mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“Grow Up And Get Over It”: Enough Already On HealthCare.Gov, Don’t You Remember Medicare Part D?

OK. I’ve officially had enough of this Republican gloating about HealthCare.gov. Yes, it was a major and inexcusable fiasco, as I wrote last week. So they were entitled to a week of “we told ya so.” Or even two. But really, it’s practically a month now. Enough already. I know that we expect no decency from these people, so this will sound naïve, but truly, what they should be doing now is helping their constituents figure it all out. That’s what the Democrats did in a similar situation.

I refer, of course, to the Medicare Part D implementation in late 2005 and early 2006. That was the big prescription drug bill passed in 2003. You remember—it’s the one where the Republicans didn’t have the votes in the House, even though they controlled the House, and Speaker Tom DeLay held the floor open for 15 minutes after the bell rang as his lieutenants went around and badgered and threatened some GOP members until they changed their vote from nay to aye. My, how at home DeLay would have been with the Tea Partiers.

Anyhow. Most Democrats voted against the bill. In the House just 16 of 203 Democratic members voted yes. In the Senate, however, 11 of 48 Democrats voted for the new Bush entitlement. First, let’s just stop right there. Could you imagine 16 and 11 Republicans ever voting for an Obama legislative priority, something that was clearly Obama’s “baby” in the same way that the Part D bill was Bush’s? There’d be no end to the slobbering over Republicans for being so reasonable. As I recall, the Democrats were attacked at the time for not supporting the bill enough.

So they didn’t. And then, two years later, the rollout came. It was a mess. In mid-October 2005, the Bush administration announced a delay. Reason? It was Yom Kippur, and evidently no one wanted to offend elderly Jews who wouldn’t be using their computers. Right. So it was delayed. But a month later, as Jon Perr noted recently at Crooks & Liars, the planned comparison-shopping website still wasn’t up and running. Even after it finally was, it was confusing and a mess. Some sample headlines: “Web-based Comparison of Prescription Plans Delayed,” The Washington Post; “Glitches Mar Launch of Medicare Drug Plan,” The Wall Street Journal; “President Tells Insurers to Aid Ailing Medicare Drug Plan,” The New York Times.

Needless to say, some of the same people now trying to put the hex on Obamacare spent 2006 pooh-poohing—you guessed it—“glitches,” as Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) put it back then. I’m sure they’d say they’re different things, and it’s true the Affordable Care Act is a bigger undertaking. But they’re precisely similar in spirit—big, new government programs that depended largely on citizen interaction via personal computer. And the ACA fixes what was the biggest problem created by Part D, the so-called doughnut hole in prescription drug coverage. So the Obama bill corrects what was conspicuously awful about the Bush bill. Yes, they are different!

But the biggest difference is not how Republicans behaved back then but how Democrats did. Most Democrats voted against the law. But they did not then sue the Bush administration and try to take the thing to the Supreme Court and get it invalidated. And then, when the start-up was a cock-up, Democrats didn’t go around saying it was proof the law had to go. They tried to fix it. Hillary Clinton, then a senator, said: “I voted against it, but once it passed I certainly determined that I would try to do everything I could to make sure that New Yorkers understood it, could access it, and make the best of it.”

Interesting, no, that we have this quote, this wholly unremarkable quote, from someone the press has described over the years as one of the most polarizing women in America. Here she was being the exact opposite of polarizing, just doing what was then her job, being a normal and rational human being and public servant. She was deciding, amazingly enough, that the needs of her senior-citizen constituents who might benefit from the law once the kinks were worked out were more important than any grudge or animus she might bear toward the sitting administration.

Her husband said it well Sunday, while campaigning with Terry McAuliffe: “But our side, we’re not so ideological. So instead of bashing them and screaming about how incompetent they were, most of our people just tried to help people understand the law and make it work, and then wait for it to get fixed.”

And yet here was Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) on TV on Sunday spouting the same oogedy-boogedy that’s been gushing from their mouths for a month. And there was Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), having no earthly idea what she was talking about on CNN. Have Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell or Sen. Rand Paul had one kind word to say for Kentucky’s by all accounts excellent implementation of the law under Democratic Gov. Steve Beshear? About 15,000 Kentuckians had enrolled as of last week. I just wonder if a single one of them got a helping hand from staffers for McConnell or Paul.

It’s yet another stomach-turning state of affairs. I’m sick and tired of hearing it. Obamacare is an existential threat to their Weltanschauung, their idea of America? Grow up and get over it. It’s just politics. You lost a political fight. You may someday win it, but until the day you do, behave like adults. And like democrats (and Democrats, the 2006 variety). And for God’s sake, put your sick constituents’ needs ahead of your racial paranoia about the president. Enough, enough, enough.

 

By: Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, October 29, 2013

October 31, 2013 Posted by | Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, Republicans | , , , , , , | 1 Comment

“Offensive And Disturbing” : It’s No Laughing Matter, Slapping Hillary Or Any Woman Is Not A Game

A Republican super PAC is promoting an online game allowing people to virtually slap the former secretary of state across the face. Depending on the person’s fancy, one can slap an animated image of Hillary Clinton while she is either speaking or sitting still via the convenient click of a button.

At first, I thought I had stumbled upon The Onion.

But no, “Slap Hillary,” a “game” originally launched in 2000, is real. The Hillary Project resurrected it this Monday, excitedly tweeting to reporters, “Have you slapped Hillary today?”

Is the game offensive? Is it funny? Or is it just something Clinton needs to “learn to deal with” as a public figure? .

I cannot believe I actually have to write the following: Encouraging people to slap a woman across the face — in essence, advocating violence against women — is offensive and disturbing, whether or not that woman is a public figure, and it is part of some “game” or joke.

The good news is some 105,000 people agree. That’s how many signatures UltraViolet, an online anti-sexism group, collected in 48 hours in support of a petition to The Hillary Project to pull the game. But, so far, no response.

So, women’s groups like Miss Representation and Emily’s List are joining UltraViolet in going over the super PAC’s head to the Republican leadership – RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner – to demand that they unequivocally condemn this sexist game, and to ensure the party does not benefit financially from promoting violence against women.

In less than 24 hours, UltraViolet’s second letter received nearly 20,000 signatures.

“For women, this issue is no laughing matter,” Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of UltraViolet said. “A woman is assaulted every nine seconds in our country. Everyday, three women die because of domestic violence.”

Many are taking to Twitter to voice their frustration and disgust:

@efxkaty As someone once publicly slapped in the face by an abusive ex, humor of a ‪#SlapHillary game c/o GOP PAC is sick to me

@sfpelosi Odious ‪#SlapHillary game a flashback to sexist ‪@Milbank/‪@TheFix  “Mad B*** Beer” during 2008 campaign. Misogyny train is never late.

@coolmcjazz Repub PAC ‪@projecthillary spreads truth about how misogynistic Repubs are: ‪http://bit.ly/1ctPDfL  ‪@akmcquade ‪@SaraLang ‪#SlapHillary

“People everywhere are outraged,” Chaudhary continued. She said UltraViolet has received a flood of support from men and women alike and from both major political parties.

But “Slap Hillary” is merely the latest instance of a frustrating norm of sexist attacks on women in power. Take the misogyny-laced campaign against economist Janet Yellen, one of the top candidates to take control of the Federal Reserve. And surely we have not forgotten the 2008 presidential election, during which critics knocked the two major female candidates for being a shrill harpy and a dumb shopaholic.

In response to those outraged about  “Slap Hillary,” the Super PAC fired back on Twitter this week that no one seemed to be upset with the “Slap Palin” game. And they do have a point…sort of.

“Whether it’s Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann does not matter,” Chaudhary said. “Jokes about slapping women — of any party — ought to have no place in our politics.”

In other words, The Hillary Project supporters, you are correct in saying misogynistic attacks are common fare for women leaders regardless of their political affiliation. That does not, however, give you or anyone else the license to counter sexism with more of it.

Those at The Hillary Project and in the Republican leadership are remaining silent, much to their detriment.

On Wednesday, the Ready for Hillary PAC took advantage of the “disgusting tactics” of the Republican super PAC (which self-describes as “The Only Thing Standing Between Hillary and the White House”) by reaching out to supporters for donations.

Under pressure from the Virginia attorney general’s gubernatorial campaign, The Hillary Project’s treasurer awkwardly cut ties with the super PAC, Talking Points Memo reported Thursday.

By early Friday morning, The Hillary Project had suspended its Twitter account.

Until the “Slap Hillary” game is pulled, Chaudhary said women’s groups are not backing down. If the Grand Old Party, the same party that almost did not reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act earlier this year, really wants to combat its “War on Women” stigma, it should start listening.

By: Alyson Neel, The Washington Post, August 9, 2013

August 10, 2013 Posted by | Violence Against Women | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“GOP National Tour Of Shame”: The Republicans’ Desperate Plan To Hide Its Clowns

Reince Priebus, the head of the Republican National Committee, has told NBC and CNN that they will not be allowed to have any Republican presidential debates in 2016 if they go ahead and air planned films about Hillary Clinton, who will likely be the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. That is the reason he gave them, at least, but it is not the actual reason Priebus wants to not have any debates on those two channels. The real reason, everyone knows and sort of acknowledges, is that debates were a disaster for the party in 2012, an endless circus made up entirely of clowns on a national tour of shame.

These debates were on TV, people watched (and mocked) them, and the real candidates, the ones the money people were counting on to win the stupid race, were forced to say unacceptable things to appeal to raging loons. Furthermore, the serious candidates looked less serious simply by sharing a stage with Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain. So: Fewer debates, next time, is the plan, and these Hillary movies are a convenient reason to cancel on two of the big networks. (Do you know how I know that the Hillary Clinton movies aren’t the real reason? Media Matters’ David Brock would also like the networks to cancel these movies, because, let’s be honest, they probably won’t be entirely flattering.)

The entire Republican primary system is broken, and embarrassing debates really number among the least of their problems, but it is easier for Priebus to preemptively cancel embarrassing debates than it is for him to fundamentally alter the makeup of the Republican primary electorate, a small and largely angry group who demand ideological fealty to a political philosophy that most Americans abhor. Unfortunately for Priebus, threatening to cancel debates is going to be much easier than actually preventing them from happening.

Maybe one of the Republican Party’s primary malfunctions these days is that the interests of the party as a whole are frequently in opposition to the interests of individual Republican politicians. Preibus wants there to be fewer debates, because the debates are hugely embarrassing to the party and damaging to the eventual nominee. The candidates, though, need the debates, because there is nothing so precious as free airtime, and saying stupid things on television and then losing elections is a surprisingly lucrative career move these days. The debate problem is like the Ted Cruz problem: He acts against the long-term best interests of his party because in the shorter term, being an ultra-conservative is likely to make him rich and beloved. When 2015 rolls around a half-dozen would-be presidents and tryouts for the conservative speaking circuit are going to want free airtime, and the networks will happily provide it. The only question is whether the eventual “serious” nominee, if that’s Jeb Bush or Chris Christie, is going to join them or not.

Cruz may well be among those jokers, along with Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Peter King, Rick Perry and various other figures adored by “the base” but sort of terrifying and confusing to everyone else. These guys are going to go on television if they are given the opportunity to go on television. You either finish your presidential campaign as the president or as a person who isn’t the president but who is much more famous than before, and conservative movement fame means well-compensated positions at nonprofits or think tanks, speeches, maybe even television or radio jobs. Mike Huckabee is doing so well for himself he couldn’t be bothered to run in 2012, and he would’ve probably beaten Mitt if he had.

So boycotting NBC and CNN isn’t going to prevent another string of embarrassing debates from happening. But it may still be useful. Priebus wants to avoid those two channels in part because they’re hostile to conservatives, and the moderators they select will likely actively seek to embarrass the candidates. Republicans are still mad that in 2007, NBC allowed Chris Matthews to co-moderate a Republican debate. They sort of have a point — he’s a shouty Democrat, and likely had no respect for the people onstage — but the problem isn’t liberal bias, it’s “nonpartisan” journalist idiocy. Nonpartisan television news personalities are generally ill-informed about policy and hostile to politics in general. Bob Schieffer was utterly useless as a debate moderator. Partisan journalists are, by and large, more engaged with the issues and much more likely to ask interesting questions. There’s really no reason why conservative journalists shouldn’t be moderating, or at least co-moderating, Republican debates. Byron York and Rich Lowry would do a fine job.

If there are going to be another hundred primary debates, and there probably will be, the party would most likely prefer most of them to be on Fox. And that’d be fine: The candidates will be trying to appeal to Fox’s audience for votes, after all. And liberals ought to be fine with it too, because the candidates will be just as likely, or maybe even more likely, to say dumb and embarrassing things on Fox as they would be on CNN or NBC. So boycott away, Reince Priebus.

By: Alex Pareene, Salon, August 7, 2013

August 8, 2013 Posted by | GOP Presidential Candidates | , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Revenge Of The Abortion Barbies”: The GOP’s Growing Terror Of Mobilized Women

Erick Erickson is the insecure frat-boy id of the Republican Party. Oh, sure, party leaders wring their hands about their problem with women voters, but deep down, we’re all “Abortion Barbie” to a whole lot of them. Only Erickson is creepy enough to say so.

In case you missed it: Erickson — last seen freaking out over women as breadwinners, and being schooled by Fox host Megyn Kelly — apparently had a panic attack today over Texas state Sen. Wendy Davis, and decided to call her “Abortion Barbie.” That’s clever, and likely to do his party as much good with women as when Rush Limbaugh decided to call Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

But Erickson’s outburst comes in a week when Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus melted down over CNN and NBC plans for a Hillary Clinton miniseries, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell got so rattled by Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes that he disrespected her by attacking her dad, as though the girl in the race didn’t matter enough to engage directly.

Psychologically a lot of Republicans seem to have problems with women, with our real and imagined power. The conservative project of controlling us is coming undone, and their fear is showing. But politically, they’ve got even bigger problems, with women’s genuine and growing political power. From Wendy Davis to Alison Grimes to Michelle Nunn in Georgia (she’s leading all her GOP Senate rivals in the latest PPP poll), female candidates are giving Red State Democrats some hope that they may win more statewide power sooner rather than later.

So Mr. RedState.com let loose another well-timed slur to give us a window onto his fear and loathing.

Reince Priebus has so many fears: He of course fears Hillary Clinton, since the GOP doesn’t have a candidate who could win a primary who could beat her if she runs. He fears his party’s likely 2016 roster, which may not be as chock-full of wacko birds as the Michele Bachmann-Herman Cain 2012 slate, but will still have plenty of characters to scare moderate voters. He fears a rerun of the grueling 2012 debate schedule, where said wacko birds had more than enough time to hang themselves with their own words.

And so his silly attack on the Hillary Clinton miniseries is a three-fer, for Priebus: It’s a way to attack Clinton, to reduce the number of 2016 GOP debates and to declare fealty to Fox News. He took his complaints to Sean Hannity Monday night, and the Fox host supportively stroked his hand and echoed his complaints, declaring that the CNN and NBC miniseries will be a “love letter to Hillary.” Both Priebus and Hannity would like the 2016 GOP race to be contested entirely on the friendly terrain of Fox News, where candidates are received lovingly, and viewers are reassured their party will win in a landslide, until Karl Rove’s “Republican math” fails him and they have to announce the election of yet another Democrat.  It wouldn’t seem to have worked out so well for them last time around, but I guess it’s better than going out into the big scary world where Democrats have a growing edge with the largest single voting bloc: women.

Then there’s Mitch McConnell. It’s way too early for Democrats to get overconfident about Grimes’ chances in Kentucky. McConnell will have a lot of money and loves to fight dirty. But there was something unsettling about his decision to attack Grimes’ father at the iconic Fancy Farms event over the weekend. “I want to say how nice it is to see [former Kentucky Democratic chairman] Jerry Lundergan back in the game,” he told the crowd. “Like the loyal Democrat he is, he’s taking orders from the Obama campaign about how to run his daughter’s campaign.” In fact the family is much closer to the Clintons, who are hugely popular with Kentucky Democrats, so McConnell’s decision to attack Grimes through first her father, and then through the president, was not just coded sexism but racism, and betrays his fear of a strong woman candidate – not just Grimes, but Hillary Clinton.

But at least he didn’t call her “Abortion Barbie.”

We all know the Republican Party is demographically doomed, but the question is how soon will its dominance with white voters become irrelevant in a multiracial America. It will be very soon if Republicans continue to repel white women. Depressingly (to me), white women went for Mitt Romney in 2012 after backing Obama in 2008. But in many states, younger white women and college-educated white women are a swing electorate that can accelerate the transition from red to blue.

So keep slurring Wendy Davis, and Alison Lundergan Grimes, and Hillary Clinton, Republicans! While you continue to insult and stereotype African-American and Latino voters, you’re making sure that the Obama coalition not only holds together but expands in 2014 and 2016.

 

By: Joan Walsh, Editor at Large, Salon, August 6, 2031

August 7, 2013 Posted by | GOP, Women | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Hoping To Cash In”: The GOP Versus Hillary Clinton’s Celebrity

I’m not sure whether to file this under “pointless” or just “dumb,” but the Republican National Committee is threatening to boycott NBC and CNN if they go forward with, respectively, a mini-series and a documentary about former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I guess you could file it under “oblivious”?

Here’s why: The last time I checked, Republicans were supposed to be fierce defenders of the free market. And to the extent that these companies are trying to catch the Hillary ’16 presidential wave, it’s more likely that they’re hoping to cash in on it rather than promote it.

Earlier today, the Republican National Committee issued a release saying that if NBC and CNN go ahead with their plans, Chairman Reince Priebus “will seek a binding vote of the RNC to prevent the committee from partnering with these networks in 2016 primary debates or sanctioning debates they sponsor.”

It goes without saying that media companies shouldn’t let political parties dictate their programming choices. But honestly, this is silly. Yes, Hillary Clinton is widely expected to run for president in three years. So are a lot of people, but she’s also the biggest celebrity in the potential presidential field, and by a long shot (sorry, Donald Trump, I’m only referring to serious potential candidates).

Does it make good business sense for these companies to try to capitalize on that celebrity? Yes. So much so that you’d think there would be a Hillary Clinton move in the works … which, it turns out, there is. NBC announcing a miniseries about Kirsten Gillibrand or Peter King would raise eyebrows. About Hillary Clinton? Come on.

Occam’s Razor (the maxim that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one)  applies here: The simpler explanation – that two media conglomerates think there’s a market for Hillary-related programming – is more plausible than the idea that they are engaged in a vast, collusive media conspiracy to promote the candidacy of someone who has universal name recognition and is already widely seen as the most likely person to become the next president.

Were I conspiratorially minded, I might suggest that the GOP really doesn’t want CNN and NBC to broadcast its presidential debates in 2016. There’s fairly wide agreement that the party did itself no favors with the traveling circus that was the 2012 primary debates. So limiting both the number and the reach of its 2016 tilts in one fell swoop? Well that would be a win-win. Could that be what this is all about? Alas, probably not.

So what are Republicans up to? Part of this is probably working the ref: They likely hope that whoever writes the scripts for these shows will bend over backward to make them – to borrow a phrase – fair and balanced, putting extra emphasis on her shortcomings in order to stay the braying on the right. (And if any conservatives want to argue that content is beside the point because any exposure is good exposure, please explain to me what exactly is the problem with Jane Fonda playing Nancy Reagan.) And probably the RNC is itself trying to capitalize on Hillary Clinton’s celebrity by issuing a press release about her.

 

By: Robert Schlesinger, U. S. News and World Report, August 5, 2013

August 7, 2013 Posted by | Election 2016 | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »