Birth Control, Religion, Government And Individual Rights

The religious freedom of an organization to dominate or control the religious freedom of choice of individuals - which freedom should prevail; The organization's religious freedom or the individual's personal right of religious freedom?

The US Conference of Catholic bishops (USCCB) are incensed at the decision by the Obama administration to guarantee that the women's health care benefit package in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) includes contraceptive care. Beginning in August 2012, all of the services in this benefit package will be available in new insurance plans without any out-of-pocket costs to women.

The rule specifically exempts pervasively religious institutions like houses of worship from offering their employees birth control coverage as part of their health insurance. Even so, in a USCCB video, Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan, the former Archbishop of Milwaukee, angrily invokes religious freedom, protected by the “very first amendment,” in castigating the policy that private insurance must provide reproductive health care to women. Archbishop Dolan calls upon his flock to contact their elected officials and let them know that “religious liberty must be restored.”

Under a cloak of reverence for religious freedom, the bishops say reproductive health care must be denied to women and men of other religious faiths, and even to American Catholics – most of whom disagree with the archbishop.

There are already approximately 335,000 churches and houses of worship that are not required to provide reproductive health care services for their employees because of religious exemption. Now the Bishops claim that their religion also exempts them from providing preventive health care services to the millions of employees -- many of whom are not even Catholic -- at Catholic owned businesses, like hospitals and Universities!

Add to those direct employees of Catholic owned businesses the families of workers who are covered under the employee insurance program, too.

Statistics show that most insurance plans already cover birth control and 28 states require it. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, in announcing the Administration's decision, explained that birth control is the most commonly taken drug in the U.S. by young and middle-aged women -- and that holds true of women across the religious spectrum. Ninety-eight percent of all American women, Catholic and otherwise, report using birth control during their lifetime.

The lobbying against reproductive health care for women by the Catholic bishops has been widely publicized. What hasn't gotten as much attention is that many faith-based groups, including the National Council of Jewish Women weighed in on the other side.

NCJW says that this is an issue of religious liberty -- although there are differing religious views on the use of contraception, it should be up to women to decide on whether and when to use contraception based on their own beliefs and needs. On this most-personal decision, no woman should be forced to abide by the religious views of her bosses at work or those of her insured spouse's employer.

Many people do not remember that the purchase and use of birth control products and literature about birth control options, even by married couples, was against the law in many states until 1965. There are those who, for the last 46 years, have worked to reverse the 1965 Griswold v. Connecticut Supreme Court finding that Americans have a fundamental right of privacy. That right includes making family planning decisions and the right to learn about and use birth control contraceptives. Among those who have worked to reverse Griswold v. Connecticut is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops may be one of the quietest, yet most powerful lobbies on Capitol Hill, with political allies that have enabled them to roll back decades of law and precedent in reproductive rights for women. Among those political allies are the 2012 GOP presidential candidates and Republicans who currently control the U.S. House of Representatives. This group of men, blessed with a strong personal interest in women’s bodies, have quietly influenced all of the major legislation on reproductive health care over the past several years.

As Voters Come Home To Obama, 2012 Begins To Look A Lot Like 2008

PoliticusUSA

A comparison of recent polls in Ohio, Michigan, and Virginia with 2008 polling shows that voters who supported President Obama last time are starting to come back home to him in 2012.

The Quinnipac Poll revealed a five point jump for President Obama over the past month in the state. In December, Romney narrowly led Obama 44%-42%. In the past month the Republican frontrunner (sort of) has gained one point in the state while Obama swung into the lead. The partisan split in the vote is high. Eighty five percent of Republicans support Romney and ninety three percent of Democrats support Obama, but the big shift towards Obama has been with two groups of voters.

While Romney has stayed at a flat 41%, President Obama gained four points and now leads with Independents, 45%-41%. The biggest swing for Obama has come with women. Romney led Obama among women, 45%-43% in December, but this month the president gained seven points, while Romney lost two, and took a 52%-40% lead.

Read the full story @ PoliticusUSA

Texas GOP Official Says Even April 17 Primary Doubtful

From Michael Li's Texas Redistricting Blog:

Former Harris County tax assessor/collector Paul Bettencourt - who serves on the Republican Party of Texas’ redistricting committee - told the San Antonio Express-News that an April 17 primary might not be possible. According to Bettencourt:

“Even at warp drive, it’s (at least) 75 days” to get ready for an election without the complication of redistricting, he said. “Even April 17 is doubtful,” he said about an alternative date offered by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott on Monday.

The full article by Nolan Hicks here .

Keep in mind that the first day of early voting for an April 17 primary election date would be April 2.

After the SA court orders new district maps, county election officials must map election precincts to match those interim district maps. Then, those precinct maps must be precleared by the USDOJ, or the court, before election officials can get started on all the other early voting preparations.

Election officials in the larger counties would have a difficult time pulling together early voting by the last week of March, even if the SA court sets all the maps by late day Friday Feb. 17. That gives counties just 5 weeks to draw and clear precinct maps and then produce the early voting part of a April 17 primary election.

Voter registration cards must be in the mail no later than March 23-26 to be in the hands of voters by the Friday or Saturday before the first day of early voting on Monday April 2.

Voting machines and electronic poll book computers would have to be programmed and all other materials prepared by March 27-28 so they can be delivered to early voting locations.

During that same 5 weeks county election officials must also process vote by mail applications and return mail ballots to voters, both overseas and at home.

That all is a little like trying to put 2o pounds of sugar in a 10 pound bag...

Progress Toward An April 3 Primary?

Updated February 6, 2012 @ 2:50pm

Has Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott attempted a hail Mary pass on redistricting interim maps?

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today announced some parties had reach agreement in the San Antonio District Court redistricting interim map trial, which is a step toward keeping Texas' primary election on track for April 3. But some minority groups are not supporting the map deal, Luis Vera, an attorney for the League of United Latin American Citizens, told The Associated Press.

Today was the deadline a San Antonio federal court gave the state and involved parties to reach a compromise, in order to try to keep the April 3 primary date

Abbott said in a statement released Monday, “The proposed maps minimize changes to the redistricting plan passed by the Legislature and, as the U. S. Supreme Court required, makes changes only where necessary."

“The proposed maps minimize changes to the redistricting plan passed by the Legislature and, as the U. S. Supreme Court required, makes changes only where necessary," Abbott said in a statement released Monday. "The Texas Attorney General’s Office has worked with a wide range of interest groups to incorporate reasonable requests from all parties to the extent possible without compromising the will of the Texas Legislature."

"Even though these proposed interim maps aren’t fully supported by all interest groups, modifications have been incorporated based on requests made by all parties," he said. "Today’s maps should allow the court to finalize the interim redistricting maps in time to have elections in April."

Last Friday, The Hill reported that the Texas interim districts map negotiations in the San Antonio District Court case were on verge of collapse. According to The Hill, “Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (R) had approached the various plaintiffs last week, seeking a compromise. Most plaintiffs assumed that he would offer a plan close to what they wanted, since the courts have indicated they will throw out the maps drawn by the Republicans in the Texas Legislature. Abbott offered much less than they’d hoped for, leaving the compromise highly in doubt.”

When Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott initiated talks last week for a possible compromise on interim districts maps, he invited only the Mexican American Legislative Caucus and one other of the nine groups representing minority groups, or politicians representing minorities groups in the San Antonio District Court case, which angered the groups not invited. According to an AP news story, seven Texas members of Congress of Latino, African and Asian ancestry today wrote a letter to demand their inclusion in any negotiations and warned they would appeal a interim district map deal if they're excluded.

Update February 6, 2012 @ 2:50pm

Texas Democratic Party responds to Attorney General Abbott's statement outlining an agreement reached with some parties regarding the ongoing redistricting legal fight -- We were not party to the talks which produced this agreement, we are not in agreement on the maps and we do not expect that these will be the maps under which our candidates will run in the 2012 election.

TDP spokesperson Rebecca Acuña released the following statement in response to the redistricting maps released by General Abbott:

“We’re greatly disappointed the Attorney General did not deal in good faith with all parties involved.

For the Texas Democratic Party, any maps that do not have the consent of the Mexican American Legislative Caucus, the Legislative Black Caucus, and other plaintiffs are nonstarters.

The Attorney General is clearly terrified that the DC court will find that the state’s maps are discriminatory in both effect and intent. Until there’s a legitimate agreement among the parties, we support the court continuing to do its work.”

Related:

• Republican Party of Texas Doubtful On Unified Primary Anytime In April
• Texas Democratic Party Doubtful On Unified Primary Anytime In April

Afghanistan 2013: America Shifts Course

Matthew Hoh, who in 2009 famously quit his State Department post in Afghanistan to protest U.S. strategy there, spoke on August 11, 2011 as part of the Dallas Peace Center’s dinner lecture series. Hoh didn’t mince words about how he thinks the war in Afghanistan is going --“Afghanistan is a disaster.”

Hoh is a former Marine Corps captain who served six years in Iraq and worked as a civilian for the Department of Defense in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, he is a Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and the Director of the Afghanistan Study Group. “I agree with (U.S.) objectives. The problem is our policy will not achieve those objectives,” Hoh told the Dallas Peace Center audience.

Chris Matthews speaks with The Atlantic's Steve Clemons and Matthew Hoh of the Center for International Policy on msnbc.com.

Last Friday, Matthew Hoh and The Atlantic's Steve Clemons had a discussion with Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball about Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's comments that the US would cease combat operations in Afghanistan in 2013 -- rather than the end of 2014.

Key points made during the discussion:

First, this is a key shift in strategy -- and a positive one.

Second, this remains consistent with the President's announced strategy, also articulated well by Vice President Joe Biden, that the military's job today is not to "beat" the Taliban but rather to shape the choices in the field for the political stakeholders and to be able to preempt any effort to overthrow the government in Kabul.

Third, there is a bit of an 'invisible hand' at work in the message in sending confidence building signals during a fragile early process of trying to negotiate with the Taliban. There are secret negotiations that various sides are attempting to hatch -- and Panetta's comments may be designed to shore up the process. The trip by Pakistan Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar to Kabul yesterday and his comments blessing the peace talks seem likely to also be part of this mutual posturing, confidence building process.

Lastly, for those like GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who think that the US should commit itself, its military manpower, and more deficit spending to a longer stay in Afghanistan, the discussion concluded that continuing military activities in Afghanistan another five or ten years would strategically deflated the United States, fueling the ambitions and agendas of nations like Iran in the region, and China globally.

STOKING FIRE: Millennials Stifled by Evangelical Doctrines

RH Reality Check by Eleanor J. Bader

The results of a five-year study of the Millennial Generation—people born between 1982 and 1993—are in. Thanks to the Barna Group, a 28-year-old, California-based, Christian research firm, we now know that conservative evangelical churches are losing formerly–affiliated “young creatives:” Actors, artists, biologists, designers, mathematicians, medical students, musicians, and writers.

Some leave because they oppose the church’s doctrinal stance. Others are turned off by its hostility to science, and still others reject the limitations placed on permissible sexual activity. The report cites the tension felt by young adults who find it difficult—if not impossible—to remain “sexually pure,” especially since most heterosexuals don’t marry until their mid-to-late twenties. “Young Christians are as sexually active as their non-Christian peers,” Barna concludes. What’s more, the report admits that Millennials see the evangelical church as an exclusive club, open only to those who adhere to every rule. This runs counter to values that rank high on the Millennial playlist—among them, open-mindedness, tolerance, and support for diversity.

These findings, of course, don’t necessarily mean that young evangelicals are becoming progressively engaged, but they do suggest that an opening exists for prochoice, feminist, and pro-LGBTQ activists to touch the hearts and minds of Generation Y. Angela Ferrell-Zabala, director of Spiritual Youth for Reproductive Freedom, a project of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, says that former Evangelicals are hungry for information about alternative faith and lifestyle options.

“Technology has given Millennials access to philosophies and people from all over, and they tend to think in ways that are bigger than where they came from or how they were raised,“ she begins.” At the same time, “young folks are not necessarily throwing in the towel on their faith. They’re working to reconcile the pieces of their lives, asking, ‘Who am I?’ and ‘What is my place in the world?’“

Read the full article @ RH Reality Check

Off-Shoring America's Hi-Tech Jobs

by Mark Karlin, Editor Of Buzzflash At Truthout

A short time ago, BuzzFlash at Truthout ran a commentary on how US global corporations don't give a hoot about increasing jobs in America.

In it, we included a section about how Silicon Valley high-tech companies, particularly Apple, use overseas contractors to manufacture their latest technological consumer products. It has been documented that some of these contractors create such harsh conditions and pay such low wages that workers have been driven to suicide, as The New York Times and other publications have detailed.

In a two-part Times expose, an Apple executive claimed: "We [Apple] don't have an obligation to solve America's problems." That was in response to Apple shipping so many potential US jobs overseas to these slave-wage sweatshops; e.g., "90 percent of the parts of an iPhone are made outside the U.S."

But there's another insidious way that the high-tech industry denies jobs to US citizens. It's called the H-1B visa, which allows America's technological firms - and other specialized employers - to bring in foreign employees, frequently at a lower wage package than might be paid to an individual with the same qualifications who is an American citizen. There are many arguments against the program, primarily the allegation that there is generally no actual shortage of US citizens with high-tech skills for the work done by H-1B visa holders.

President Obama appeared blindsided by a question on a Google Plus interactive town hall the other day from a woman whose husband had been laid off by Texas Instruments:

Jennifer Wedel was the second to question Obama, and the four-minute exchange was among the most memorable of the 50-minute online event.

"My question to you is to why does the government continue to issue and extend H-1B visas when there are tons of Americans just like my husband with no job?" she asked.

Obama offered that industry leaders have told him that there aren't enough of certain kinds of high-tech engineers in America to meet their needs. Jennifer Wedel interrupted him to explain that that answer didn't match what her husband is seeing out in the real world.

"Jennifer, can I ask what kind of engineer your husband is?"

"He's a semiconductor engineer," she told the president, who seemed genuinely surprised.

"If you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there," he told her. "The word we're getting is somebody in that high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away. And the H-1B should be reserved only for those companies who say they cannot find somebody in that particular field."

Of course, the high-tech companies are telling the White House and Congress that they can't find US citizens for the H-1B jobs, but many critics argue that many high-tech companies hire H-1B workers without even offering the positions to Americans. On top of that, after the H-1B workers are sent back to their native nations, there are reports that they are rehired by US companies abroad to start offshore high-tech offices that move more US jobs overseas. In short, the H-1B visa could be seen as an outsourcing training program at the expense of highly skilled US professionals.

It was nice of the president of the United States to offer his personal job placement services to Jennifer Wedel's husband, but it's a bit disturbing that the White House appears to have fallen for the Silicon Valley canard.

When it comes to the H-1B visa, it's the same old story: follow the profits.

Keep Politics Out Of Women’s Health?

RH Reality Check by TrustingWomen

In the extraordinary amount of activity surrounding the Komen’s foundation decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood for mammograms, you have probably heard something along the lines of “keep politics out of women’s health.” Komen was frequently criticized for making a politically-motivated move.

Of course it was a politically-motivated move. My question to us all: is it not also a political move to restore the funding? Is not funding mammograms for poor women inherently a political act?

You see, I believe that the personal is always political. I believe that all of our acts are rooted in our values and deepest held beliefs about good and bad, right and wrong. It’s impossible not to be ‘political.’ What you do as a human being on this earth inevitably makes a claim on what you believe and what you believe is good and right, and what you believe is harmful and wrong. ...

... You see, it’s impossible NOT to have religious or spiritual beliefs (humanism and atheism included) affect decisions, whether you are a toll-booth operator or a politician in office. Perhaps this is why Obama said his Christian faith guided his policy decisions.

Furthermore, statements about keeping religion out of women’s health seems to assume that all religion is antagonistic to women’s health. But what if my values, morals, even my religion is exactly what commands me to support contraception, mammograms, and accessible abortion, particularly for those impoverished and marginalized? Once again, the Left implicitly cedes the ground of ethics, morality, religion and spirituality to conservatives.

I get so frustrated as I routinely see Liberals and Lefties clutch onto the crumbling modern tenets of the secular vs. the religious. ...

... The Left will not achieve it’s goals by making dated and problematic arguments regarding secular and the religious, or by arguing for keeping “politics” out of women’s health. We will not achieve our goals by arguing that we are somehow universally right. We will win by arguing that our policy proposals are most effective at minimizing unnecessary suffering in this world.

Women’s health is inherently political. And dare I say, women’s health is inherently religious.

Read the full article @ RH Reality Check

Attorney General Eric Holder: Justice Department Can’t Do It Alone On Voter Rights

On Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at Tulane Law School. He noted the Justice Department can’t do it alone:

"But the Justice Department can’t do it alone.

For every citizen, protecting the right to vote, ensuring meaningful access, and combating discrimination must be viewed, not only as a legal issue – but as a moral imperative. And every citizen, in every state, must be part of this work.

You have the ability – and the responsibility – to help ensure that our election systems are free from fraud, discrimination, and partisan influence. And, no matter where you live, you can support – and call for – policies aimed at modernizing our voting systems; at making certain that all eligible citizens have access to complete, accurate, and understandable information about where, when, and how they can cast a ballot; and at preventing and punishing fraudulent voting practices. Let me reiterate that last point. Although we know that in-person voter fraud is uncommon, any instance of it is unacceptable – and will not be tolerated by this Justice Department.

As someone who began his career investigating and prosecuting voting-fraud cases, for me, this is a personal priority. But let me be very clear: new state rules requiring photo identification to cast a vote too often appear to make a mockery of the promise of real participation in our electoral system. We will be ever vigilant if these laws disproportionately negatively impact the young, people of color, and seniors because that is not acceptable, not in keeping with who we say we are as a nation. Where this Department of Justice finds these rules to be violative of the federal law we will, as we have, act aggressively and oppose such laws."

Prepared text of Attorney General Eric Holder's Speech
Tulane University Law School, New Orleans ~ Friday, February 3, 2012

Republicans Unhappy With Good Employment News

This week, the nation got some very encouraging news about our economy. For the 23rd consecutive month, the number of new American jobs has continued to grow. January saw an additional 257,000 private-sector jobs, bringing us to nearly 3.7 million cumulative private-sector jobs under this administration.

This is positive news, and it's a sign that the job-creation policies that President Obama and Democrats in Congress have fought for and implemented — despite near-universal Republican obstruction — are working.

When the Republican's won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections, they decided that a stalled American economy would be just the thing to ensure Pres. Obama's re-election defeat in 2012.

It is not surprising then that the Republican reaction to the better-than-expected job news Friday and the fact that unemployment had dropped for the 5th month in a row was hardly an occasion for celebration. Some of the GOP reaction:

Romney's Housing Plan: You're On Your Own

As Mitt Romney campaigns in Nevada, a state hit hard by the housing crisis, he has yet to offer a single proposal to lend a hand to America’s struggling homeowners, make it easier for them to refinance their homes, or help them avoid foreclosure. Or, as Rep. Jan Schakowsky put it in a call slamming Romney's housing policies (or lack thereof) today: "He hasn’t offered any ideas to help these families recover their piece of the American dream and the dignity that comes with having a home to raise a family in."

Instead, he believes the foreclosure process should just "run its course and hit the bottom." In other words, Romney would let homeowners lose their homes and let the banks make a quick buck from the wreckage of American middle-class families. And he had the gall to tell underwater Florida homeowners that the banks are "feeling the same thing" they are.

If you’re a homeowner in this country trying to make ends meet, Romney has four simple words for you: You’re on your own.

Banks, on the other hand…

Planned Parenthood Saved Me: Women Tell Their Stories

Social media and tech guru Deanna Zandt created a tumblr this week at which women are telling their stories about how Planned Parenthood saved their lives through early cancer detection and other means.

This is but one of many stories that are being told on the site:

When I was 21, just out of college, I had a wonderful job that, unfortunately, didn’t provide me with health insurance. I had never before considered Planned Parenthood for gynecological services because I had always been insured under my parents. Now, I had no other options for routine care. I made peanuts, and couldn’t afford a doctor’s visit.

During my visit to the PP in Richmond Va., I was shocked when the nurse practitioner discovered a breast lump. She told me it was probably harmless, but that I would need to follow up with a doctor. I realized the long-term implications of this. So, I got a new job, with health insurance, got a doctor, got a sonogram, and got surgery. I would never have discovered what was hiding just beneath the surface of my skin if I hadn’t been able to access inexpensive health care services provided by Planned Parenthood.

I’m incredibly lucky that I’m 100% healthy. I know that many many other men and women are out there right now, with no access to the nurses, doctors and tests that could catch this cancer early.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t care about how much money you make, where you grew up, how much education you had, or what you look like. They will treat you the same as everyone else.

I will always be grateful for the services they provide, and will show my support with my donations.

Go here to read the rest and, if you have a story, enter your own.

Indiana Election Chief Found Guilty Of Voter Fraud

Indiana’s Republican Secretary of State Charlie White could lose his freedom after jurors convicted him of multiple voter fraud-related charges on Saturday, leaving in flux the fate of one of the state’s most powerful positions. According AP and Politico, a Hamilton County jury found White, Indiana's top elections official, guilty of six of seven felony charges, including false voter registration, voting in another precinct, submitting a false ballot, theft and two counts of perjury.

Indiana was the first state to implement a strict photo ID requirement at the polls, where only narrow forms of government-issued photographic identification are acceptable to vote. The law is narrowly focused on in-person voting voter impersonation fraud. Texas passed nearly identical photo ID legislation (Senate Bill 14) in 2011.

Jobsanger: Komen - It's A Matter Of Trust Now

The Democratic Blog News joins with Jobsanger blog in expressing our disappointment in the Komen Foundation. While we are happy the Komen Foundation eventually made the right the decision to continue its funding grant to Planned Parenthood, our trust in Komen's leadership has been shaken.

From Jobsanger blog:

Yesterday I joined many other bloggers, individuals, and organizations in condemning the Komen Foundation for their putting right-wing ideology over the early detection of breast cancer among poor women -- a mean-spirited move that could have cost the lives of some women. They did this by cutting off funds for the breast cancer screening program of Planned Parenthood.

Republican Party of Texas Doubtful On Unified April Primary Election

Echoing an advisory from Texas Democratic Party chair earlier this week, the Republican Party of Texas chair has today issued an advisory to party members cautioning that it may not be possible to have an unified April 3 - or even April 17 - primary. The advisory said in part:

"The schedule put forth by the court today does not lend itself to an April 3rd unified primary date," the release said. "While it is still theoretically possible to have an April 17th primary date (if the court issues a very quick decision after the February 15th hearing and immediately drew new maps), in all likelihood, this new schedule means that a new single unified primary date could not be held until at least April 24th."

Texas county election officials have already informed the San Antonio court that they are unable to accommodate an April primary after April 17 because they must begin programming and testing voting equipment for municipal elections. Early voting for municipal elections is scheduled to begin on April 30.

While it is still theoretically possible (barely) to have a unified primary on April 17, if the San Antonio court issues new interim districts maps by about Feb 17th and a few other things quickly line up, all parties have all but lost hope in that outcome.

The Coming Bitter And Divisive Super-PAC Driven Anti-Obama Media Tactics

The Democratic Strategist

The Republican primary campaign has provided a foretaste of the bitter and divisive super-PAC driven media tactics that will be used against Obama in the fall. The fundamental and inescapable fact is that Democrats will be on the receiving end of a propaganda campaign of a scope and ferocity unparalleled in American history. Democrats must begin planning now how they will respond.

The attack will be three pronged:

First, there will be a "high road" attack directly sponsored by the Republican presidential candidate - now almost certainly Romney - and the RNC. It will be based on sanctimoniously accusing Obama of having "failed" -- that he has not fulfilled his campaign promises and that his policies have proved ineffective.

Second, is a feverish invocation of the culture war narrative -- one that will far excel Sarah Palin's sneering and divisive "we're the real, the good America; they are the degenerate coastal elites" framework that she used in the 2008 campaign. The ads - which will come from Super-PAC's more than official sources -- will be ugly and distasteful: they will portray Obama as deeply "un-American" - foreign and alien to the heartland values and daily life of the "real" America. Romney and the Republicans have already made this the centerpiece of their "hardball" attack.

Third, is a flagrantly dishonest and utterly propagandistic "low road" attack - one that will be conducted both above and below the radar. The below the radar attack will be the most important and destructive change in 2012 will be in the vastly expanded online networking dissemination of anti-Obama propaganda person to person through social media, e-mail lists, discussion boards, and comments by trolls across the spectrum of online media publications, in addition to traditional robo calling and snail mail circulars.

In 2008 the low road attack on Obama was conducted largely outside the official candidate and Republican party media or the major PAC'-s (one clumsy ad by the McCain campaign that attempted to make a "dog-whistle" suggestion that Obama was the anti-Christ was a notable exception). Most of the 2008 low road attacks circulated under the radar - through distribution to informal e-mail lists and comment threads, through micro-targeted direct mail, through robo-calls and through phone banks run by shadowy outside firms. Within these closed communication channels the claims were widely circulated that Obama was a secret Muslim, a radical/communist, a sympathizer with domestic terrorist bombers, and that he was behind a range of "Birtherist" and other conspiracies.

It may seem premature to predict an attack of this extraordinarily grotesque character but there are two reasons why a massive "low-road" campaign of this kind is quite literally inevitable.

Continue reading the full article @ The Democratic Strategist

Why Millions of American Voters Have No Government Issued Photo ID

You probably heard about 96-year-old Dorothy Cooper who couldn't get a free voter photo ID card at a Tennessee Driver Service Center in October. Tennessee has a voter photo ID law nearly identical to Texas' new ID law. Cooper never had a driver's license so she had to get a "free" voter photo ID card to vote in future elections. Even though she had a birth certificate and other ID the Driver Service Center wouldn't issue an ID card because she didn't have her marriage certificate.

Perhaps you've also heard about a 93-year-old Tennessee woman, Thelma Mitchell, who cleaned the state Capitol for 30 years, including the governor’s office and who won’t be able to vote for the first time in decades because she also couldn't get a "free" voter photo ID card at a Tennessee Driver Service Center. Ms. Mitchell was even accused of being an undocumented immigrant because she couldn’t produce a birth certificate:

Mitchell, who was delivered by a midwife in Alabama in 1918, has never had a birth certificate. But when she told that to a drivers’ license clerk, he suggested she might be an illegal immigrant.

Listen to the Story from NPR (5:54) - NPR digital correspondent Corey Dade looks into why people don't have and may not be able obtain government-issued voter photo ID.

Maybe you've heard about a 84-year-old Brokaw, Wisconsin woman, Ruthelle Frank, who won’t be able to vote for the first time in decades because she also couldn't get a "free" voter photo ID card at a Wisconsin Department of Motor Vehicles.

Born after a difficult birth at her home in 1927, Frank never received an official birth certificate. Without her birth certificate, she can’t secure the state ID card that the new voter photo law requires. The state Register of Deeds in Madison has a record of her birth, but the attending physician at Frank’s birth misspelled her maiden name, so the name on her state recorded birth record does not match the name given on Frank's other identity documents.

The Tennessee and Wisconsin Departments of Motor Vehicles were following requirements of the federal Real ID Act of 2005, which is mandated to take effect in all 50 states by January 2013. After January 2013 even young women across the U.S., who already have a driver's license, may face the same ID road block as 96 year old Dorothy Cooper.

After the commercial airliner attacks of September 11, 2001 the federal government implemented a "war on terror" photo driver's license "Real ID" law, with regulatory oversight given to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The Federal Real ID Act mandates that all fifty states must follow specific security, authentication, and issuance regulations, administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in issuing driver's license, personal identification cards or election identification cards.

Applicants for first time driver's licenses, personal identification cards, or election identification certificates will need to prove five items of fact to their state driver's license office: full legal name, birth date, citizenship or immigration status, social security number, and proof of permanent residence address.

Dorothy Cooper, Ruthelle Frank, and Thelma Mitchell typify what many seniors are experiencing. They were born at a time when there was not a lot of attention paid to these sort of identity documentation details, particularly for African-Americans. Many of them never had birth certificates to begin with, and if they did, they were incorrectly - their names were incorrectly put onto these documents. And if that's the case, then you're not going to get an ID - free or otherwise. They will not accept no birth certificate or discrepancies between your birth certificate and other forms of ID that you may have, like a Social Security card.

Texas Democratic Party Doubtful On Unified April Primary Election

Today, Boyd Richie, Chairman of the Texas Democratic Party, sent out an email saying,

"Yesterday a federal DC court heard closing arguments in the Texas redistricting pre-clearance case. So far, there have been two panels of federal judges and a hearing before the United States Supreme Court on Texas redistricting. Every court that has examined the redistricting maps enacted by the legislature has found the maps to be discriminatory in some way.

As you’ll recall, a previous court order stated that we would have a second candidate filing period which would conclude on February 1st. Because there are still no maps that date has been postponed by a court order issued over the weekend and the second filing period will now take place on a date to be determined. Once interim maps are released, we will re-open the filing period for all candidates.

At last week’s redistricting trial in San Antonio, the court gave all parties to this lawsuit a deadline of February 6 to agree on interim maps in order to make an April 3 [unified] primary possible. If there is not an agreement on maps prior to February 6th, the April 3rd [unified] Primary date will no longer be possible."

Also today, The D.C. District Court three judge panel entered a order in the preclearance case telling parties that they should not expect a ruling for at least 30 days:

The Court directs the parties to comply fully with the page limits and briefing schedule set in this matter so that it can be timely resolved and also notifies the parties that this Court does not anticipate issuing any order within the next 30 days.

A number of participants in the case had been expecting the court to rule by February 15 and some had felt that a ruling might even be possible next week.

This afternoon, in light of today's D.C. Court advisory telling the state and plaintiffs in the preclearance case that they should not expect a ruling for at least 30 days, the Texas Democratic Party (TDP) filed an advisory with the San Antonio District Court, that has jurisdiction over interim district maps and the primary election schedule, saying it no long believed a unified primary was still possible on any date in April, absent a near term settlement between the state and plaintiffs in the interim redistricting case before the San Antonio District Court.

TDP Feb 1 Advisory to SA Court on April 3 Primary:

Texas Awash In Corporate ALEC Influence

From Burnt Orange Report, Progress Texas and Democratic Blog News

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a corporate clearinghouse for the promotion of "model bills" that pad bottom lines of corporations at the public's expense. Over the last few months, Progress Texas has looked at ALEC and their influence on the Texas Legislature.

ALEC has operated in relative secrecy since 1973, avoiding scrutiny from the media and watchdog groups as it has sought to impose a coordinated corporate agenda on all fifty states. ALEC’s scheme is to game the lawmaking process with “model legislation” penned by corporation insiders and billionaire conservatives, which is then passed to Republican state legislators to submit as their own bills in state legislatures in all 50 states. ALEC's "model legislation seeks to protect polluters, privatize public education, break unions and give advantage to Republican candidates through restrictive voter photo ID requirements and other legislation crafted to restrict access to the voting booth.

Last week, Progress Texas' ongoing research culminated in the first of a series of reports detailing the influence of ALEC on Texas laws and lawmakers.

In Texas, ALEC is serious business. State lawmakers raked in $16.2 million from ALEC member corporations over the past decade, companies like Walmart, Pfizer, ExxonMobil, and Koch Industries, according to a new report by Progress Texas. Texas Governor Rick Perry ranks as the single largest recipient of ALEC donations in the nation, banking more than $2 million from ALEC corporations between 2004 and 2011. Other top state GOP recipients of ALEC funds over the past decade include state Representative Tom Craddick ($878,110), state Senator Troy Fraser ($314,583), and state Representative Phil King ($164,435).

Some of the most controversial pieces of legislation that surfaced during the 82nd Texas Legislature last year appear to have followed ALEC's model legislation drafted in tandem by these corporate-political task forces.

The report explains ALEC’s corporate agenda, outlines the money trail from ALEC corporate members to Texas lawmakers, and highlights how legislators take ALEC’s corporate-approved “model” bills and implements them in Texas. From 2001 to 2011, Texas lawmakers have received over $16.2 million from ALEC corporations, which is the second highest total among states. The report also describes the cozy relationship between ALEC and the extreme right-wing group the Texas Public Policy Foundation, who regularly partners with ALEC to promote its corporate "model" bills here in Texas.

The Texas Legislature should be a laboratory for democracy, not a corporate clearinghouse for padding bottom lines at the public’s expense. ALEC Exposed in Texas shines light on the corporate lobbyists that craft cookie-cutter laws behind closed doors to put the profits of global corporations over creating better lives for Texans.

You can download the Progress Texas report PDF here or view it on Scribd, where you can read it in full.

Related:

• DBN: ALEC Exposed - And It's Connection To Texas Laws

Romney Declares To Save Medicare By Privatizing It As A Voucher Progam

Mitt Romney told a group of seniors on Monday night that “we will never go after Medicare or Social Security. We will protect those programs.” Barely a month ago, Romney became a strong backer of the Paul Ryan budget which would essentially end Medicare by privatizing it into a corporate insurance company voucher program.

Mitt Romney is trying to “change his tune,” DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said on Tuesday. “We had always assumed he’d be here saying anything to voters in the Sunshine State to get elected.”

Tuesday, Democrats highlighted policies Romney has supported in order to argue that his promise to protect the two entitlement programs is “patently dishonest.” In addition to his support for Paul Ryan, his own plan creates a voucher Medicare system, which in their phrase leaves traditional Medicare to “wither on the vine.” And beyond Medicare, Romney’s support for a Cut, Cap, and Balance approach to the budget would result in drastic cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

Romney has been careful in his campaign comments to leave the door open for the Ryan plan, or a similar reform effort, by hinting that in order to “protect” Medicare it might be necessary to reform it.

“So if I’m president, I will protect Medicare and Social Security for those that are currently retired or near retirement,” Romney assured the seniors he spoke to, adding, “and I’ll make sure we keep those programs solvent for the next generations coming along.”

Romney and Ryan propose to privatize Medicare by converting it into a corporate insurance voucher program for everyone younger than 5o years of age.

How committed to ending Medicare is the Republican Party? Committed enough to resurrect in 2012 Republican Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare voucher plan of 2011, the plan that enraged seniors and helped Democrats win a special election in the House.

DCCC Video - Broken Promises
Constituents Erupt Over House Republicans Voting to End Medicare

The Republican Party endorsed Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) sharply conservative 2011 budget bill when all but four Republicans in the U.S. House voted for and passed the bill before the 2011 Easter recess.

Breaking a promise Republicans made during the 2010 mid-term election to "protect Social Security and Medicare" Ryan's budget bill deeply cuts Medicare funding and replaces with a private insurance premium voucher program.

Ryan's Republican budget eliminates Medicare, as it exists today, and guts Medicaid as well as the rest of the government. The budget also gives additional huge tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires plus further big corporate taxpayer handouts to pharma, insurance and petrochemical industries. The Republican budget explodes deficit spend in the near term and doesn't actually balance revenues and spending until the year 2040.

Collin County's Republican Congressional representatives Sam Johnson, Tx-3rd and Ralph Hall, Tx-4th voted for Ryan's bill.

BOR: Obama & Romney Speeches Set Stage For Battle Over The Soul Of American Capitalism

Burnt Orange Report:

Governor Romney is finally sealing the deal, even if by eliminating the opponents from a less-than-stellar field, and this looks like the two-man race that most experts predicted 12 months ago. If tomorrow's Florida primary goes as advertised, Romney wins by at least double-digits, and the run for Tampa becomes a mere formality.

More importantly, within the past week both President Obama and Governor Romney have begun to cement their core economic messages. President Obama's message will stress Fairness and Capitalism with Rules. Romney's message is to call Obama a socialist, and demand unrestrained Capitalism. If both campaigns stick to these messages, we can look to four more years of Obama, because Obama's message is backed by solid evidence, and Romney's message is not.

On Tuesday, President Obama's State of the Union Address presented a clear vision of the future of American Capitalism and the role of Government in Capitalism.

President Obama:

"To reduce barriers to growth and investment, I've ordered a review of government regulations. When we find rules that put an unnecessary burden on businesses, we will fix them. But I will not hesitate to create or enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people. That's what we've done in this country for more than a century. It's why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, and our air is safe to breathe. It's why we have speed limits and child labor laws. It's why last year, we put in place consumer protections against hidden fees and penalties by credit card companies and new rules to prevent another financial crisis. And it's why we passed reform that finally prevents the health insurance industry from exploiting patients."

Thursday night's GOP Presidential debate, the 19th in this election cycle's non-stop Debate-o-Rama since this Presidential election season began, saw Mitt Romney find his groove. In taking the fight to Newt Gingrich, his resumed his front runner status. He also restated his major economic theme:

Mitt Romney's closing debate answer:

"This is a time where we're going to decide whether America will remain the great hope of the 21st century, whether this will be an American century, or, instead, whether we'll continue to go down a path to become more and more like Europe, a social welfare state. That's where we're headed. Our economy is becoming weaker. The foundation of our future economy is being eroded. Government has become too large. We're headed in a very dangerous direction.

I believe to get America back on track, we're going to have to have dramatic, fundamental, extraordinary change in Washington to be able to allow our private sector to once again reemerge competitively, to scale back the size of government and to maintain our strength abroad in our military capacities."

These two economic themes, along with the release of Romney's taxes, have presented a clearer view of what Election 2012 will have in store - This election will be about defining the future of American Capitalism.

On the right, Romney is asserting that Obama's policies will amount to the American adoption of European Socialism. On the Left, Obama is asserting that Romney is seeking to return America to the failed policies of unregulated Capitalism that brought us the Great Recession and the Great Depression.

If Obama, however, makes this fight into a question of what kind of Capitalism we want - a heartless, soulless, brainless Capitalism, or a thoughtful, studied, intelligent Capitalism, then he wins because the same Pew poll found an increasing ability of Americans to see the flaws of Capitalism, even while still preferring it to Socialism.

President Obama can, and must, win this argument. And he will because Romney's message is factually challenged about President Obama's policies, and is historically inaccurate by failing to recognize the weaknesses of unregulated Capitalism, or the need for Capitalism with Rules.

If Romney makes this into a fight of "Capitalism versus Socialism" he wins as Americans, according to recent polling from the Pew Research Center, highly favor Capitalism, with independents having a net +20% favorable view of Capitalism.

Read the full article @ Burnt Orange Report

Why are Republicans in general and Romney in particular always calling President Obama a socialist -- because everybody hates socialists, even liberals, even Occupy Wall Streeters.

The socialist name calling, echoed without challenge by the main stream press, seems to be working, too. Americans perceive Barack Obama as furthest away from their own political viewpoint, according to a just released Gallup poll.

It is no accident that Republicans picked the "socialist" moniker to pin to Pres. Obama's coat tails. Socialism is a negative for most Americans with six-in-ten (60%) saying they have a negative reaction to the word.

Socialism is the most politically polarizing of the most common political monikers – the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives.

These are among the findings of the national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Dec. 7-11, 2011.

Related:

• Words That Don't Work
• I'm So Scared Of This Anti-Wall Effort
• The Billionaires' Tea Party
• Elizabeth Warren explains the need to hold financial institutions accountable
• The GOP Is Advocating A Tax Increase On The Middle Class
• Elizabeth Warren refutes GOP meme that policy where everyone pays their fair share of taxes amounts to “class warfare” against the wealthy

GOP Voters Increasingly Dissatisfied With Their Presidential Choices

At this point in the presidential nomination process, voters usually start getting comfortable with at least some of the candidates who have been campaigning for many months. Republican voters have gotten to know their candidates and attending agendas pretty well by now.

And yet, as the Pew Research Center found, rank-and-file Republicans are finding themselves less satisfied with their presidential choices, not more.

As the Pew report, released today, explained, "In fact, more Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters say the GOP field is only fair or poor (52%) than did so in early January (44%)."

In other words, this field of candidates isn't just unappealing to the party's own voters; it's increasingly unappealing.

As Paul Begala recently observed, "When I look at the economy, I think Obama can't win, but when I look at the Republicans, I think he can't lose. The economy is starting to get better; the Republicans aren't."

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press:

Amid a bruising primary campaign, Republicans remain unimpressed with their party’s presidential field. In fact, more Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters say the GOP field is only fair or poor (52%) than did so in early January (44%).

By comparison, just 46% of Republican voters have positive opinions of the GOP field, according to the latest survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 26-29 among 1,006 adults, including 341 Republican and Republican-leaning registered voters. In early January, shortly before the New Hampshire primary, 51% gave the field excellent or good ratings while 44% rated the candidates collectively as only fair or poor.

That survey showed that GOP voters’ ratings of the field are far less positive than were opinions of the Republican field in 2008. At about this point four years ago, 68% of Republican and GOP-leaning voters rated the field as excellent or good. (See “GOP Voters Still Unenthused about Presidential Field,” Jan. 9, 2012.)

Who Understands Problems of Average Americans?

Separately, the survey, in partnership with The Washington Post, finds that far more voters say Barack Obama understand the problems of average Americans than say that about either Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. More than half of all registered voters (55%) say Obama understands the problems of average Americans very or fairly well. About four-in-ten (41%) say he understands people’s problems not too well or not at all well.

Only about four-in-ten voters (39%) give Romney high marks for understanding the problems of average Americans; about the same percentage (36%) says Gingrich does very or fairly well in understanding people’s problems.

About half of independent voters (53%) rate Obama positively in understanding the problems of average Americans; only 38% and 37% of independents, respectively, give Romney and Gingrich positive ratings. Democratic voters overwhelmingly say that Obama understands the problems of average people (84%). Smaller majorities of GOP voters give Romney (61%) and Gingrich (60%) positive ratings.

Full story @ Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

No Joy On A Quick Redistricting Agreement Between The State And Plaintiffs

The Austin Chronicle / 1:17pm, Mon. Jan. 30:

Monday, February 6, 2012 -- That's the deadline set last Friday by the San Antonio District Court redistricting panel for all parties to agree on interim House, Senate and Congressional maps, or they'll miss the deadline for the April 3 unified primary.

There were rumors floating around all weekend that there could be a deal struck as early as today on interim maps, but with all parties traveling to D.C. for closing arguments in the D.C. District Court preclearance hearing on Tuesday, Jan. 31, that seems unlikely.

... The D.C. District Court is expected to rule this week on whether the legislature's maps violate the preclearance terms of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

... There are undoubtedly voices in the negotiating room suggesting that the plaintiffs would be in a much stronger negotiating position – and that the state would have little legal wiggle room – if they just wait a couple more days.

... The Mexican American Legislative Caucus told the Chronicle this morning that a deal is not imminent, even though they are all working towards some kind of agreement.

... LULAC [League of United Latin American Citizens] attorney Luis Roberto Vera, Jr. confirmed to the Chronicle that his clients (who are still pushing for coalition districts) are still pushing to wait for the D.C. ruling, which was the position all plaintiffs stated to the San Antonio District Court panel before this weekend.

"As to negotiations," Vera wrote in an email to the Chronicle this afternoon, "they have totally broken down as of now. I am sure they will resume but I doubt an agreement if at all by this Monday so I don't expect an April 3rd election." (emphasis added)

Read the full story @ The Austin Chronicle

Even if the parties miraculously agree to a set of maps this week and the San Antonio District Court the accepts those maps on or before February 6 - the unified election date will likely push out from April 3 to at least April 17.

A representative for Texas county election offices told the San Antonio court last Friday that the larger counties require a 10 weeks lead time to organize an election from whatever date the court sets as the new candidate filing deadline, after new district maps are drawn. The first day of early voting for a April 3 election would be March 19. It may a logistical impossibility for county election officials to draw election precinct maps, mail voter registration cards, prepare ballots, hire election Judges, Alternate Judges and Clerks, and program voting machines by March 19, if they don't have Senate, House, and Congressional maps until some time after Feb. 6.

The Justice Department also told the San Antonio District court in a filing on Friday that the foreshortened February 6 - April 3 primary schedule proposed by the Texas Republican Party wouldn’t allow the 45 days specified in both federal (MOVE Act) and Texas law for military and overseas voters to participate in the election process.

Increasingly, it seems the only conceivable option remaining to hold an election on April 3 is to split the election into two parts, with part one held on April 3rd. The primary election held on April 3rd would allow voters to cast ballots for presidential candidates. A second primary election for all other statewide and local offices would then be held at a later date - maybe as late as June - after the courts resolve the redistricting disputes.

Americans' Political Views Not So Far Apart

From LiveScience

In an election year, it's hard to turn on the television or read a newspaper without getting the sense that Americans are becoming ever more divided into red versus blue. But a new study finds that perception may be downright wrong.

In fact, political polarization among the public has barely budged at all over the past 40 years, according to research presented here on Jan. 27 at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. But, crucially, people vastly overestimate how polarized the American public is — a tendency toward exaggeration that is especially strong in the most extreme Democrats and Republicans. (The results do not apply to Congress, politicians or media pundits, but rather to the general public.)

"Strongly identified Republicans or Democrats perceive and exaggerate polarization more than weakly identified Republicans or Democrats or political independents," said study researcher John Chambers, a professor of psychology at the University of Florida.

The people who see the world split into two opposing factions are also most likely to vote and become politically active, Chambers said in a talk at the meeting. This means that while real growing polarization is illusory, the perception of polarization could drive the political process.

Read the full story @ LiveScience

Fox News "Dead People Voting In SC" Story Collapses

Media Matters

Over the last two weeks, Fox has repeatedly promoted the claim that voter fraud is indicated by records showing that more than 900 South Carolina residents were recorded as casting a vote after their reported death date. Lou Dobbs, Bill Hemmer, and Neil Cavuto all gave state Attorney General Alan Wilson a platform to offer up this assertion, and on Monday Bret Baier reported that Wilson had notified the Justice Department of this "potential voter fraud."

These claims were always shaky, and have now completely dissolved.

On January 11, state Department of Motor Vehicles director Kevin Schwedo testified before the state legislature that his analysts had compared state Election Commission records with data from the Department of Vital Statistics and the Social Security Administration and found 957 people who could have voted after they had died. He subsequently turned the data over to law enforcement.

But the Columbia Free-Times' Corey Hutchins reports that the Election Commission has examined six names from the list -- the only six names Wilson's office had turned over. At a hearing this morning, the agency revealed that none of those cases involved a ballot actually being cast in a deceased person's name:

In a news release election agency spokesman Chris Whitmire handed out prior to the hearing, the agency disputed the claim that dead people had voted. One allegedly dead voter on the DMV's list cast an absentee ballot before dying; another was the result of a poll worker mistakenly marking the voter as his deceased father; two were clerical errors resulting from stray marks on voter registration lists detected by a scanner; two others resulted from poll managers incorrectly marking the name of the voter in question instead of the voter above or below on the list.

The attorney general's office had only given the State Election Commission six names off its list of 957 names to examine. The agency found every one of them to be alive and otherwise eligible to vote, except for the one who had voted before dying.

This was entirely predictable.

When DMV director Schwedo originally testified, he made clear that the discrepancy could be explained by voters casting absentee ballots before their deaths or by data errors. Indeed, such deceased voter claims are almost always revealed as unfounded for those very reasons. But these facts never made their way to Fox, which has a long history of trumping up voter fraud allegations and pushing voter ID requirements as the only possible solution.

Read the full article @ Media Matters

Related:

• Dead People Voting? Let's Wait Until The Data Is Done Talking
• Texas Voter Photo ID FAQ

The GOP Complains That Obama Has Succeeded Despite GOP Obstruction

PoliticusUSA

The contrast between Pres. Obama’s State of the Union speech and Indiana Gov. Daniels' Republican response was that the President cited empirical data of his accomplishments and laid out specifics for moving the country forward, while Daniels made generalized accusations based on lies and misinformation. Governor Daniels provided a wealth of lies in his response, but a few stand out that are easily debunked; for those with a strong constitution, the text of Daniels’ response is worth a read. ...

... Daniels’ response was suspiciously similar to the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, Americans for Enterprise, and Koch Industries’ mission statements on economic policy and fixes designed to help the 1% maintain their advantaged position in America.

... Daniels took John Boehner’s cue and lied about the number of jobs the proposed Canadian pipeline will create. He said “the extremism that cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands” is a pro-poverty agenda;” the pipeline’s builders, TransCanada, claim it will employ hundreds.

Daniels also claimed the President failed to create jobs with “all those stimulus dollars the President borrowed and blew.” President Obama blew the stimulus dollars saving America’s automobile industry and creating millions of jobs at home, and he proposed creating more by eliminating tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs and rewarding manufacturers with incentives for relocating back to America. The President’s specific proposal to create jobs is identical to the one Republicans blocked last year to protect corporate un-taxable foreign income.

Daniels proposed strengthening Social Security, but Republican’s propose shifting a wildly successful government retirement system to a private 401(k) system to enrich Wall Street. The simplest fix to maintain Social Security’s solvency for a thousand years is eliminating the cap that allows wealthy Americans to avoid contributing the same percentage as those earning less than $102,600. That means Willard Romney pays the same.062% on his $22-plus million income as a minimum wage janitor, and if every rich Republican paid the same percentage as working Americans, the controversy over extending the payroll tax-cut would vanish.

The prescient question is; why does every Republican resort to generalized lies about this President’s accomplishments? One might answer; to protect the wealthy, Wall Street, the oil industry, the corporate world, and because Mr. Obama’s is African America and those are all correct.

However, the simple answer is Republicans are irked that despite their obstruction and fallacious rhetoric, President Obama succeeded saving the economy Republicans crashed with deregulation and unfunded, out-of-control spending during Bush’s presidency. The underlying tone of Daniels’ response was that President Obama failed to right the economy after Bush-Republican’s economic malfeasance, and achieve full employment in the process. Of course, the President made no such promise, but Republicans are framing the 2012 election on that premise because they have nothing else.

Read the full article @ PoliticusUSA

Related:

Mitch Daniels' SOTU Response Wrong on Social Security

Right-Wing Media Launch Predictable Attacks On Obama's State Of The Union Address

The GOP Thinks Failure Is Their Best Option In 2012

by Frederick Barrow and Michael Handley with hat tips to Addicting Info and JM Bell

In a CNN poll taken last October, Republican voters were the only group that wants Obama’s policies to fail. From the poll's internals:

In general, do you hope that Barack Obama’s policies will succeed or do you hope that his policies will fail?

• Republicans: Succeed 39% vs Fail 51%
• Democrats: Succeed 92% vs Fail 5%
• Independents: Succeed 66% Fail 24%
• Total: Succeed 67% vs Fail 25%

Even more interesting, when Republican voters were then asked about some of the Obama policy ideas themselves — without Obama’s name attached to them — majorities of Republicans supported them.

According to the poll, 58% of Republicans support the payroll tax holiday, 63% support federal aid for teachers and first responders, 54% support federal aid for rebuilding roads, bridges, and schools, and 56% support raising taxes on income more than $1 million.

That's a terrible and self-destructive case of misplaced priorities, putting their hatred of the president ahead of their own views about what's in the best interest of the country.

The Republicans are rooting against the American economy and American workers. They believe that they will do better politically in the 2012 presidential elections, if the economy does worse. And for the last thirty-six months Republicans in congress have done everything they can to assure that the American electorate sees Pres. Obama as a failed President.

After Republicans regained control of the House of Representatives in the 2010 mid-term elections they repeated threatened to shut down government and allow the U.S. to default on its obligations all during 2011. Republicans controlling the House refused to compromise and meet Pres. Obama half way, often even 90% of the way, to GOP positions, just to paint Pres. Obama as a failed President.

Republicans claim they just have a different view of what will create jobs. And that is partly true. Generally their view is that whatever is in the short-term interest of the big Wall Street banks, insurance companies, big oil and their wealthy donors is what is "good for the economy" and "good for job creation."

Republicans implemented their program of $1.8 trillion in tax cuts for the rich and allowed the reckless Wall Street banks to do whatever they pleased for eight long years during the Bush administration. The result was a $2,000 decrease in real income for most Americans, a massive increase in incomes for the top two percent of the population, zero net private sector job creation, and the collapse of our economy in the closing months of Pres. Bush's administration in 2008.

But it's not just their commitment to tax cuts for the rich "trickle down" economics that has caused them to do everything in their power to block economic recovery. They believe that their political fortunes can rise only if the fortunes of the rest of us decline.

The next time someone tells you that the Republicans care about the American people just give them this list of just some of the bills that Republicans have blocked, or attempted to block, since Obama became President:

President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address

Full text of President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address, as prepared for delivery:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America’s Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we’re in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren’t so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we’ve done it before.

GOP Response To Pres. Obama's STOU Address

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels delivers the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address.

Tea Party Response To Pres. Obama's SOTU Address

Herman Cain Delivers the Tea Party Response to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union Address.