while leaving a way out for insurance companies. It won't work."
"Because they know that victory is not at hand! At this point they're trying to create the perception that public option is inevitable, but the votes just aren't there..."
"Chuck, I'll believe it when I see it. Right now, I don't see it getting the 60 votes to get to cloture."
"Because the true public option is a principled compromise, while the trigger and opt-out public option are both watered-down so as not to achieve the true power of the public option. The left isn't looking for political expediency - we want to solve an intransigent societal problem."

And my response to Chuck: "Because the legislative status of the public option changes about ten times daily, and we rightfully no longer trust the Senate to follow through on ephemeral stances."

That they would seriously pose the question of why we aren't celebrating Harry Reid's support of a public option makes we wonder if they really think we're that stupidly uninformed.... or if Democratic leaders and insider journalists are really that isolated from the realities of the rest of the country.

(Photo of MSNBC's Chuck Todd: Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)

Why Liberals Aren't Celebrating Harry Reid's "Public Option" Support originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Wednesday, October 28th, 2009 at 12:14:20.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Iraq Violence Unquelled, While U.S. Entertains Bored Soldiers: Salsa Dancing, Book Clubs, Origami

2009-10-26T18:44:39Z

Sunday's two truck bombings in Baghdad, which killed "155 people including 24 children on a bus leaving a daycare center," per AP, painfully illustrates the futility of U.S. efforts to help quell internal Iraqi violence, despite more than six expensive years of U.S. occupation.

Yet, as of October 2009, the U.S. continues to spend $7.3 billion monthly in Iraq. And the human toll for the the Iraq War is horrifying: 4,352 American soliders dead, almost 32,000 more seriously wounded and maimed, tens of thousands more suffering debilitating psychological wounds.

(See quick-reading, full details at Iraq War Results & Statistics at Oct 12, 2009.)

If U.S. soldiers were fully engaged in productive, peaceful efforts in Iraq, I would still harbor grave doubts about the wisdom of our government spending almost $100 billion in Iraq in 2009 when tens of millions of Americans are hurting so badly, as evidenced by:

underfunded, under-performing public schools with skyrocketing drop-out rates,
the disgrace of 40 million Americans with no access to health care,
a national unemployment rate of 9.8%, the highest in 26 years,
overcrowded, overused, underfunded homeless shelters, food banks, soup kitchens.

But the jaw-dropping fact is that, for the most part, the 124,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq are often idle and bored. USA Today reported last week in U.S. troops in Iraq have time on hands:

"Combat is still a daily reality in some parts of Iraq, and U.S. troops are being killed here at a rate of about one a week. But for many troops in places such as this large military base in southern Iraq, traditional soldiering such as kicking down doors and searching for roadside bombs has at least partly given way to book clubs, karaoke nights, sports and distance-learning university programs."

Soldiers interviewed by USA Today also describe filling empty moments with "salsa dancing, yoga and martial-arts classes" as well as origami, fight clubs, and "smoking from hookahs."

As if hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars already wasted, lost, stolen, and frittered away in Iraq isn't enough, now we're paying to entertain bored troops who feel understandably frustrated and depressed at their stale inactivity.

Here at home, Congressional Democrats are fighting vigorously to find funds for healthcare reform, and the desperate need among the American people has never been more acute since the Great Depression...

... and yet we continue to waste colossal amounts of money and manpower daily, monthly, yearly in Iraq. Why? What the heck for?

Withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq now. We will never solve the internal problems of Iraq, and Americans here at home are in dire need of those billions.

(Photo taken on October 25, 2009 as U.S soldiers stand guard as they secure the Baghdad Provincial Council site where two car bombs exploded in Baghdad, killing 155 people and injuring 500: Muhannad Fala'ah/Getty Images)

Iraq Violence Unquelled, While U.S. Entertains Bored Soldiers: Salsa Dancing, Book Clubs, Origami originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Monday, October 26th, 2009 at 18:44:39.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

White House Is Dangerously Wrong in War with Fox News

2009-10-22T19:16:48Z

The White House made a myopic mistake by declaring that Fox News is not "a news organization," and Fox News, which relies on shrill, irrational conservative victimhood to draw viewers, couldn't be more delighted.

A week ago, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn declared to CNN:

"(Fox is) widely viewed as a part of the Republican Party: take their talking points and put them on the air, take their opposition research and put it on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news organization...

I see several problems with this statement, not the least of which is that it insults the millions of Americans who regularly view Fox News. Insulting voters is never a smart idea, under any circumstances. But that's not my main concern.

And God forbid anyone should think I'm defending the objectivity or worth of Fox News. Nothing could be further from the truth. (Take a gander at HuffPo's The Ten Most Egregious Fox News Distortions for a tiny sampling of that network's astonishingly dishonest drivel.)

The primary problem with Ms. Dunn's politically deaf-and-dumb statements to CNN is that it reveals a White House arrogantly miffed that they can't control the message slant at one TV news network.

Hear me out on this: Ms. Dunn didn't complain about the objectivity of Fox News reporting. Instead, she beefed that Fox presents the wrong slant on political stories. And apparently on that basis alone, she blithely belittled the network as not "a news organization."

Meanwhile, the Obama White House enjoys a warm working relationship with MSNBC, which is stocked with avowed liberal commentators as Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz, and with more moderate, liberal-leaning pundits as new program host Dylan Ratigan and Obamaphile Chris Matthews of Hardball.

Take Rachel Maddow, for instance. She's indisputably bright and insightful, impeccably educated, and notoriously reliant on well-researched facts. And she's proudly, passionately liberal. (See my Profile of Rachel Maddow, MSNBC Journalist.)

Merely five days before the presidential election, Ms. Maddow scored an exclusive, indepth face-to-face interview with Barack Obama.

In fact, photos surfaced a few days ago of Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann chatting and laughing outside the White House on October 19, 2009 with... you guess it: Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director.

Now please understand that I'm all for closeness between any White House and the political pundits who get it right... which, indeed, are Maddow and Olbermann, in my opinion.

But when it comes to condemning and shunning another network as not "a news organization" because it presents an alternative viewpoint...

When does that act become covert (or overt) censorship?
When does that act become dangerous suppression of free speech, including misguided, misleading speech?
When does that act become arrogant, campaign-style strong-arming, rather than reasoned governance of all Americans?

Anita Dunn's bemoaning the well-known viewpoint of Fox News is sheer partisan hackery on the same low-level as 85 year old former President George H.W. Bush recently calling cable TV journalists Maddow and Olbermann "sick puppies."

I expect far better from a White House headed by a President who first gained national fame in 2004 by proclaiming, "Well, I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there is the United States of America."

Besides, the only thing accomplished by Ms. Dunn's ill-advised rant was apparently to increase ratings for conservative Fox News.

White House Is Dangerously Wrong in War with Fox News originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Thursday, October 22nd, 2009 at 19:16:48.

Permalink | Comment | Email this

Why the Obama Administration Loosened Marijuana Laws

2009-10-19T18:00:47Z

The Obama administration surprised liberals and libertarians today by announcing a firm reversal of federal policy on marijuana use for medicinal purposes, as permitted by state laws. Thirteen states presently allow the sale and use of marijuana for medical reasons.

Explains the Los Angeles Times:

"... Justice Department officials are telling prosecutors and federal drug agents that they have more important things to do than to arrest people who obey state laws that allow some use or sale of medical marijuana.

"The move clarifies what some critics had said was an ambiguous position of the Obama administration on the controversial issue, especially in the battleground state of California, where authorities have raided numerous clinics and made arrests over the years. Some of those California raids followed Obama's inauguration in January, after, as a presidential candidate, he had pledged to stop them."

All well and good. Makes solid common sense to quit wasting tens of millions of federal dollars to stop ailing Americans from alleviating their pain... which is the reason the Obama team gave for abruptly changing their hard-nosed stance.

But I wonder if that's the main reason. Or if the driving concern is as much (or more?) political than either compassionate or budget-minded.

Hear me out: Obama advisors are flummoxed by surprisingly lackluster Democratic fundraising results since President Obama took office. And many segments of the Democratic base are less than pleased with the President's inactivity on core issues.

Under-35 boosters feel largely forgotten by the President who they near-unanimously sent to the White House. And long-time party base liberals feel stung by the President hedging his campaign promises on healthcare reform, gay rights, Bush's brutal "war on terror" tactics, and many other issues.

Loosening marijuana laws ranks as a high social policy priority among most Democrats, especially the under-35 crowd, as well as a smart economic policy per a sizable portion of economic conservatives and minimal-government libertarians.

Despite the President insensitively sneering last April at a popular marijuana-related question at an online press conference, and soon after, the White House clarifying that marijuana policies will "never" be on its to-do plate... the Obama-ites have suddenly found different religion on the topic.

Here's what I think happened: the Obama politicos did their polling, and found that, as the rest of us already realized, there's plenty of political upside, and little political downside, to loosing marijuana laws. Likely all voters who oppose medical marijuana use would never support Obama's agenda anyway.

So besides their self-proclaimed common-sense frugality, the Obama administration realized the politically appeasing gains to be made by reversing the Bush administration's irrational, ideologically-based crackdown on the use and sale of marijuana for medical purposes.

But who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth? Whatever their newly found reasons, the Obama administration did the right thing. And I suppose that's all we need to care about.

Next up: Maine voters decide on November 3rd whether or not "to change the medical marijuana laws to allow treatment of more medical conditions and to create a regulated system of distribution."

Of course, the next logical step should be legalization of all marijuana use, similar to the re-legalization of alcohol in 1933 via the Twenty-first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

But don't look for Obama to take up that cause. Not ever. Political bravery is just not his forte.

Take a few moment so to read Pros & Cons of Legalizing Marijuana. And shout-out your thoughts at my Readers Respond page: Should Marijuana Sale and Possession Be Legalized?

Why the Obama Administration Loosened Marijuana Laws originally appeared on About.com US Liberal Politics on Monday, October 19th, 2009 at 18:00:47.

Permalink | Comment | Email this