Dare the Republicans to repeal these powerful health insurance reforms!

I just dare John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and the other Republicans to attempt to repeal these excellent reforms.

To be sure, these reforms are measly improvements, when compared to EVERY OTHER industrialized country (and some developing countries!). Congress should have enacted a single payer or a Medicare for all plan.

However, the Republicans' advocacy of the repeal of these reforms will be a delicious opportunity for the Republicans (and Blue Dog Democrats) to reveal themselves as lackeys, behold to the health care industry lobbyists. Just look at the reforms below, posted yesterday by Karen Davis on Huffington Post. The GOP will look heartless in the face of these essential reforms that will end the inhumane denial of health coverage to people that are too sick. Admittedly, too many of the other reforms are not scheduled to kick in until 2014.
(Wonder why the politicians are working for self-interested industry lobbyists, and not Joe and Jane policy-subscriber? See Dave Gilson's great article, "Who Owns Congress" in this month's issue of "Mother Jones" magazine for an article that graphically illustrates how corporate interests underwrite both the Republicans and the Democrats. [Follow the link at Dave Gilson, "Who Owns Congress," for a link to a page that will let you read the article if you provide your email address. Otherwise, support the magazine and buy the October 2010 issue!])
Now, here is the overview of the reforms that the Republicans intend to undo. The Republicans will look so foolish when they try to undo these. I'd like to know how they can rationalize calling preserving health care for children with pre-existing conditions amounts to a British-style socialized medicine!

The reform provisions that go into effect today will bring coverage, financial relief and health security to many, and will also impose important new rules on the insurance industry to prevent future abuses.

As of today, young adults up to age 26 will have the option to enroll in a parent's health plan. Young adults between the ages of 19 and 29 are one of the largest segments of the uninsured; 13.7 million lacked coverage in 2008. Young adults often lose coverage when they age out of their parents' coverage upon graduating from high school or college, or when they become ineligible for public programs like Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program at age 19. In 2014, they will also be able to gain coverage under Medicaid expansion or through state health insurance exchanges with subsidized coverage for people will low or moderate incomes. One million young adults (and their parents) are likely to take advantage of these important changes.

As of today, insurers can no longer place lifetime limits on benefits, and annual limits are severely curtailed. More than 100 million people currently have lifetime limits on the amount that their health insurance will pay, and 18 million have annual limits.

As of today, insurers can no longer retroactively cancel, or rescind, coverage. In what often becomes a nightmare scenario for ill patients and their families, more than 10,000 people each year have their coverage rescinded -- frequently just at the moment they need the coverage the most. Rescissions are no longer allowed.

As of today, there are new options for as many as 400,000 people with preexisting health conditions, who will immediately be able to enroll in new state-based insurance plans, and for the parents of thousands of children with preexisting conditions, who can no longer be denied health insurance for these youngsters.

Medicare beneficiaries who hit the prescription drug coverage gap or "doughnut hole" this year have already begun receiving $250 rebates. And, as of today, Medicare will eliminate cost-sharing for preventive care, and will provide for an annual wellness visit with no copayment. Next year, Medicare will provide a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs to Medicare Part D enrollees who spend enough on prescription drugs to enter the doughnut hole. And additional discounts on brand-name and generic drugs will be phased in to completely close the doughnut hole for all Part D enrollees by 2020.

A new era in American health care begins today, one that will usher in a new found health and economic security for millions who have struggled too long. But even with all the relief that will come starting today, the record losses in coverage experienced by millions of middle-income families point to the need to accelerate implementation of health reform to provide help faster.

GOP's ethnic fallout over Judge Sotomayor confirmation hearings

Let's face it, the confirmation hearings of Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor are a delicious dish of Schadenfraude for liberal opponents of the Republican Party. The Grand Old Party senators will likely feel the whiplash of Hispanic voters in 2010 and 2012.
How and why will this happen? Several Republican senators apparently are finding little in her judicial record to assail her on, are carping endlessly on her "wise Latina" remark.
I find the comment a little arrogant, but ultimately, I believe that she has a point. When one lives in a community beset by prejudice (actually two communities, women and Latinos/as) one will glean some perspectives on life that white males will have much less likely a chance to experience. This experience will add some useful knowledge and insight on the Supreme Court during occasions of questioning and discussion. But I digress, back to the larger political ramifications.

So, the attack (by the GOP senators) goes on... Once is enough for their point about her controversial speech. Can't they give it a rest? In an office or at a party, anyone beating a dead horse as these senators do would experience people getting up and abandoning them. Give it up already.

Their droning attacks cannot help the Grand Old Party too well among sensitive Latinos. Yet some of the senators droning on with nothing but the same "wise Latina" criticisms represent western states in which the Republicans are vulnerable. The western United States used to be solidly Republican. Look at the presidential elections of 1976 and 1980. The Republicans have lost the Pacific Coast states of California, Oregon and Washington. With the growth of Hispanic population in Nevada and Arizona the Republicans' hold there is shaky. The Republicans' stand on immigration, particularly prior to 2006, will not be remembered favorably by Hispanics. And now, the latest assault in the hearings will add further alienation.
Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, up for reelection in 2012 is figuring prominently in the suicidal attacks on Sotomayor. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Sessions of Alabama are also steadfast in their tenacious, gnawing criticism of Sotomayor, but they have much safer seats.
One thing that comes across is the arrogant, patronizing tone of speeches from senators that graduated from state law schools with far less prestigious reputations (Graham from University of South Carolina and Sessions of University of Alabama.) Is there some jealousy or inferiority complex here???? hmmm....

How is all of this being handled on the Spanish-language networks, Telemundo, Univision and Telefutura? Well, they are giving hardly any attention to it; and of course, they are not joining with PS or CNN in the gavel-to-gavel converage of the confirmation hearings. Michel Martin's terrific NPR radio show, "Tell Me More," yesterday had a debate between three journalists at Spanish language media outlets over the Spanish language networks' negligence of coverage, Gerson Borrero, of New York's "El Diario/La Prensa," Lori Montenegro, a correspondent for the Telemundo TV network and Maria Elena Salinas, a news anchor for the Univision network. Click here for the 13 minute 45 second audio segment, "Critics: Hispanic Media Lack Coverage Of Sotomayor."

**Note this, Republicans**
Some GOP strategists around two months ago already voice great trepidations of the repercussion of Republican attacks on Sotomayor. From a late May, 2009 blog posting:

One prominent Hispanic GOP strategist, who asked not to be identified discussing the topic, said the blistering attacks on Sotomayor were “suicidal” for the party, especially as it attempts to counter the broad support for Obama among Hispanics.
“What’s this going to look like on Telemundo? What’s it going to look like on Univision?” asked this strategist, referring to the nation’s two largest Spanish-language networks. “If we want to compete as a national party in the near future, we cannot be seen taking these kind of cheap shots. We simply cannot actively work to alienate the fastest-growing bloc in the electorate.”

John Ullyot, a GOP strategist who worked on judicial nominations as a Capitol Hill staffer, said that “any comments politically on race or gender are fraught with peril for Republicans.”

Quoted July 9 in USA Today, a GOP strategist said that Spanish-language television poses a danger for Republicans:

All of that creates "a big problem" for Republicans who want to oppose Sotomayor, says Lionel Sosa, a marketing executive whose GOP clients have included former president George W. Bush and John McCain.
Sosa cautions Republicans against opposing a wave of ethnic pride for the nominee: "If you are Latino, you are for Sotomayor."
Hispanic voters have determined the winner in Florida elections since 2000 and in Nevada since 2004, says Luis Fraga, director of the University of Washington's Diversity Research Institute. He credits divisive debates over immigration with turning Hispanics — who helped elect Bush — away from the GOP.

Republicans need to remember that some of these states do not include those represented by notable critics this week (e.g., Arizona), but they include competitive with high percentages of Latinos and competitive senate races in 2010 and 2012: Nevada, Colorado, Florida.

Have the Republicans read this article? (I doubt it, based on today's and yesterday's Republican senator statements.)
From Connecticut's "Norwich Bulletin," July 10, 2009, "Sotomayor hearings raise fears of racism among Hispanics in Eastern Connecticut":

The local Hispanic community is expected to pay close attention to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings next week.
Elizabeth Garcia-Gonzalez is executive director of Centro de la Communidad, a nonprofit agency that provides social services for Hispanics in southeastern Connecticut.
She said the local Hispanic community is closely following the Sotomayor nomination, especially because of a certain issue.
“I know a lot of individuals who feel she is being discriminated against because she is Hispanic,” Garcia-Gonzalez said. “They are hoping things go well with Sotomayor.”

. . . .
Sotomayor would be the nation’s first Hispanic justice on the court. The Senate Judiciary Committee’s proceedings, which begin Monday, will be closely followed by the nation’s major Spanish-language television networks, Univision and Telemundo.

Garcia-Gonzalez said if Sotomayor is nominated, it will boost the self-esteem of all Hispanics, including the younger generation, who will see that true opportunities of success exist for them.
. . . .
Melendez-Cooper said Sotomayor serves as a role model to Hispanics.
“It’s a great opportunity for a larger presence of the Hispanic community (in the nation) to have Sotomayor in that position,” he said.

Senate reaches compromise, on the backs of education / Media giving heavy exposure to Republican critics

THE U.S. SENATE HAS APPARENTLY SETTLED ON A COMPROMISE ON PRES. OBAMA'S STIMULUS PACKAGE
Reports early Friday (2/06/09) evening indicated that a Senate compromise was made. The compromise was reached via the support of three Republicans.

NEEDY SCHOOLS TO PAY FOR COMPROMISE
The Republicans, who gave us eight years of the president (G.W. Bush) who claimed to be the education president, insisted on a thick host of cuts.
Prominent among the cuts was education spending. This will hurt financially needy districts profoundly. They can look forward to increases of student class sizes, such as 30 students in a kindergarten class.

The cuts will pit district against district and school against school (given the combination of cuts and the protection of pay for No Child Left Behind "NCLB"); this from Huffington Post:

In a key reduction from the bill that reached the Senate floor earlier in the week, $40 billion would be cut from a "fiscal stabilization fund" for state governments' education costs, though $14 billion to boost the maximum for college Pell Grants by $400 to $5,250 would be preserved, as would aid to local school districts for the No Child Left Behind law and special education.

2010 RACES START NOW
The Democrats need to call attention to the destructive role that Republicans have played in this mess. When cities and states have to slash budgets, due to Republican-triggered cuts, the Democrats need to publicly highlight this. When the recovery is weak, because of modest federal infusions of cash, Democrats need to call attention to the Republican pressures for austere financial contributions to the recovery.

Democrats need to call attention to the guns/butter dichotomy. Every dollar for the military is money withheld from useful social spending or useful injection into the civilian economy.

The Democrats need to start a drumbeat of these talking points NOW. There are many vulnerable Republican senate incumbents, in seats in economically depressed areas, e.g., George Voinovich of Ohio. The Republicans need to go. Spector too. The Republican pair in Maine are lucky that their seats aren't up for reelection in 2010. They (Collins and Snowe of Maine) and the other so-called moderates have shown their true colors on this urgent stimulus package. Moderate Republicans are generally liberal on social issues and conservative on economic issues. That kind of posture is not helpful in this true national emergency.

President Obama has offered an olive branch to the Republicans. They have not responded in kind --not even the moderates. Instead, they have, as he has recently pointed out, pursued the same old thinking that got us into this mess in the first place.

*THANKFULLY, HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI IS COMMITTED TO PROPELLING A STRONG BILL THROUGH CONGRESS, AGAINST THE CALLS FOR BIPARTISANSHIP*
From Glenn Thrush and Patrick O'Connor at Politico, Friday afternoon (2/7/09):

In a statement sure to rile Republicans, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Friday dismissed calls for bipartisanship as “process” arguments extraneous to passing a stimulus bill — and warned Senate Democrats against slashing proposed increases to education spending.
. . . .
“Washington seems consumed in the process argument of bipartisanship, when the rest of the country says they need this bill,” the California Democrat said, seeming to sweep aside the Obama administration initial desire to have broad GOP support for the plan.

“We must have a bill [quickly],” she said, in a clear message to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has spent the past two days wrangling with moderates who want to cut proposed education funding for the states by as much as $50 billion.

“These cuts are very damaging — [the House bill] was put together very carefully. ... The funding goes directly to school districts, they are stimulative because they maintain jobs instead of cutting jobs.”

NETWORKS DEMONSTRATE BIAS IN BOOKING MORE REPUBLICAN APPEARANCES THAN DEMOCRATIC APPEARANCES
The Democrats need to hold press conferences, to call attention to the media bias for Republicans, a bias that has led to a (recent) public appetite for austerity.
See this study at ThinkProgress.org, for factual demonstration of this partisan bias in booking of guests.

REPORT: GOP Lawmakers Outnumber Dem Lawmakers By Almost 2 To 1 In Cable News Stimulus Debate Again»

Last week, ThinkProgress released a report showing that, in the debate over the House economic recovery bill on the five cable news networks, Republican members of Congress outnumbered their Democratic counterparts by a ratio of 2 to 1. The analysis tallied interview segments about the stimulus on CNBC, Fox Business, Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC during a three-day period, finding that the networks had hosted Republican lawmakers 51 times and Democratic lawmakers only 26 times.

The economic recovery package passed the House last week with zero Republican votes, shifting the focus to the Senate. Though the venue has changed, the debate on cable has not improved much.

In a new analysis, ThinkProgress has found that Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews by members of Congress (from 6am on Monday 2/2 through 11pm on Thursday 2/5):



Some observations from our analysis:

* Last week, Fox News came the closest to balance with 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats. But the so-called “fair and balanced” network was not able to maintain such a ratio this week, hosting 24 Republicans and only 11 Democrats.

* The business news networks were particularly egregious this week. CNBC had more than twice as many conservatives, with 14 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Fox Business was even worse, hosting 20 Republicans for just 4 Democrats.

* In the previous study, the supposedly liberal MSNBC favored Republicans 15 to 9. This week, however, MSNBC became the only network to host more Democratic members of Congress than Republicans, with 17 Democrats and 12 Republicans.

Though the imbalance is already stark, the tilt of the coverage would have been even more lopsided if the analysis had been broken down into whether a lawmaker who appeared on TV was a supporter or a critic of the economic recovery plan. Some of the most frequent Democratic guests this week were outspoken critics of the proposed stimulus plans, such as Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Kent Conrad (D-ND).

Fortunately, the imbalance on the networks is not going unnoticed. A House Democratic leadership aide told Politico’s Michael Calderone yesterday that “what happened with cable last week is that Republican House members were the only show in town.” A “very senior” Democratic aide told The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that the leadership is “aware of the problem and are taking steps to fix it.” The aide noted that “there is also an onus on producers to remedy this issue.”

IT expert compelled by fed. court to testify on '04 Ohio election administration

e Pluribus Media Journal reported that today, Monday November 4, Computer IT expert Mike Connell will be forced by a federal judge to testify about what he knew about the construction of computer architecture in the 2004 election in Ohio.

By veteran Ohio politics reporter John Michael Spinelli:

Columbus, Ohio: With only a couple more days until the nation votes, the news from yesterday's federal court hearing in Cleveland that Mike Connell, an IT expert who was working for then-Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell in Ohio on election nights in 2004 and 2006, will come in to testify on what he knows about the computer architecture setup on those election nights and whether Bush wrongfully won Ohio and a second term in the White House and whether such systems still exist, is as nail biting as any final episode of "24" when anti-terrorist maverick agent Jack Bauer saves the day by neutralizing a nuclear bomb from exploding.

In an email message to OhioNewsBureau Saturday, chief plaintiff lawyer Clifford O. Arnebeck, whose 2006 lawsuit alleging voter suppression in 2004 has now morphed into an attempt to prevent the possible corrupt activities that a man of interest like Connell can shed light on from happening again in three days, was in the Carl Stokes Federal Court Building in Cleveland Friday, along with Connell and his trio of defense attorneys. "At the end of the day yesterday at the US District Court, Judge Solomon Oliver denied Michael Connell's motion to quash the subpoena issued for his deposition testimony, and ordered the deposition to take place at noon on Monday November 3, 2008 in Cleveland," Arnebeck wrote.

Arnebeck and others have long known that Connell was a key inside IT contractor for Ken Blackwell in the administration of the 2004 and 2006 elections, at the same time he was managing the IT function for the Bush Presidential campaigns and other Republican partisan campaigns, from 2000 to 2004 to 2006.

Arnebeck and his his cyber security expert Stephen Spoonamore , who is lending his credibility and knowledge to the allegation contained in the King Lincoln case before US District Judge Algernon in Columbus, have identified Connell as a key witness to Karl Rove's various maneuvers affecting elections during this decade.

Connell's defense attorneys, from the powerful Columbus law firm of Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan and Aronoff , have sought to delay their client having to sit and testify until after Tuesday's General Election. Connell, who has worked for the Bush family for decades, with assignments that included working in various positions for Jeb and George W. Bush, switched Republican teams a while back and teamed up with Arizona Sen. John McCain. The underdog Republican has in the remaining weeks of this election exuded a unique air of confidence that he can win Ohio, and maybe other states, despite trailing his opposition in most states. This air of supreme confidence troubles Arnebeck and Spoonamore, who supports McCain and knows Connell from professional acquaintances. In Ohio, depending on what polls are used, the race between the two is either within the margin of error (meaning it's a statistical dead heat) or shows Obama up by as many as 12 percentage points.

Election watchers and researchers who have been tracking the trail of Connell through their own methods of cyber sleuthing for years, believe Connell and his associates may have compromised the presidential election in Ohio in 2004 by inserting a computer, among other tactics, into the Ohio secretary of state's vote information transferal system. Such tampering, they say, could explain how votes were "tuned" to Bush and away from Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic nominee for president that year. Experts, such asSpoonamore, an expert on data security, thought the election results turned odd in a dozen or so Ohio counties late on Election Day.

Gleaned from privileged sources, Arnebeck thinks Connell will "not lie" if he's asked pointed questions on what he knows about the work he and his company did for Blackwell then, and whether any vestiges of that work, such as secret cyber back-doors or other computer architecture work, still exist and whether they are in place to again flip votes from Obama to McCain for this election like some believe happened four years ago.

The reference to the popular TV series "24" may not be so far fetched as it seems. The star of that series is always chasing the bad guys against a ticking clock that usually has some explosive device attacked to it. The explosive device in Ohio, while not a bomb with devastating potential, could be aDoomesday Machine for voting that operates to the benefit of Republicans when the vote is close enough, as it could be in Ohio, so that the cyber thievery of the system can do its work with little to no detection.

"This sends a signal to every member of Karl Rove's team of 'electricians' assigned to fix vote counts in Tuesday's election. When you turn a switch to flip a lot of votes, just think of it as turning the key on a jail house door, behind which you will be spending a lot of years," Arnebeck warned Rove and others who have malicious ideas about subverting the will of voters, as he suspects occurred during previous elections.

OBAMA: palling around with Republicans & foreign policy establishment

Gen. Colin Powell (ret.) is African-American, but race and partisan affiliation are not the only thing that influences his candidate choices. No, it is not incongruous that Powell is a Republican and is supporting Obama. The fact that other Republicans have also endorsed Obama should give pause to the arguments that only attribute Powell's endorsement to shared racial identity.

Oh, right-wing wingnuts,
you've got it wrong with the place of Sen. Barack Obama in his web of connections.
Obama: palling around with Republicans.

Let's look at the Republican support Obama enjoys, aside from Colin Powell:
John B. Anderson, the Illinois Republican congressman that ran for president as an independent in 1980. Former senators that entered the senate as Republicans: Lowell Weicker Jr. (Conn.), Lincoln Chafee (R.I.)
Former Congressmen that entered the House as Republicans: Jim Leach (Iowa), Pete McCloskey (Cal.)
----and Colin Powell, career-long Republican, who referred to the Republican Party yesterday as "my party"

Obama: palling around the the military and foreign policy establishment.

Powell is an African-American, but we don't only see him as an African-American. He is part of the military and foreign policy establishment. As the following people have endorsed Obama, we can say that these military and foreign policy establishment folks pall around with Obama ... they meet with and consult him ... :
Madeline Albright (former Ambassador to the United Nations, former Secretary of State), Zbignew Brezinkski (former National Security Advisor), Wesley Clark, Anthony Lake (former National Security Advisor), Donald McHenry (former Ambassador to the United Nations), Sam Nunn (former Chair of Senate Armed Services Committee), Bill Richardson (former Ambassador to the United Nations); and
Deputy Undersecretaries of Defense, Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force, a Vice Chief of Staff of Air Force, and high-ranking Army generals.

----and Colin Powell, former National Security Advisor, former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, former Secretary of State

NO, PUNDITS, IT IS NOT RACE THAT DROVE POWELL'S ENDORSEMENT. No one charged the above-cited individuals with racial solidarity in their endorsements; we sense an ugly double standard here, in the opposition to Powell's endorsement, by way of asserting racial solidarity as the basis for the endorsement.