Tag Archives: Republicans

Posted on by

GOP Worried About Negative Tone – Seriously?

Image Copyright 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

They're worried about being too negative. Unless it's about the President - Image © 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

It seems the GOP establishment has started worrying that the race has gotten a bit too nasty. They’re worried they’re hurting their brand.

via 2012 election: GOP frets over nasty tenor of presidential race – POLITICO.com.

Whether or not the 2012 primaries are literally the most negative in memory, there’s no question that the race is taking a uniquely painful toll on the Republican field.
While the 2008 primaries were certainly divisive for a time, none of the candidates received the severe, lasting damage that surveys show for the 2012 field. The POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll published Monday placed three Republican candidates — Romney, Gingrich and Ron Paul — in horrendously negative territory among voters, with Santorum well on his way in the same direction.

Republican pollsters Ed Goeas and Brian Nienaber, who conducted the poll with the Democratic firm Lake Research, wrote in an analysis that their party’s candidates were essentially eating themselves alive.

Of course, that’s just within themselves. Questioning the President’s faith, insinuating that if he gets a second term we will see a nuclear detonation in the US, calling him the food stamp president, allowing birthers to continue their relentless pursuit of the futile, denigrating the poor – none of that is negative in their books. As long as they play nice with each other, they really don’t mind.

Hypocrites.

Posted on by

Oklahoma’s Ultrasound Requirement Replacement Is Useless

Image Copyright 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

OK wants to require women listen to a heartbeat that can't be detected - Image Copyright 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

Have you noticed how many ultrasound laws are popping up all over the country? Think they might all be coordinated? Naw, who would do that, right? Sure.

In any case, Oklahoma apparently wants to avoid the controversy that ultrasounds are generating by requiring instead that women listen to the fetal heartbeat using Doppler heart rate monitors. Except – that’s pretty much useless for preventing abortions.

via Oklahoma Proposes Forcing Women to Listen To Heartbeat 

It would be a clever work around, if not for one small problem.  You can’t hear a heartbeat on a doppler at 8 weeks.  In fact, you are lucky if you can hear the heart beat at 10 weeks.  General guidelines on seeking the heartbeat with a doppler is to wait until 13 weeks for sure, in order to be certain that you can find one, and most doctors and midwives don’t even try to beforehand because it’s so unreliable (one of the reasons why most initial prenatal appointments are scheduled for 12 weeks or later in a pregnancy).

Meanwhile, 88 percent of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks.

In other words, Oklahoma legislators are proposing a mandatory procedure that will in almost all cases provide no actual results.  And that’s what happens when lawmakers try to legislate medical issues.

If these guys spent even a fraction of the effort on legislation that creates jobs instead of invading women’s uteri, we’d have the whole unemployment thing licked. Instead, they want into your bedroom, into your private lives.

It amazes me that these are the same guys who rail about big government, and wanting government to get out of our lives. Right up until it involves a woman making choices about her body. Then, they’re all for big government, right up to forcing women to have intravaginal ultrasounds. Yes, some of those requirements are being defeated due to public outcry – but don’t be fooled. The intravaginal requirements are being beat back slowly, but the requirement for an ultrasound remains, and in some cases, a doctor who refuses to do the ultrasound can receive a sentence of 2 to 20 years for a class 3 felony. But we don’t want government making heathcare decisions, right?

If you are a woman, and you value the right to make decisions about your own body without fear of jail time, make your voice heard.

Posted on by

GOP Worried Santorum Will Sink Them

Image Copyright 2012 Leo Soderman Creative Commons Non-Commercial

Is Santorum Sinking the GOP? - Image Copyright 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

Watching the GOP start to tremble about a possible Santorum nomination is entertaining…

via The GOP’s Panic Over Rick Santorum – The Daily Beast.

For more than six months, worried conservative chieftains talked up the need to unite behind a single rightist candidate in order to block the potential victory of the “mushy moderate” from Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. Now, on the eve of crucial primaries in Michigan and Arizona, and with Super Tuesday looming just one week later, some of those same leaders speak privately of the need to unite behind that same, once-dreaded Romney in order to avert an even more dire disaster: the nomination of Rick Santorum.

For decades, the GOP has tried to nudge the country to the right. With the advent of the Tea Party, that nudge became a shove. But like the supertankers they dream of filling with Canadian tar sands oil, once that kind of movement is rolling, it’s really hard to slow it down, much less stop it. Enter Rick Santorum.

If they were really honest about it (I know, a stretch), they would admit that Santorum is simply saying out loud what they all think. But the problem is, what they think and what has a chance of winning an election are two totally different things. And what Santorum has been spewing for the last 6 weeks has been increasingly further from the mainstream. Make no mistake – Republicans want want Santorum says they want. But the more seasoned, savvy pols know that to get it, they have to win elections. And Santorum’s heavy-handed shift to the right – practically dragging the rest of the GOP with them – will alienate moderate, independent voters.

So now, as vehemently as the GOP establishment was against Romney, they are now starting to worry that Santorum will sink them. Of course, they can change tactics right up until the actual nomination. None of the delegates assigned during the primaries are binding – they can change their vote right before the convention vote.  But of course, Santorum would raise a stink that would fracture the Republican Party. But so will a Santorum win, as they see their chances of taking the White House go up in a puff of neo-papal smoke.

Posted on by

Another Town Mitt Won’t Be Popular In

He’s gonna have a hard time selling this one. When a wide swath of the center of the country has been revived due to the auto industry bailouts, trying to justify that they should have been allowed to go under is a tough sell. Just ask the folks in Kokomo, IN.

via Town says it owes its life to the auto bailout – Business – Autos – msnbc.com.

Flash forward. The U.S. auto industry has staged an amazing comeback, and the town’s largest employer, Chrysler, has pledged to invest nearly $1.3 billion into its plants here, added about 1,000 workers and helped boost Kokomo’s fortunes — it was honored in 2011 by the state chamber of commerce as Community of the Year.

But the resurrection of U.S. automakers has done little to resolve a deep political divide over the bailout. Democrats, led by President Barack Obama, call it an undeniable success. The Republican presidential candidates, most notably Mitt Romney, condemn it as government meddling, both unfair and unnecessary, and even some Indiana politicians agree.

To many folks in Kokomo, though, the political debate seems disconnected from this reality: Kokomo survives.

When the President took office in January of 2009, Republicans set in their minds that the number one goal was to oust him. They stood in his way at every opportunity. What they were counting on was him failing. And when 2010 rolled around, it looked like they had achieved their goal.

But then a funny thing happened. Things started looking better. To be honest, they started turning around six months after the President took office. But it was damned deep hole to dig out of. Now, unemployment continues to drop, the markets are higher than before he took office (nearly double), consumer confidence is back, and the auto industry is booming.

All of this in direct contrast to the bleak predictions of the right when he was elected. None of their fears have come true. So, they’ve got to ratchet it up a bit more, raise the fear level.  But with what? Now it’s religion and birth control. And education. All their regular complaints are gone. They can’t even use terrorism, as this President has seem more disruption of terrorist networks than his predecessor who preached about. Think Osama Bin Laden.

It’s gonna be tougher and tougher for Republicans to make a sensible case for their views. If current trends hold up (and there is every indication they will), by November, there will be less people unemployed than there were before the President was elected.

And the people of Kokomo like that just fine.

Posted on by

Mitt Inserts Foot In Mouth – Again

Over the weekend, Romney had a remarkable weekend of opening his mouth and letting stupid stuff come out. Not that this is any surprise. But at this point, he might be giving Joe Biden a run for his money…

On Friday, Romney talked, in Michigan, where he was willing to let the auto industry go belly up, about the fact that he likes cars. Has two of them. And then, he volunteered that his wife owns two Cadillacs. Apparently, it never dawned on the guy that the people he wants voting for him can’t afford one Cadillac.

So, on Sunday, he headed over to a NASCAR event – should be simple, right? Shake a few hands, smile a bunch, get out of town. Except, we’re talking about Romney.

No, when he was asked about NASCAR, he said he didn’t follow it as much as avid fans, but “I have some great friends that are NASCAR team owners”. Don’t we all?

He topped off the gaffe-fest when he walked by a bunch of NASCAR fans wearing plastic ponchos to ward off the rain. Via The Maddow Blog:

In case it seemed as if Romney’s NASCAR visit wasn’t awkward enough, this was pretty remarkable, too: ”The crowd initially booed Mr. Romney, who occasionally struck a discordant note, as when he approached a group of fans wearing plastic ponchos. ‘I like those fancy raincoats you bought,’ he said. ‘Really sprung for the big bucks.’”

Yup. He taunted NASCAR fans because they were wearing inexpensive ponchos. I guess they didn’t have enough corporate sponsorship for him.

You’d have thunk that by now, he would have clued into the whole idea that he’s sounding less like the average guy and more like the rich, self-entitled corporate raider he has always been. Not a very voter friendly persona. But what lies at the heart is simple.

He doesn’t see a difference.

To Romney, everyone is rich. Everyone has four cars. Everyone has investment income. It’s why he says things like “I’m not concerned about the very poor”. He thinks they have a safety net. He doesn’t realize the whole problem is that they’re in the safety net. If you need that safety net, something has already gone wrong.

He thinks corporations are people because he thinks like a corporation. Plain and simple. It’s why he can’t connect with people – he just doesn’t see the difference.

We’ll see more of these gaffes in the upcoming weeks. But if he keeps this up, he may give Santorum a real opening.

Posted on by

The Maddow Blog – Scott Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and contraception

Apparently, for Scott Brown, the only way to win is to pretend the left is the right.

via The Maddow Blog – Scott Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and contraception.

Late last week, incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R) and his main challenger, Elizabeth Warren (D), had competing op-eds on the policy dispute in the Boston Globe. Brown, who has struggled badly to understand the basics of the controversy, continues to be deeply confused.
Most notably, Brown believes he has a trump card to play: his approach is the same as Ted Kennedy’s. The Republican senator’s op-ed said he simply wants an exemption based on “moral and religious convictions.” Brown wrote, “My predecessor, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, believed just as I do.” A new Brown campaign radio ad is pushing the same line.

The problem, of course, is that the talking point is simply not true.

Yup, it’s topsy-turvy world for Brown. He believes that he can somehow convince Massachusetts voters that Ted Kennedy would have sided with him on an issue involving healthcare. It’s ludicrous on its face, but that won’t stop him from trying it. But that’s a typical Republican tactic – say exactly the opposite of the truth, say it with conviction, and don’t back down. Luckily, Massachusetts voters are smarter than that.

I hope.

Posted on by

Santorum Says What Republicans Think

Rick Santorum hit the trifecta this weekend, with three quotes that show where he stands. And the Republicans aren’t real happy with it. Not because they don’t like what he’s saying, but because he’s letting the cat out of the bag.

Interviewed by George Stephanopoulos, Santorum was asked about a quote from last year, where he said that John F. Kennedy’s speech about religion and politics made him “want to throw up”. Here’s the quote in the speech he found so offensive:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him,”

Kennedy was addressing Protestant ministers who thought that Kennedy, the first Catholic president, would use his beliefs over theirs to make decisions for the country.

Did Santorum backpedal or soften his tone? Nope:

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

You see, to Santorum, there is no separation, regardless of that pesky thing, the Constitution. To him, the church should be the ultimate arbiter. Of course, it would be HIS church, not any others. He has already expressed disdain for Protestants and other non-Catholics, going so far as to suggest they have strayed towards Satan. He has questioned the President’s theology. He believes his beliefs are the only correct beliefs. Never mind that this country was founded on the basis of religious freedom and acceptance of all beliefs.

For the second leg of the trifecta, Santorum doubled down on his attack on higher education. The President has made it clear that he wants every citizen to be able to go to college. For this, Santorum has branded him a “snob”. Santorum believes that there are plenty of ways to improve skills without college. Of course, that ignores a simple set of facts. First, that college grads are only suffering 4.2% unemployment, compared to more than 8% on average. Second, 70% of eligible workers in the US do not have so much as a B.A. degree.

All of this is further muddied by the fact that Santorum has multiple degrees – more than the President himself. But the real crux of his opposition to higher education? They “indoctrinate” students.

“I mean, you look at the colleges and universities,” Santorum said. “This is not something that’s new for most Americans, is how liberal our colleges and universities are and how many children in fact are – look, I’ve gone through it. I went through it at Penn State.”

“You talk to most kids who go to college who are conservatives, and you are singled out, you are ridiculed, you are — I can tell you personally. . .I went through a process where I was docked for my conservative views. This is sort of a regular routine. You know the statistic . . . that 62 percent of kids who enter college with some sort of faith commitment leave without it. This is not a neutral setting.”

Stephanopoulos asked whether Santorum’s comments meant that he thought there was “something wrong with encouraging college education.”

“No, not at all, but understand that we have some real problems at our college campuses with political correctness, with an ideology that is forced upon people who, you know, who may not agree with the politically correct left doctrine,” Santorum responded. “And one of the things that I’ve spoken out on and will continue to speak out is to make sure that conservative and more mainstream, common-sense conservative and principles that have made this country great are reflected in our college courses and with college professors. And at many, many, and I would argue most institutions in this country, that simply isn’t the case.’

So, his case is that they “ridiculed” the poor conservative kids, and kids who go to college come out not having the same commitment to faith. See, we’re back to the religion thing again. They don’t believe what he wants them to believe, so the schools must be “indoctrinating” them.  If it were his choice, they would all teach to his beliefs, regardless of the religion they were brought up in. That’s his version of the American way. And his tactic is to somehow say that being more conservative would be more “mainstream”. A neat little trick there – if you don’t think his way, you’re out of the mainstream. It’s a clever choice of words.

The last leg of the trifecta came with his disapproval of the President apologizing for the accidental burning of Korans last week after an attack.

“This is unacceptable,” Santorum said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The idea that a mistake was made — clearly a mistake, which we should not have apologized for — it was a mistake. There was nothing deliberate…
…
“Say it’s unfortunate, say that this is something that should not have been done. … But to apologize for something that was not an intentional act is something that the president of the United States, in my opinion, should not have done,” Santorum said, adding that apologizing “lends credibility that somehow or another that it was more than (an accident).”

In Santorum’s world view, the only reason for an apology is if you did something wrong intentionally. If you make a mistake, however, it’s all good. So, if you accidentally kill a dozen innocent people in an erroneous drone attack, no apology necessary. Blow up an oil rig and spew millions upon millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico, no apology required. As long as you didn’t mean to, no worries, right?

All in one interview.

But here’s the real kicker – Republicans are getting upset with Santorum. Because he might cost them the election? No. Because he’s saying exactly what they think. He’s spilling the beans, opening the closet to expose their skeletons.

They want the church to run things. They believe their brand of morality is the only viable one. God forbid you are anything but Christian.

They pay lip service to Jews, and thump their chests when talking about being a friend to Israel. And that’s all it is – lip service. They like Israel because Israel wants to fight in the Middle East. Israel didn’t like Hussein, and they don’t like Ahmedinejad. They have reason not to. But the war mongers on the right want a war in the Middle East. They don’t our troops home. They want conflict because conflict brings the opportunity for profit – from rising oil prices just on the speculation of war to government contracts for their defense contractor buddies.

They like Israel as long as it is useful. Otherwise, they’re the less significant part of “Judeo-Christian ethics”. And if you’re anything else, you are a second class citizen.

Have you noticed how many times in the last three years the subject of Sharia law has come up? It’s forbidden by the Constitution, and yet, it’s exactly what they want – a Christian version of Sharia law. They don’t want a separation of church and state. They want the state to be dictated to by the church. It’s what made Santorum “want to throw up”.

And what about education? Listen to them all and they want to eliminate the Department of Education, cut funding. But Santorum said it most succinctly – they don’t believe you should go to college. Why? Because education creates people who think. And people who think are a danger to them. People who think question the status quo. And people who think might just be able to change things.

They also need to keep the status quo in terms of the working class. Keeping people uneducated keeps them from being able to raise themselves out of a lower standard of living. The corporate elites need to have a compliant and expendable pool of workers to keep their fat salaries going. Educating people means they might actually want to improve things.

And the last point – the lack of need for apology – is right up their alley as well. They don’t see that they have done anything wrong, as long as they can claim they didn’t intend to do it. Look at the Wall St. debacle for an example. Apologies? Few (very few) and far between. Because they want to claim it was an accident – they didn’t intend for the markets to crash, even though they bet both sides to ensure they made money either way. It was an accident! No apology necessary. When Bush made the decision to go to war in Iraq, it was based on bogus information about WMDs. They didn’t exist. Apology? Nope – they just changed the message to “Hussein needed to go!” – no apology necessary!

What Republicans are worried about isn’t that Santorum is too extreme. They’re worried that he is showing exactly what they stand for.

Posted on by

They’ll Never Learn

It’s been just over a year since the tragic shooting in Tucson that took nine lives and nearly killed Gabrielle Giffords. You’d think, by now, that the tone of rhetoric would have changed, that people would be careful of what they say so as not to put ideas into the heads of more whackjobs like Jared Loughner.

You’d think.

Rep. John Sullivan, (R-OK) made the following statement on Wednesday (via TPM  - see the video there)

Like I said, after this last election, the first order of business is pass a budget. Now, I believe that. I supported the Paul Ryan budget and sent it over to the Senate. Now I live with some Senators, I yell at them all the time, I grabbed one of them the other day and shook him and I’d love to get them to vote for it — boy I’d love that. You know but other than me going over there with a gun and holding it to their head and maybe killing a couple of them, I don’t think they’re going to listen unless they get beat.

Yup. He even used his fingers to simulate a gun and pulling the trigger.

Of course, the apology was issued with the usual “poor choice of words” and “does not condone violence” disclaimers. Really? What exactly does he think would have been the “best” choice of words? People don’t make these kind of “mistakes” and poor choices of words. I caught my daughter dropping the s-bomb a couple of weeks ago. She said it was an accident. As I explained to her, the only way that it was an “accident” is if she is using that word so much in other situations, that she “accidentally” used it in front if me. You don’t accidentally say something you don’t normally say.

And that’s the case here. It wasn’t poor choice of words. He uses these phrases every day. That’s why he “chose poorly”. He got caught saying in public, on camera, what he likely says all the time. And he wouldn’t have apologized if he hadn’t gotten caught.

That’s where the rhetoric is nowadays. And these guys think that if they just issue an apology, that somehow it makes it ok. They take no responsibility for the fact that these kinds of statements fuel the hatred, fuel the violent rhetoric. It’s not what he got caught saying – it’s that he would even think about saying it. He didn’t just say, metaphorically, that he’d have to hold a gun to their heads. He went the extra step to say he might even have to kill them.

This is Oklahoma. Site of the biggest domestic terrorist attack on US soil. You’d think, after the Oklahoma City bombings, after the attacks in Tucson, that this idiot would get the clue that talking about killing someone because they won’t do things your way is just a bad, bad idea. But these guys don’t get it. They don’t. And they don’t want to. They don’t believe they have any responsibility.

Until the next “isolated incident” happens. Until someone else dies because some crackpot decides that the people who disagree with him just need to die. But of course, he doesn’t advocate violence.

He just wants to talk like he does.

Posted on by

The Birth Control Slippery Slope Is Not What You Think It Is

Disclaimer: I’m a male. I don’t pretend to speak for women. I don’t even pretend to understand women most of the time. But I do know it when I see rights being eroded.

The abortion rights fight has been raging for decades. It’s a touchy subject, and one many folks take personally. It has a strong emotional component for both sides. I get it.

But the contraception thing? This hasn’t been a problem since the 50′s. It’s not like there’s hordes of masked thugs forcing women to take birth control pills. And the result of access to birth control is less unwanted children, less mothers and families that can’t afford to feed the kids they already have, less teen moms dropping out of school to become parents before their 18th birthday. We can all agree those are good things, right? The best way to prevent abortions is to prevent the unwanted pregnancy in the first place, right?

The folks on the right like to talk about slippery slopes – the idea that if you give a little here, you start a “downhill slide” into heathenism and debauchery. That’s a big part of the argument against abortion rights. According to them, the next step is legalizing genocide (they already consider them virtually synonymous).

But there’s a whole other slippery slope they’re creating: The erosion of women’s reproductive rights. The first step on that slope is abortion rights. The right has been chipping away at that by trying to redefine when life begins, and in some states, they now consider conception as the starting point. Never mind that they can’t tell you exactly when conception happens. It’s not like a little light flashes over a woman’s uterus that says “Bun In The Oven!”. No, they simply want dominion over a woman’s reproduction from the first possible opportunity. They want those babies born, dammit! Of course, when they are born to unwed mothers who can’t hold a job and go to school at the same time, they don’t want to pay the “welfare queens” to raise the child. Bring ‘em in  - and then you figure it out.

But now, when the President announces the availability of birth control to all women through healthcare, they’re up in arms. Of course, less birth control means more pregnancies – and more chances for abortions. But they don’t want the abortions. So the logical conclusion is – they simply want women to have more babies. Period. The only other possibility is that they want women to have less sex. That’s along the lines of Rick Santorum’s big campaign contributor’s thinking. Foster Freiss – who is putting big money into Santorum’s campaign – quipped last week that in his day, women used an aspirin between the knees as birth control. In other words, the real problem with birth control isn’t access. It’s that women spread their legs too easily.

So, first they don’t want you to decide if you should have a baby. then then want to decide if you should keep yourself from getting pregnant. What could possibly be next?

Not letting you have free pre-natal care.

No, you read that correctly. This week, Santorum (again) made the statement that the provisions in the Affordable Healthcare Act that provide for free pre-natal care for all women were actually an attack on the disabled. Why? Because it includes amniocentesis, and the result of that test often leads to a recommendation of an abortion. So, you’re a woman, you’re denied access to birth control so you get pregnant. Now, Santorum doesn’t want you to get free pre-natal care because at some point, you might be given a test that might tell you there is something wrong and that you might have an abortion because of it. He doesn’t want you to know anything is wrong before the child is born. Period. He even says that one reason not to have the test is that it might result in a miscarriage. Of course, he’s in favor of the legislation that requires women to have an invasive transvaginal ultrasound if they are seeking an abortion.

So let’s recap:

  • They don’t want you to have abortion as an option
  • They don’t want you to use birth control to minimize the chance of an unwanted pregnancy
  • They don’t want you to have free pre-natal care because it might lead to you having an abortion

That, my friends, is a slippery slope. Every one of these things is another step down the path of dictating what a woman can do with her body, and forcing her back into the position of just being around the house, cooking and birthing babies. They never talk about how to stop men from being part of the issue. They never talk about what to do to the boys who get girls pregnant then never fulfill their roles as parent and take on the new responsibility. They never want to talk about how they will pay for the inevitable increase in care costs and how their actions will increase the number of unwed mothers who can’t afford a child. No, it’s all about their control.

Almost farcicly, Darrell Issa held a congressional hearing about the contraception issue on Capitol Hill last week. No women were allowed as witnesses. One was offered, and Issa rejected her. Not one woman. They don’t care what women think. To them, women are incubators and are meant to shut up and have babies. Not one of the men on the panel had a dissenting viewpoint. Yet, the majority of Americans are in favor of employer provided birth control. 98% of Catholic women have or are currently using birth control. But this wasn’t a hearing – this was grandstanding and making a joke of the argument.

What will be next on the slippery slope? Will it be that women who are pregnant will not get maternity leave, and be forced to quit the job because it is better to have the mom at home? Or maybe that all teens will be required to wear chastity belts only to to be removed by their fathers or husbands. If they are the child of a single mom, then maybe an uncle will do.

Absurd? Maybe. But if we allow the rights of women to decide what’s best for their own bodies to continue to be eroded, are they that much of a stretch?

Posted on by

Krauthammer: Willfully Ignorant, Intentionally Deceitful

My friends run the gamut politically, from ultra-conservative to uber-liberal. And for the most part I shrug off some of the stuff I see them post when it’s over the top, on either side.

Tonight, one of my friends posted a link to this column by Charles Krauthammer, with the comment that Krauthammer “nailed it”. The title? The Gospel According to Obama.

I’ll be up front – I’m no fan of Krauthammer. I find that for the most part, he’s dead wrong and just does what he can to promote the conservative ideology. So I was already skeptical before I clicked the link. And sure enough he didn’t disappoint.

What Krauthammer tries to take to task is the President’s speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he spoke about the precepts in the Bible about “to those who much is given, much shall be required”. Of course, cons have immediately tried to use this against the President to say he was politicizing religion. One even walked out during the President’s speech. They want to say that the President was using that statement to talk about politics. And to be sure, there was talk of policy in that speech.

But what is either willfully ignorant, or intentionally deceitful, is ignoring the context of what the President said. He quoted that piece of scripture to indicate what his thought process is when deciding on policy, whether in dealing with Wall St. or dealing with the homeless. He was explaining that his process is to think that the poor and the disadvantaged need help from those that have been more fortunate.

It means maybe that research lab on the cusp of a lifesaving discovery, or the company looking for skilled workers is going to do a little bit better, and we’ll all do better as a consequence. It makes economic sense. But part of that belief comes from my faith in the idea that I am my brother’s keeper and I am my sister’s keeper; that as a country, we rise and fall together. I’m not an island. I’m not alone in my success. I succeed because others succeed with me. And when I decide to stand up for foreign aid, or prevent atrocities in places like Uganda, or take on issues like human trafficking, it’s not just about strengthening alliances, or promoting democratic values, or projecting American leadership around the world, although it does all those things and it will make us safer and more secure. It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.

Those are the parts the Krauthammer and his like ignore, because they’re inconvenient to his narrative.

To answer the responsibility we’re given in Proverbs to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” And for others, it may reflect the Jewish belief that the highest form of charity is to do our part to help others stand on their own.

Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old. They can be found in many denominations and many faiths, among many believers and among many non-believers. And they are values that have always made this country great — when we live up to them; when we don’t just give lip service to them; when we don’t just talk about them one day a year. And they’re the ones that have defined my own faith journey.

Gosh. So political. Somehow, Krauthammer and his ilk expect the President of the United States should not inject religion into his policy, or policy into religion. Yet they believe there is no separation between church and state. It’s a strange little world they live in, where the church is allowed to dictate the policy of the state, but the door doesn’t swing the other way.

But the fact here is that the President was talking about how he thinks, what his relationship to his faith means in his daily decision-making. The “brother’s keeper” responsibility concept is alien to conservatives.  They don’t get it, or don’t want to. Krauthammer certainly doesn’t want to. He morphs this discussion of ideology and decision -making into an argument against the IRS and taxation. Hmmm… why make that jump? Because it’s convenient to ignore what was really said – that we all should be willing to help those less fortunate, and that those more fortunate should be willing to help.

Then, Krauthammer makes a turn into left field to suddenly morph into a discussion on the contraception issue that is currently the hot topic. Of course he did. It’s the flavor of the week. But again, either through ignorance or deceit, he completely misstates the issue. He lumps everything together to try to make a case for his argument, ignoring facts. Like this little passage:

Accordingly, it would be a mockery of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment if, for example, the Catholic Church were required by law to freely provide such “health care services” (in secularist parlance) as contraception, sterilization and pharmacological abortion — to which Catholicism is doctrinally opposed as a grave contravention of its teachings about the sanctity of life.

But that isn’t what is at issue here. The church is not being required to provide any services. None. What is required is that businesses operated by the church for profit, such as a hospital, provide health insurance to the employees that includes coverage for contraception and birth control. Unless the church is insuring itself, it is obtaining such insurance through a third party. And in most cases, the hospital would employ many people not of the same faith. Simple basis – if they cannot discriminate in hiring based on faith, they certainly should not be exempt from rules that every other business must comply with, based on faith.

It does not apply to non-profits. Krauthammer tries to bring in the idea of a soup kitchen. But those employees are working for a non-profit, which is exempt. And employees of the church itself are exempted from this requirement. Krauthammer conveniently ignores these to make his deceitful point.

He points out this criterion:

Criterion 2: Any exempt institution must be one that “primarily employs” and “primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets.” Catholic soup kitchens do not demand religious IDs from either the hungry they feed or the custodians they employ. Catholic charities and hospitals — even Catholic schools — do not turn away Hindu or Jew.

Again, willful ignorance or intentional deceit. Non-profits are one of the specific carve-outs from the rules. Specifically for the reason that they “serve”.

But here is the real deceit: This isn’t new. In fact, the regulations requiring employers to provide contraception coverage have been in place since December 2000.  The Bush administration did nothing to change it. The reason that they are required is that it violates the Civil Rights Act to provide prescription medications, but to deny some medications based on gender. Since the contraception in question is specifically used by women, providing other medications in an insurance plan but not providing contraceptive medications is based on gender, and a violation.

The 2000 ruling by the EEOC, which was never challenged the entire term of the Bush presidency, had no exemptions for religion. None. The new rule actually relaxes the requirements to respond to religious beliefs. The only other difference is that teh new regulation states that the preventive care contraception must come at no cost – as do all other forms of preventive care medication. That’s it.

Another thing Krauthammer conveniently ignores is that this is law at the state level in 28 states, with 8 being even more restrictive. This isn’t new. This is old news, but suddenly is fodder for Krauthammer and his cronies.

Make no mistake – he knows the facts. But they’re far more convenient to ignore, and he has an all too willing readership that will listen to what he says without doing their homework. The faux outrage is simply another political ploy. But so it is with those who are willing to lie and ignore facts to make a political point.

I’m not a religious person. And yet, maybe that’s why I could see the President’s speech wasn’t about taxes, but about lifting up our fellow man when he is down. Krauthammer either is ignorant or a liar if he claims it was something else.