Okay People, President Obama Needs YOUR HELP!

Health care reform - possibly the most important legislation to come out of Congress this decade - is going to get torpedoed by a bunch of crazy, right-wing screamers, UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING! I MEAN YOU!

Over the weekend, I wrote about the Obama administration indicating that they're caving to pressure to drop a public option in the health care reform package that is being beaten to death in Congress. A public option is important because it will allow individuals and businesses to buy into a system that is more concerned with health care than making a profit, and let people get comfortable with public health care. It won't be a requirement for anyone, just ONE OPTION.

A friend pointed out that the President is under a lot of pressure to cave, because the town hall crazies are loud and getting a lot of media attention, while all the regular people who supported Obama during the election are nowhere to be found. He's right. If we don't want health care reform to fail, we have to GET LOUD!!!

Here's the plan:

1. E-mail (or via form), phone, fax (scroll down) or write the White House and let them know you want a public option in health care reform.

2. Do the same with both your Senators (choose your state) and your Representative.

3. Share this post on Facebook, Twitter and your other social networky sites (using the Share This link below) or write your own post.

If you don't fully understand health care reform, DO NOT LET THIS STOP YOU! The town hall crazies think Obama wants Nazi death panels and say things like "keep the government away from my Medicare" and that hasn't stopped them from flapping their ignorant lips. Trust me, you WANT the choice to be able to buy into a government plan, even if you never use it. It will force private insurance to lower costs and raise service to compete.

So do it. NOW! Before it's too late.

White House Wimp Out

President Obama has already given up on his campaign promise to reverse Bush administration policy and allow the government to negotiate prices with drug companies. Now it's being reported that they're ready to give up the inclusion of a government insurance option as well. Which leads me to wonder: What exactly is this "health care reform" going to reform?

In a Politico story, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) was quoted as saying:

“Look, the fact of the matter is there are not the votes in the United States Senate for the public option. There never have been. So to continue to chase that rabbit, I think, is just a wasted effort.”

My question is: why aren't there? Aren't the Republicans all about competition? Aren't the Democrats all about using government to help people? So why wouldn't the reform include an option to allow people to buy into government-run health care? It would increase competition and demonstrate whether or not the government can fuck up your health care less than the insurance companies already do. Seems like a win-win to me.

No one is talking about FORCING people to be on a government plan. It would just provide it as an option...thereby increasing choice. So what's the problem? The only problem I can see is that private health insurance companies would worry that a well-run public system would eat into their profits. Wouldn't THAT be a shame?

Once again, the Republicratic party is showing that - when it comes to the interests of business vs. the interests of the people - we really do have only one party in this country. Thanks to all the corporate-owned Ds and Rs, this "reform" isn't going to reform anything... except maybe how quickly taxpayer money ends up in drug and health insurance company coffers.

Why Do Insurance Companies Hate America?

From an AP story on health care reform:

"The House bill includes a provision for the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies, a provision strenuously opposed by industry."

That's really the crux of the problem right there, isn't it? The insurance companies don't want Americans to be able to choose a government-funded option because they know it will prove all the fear-mongers wrong. When Americans have the option of a public system where every dollar put into it actually goes to health care, instead of shareholders' and executives' pockets, while still maintaining a healthy level of choice (certainly at least as good as the current "networks" most of us have to stay within), they'll want it. Then what will the insurance companies do?

Seriously, isn't the American system supposed to be about competition? They're not talking about forcing anyone to take government-funded insurance, just providing it as one option. What's wrong with letting the government in and letting us choose?

Get mad... but for the right reasons, please.

There's a lot of outrage being expressed in the gay press, on gay blogs and on Facebook over the Department of Justice's brief defending DOMA in Smelt v. United States. The organization I work for has even issued a statement, along with other LGBT groups, criticizing the DOJ's arguments.

The problem is, the most outrage coming from John Aravosis, Queerty and others is over the fact that the DOJ is defending DOMA in the first place. That's just crazy talk. When someone sues the United States, it is the DOJ's job to defend the government against the lawsuit. For them not to would be like if you were being sued and your lawyer said "well, I'm not going to defend you because I kind of agree with the other side." Moreover, it would set a horrible precident that could be used against us under a conservative administration.

New York Law School Professor Arthur S. Link has a great explanation on his site:

Some have criticized the government for defending DOMA and DADT in the courts. Actually, this is the Justice Department's job, especially in the case of statutes that have been upheld by the courts many times. DADT has been under continual attack in the courts since the mid 1990s, and suits challenging DOMA date back almost as far, and neither have succeeded yet. In a stand-off between the legislative branch and the executive branch about the constitutionality of a law, I'm not sure I would feel good about the executive branch being free to decide which validly enacted laws it is going to enforce. That sounds too much to me like George W. Bush's position that as commander in chief he could ignore any law that gets in his way in carrying out his strategy for preserving national security. Demanding that the President or the Attorney General refuse to enforce a law with which they disagree as a matter of policy because they believe it may be unconstitutional or because they advocate its repeal is a dangerous demand to make, and arguing that they should refuse to defend an existing federal statute in court comes dangerously close to that.

Aravosis tries to argue that the Obama administration could have refused to defend DOMA in the Smelt case by disingenuously citing previous situations where the DOJ declined to defend the government in a lawsuit. But in all four examples, the law in question was obviously unconstitutional based on previous SCOTUS decisions. There has never been a SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage (save Baker v. Nelson, which was really just a punt), so to suggest that this question has been settled and the DOJ would be justified in NOT defending DOMA is just absurd. (Even more frustrating is that major news outlets, including CBS, have quoted Aravosis's contention that the DOJ could have refused to defend the government as fact - without ever doing any actual research to find out if it is true.)

Now don't get me wrong: there is much to criticize President Obama for in his handling of LGBT rights, both in this case and elsewhere. Smelt has some serious issues - including big jurisdictional problems and the fact that the plaintiffs haven't alleged any particular injury - which could have been used to get the case dismissed without ever having to defend DOMA on its merits. The strange new argument that DOMA keeps the federal government neutral on the question is just patently absurd.

Elsewhere, Obama has still not issued an executive order banning transgender discrimination in federal employment and requiring government contractors not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - something he could have done on his very first day in office. And his public positions on passing ENDA and repealing DOMA and DADT have not been as robust as one would expect from a man who claimed he'd be a "fierce advocate" for the LGBT community.

So yes, we need to call out the administration and apply pressure on Obama to live up to his campaign promises. But to go apoplectic because the DOJ did its job by defending the government against a lawsuit just makes our side look naive and reactionary.

Associated Press not so into this whole "journalism" thing

You heard it here first: Barack Obama's inauguration "could" cost $350 billion dollars. There. I just scooped the AP, at least by the shoddy standards of what they consider journalism lately.

Media Matters is reporting on the Obama inauguration cost "nontroversy" at their website. It seems outlets like Fox News, the New York Daily News and London's Daily Mail have been getting their neocon panties in a twist over the cost of Obama's inauguration, which they are reporting "could" cost as much as $160 million dollars, making it the "most expensive ever." They don't, naturally, give any sources, backup or reasoning for that number, but they do compare it to the $42.3 million the soon-to-be-thankfully-departed Dubster spent on his second inauguration. But, as Media Matters points out, the $42.3 million figure does not include security costs. Since no "news" outlet has given a rationale for the $160M figure, no one knows what's included in that, but Media Matters reports that, for the inauguration to cost anywhere near $160M, security costs must be included in that number. So if we compare apples to apples and add the security costs of the 2005 inauguration to the $42.3 million figure, the total for the Dub's second ceremony comes to $157 million. Awfully damn close to $160 million, no?

Now, I never trust anything I hear from outlets like Faux News, so I'm not particularly outraged by their latest right-wing-propaganda-disguised-as-news campaign. But what does make me mad is that the Associated Press has jumped in on this clusterfuck. In a schlock piece filed by Matt Apuzzo, the AP reports that the cost of "Obama's inauguration gala is expected to break records" and goes on to quote "some estimates" at $150 million. The piece quotes no sources and gives no indication of how it verified that this was an accurate estimate, except to say that it included "massive" security costs. So not only is this shoddy reporting, the assertion is just plain wrong: if the inauguration costs $150 million, as they "report," it wouldn't even "break the record" of $157 million set by Dubya in 2005. The AP has taken a non-story fabricated by right-wing partisans and is reporting it without any effort to verify it or even get their facts straight. Death. Of. Journalism.

So I'll do the AP one better and tell you how I got to my number. Barack Obama has said that, once inaugurated, he'll move to immediately start using the $350 billion in bailout money. So his inauguration will end up costing the country $350 billion. Crazy logic, I know, but at least there is some logic behind my number, unlike the made up, fake controversy figure that the AP has been spreading far and wide. Liberal media, my ass.

Did McCain just lose the election?

Wow. Sarah Palin. Wow. I'm a little floored. Actually, totally confused would be more accurate.

What was he thinking??? John McCain just chose as his running mate a woman whose entire political career consists of eight years as mayor of a town of 9,000 and two years as governor of one of the least populated states in the nation. Two years in which Palin has already courted controversy by pressuring the Alaska Department of Public Safety to fire her ex-brother-in-law, who is in the middle of a custody battle with her sister. A woman who has NO foreign policy experience and - if elected - would be one 72-year-old hearbeat away from the Presidency.

The entire tactic of painting Barack Obama as "too inexperienced" just got tossed out the window. For what? To have a woman on the ticket? The perplexing part is that there are MANY more experienced Republican women who could have more ably filled the role: Kay Bailey Hutchison and Elizabeth Dole, just to name two. I just can't even imagine why he went this route. Truly bizarre.

John McCain: the real rich elitist

Just days after saying that he doesn't think people who make $4 million a year qualify as "rich," John McCain admitted in an interview yesterday that he doesn't even know how many houses he owns.

Yet the Republican attack machine slammed Obama for visiting his grandmother in Hawaii, a destination visited by 2.5 million Americans every year. Almost all of whom - I suspect - actually know how many houses they have.

Requiem for Hillary

The last time I posted, I was confident Obama would win the nomination. I certainly had no idea it would take this long. But even then — despite many of my friends calling me a "Hillary Hater" (ahem, Yashar) — I've always thought it unfortunate that we couldn't have had them both.

Over the last few days, I've had this fantasy that Barack would come out quickly and announce Hillary as his running mate, the party would unite, and this energy that's been going strong since the first primaries would just pick up steam and roll right over old, scary, conservative John "Walnuts" McCain. Even though, on a thinking level, I can understand Jimmy Carter saying that she's the worst possible choice (antithetical to Obama's change message, huge negatives, will bring out the right wing whack-jobs to vote against her), on an emotional level, I've really been hoping that the Thursday night meeting was their secret plan to unify everyone and just go for it.

I feel that even more so after her "suspension" speech yesterday. She spoke her own words, not those of her handlers trying to sculpt her into the candidate they thought she should be. After a long time of not seeing it, I finally remembered why in November 2007 I said that I would be happy with either Hillary or Obama. I really like her. When she's herself, she's just this incredible, funny, likable, smart woman who I'd have at my BBQ any day. The Votemaster over at Electoral Vote said it better than I can:

She is at her best when she is herself. During the whole campaign, her handlers have tried to turn her into some kind of steel robot who always marches forward, ignores all criticism, and is convinced she is never wrong--kind of like a smarter version of George Bush. Many people have said that in person she is warm and friendly. Her handlers apparently decided early on that the only way for a woman to win was to be tougher than Maggie Thatcher and Golda Meir combined. It didn't work.

So, will Obama pick her? I kind of doubt it, thought I completely disagree with those who say one of her negatives is that she doesn't bring him any new states (um, hello FLORIDA???). But either way, he really should support her in whatever the next role is that she wants to take on. She'd be SO much more effective than bland, boring Harry Reid in leading the Senate. She'd also do well as Secretary of State. My own personal favorite would be a seat on the Supreme Court — can you imagine the clashes between Hillary and Scalia?

Whatever's next for her, I really, really hope that it isn't just going away. I hope she follows the Howard Dean route and just keeps going. I mean, she can take a (much deserved) Al Gore-style break and come back stronger and better, but I hope she doesn't just disappear like John Kerry. That, truly, would be a real defeat for everyone.

3 things the mainstream media won't be reporting tomorrow

I've been reading all the coverage of South Carolina and am a bit frightened at what's NOT being said. Hopefully these things will be talked about tomorrow (doubt it). So in case they're not, here's what I think we should take away from the current situation.

1. Barack Obama is winning this election


Looking at any of the mainstream media outlets, it would seem like Hillary Clinton is winning. Looking at their nifty "charticles," anyone can see that she has more delegates than Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Problem is, 4 out of 5 of Hillary's "delegates" were not actually ELECTED. They are so-called "superdelegates." Superdelegates are party insiders - governors, members of Congress, even former presidents and vice presidents - who tend to vote for political expediency. That is, they bet on the horse they think will win, in hopes that candidate will repay them down the road.

By any measure of success in the actual ELECTION, Barack Obama is winning. He's gotten the most votes in the two official primaries so far - winning 50% to Clinton's 32% - and has won the most delegates from both primaries and caucuses. If this were being scored democratically - by the will of what the VOTERS want - Barack would be undeniably ahead.

2. Hillary is engaging in desperate dirty tricks

Hillary must realize that the voters are siding with Barack, because she's beginning to engage in desperate dirty tricks. Months ago, when it seemed like every state was in a race to hold their primary before Halloween '07, the Democratic Party said that any state holding a primary before February 5 (except New Hampshire and South Carolina) would have their delegates stripped. At the time, all of the Democratic candidates agreed with that plan and pledged not to campaign in states that held early primaries.

Now that Hillary realizes that she's losing, she's going back on what she said earlier and is asking that delegates from Michigan and Florida be reinstated. Hillary won Michigan because both Barack and John Edwards asked their names be withdrawn from the ballot (the right thing to do, in my opinion). Despite their pledges not to campaign in Florida, Hillary has spent an awful lot of time there at "fundraisers" and other events and polls show she will most likely win the state in the absence of any real competition.

Is this kind of flip-flopping and smarmy political backstabbing what we should expect from President Clinton II?

3. Barack has a better chance of winning against McCain

I've been saying it since this time a year ago: the only guaranteed lose for the Democratic party is a McCain vs. Clinton match-up. McCain is hugely well loved by western and midwestern independents, and many folk in those same areas are highly suspicious of Hillary. It's why I was so excited to see McCain's supposed "meltdown." But now that he's re-"surging" as the new front-runner, I'm even more worried at the prospect of Hillary winning the nomination.

A recent poll backs up my suspicions: Survey-USA did polls in a handful of states comparing how people would vote in a McCain-Clinton matchup vs. a McCain-Obama matchup. In the five states where who the Democratic nominee is would make a difference, Hillary lost four of the five to McCain. Iowa, Wisconsin and Washington state would go with Barack, but not with Hillary. Oregon would tie for Barack but go with McCain over Hillary. Only in Minnesota would Barack lose and Hillary win.

I grew up in the midwest and I know how we think. It's not that people love McCain. It's that they really don't like "fake" people and Hillary just seems SOOO disingenuous and insincere while McCain seems real and very likable. On a side note, I'd even say that the midwest is more ready for a woman president than a black man. It's not a woman candidate that's a problem - it's THIS woman. And there's no way a Democrat can lose the upper midwest and still win.