Bye bipartisanship

This story is a repost from theweek.com

Bipartisanship died at the Health Care Summit. The president can continue to reach out—that’s good politics at a time when Gallup reports that 54 percent of Americans don’t expect the GOP to make a “sincere” effort to achieve compromise on health reform. But as he reaches out, the president also has to draw clear dividing lines. He did that at the summit. After listening to the other side obfuscate, deceive, and spurn common ground, he said, “I don’t know if we can bridge” the differences. He knew that it was crystal clear where the fault lies.

Speaking of lies, Obama called them out in that unflappable way that carried him through storm and smear to the presidency in the first place.

No, it wasn’t true that Republicans had been excluded from the process; a whole range of their proposals—at least the ones that aren’t cockamamie or counterproductive—are included in the Senate and House bills and in Obama’s plan. Competition among insurance companies across state lines, small business pools to negotiate lower rates—there are literally pages of amendments that the Party of No was for before it was against the bill.

Unctuous Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander threw out the canard, concocted to frighten seniors, that the president’s plan would “cut” Medicare by $500 billion. (This from a party whose sole effort at serious reform—by Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking member on the House Budget Committee—calls for replacing Medicare with vouchers.) Alexander was wrong, and plainly, intentionally so. The bill, as the president and Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded, would not cut Medicare benefits for seniors but reform wasteful and sometimes fraudulent payments to providers.

The president deftly stuffed Alexander on another deception as well —that the reform would raise premiums for families. The Tennessee senator had read his talking points, but not the Congressional Budget Office report. According to CBO, premiums would be lower for 92 percent of Americans, in some cases by as much as 20 percent.

On and on it went. The Republicans trotted out their tired hobbyhorses—Health Savings Accounts for the wealthy and healthy and, of course, tort reform, which CBO says would address one-fifth of 1 percent of total health spending. CBO adds that the Republican version of tort reform is so ingeniously crafted that it would also reduce the pressure to avoid medical errors, resulting in 4,800 additional deaths annually. All told, the GOP’s token and total contribution to the debate is a plan to cover all of 3 million uninsured Americans while leaving the insurance companies to gouge their policyholders until the system collapses in a “death spiral” to the bottom.

To paraphrase Justice Brandeis, the television lights were the best disinfectant for Republican claims. With these televised, face-to-face exchanges, Obama has invented a new form of presidential leadership; he exercises it masterfully. The GOP knew what was happening—you only had to look at their sour faces.

Because they had so little to say that was positive or truthful, the summit was a debate the Republicans were bound to lose. But the decisive moment wasn’t the summit, it’s what happens now. Having won the debate, Democrats must now win the battle—not by conciliation but in a straight-out partisan confrontation. They hold the cards if only they will play them. House Democrats can put aside their injured sense of prerogative and pass the Senate bill—and then both chambers can improve it in the filibuster-free process of reconciliation. (Democrats should pay no attention to the crocodile tears of a GOP that used reconciliation to enact the entire Reagan economic plan and the massive Bush tax cut of 2001.)

Republicans will stop at nothing to stop health reform because they know it would reduce the Obama presidency to an authority-depleted, time-serving interval of insignificant change. Obama would be Carter rather than Reagan-in-Reverse. The president plainly understands this—which is why he has rejected counsels of caution and retreat from some of his own advisors.

Victory in the health fight—and now more than ever, it’s a fight, not a courtship—has to be a beginning, not an end. The president has to be more ambitious, not less. Early in the summit, Nancy Pelosi quoted from the letter a dying Ted Kennedy left behind for Barack Obama. The outcome on health care, Kennedy wrote, was fundamentally a test of “the character of our country.”

That outcome will also define the character of the Obama presidency—and that in turn will determine not merely his and his party’s political prospects, but the possibility, perhaps for generations to come, of a progressive America.

We saw the alternative, too, at the summit, where the character of today’s Republicans was on display. If they won’t join in, then they have to be beaten—beginning with health reform. As someone in the White House told me, when the crunch comes—and it has—“I wouldn’t bet against Obama.”.

Republicans leading America toward a theocracy

This story is a repost from theexaminer.com.

A legislator from Virginia cites a passage from the Bible that says if a woman has a child with some kind of disability, then she must have aborted her first pregnancy based on “dramatic evidence.” Now, if the Bible is true as this lawmaker claims, then Sarah Palin had an abortion the first time she was pregnant because her baby has Down syndrome.

Everyone knows this is true because the words of the Bible are the words of God, and Palin lives by the scriptures, so simple logic dictates that: Palin aborted her first child, and has not attacked this man’s remarks as false because he speaks God’s word, or, she did not have an abortion and doesn’t lash out because the man speaks God’s word.

As absurd as this seems, it is a troubling indicator of politicians quoting scriptures as if they are Constitutional law that applies to everyone. The Virginia delegate (Bob Marshall R, Manassas) who made the comment went on to cite Exodus 13:2 as his authority, and passed this information on to Governor McDonnell as a reason to stop support of Planned Parenthood. Governor McDonnell says he will revoke support for Planned Parenthood in Virginia, but he did not say whether Marshall’s rendering of the facts swayed his decision.

Earlier this month, Governor McDonnell changed the employment discrimination laws in Virginia to exclude gays from employment discrimination protection based on an edict from God that claims gays are an abomination. As an aside, how is it that God creates an abomination, and hates the abomination he created? Just wondering how that works.

Another instance of using the Bible’s archaic laws to discriminate and demonize gays is a beauty pageant contestant spouting her belief that God said to kill homosexuals, it is the law and therefore acceptable.

Miss Beverly Hills, Lauren Ashley, is vying to become Miss California, and like former Miss California, Carrie Prejean, she feels that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible, and worthy of execution, taking things a step further than Ms. Prejean did (in public).

The problem is not just these hate mongering nut jobs citing scripture and verse as if they are the law of the land, the problem is when politicians start governing using scripture as their guide, the country will slide into theocratic rule. Before dismissing this prospect, bear in mind that in 2008, Mike Huckabee sought the Republican Presidential nomination with a recurring motto of “the Ten Commandments should be the Constitution, and that’s all we need.” Mr. Huckabee would make owning a graven image a breech of Constitutional law, although he did not mention whether or not, a wooden cross is a graven image.

The Republicans who embrace this archaic bunch of laws are sick on one hand and contradictory on the other. They pick laws from the Bible’s verses that reinforce their hate, greed and selfishness, but they never mention that adulterers were stoned in the Bible, and not the good kind of stoned either. They also never mention that their repeated lies would make them candidates for horrific punishment, because they are hypocrites.

If individuals choose to follow the Bible, then that is their choice and if it’s good for them, that’s great. However, when they use archaic Bible rules to discriminate and endanger other people, they are guilty of a crime against humanity. When a politician uses his fairy tale beliefs as a guide for governance, and causes discrimination and harm to members of the public, he is a theocrat.

The other problem with a theocracy is that anyone who displeases the leader becomes the next target. George Bush and Dick Cheney were close to running the country as a theocracy, and nearly broke America in the process. It is true with any religious rule, that at some point, the scriptures get distorted to fit one man or one group’s agenda, as is the case with radical Islam.

The Inquisition, Crusades, and witch-hunts were religiously incited campaigns that tortured or killed innocents for disagreeing or not complying with the theocracy. It is happening in Iran and other Islamic countries, and if Republicans and Conservatives have their way, it will happen here.

Are Republicans ready to accept theocratic rule like the Islamic Republic of Iran? Because if they are, they should beware of who runs the theocracy since the GOP doesn’t stand a chance against GOD. Besides, who knows which man-god will run the theocracy, or what scripture or Stone Age law is the basis for his decisions.

The only absolute is that the theocratic leader will be a man, because Christianity and the Bible discriminates against women as much as gays, and if you don’t believe it; why isn’t Sarah Palin attacking the man with the Bible for outing her abortion?

Either she had an abortion, or she did not, and is complying with the Bible’s edict for a woman to subject herself to a man; in this case she is subjecting herself to the man with the Bible who said she had an abortion, according to Exodus 13:2.