To Participate on Thurstonblog

email yyyyyyyyyy58@gmail.com, provide profile information and we'll email your electronic membership


Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Yet another example of the GOP's anti-science philosophy

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  ..and why should doctors be required to scrub up before surgery. When enough of their patients die of infections, the market will take care of that... blah, blah, blah.. idiot.. 
*  The GOP gets dumber and dumber every day.  Yeah, from my a--hole to your dinner would make a great advertisement for any restaurant.
*  Thank you Senator for making that so clear.  Let 'freedumb' ring sir.
*  Want some free fecal matter with your bacon cheeseburger? Vote Republican. These idiots are officially beyond parody.
*  NC restaurant workers, feel free to spit in this yo-yo's food. Freedom to spit. 
*  Washing one's hands is something that benefits both the handwasher and everyone else with zero risk to the washer. There's no controversy over the effectiveness of or the risks associated with handwashing. And FAR more people die from food poisoning in this country than, say, measles (roughly 3,000 per year vs. 0 in over a decade). 
...................................................................................................................................................................
GOP senator: Don’t make employees wash their hands after going to the bathroom, because freedom

Down with tyrannical hygienic regulations!

By Luke Brinker, February 4, 2015

For much of the past 36 or so hours, we’ve heard from a number of Republicans that risking the occasional measles outbreak is simply the price of liberty.  While Rand Paul and Chris Christie were busy championing the sacred right to expose others to disease, it fell to freshman Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) to take up the next great cause in the fight for freedom from regulatory overreach. We speak, of course, of the right of restaurants not to require their employees to wash their hands after using the restroom.

Speaking during a question-and-answer session at the Bipartisan Policy Center on Monday, Tillis related a story from his tenure in the North Carolina legislature to help explain his overarching philosophy on the finer points of hand-washing.

“I was having this discussion with someone, and we were at a Starbucks in my district, and we were talking about certain regulations where I felt like maybe you should allow businesses to opt out,” Tillis said, in remarks first reported by the District Sentinel. “Let an industry or business opt out as long as they indicate through proper disclosure, through advertising, through employment, literature, whatever else. There’s this level of regulations that maybe they’re on the books, but maybe you can make a market-based decision as to whether or not they should apply to you.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"But when one person’s liberty interferes with somebody else's, civil society intervenes with rules meant to protect the largest portion of the population while harming the smallest."

...................................................................................................................................................................
What anti-vax parents get wrong about personal liberty
By Rick Newman, February 4, 2015

They’re your kids. You can do what you want with them. Right?

Actually, no. The wonderful American tradition of individual liberty stops well short of the entitlements claimed by the parents opposed to vaccinations who have contributed to the alarming measles outbreak centered in California. The anti-vaxers, as they’re known, believe they’re asserting their right to individual liberty by rejecting the collective wisdom of public-health authorities and choosing not to have their kids vaccinated against measles and other dangerous organisms. But they’re confusing self-interest with liberty, as are tongue-tied politicians such as Chris Christie and Rand Paul. The whole episode reveals the troubling ways we have distorted and trivialized the true meaning of liberty in the so-called land of the free.

As popular as the concept is, liberty is actually a difficult word to define, as I explore in my latest book, "Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom." Liberty means different things to different people, based on the rights and privileges they’re accustomed to, socioeconomic context and every individual’s life circumstances. For the purpose of my book, which focuses on economic issues and prosperity, I researched the views of many experts and defined liberty as this: the ability to make of your life what you wish, within reasonable constraints.

That's quite different from simply doing whatever you want, which is where the anti-vax parents veer off-course. When exercising a particular type of liberty imposes no risk or cost on anybody else, everybody’s generally fine with it, no matter how wacky it might be. But when one person’s liberty interferes with somebody else's, civil society intervenes with rules meant to protect the largest portion of the population while harming the smallest.

Speed limits are one obvious example. They exist because drivers with the “freedom” to cruise at any speed pose an unacceptable risk to other drivers. Most states have motorcycle helmet laws because unhelmeted bikers who get hurt in a crash must be treated at the hospital, even if they’re uninsured and the cost is borne by taxpayers or others who pay for insurance. Parents who walk away from their kids aren’t just allowed to skip out — they’re usually required to pay child support, at a minimum, as a way of bearing responsibility for something they helped create.

By the same measure, parents who forgo vaccinations for their kids are passing the risk of infection on to others who never agreed to accept the same risks. As a society, we’re not cool with that. Asking others to bear the risk and cost of your decisions, in fact, is more akin to cowardice than to liberty.

The civil institutions that regulate liberty — legislatures that pass laws, courts that enforce them, etc. — sometimes make mistakes that get corrected over time, as society evolves. The government legally denied equal rights to blacks for a century after the Civil War. Society began to correct that in the 1960s (and is still working on it). More recently, gays are beginning to enjoy most of the same civil liberties as everybody else. But every cause isn’t ultimately vindicated by time, as Branch Davidians, McCarthyites and supporters of the Confederacy learned bitterly. The causes that prevail — in America, at least — usually end up on the right side of science, decency and common sense.

There’s a lot of academic research on what liberty actually is, which anti-vaxers might want to bone up on. For starters, there are two basic types of liberty. Positive liberty is the capacity to do something, such as seek gainful employment or create art. Negative liberty is the absence of constraints, impediments or interference in the pursuit of positive freedoms. When Franklin Roosevelt gave his famous “four freedoms” speech in 1940, he highlighted two positive freedoms — freedom of speech and the freedom to worship God in one's own way — and two negative freedoms: freedom from want and freedom from fear. Anti-vax parents are trying to exercise a negative freedom by escaping a government constraint — the requirement to get their kids vaccinated. But in doing so, they themselves are creating an impediment to the freedom of an untold number of others, whose negative freedoms include the right to escape unnecessary illness.

The sad irony of the anti-vax brigade is that they’re actually impeding their own liberty rather than enhancing it. Their kids are needlessly exposed to avoidable risks and perhaps even stigmatized, now that vaccinations have become a dividing line determining who can attend school in certain hot zones and who can’t. If science were on their side, it might be a fight worth fighting. But when you’re willfully blind to facts and you cling instead to some disproved theory that fulfills a preexisting suspicion, you are imposing upon yourself (and, in this case, your kids) the severe limitations that come with ignorance.

Unfortunately, this trivialization of liberty is not just an isolated phenomenon but a mushrooming national problem. In the most recently completed session of Congress, legislators introduced more than 20 bills invoking “liberty” and more than 150 in the cause of “freedom,” including such gems as the Internet Poker Freedom Act, the Letting Insurance Benefit Everyone Regardless of Their Youth (LIBERTY — get it?) Act, and the Television Consumer Freedom Act. Marketers tell us that smoking, drinking, eating potato chips and watching Netflix are vital expressions of our personal freedom. And of course we want government off our backs, except when it sends out Social Security checks, builds highways or kills terrorists.

Rand Paul, the libertarian senator from Kentucky, is right about one thing: The government doesn’t raise kids; parents do. And there are plenty of ways parents can genuinely exercise their personal freedom in the service of their kids. It starts by accepting and even embracing the many things civil institutions do well for kids — including protecting their health through vaccinations. Then, do the things institutions can’t do, such as reading to them at night, teaching healthy diet and exercise habits, encouraging curiosity, and providing an ever-present example of humble confidence. Liberty is alive and well in America, but only for those who know how to harness it.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Ellmers "... also suggested that more compassion would help." You do know, Renee, that you are talking about the Republicans?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENT:  Stand up for life for those already here. After all of those already born are protected, then perhaps we can worry about those who are not a living, breathing, walking around living human being yet.  But, that's right, once you are born, you are expendable.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Rep. Ellmers lectures her anti-abortion critics on ‘compassion to women’
By Renee Schoof, February 2, 2015

Calling the behavior of her critics “abhorrent and childish,” Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., a target of attacks from conservative anti-abortion allies since she recently tried to soften the impact of a 20-week abortion ban, fired back in a blog post.

She also got in a not-so-subtle dig at the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives.

Ellmers, in a blog item dated Friday on her official website, said, “As a mother, a wife, and a devout Catholic, protecting life is a mission that is very near and dear to my heart.”

She went on to give her first direct response to questions about why she withdrew her sponsorship of the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortions after 20 weeks.

Ellmers officially pulled her support of the bill on Jan. 20. She was quoted as saying that she didn’t think the legislation would play well with younger voters and that she objected to a requirement that women must report rapes to police in order to get an exception to the ban.

The N.C. Values Coalition and North Carolina Right To Life criticized Ellmers for objecting to the requirement and for a delay in the legislation.

Republican leaders in the House abruptly withdrew the bill from a vote that had been scheduled for Jan. 22, to coincide with the annual March for Life in Washington, after Ellmers and some other Republican female lawmakers, plus a few of their male colleagues, raised concerns about the reporting requirement.

The two North Carolina groups on Monday did not respond to request for comment on Ellmers’ blog post.

“While we must continue to provide a voice for the voiceless, we must also show compassion to women when they are in the midst of a crisis, especially victims of rape – and it is my belief that the mandatory police reporting provision relating to rape within the bill would have hindered our ability to do that,” Ellmers wrote.

She said she’d complained about the requirement to the leadership, but that Republican leaders didn’t address her concerns and instead pulled the bill off the House floor the night before the scheduled vote.

Her latest comments drew another round of criticism via the Internet on Monday.

“I have to ask Rep. Ellmers: Since when is it ‘abhorrent’ to stand up for life?” Cortney O’Brien wrote on TownHall.com, stirring up a lengthy list of comments against the congresswoman.

J. Michael Bitzer, a professor of political science at Catawba College in Salisbury, N.C., said that only part of Ellmers’ constituents were furious.

“Social evangelical conservatives would be none too pleased,” he said. “But I think what she may be looking at is not just from a narrow ideological perspective, but how does this play out in a larger sense among the general populace. If she’s representing suburban women in the Research Triangle, they’re not going to have the same adamancy about this issue that the social conservatives would have.”

The bill also has no immediate chance of becoming law, Bitzer added. “They of course could probably get it through the House, but there’s a question about the Senate and it’s going to be DOA at the White House,” he said.

Ellmers wrote that her goal was to bring the bill up for a vote “in its best possible form.” She also suggested that more compassion would help.

“Having served as a nurse for over 21 years, I have witnessed firsthand how fragile and delicate our lives are, and as a mother I know how special and wonderful a new little life is,” she wrote. “It is my ultimate hope that we strengthen the pro-life community and that we do so through the embodiment of compassion – we need to personify compassion and use it to empower women who find themselves in the midst of a heart-wrenching crisis.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... Mr. Christie’s first-class tastes have become well known." And what does he give us-- a second-class candidate?

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  As a public employee in NJ, I find the hypocrisy here to be stunning. Public employees have a very stringent ethical code that requires public disclosure of all outside income and benefits. A professor wants to assign the widely-adopted genetics textbook she wrote, all royalties must be given to the state. A client shows up at a social services office with brownies, they must be reported to a compliance officer and donated to the nearest homeless shelter. The list goes on and on. Why does the governor get to operate by a different set of rules? The funny thing is that Christie's narcissism would not let him see any hypocrisy here. The press needs to cover these stories more.
*  It is the duty of an opportunist to seize the opportunity and the Governor is diligent.
*  I'm no fan of Christie, and the idea of him becoming president is laugh-worthy. But in terms of grabbing freebies, he's no different from most other elected (or wannabe) office holders. How else can one explain congressmen becoming millionaires on a $174,000 annual income?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Chris Christie Shows Fondness for Luxury Benefits When Others Pay the Bill
By Kate Zernike and Michael Barbaro, February 2, 2015

As Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey waited to depart on a trade mission to Israel in 2012, his entourage was delayed by a late arrival: Mr. Christie’s father, who had accidentally headed to the wrong airport.

A commercial flight might have left without him, but in this case, there was no rush. The private plane, on which Mr. Christie had his own bedroom, had been lent by Sheldon G. Adelson, the billionaire casino owner and supporter of Israel. At the time, he was opposing legislation then before the governor to legalize online gambling in New Jersey.

Mr. Christie loaded the plane with his wife, three of his four children, his mother-in-law, his father and stepmother, four staff members, his former law partner and a state trooper.

It did not, for the moment. But it would not have been the first or last time that Mr. Christie’s desire for celebrity access and expensive trips has raised eyebrows.

The governor, a Republican now preparing a run for president, shot to national prominence as a cheese-steak-on-the-boardwalk Everyman who bluntly preached transparency and austerity as the antidote to bloated state budgets. But throughout his career in public service, Mr. Christie has indulged a taste that runs more toward Champagne at the Four Seasons.

He has also quietly let others pay the bills.

That tendency — the governor himself says he wants to “squeeze all the juice out of the orange” — has put him in ethically questionable situations, taking benefits from those who stand to benefit from him.

Mr. Christie is hardly the first politician, in either party, whose embrace of luxury travel has prompted criticism. Hillary Rodham Clinton, for example, a potential Democratic candidate for president, is known for her dependence on private planes often paid for by others.

Last month, Mr. Christie prompted a state ethics inquiry after he flew to at least three games of the Dallas Cowboys, his team since boyhood, on the plane of the owner, Jerry Jones, whose company had received a contract with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey after the governor recommended it.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Christie, who is currently on a three-day trip to London, did not dispute the details of the trip to Israel and Jordan, which were described in interviews with several people close to the administration or involved in the trip, and in documents seen by The New York Times.

But the spokeswoman, Maria Comella, described King Abdullah as “a friend” the governor met at a salon-style dinner in New York hosted by Michael R. Bloomberg, who was the mayor at the time. “King Abdullah invited the governor and his family to Jordan as his personal guest so the two families could spend time together,” she said on Sunday.

Ms. Comella also said Mr. Adelson had not been personally lobbying the governor against the online gambling bill.

In the end, Mr. Christie signed the bill. He cited pressure from unions that argued it was needed to keep casinos open, and the need for revenue to balance the budget.

Mr. Adelson later told a somewhat different story: He said Mr. Christie told him that had he vetoed the bill, as Mr. Adelson would have wanted, it would have been overridden.

That, in retrospect, seems unlikely. Republicans in the Legislature have previously changed their positions rather than override a veto by Mr. Christie.

The governor has also been a guest on the private plane and in the stadium box of Woody Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets and another opponent of the gambling bill.

Early in his tenure, Mr. Christie set up a group to entice foreign businesses to New Jersey. That group, Choose N.J., is financed by companies that are forbidden by pay-to-play laws to donate to the governor, because they have business before the state, including legal work, and contracts for roads and infrastructure.

(Last month, Choose N.J. announced that it had appointed as its president and chief executive Michele Brown, one of Mr. Christie’s closest confidantes and a neighbor, who has worked for him since his days as a United States attorney.)

The group partly financed the 2012 trip to Israel, as well as three trips the governor has taken over the last year, to Mexico, Canada and his current destination, London.

Mr. Christie’s foreign travel has helped him build his credentials and his contacts as he prepares to run for president. Choose N.J. sounded dubious in a report last year about enticing business from Britain. Interest was strongest, it found, from Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, Sweden and Switzerland. But London is a prime market for fund-raising among American expatriates: In 2012, President Obama and Mitt Romney raised more money in Britain than in any other foreign country.

While previous New Jersey governors have flown commercial for trade missions, Mr. Christie flew privately for three. (His spokeswoman said he flew commercial to London.) He has taken family on all. He stays in five-star properties: the King David in Jerusalem, the Intercontinental in Mexico City. The hotel in London, the Corinthia, has a Baccarat chandelier and masses of flowers refreshed every morning.

Mr. Christie’s entourage takes over conference rooms laid out with elaborate spreads of food at all hours. Ms. Comella said Mr. Christie’s office sought a lower rate for government officials whenever possible.

Letting the king pay for his three-day weekend in Jordan back in 2012 would not have been allowed if Mr. Christie were, say, president or a United States senator; it is illegal for federal employees to accept gifts of more than nominal value from agents of foreign governments. An executive order Mr. Christie signed in 2010 allows New Jersey governors to have travel and related expenses paid by foreign governments; it does not specifically address gifts such as the parties the king held for him, but the governor’s staff said it was covered under a provision that allowed gifts from personal friends.

Mr. Christie has described it as a matter of opportunity. “I relish these experiences and exposures, especially for my kids,” he told a reporter for The Times last summer. “I try to squeeze all the juice out of the orange that I can.”

As he has traveled more widely, particularly during the last year, when he led the Republican Governors Association, Mr. Christie’s first-class tastes have become well known. He made it clear when he campaigned for Mr. Romney in 2012 that he would do out-of-state events only if he was given a private plane, even during the primary, when the candidate’s wife was still flying commercial to save money. The Romney campaign came to understand that he preferred a Cessna Citation X, which, its manufacturer boasts, has exotic wood interiors and a Rolls-Royce engine.

While many high-profile Republican politicians resist insinuating themselves into celebrity circles, Mr. Christie seeks them out — Howard Stern in the Hamptons; Donald J. Trump at Jean-Georges in Manhattan, where the menu begins at $128 per person. He danced onstage with Jamie Foxx at a celebrity benefit at the Hamptons in August before a crowd that included Barbra Streisand, Paul McCartney, Jack Nicholson and Robert De Niro.

State taxpayers paid for Mr. Christie, his wife and two aides to travel to the 2013 Super Bowl in New Orleans, as New Jersey prepared to host the 2014 game. Airfare for four passengers came to $8,146; Mr. Christie’s hotel for three nights cost $3,371.

He has fought to shield the cost of his travel. The Super Bowl expenses were revealed only after a judge’s order in a lawsuit brought by The Record, a newspaper in northern New Jersey. In response to other lawsuits and public records requests, the governor’s office has argued that he is not subject to disclosure laws regarding travel, or that it does not have the records.

Groups like Choose N.J. and the Republican Jewish Coalition, which also contributed to the Israel trip, do not have to disclose their expenses.

As United States attorney for New Jersey, Mr. Christie developed a reputation for flouting the rules on travel. A Justice Department report after he left office found that he was the prosecutor who most often exceeded the charges allowed for hotel stays in different cities, without properly searching for a cheaper alternative, or justifying any exemption from the rules. He stayed at a Four Seasons in Washington and a new boutique hotel in Boston, for example, at more than double the cost allowed for those cities.

The report concerned hotel stays, but Mr. Christie’s preference for car services over taxis earned a footnote: He paid $236 to travel four miles from the airport in Boston, and $562 for a round-trip between Central London and Heathrow. Mr. Christie, who by then was governor, declined to be interviewed by investigators preparing the Justice Department report.

The revelations in the report prompted the Justice Department to tighten rules about exemptions to stay in costly hotels.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Marriage equality is winning. To seal the deal, we shouldn't settle for legal parity; we must bring along anyone and everyone willing to come to our side."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  And why is it that we should be polite to this propaganda-spewing, obfuscating pal of Ted Nugent?
*  It always cracks me up when bigots demand tolerance for their intolerance.  History will not remember tools like Huckabee kindly. 
*  Okay, so Huckabee is wrong again... but really, is he ever right?
...................................................................................................................................................................
Mike Huckabee Is Wrong About Christians and Gay Marriage—Again
By Nathaniel Frank, February 2, 2015

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee used a highly flawed analogy Sunday to help explain why he shouldn’t be expected to embrace same-sex marriage. For a Christian, he argued, supporting it would be “like asking somebody who's Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli” or “like asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him, or to have dogs in his backyard.”

Why is it flawed? Huckabee opposes giving gay couples civil marriage licenses, and he supports the right of like-minded marriage equality opponents to refuse service to gay people if they operate a business. But observant Jews have never sought to keep anyone, except perhaps other Jews, from eating anything at all—and never using the bludgeon of civil law. Huckabee’s analogy would only apply if Jews tried to block everyone else from eating non-kosher food. His analogy is equally flawed when it comes to his related claim that Christians should have the right to refuse service to people who don’t share their beliefs. Observant Jews don’t refuse to serve non-Jews; they simply don’t serve non-kosher food in their businesses. Anyone can buy what they serve. And accepting the right of gays to wed is not like asking a Muslim to serve something barred by Islam or to let a dog on his private property. It’s like asking a Muslim to let customers of all faiths (or none at all) into his shop and to accept the right of others to have dogs as pets. No one is forcing anyone to get gay-married, just as, in the “gay cake wars,” no one is forcing anti-gay bakers to make a cake that says “Congratulations on your gay wedding”—they are simply asking them to sell the cakes they already make to anyone who wants to buy them.

Huckabee, of course, is engaged in a larger campaign that conservative Christians have orchestrated as they come to realize that they will lose the battle to prevent marriage equality: The aim is to turn the tables on discrimination by casting equal rights as anti-Christian. The reasoning here is so sloppy and disingenuous that I can hardly bear to waste pixels refuting it, something which has been ably done by countless others. In short, religious liberty protects freedom of conscience; it does not give people license to behave however they want, particularly if they are operating a business. As my Columbia Law School colleague Katherine Franke has written, would we allow “a Christian Scientist-owned construction company to be exempted from state-mandated health and safety regulations for its employees because it prefers to rely on prayer? Of course not. Religiously owned or affiliated organizations that employ people of all faiths and backgrounds ought to play by the same rules as every other employer, including being subject to health, safety, and labor regulations.”

It can be tempting to sympathize with the religious liberty argument. After all, we’ve heard for years that Christianity and other major religions clearly teach that homosexuality is sinful and immoral. Can it really be fair to ask people of faith to abandon their most cherished, longstanding beliefs?

As I’ve argued before, the idea that Christianity dictates anti-gay beliefs is just not true—at least nowhere near as emphatically true as we’ve been led to believe by the most recent generation of sexually fixated religious right crusaders. Cherry-picking convenient passages and teachings from Scripture is an age-old—and supremely lazy—example of rationalizing bias and discrimination, as evidenced by how often it was used in generations past to rationalize racial and gender discrimination. (As recently as 2009, Southern Baptists, citing the Bible, called  “for wives to be submissive to their husbands.”)

It should be abundantly clear that the same thing is going on here. Wonderfully amusing examples abound of religious conservatives turning their eyes from the Christian proscription against divorce—which is more clearly articulated in the Bible than a ban on same-sex marriage—while posturing about their solemn duty to oppose gay people’s freedom to marry. The day I hear an anti-gay baker quiz every potential customer about whether they’ve ever been married before (the New Testament considers divorced people to be committing the sin of adultery) is the day I’ll consider their anti-gay claims sincere. In fact, a Colorado baker who was sued for refusing to sell a gay couple a wedding cake had no problem baking a cake for the wedding of two dogs decorated with the names Roscoe and Buffy.

So while the anti-gay religious liberty argument can seem sincere, don’t buy it. It is rarely, if ever, waged in good faith, and it should be refuted wherever and whenever it emerges.

All that said, there is an important difference between asking people to support the legal right of gays to marry and asking them to embrace gay marriage in their hearts—to the point where they’re actually pleased to be baking a wedding cake to celebrate a gay union. Some advocates of marriage equality care little about the latter, arguing that legal parity is a sufficient goal and that there’s little reason to wrangle hearts and minds beyond what’s needed to secure equal protection of the law.

I have long believed that both goals are important. I’ve argued that marriage takes its special social and psychological meaning from the willingness of people everywhere—and particularly one’s close friends and family—to recognize and support a couple’s union, an idea that was vividly reinforced for me when I got married last fall. While it may seem tempting to write off Huckabee as a far-right sourpuss whose approval gays don’t need to secure the right to legal marriage, that’s a position that would be neglectful to indulge. Huckabee, and the millions of others who continue to share his viewpoint, will inevitably find themselves the friends or family of gay people, particularly young ones, who may badly need or want their blessing. It’s a blue-state luxury to dismiss this supra-legal dimension of the battle for gay acceptance.

It would be a stretch to think that Huckabee himself will come around any time soon. Political and cultural leaders who thrive off discrimination and divisions are probably not a reasonable target of engagement. But others who share these views should be engaged rather than alienated—recent research suggests that the lost art of simple conversation is one of the most effective ways to change minds. They should be invited to consider the inconsistencies of their positions and reminded that reading Scripture is an interpretive process. Many may feel their beliefs are sincere without even realizing that they’re a veil for bias. They should be offered a path to acceptance—call it, say, amnesty for social conservatives. Marriage equality is winning. To seal the deal, we shouldn’t settle for legal parity; we must bring along anyone and everyone willing to come to our side.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... there are no women in the elected Republican leadership, and still so few overall that of the 20 committees, five ... lack a single Republican woman."

...................................................................................................................................................................
More Women Than Ever in Congress, but With Less Power Than Before
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg, February 2, 2015

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the new chairwoman of the Energy Committee, was at a reception in Hershey, Pa., last month when aides to Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the No. 2 Republican in the House, presented her with a party favor: a black windbreaker with the words “Chairman’s Table” on the back.

There was just one problem: The windbreaker was for a man, and far too big for Ms. Murkowski. Mr. McCarthy’s aides say they simply ran out of women’s jackets in Ms. Murkowski’s size, but to her the episode reflects a new reality on Capitol Hill.

“His staff was, of course, very apologetic,” said Ms. Murkowski, who gave the windbreaker to her husband and said she took no offense. “But I did think that was somewhat telling. We are not thinking about the women.”

The November elections brought a record number of female lawmakers to Washington. With 20 in the Senate and 84 in the House, women for the first time in history hold more than 100 seats in Congress. But the Republican takeover of the Senate has also cost women powerful committee leadership posts and presented new challenges to their wielding of power.

Last year, when Democrats controlled the Senate, women led a record nine committees, including male bastions like the Appropriations Committee, which dispenses billions in federal dollars, and Intelligence, which oversees the government’s secret national security apparatus. Now there are only two female committee chairwomen: Ms. Murkowski and Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine.

In the House, while women hold five of the 10 elected Republican Party leadership spots, only one woman — Representative Candice S. Miller of Michigan — leads a committee, House Administration.

The reason is largely that Congress is a culture where power is tied tightly with seniority, and committee chairmanships do not go to junior members. More than two-thirds of female lawmakers are Democrats, and Democratic women, who overall were elected earlier and in larger numbers than their Republican counterparts, have more longevity. When Democrats lost control, women lost top jobs.

“You cannot deny that women were in a more powerful position in the United States Senate when the Democrats were in control,” said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University. “It’s not to say that women can’t and won’t exert leadership, but we do know that titles matter, those formal positions of leadership matter.”

Women do of course flex their muscles regardless of rank. A revolt by Republican women recently forced House leaders to abandon a bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In the Senate last week, Ms. Murkowski shepherded to passage a bill to approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to carry petroleum from Canada to the Gulf Coast, her party’s first legislative priority in the new Congress.

“The women in the Senate — there are no pushovers here,” Ms. Murkowski said, rejecting the notion that women have lost power. “I don’t think that Barbara Mikulski” — the Maryland Democrat and former Appropriations chairwoman — “goes shrinking away because she’s not gaveling in the meeting.”

But in an institution whose core function — writing laws — rests with committees, chairmen and chairwomen wield enormous influence. They alone can call hearings, the first real step in shaping and passing legislation. “The ranking minority member may have some wonderful ideas,” said Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University, “but unless the chair approves, it’s not going to happen.”

For Democratic women, watching the tough-talking Ms. Mikulski go from leading the Appropriations Committee to being its ranking member has been especially difficult. Elected to the Senate in 1986, she is by far its most senior woman and has for years held bipartisan dinners for female colleagues. In 2013, after nearly three decades on the committee, she made history by becoming the first woman to run it.

“Barbara Mikulski has worked and fought and thrashed and clawed for decades to get the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, and to have it snatched away almost as soon as she got it, all of us feel for her,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. “It’s painful for us.”

In an email message, Ms. Mikulski said she would “continue to have a voice,” adding, “While I’ve been in the minority before, I’ve never been on the sidelines.”

It has been 22 years since the “Year of the Woman” elections doubled the number of Senate women — from two to four — and progress has come in fits and starts, the women of the Senate say. Ms. Collins, who now heads the Committee on Aging and ran the Homeland Security Committee when George W. Bush was president, recalls one moment of self-awareness when Donald Rumsfeld, then defense secretary, was testifying.

“I looked to my left and I looked to my right, and all of a sudden it occurred to me that there were no women on the dais,” she said. “And then I looked down at the witness table, which probably had five people on it, and there were no women. And I remember thinking, ‘But I’m in charge!’ ”

As more women have come to the Senate, they have been credited with changing its dynamic and leading the way in cutting bipartisan deals. Ms. Collins, Ms. Murkowski and Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, bucked their party to push for an end to the 2013 budget shutdown. Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, got a long-stalled farm bill passed when she ran the Agriculture Committee. As head of the Budget Committee last year, Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, forged a bipartisan budget with Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, her House counterpart.

“As women were chairing these committees, you saw a lot of bipartisan agreements,” Ms. Murray said. “So if you just look at it from that perspective, I’m worried, going forward, that we will not have those same things that women bring to the table to help get agreements in a way that works for everybody.”

But Kellyanne Conway, a Republican strategist, said that if Democrats had been doing such a good job, voters would not have thrown them out.

“The point that you had nine female Democratic senators chairing committees last cycle was either soundly rejected by voters, or it didn’t matter,” she said. “Any way you slice it, they put Republicans in power.”

With the elections of Senators Joni Ernst of Iowa and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Republicans now have a record number of women in the Senate. But there are no women in the elected Republican leadership, and still so few overall that of the 20 committees, five — including Banking and Finance — lack a single Republican woman. Both men and women say that creates an optics problem for a party trying to court female voters and fend off accusations from Democrats of a war on women.

“It doesn’t help us as a party,” Ms. Murkowski said, “when the public out there thinks that there’s this Republican initiative that is not supportive of women, and then they look at the makeup of the Senate and we just don’t have very many.”

Senator John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, put it simply: “I think it helps to have a Senate leadership that looks more like the rest of America.”

So Republican leaders are doing what they can to put women forward.

They asked Senator Ernst, an Iraq war combat veteran whose clever ads about her hog-castrating skills captured national attention this fall, to give the televised Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address. Ms. Murkowski recently gave the party’s weekly address.

And as soon as the new Senate convened, the majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, expanded his leadership team to include four unelected counselors, two of them women: Senator Deb Fischer of Nebraska and Senator Capito, the West Virginia freshman, who has deep experience in Washington from 14 years in the House.

“I think he wants more voices at the table, women’s voices,” Ms. Capito said.

But at least one Senate woman, Ms. Fischer, longs for the day when all the talk about women in Congress would just go away. “Let’s talk about who’s effective at doing their jobs,” she said. “That’s how I want to be judged.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

Monday, February 2, 2015

"... it’s refreshing to see signs that Mr. Obama is willing to break with the long-termers and focus on the here and now."

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Long-Run Cop-Out
By Paul Krugman, February 2, 2015

On Monday, President Obama will call for a significant increase in spending, reversing the harsh cuts of the past few years. He won’t get all he’s asking for, but it’s a move in the right direction. And it also marks a welcome shift in the discourse. Maybe Washington is starting to get over its narrow-minded, irresponsible obsession with long-run problems and will finally take on the hard issue of short-run gratification instead.

O.K., I’m being flip to get your attention. I am, however, quite serious. It’s often said that the problem with policy makers is that they’re too focused on the next election, that they look for short-term fixes while ignoring the long run. But the story of economic policy and discourse these past five years has been exactly the opposite.

Think about it: Faced with mass unemployment and the enormous waste it entails, for years the Beltway elite devoted almost all their energy not to promoting recovery, but to Bowles-Simpsonism — to devising “grand bargains” that would address the supposedly urgent problem of how we’ll pay for Social Security and Medicare a couple of decades from now.

And this bizarre long-termism isn’t just an American phenomenon. Try to talk about the damage wrought by European austerity policies, and you’re all too likely to encounter lectures to the effect that what we really need to discuss is long-term structural reform. Try to discuss Japan’s effort to break out of its decades-long deflationary trap, and you’re sure to encounter claims that monetary and fiscal policy are sideshows, and that deregulation and other structural changes are what’s important.

Am I saying that the long run doesn’t matter? Of course not, although some forms of long-termism don’t make sense even on their own terms. Think about the notion that “entitlement reform” is an urgent priority. It’s true that many projections suggest that our major social insurance programs will face financial difficulties in the future (although the dramatic slowing of increases in health costs makes even that proposition uncertain). If so, at some point we may need to cut benefits. But why, exactly, is it crucial that we deal with the threat of future benefits cuts by locking in plans to cut future benefits?

Anyway, even where the long-term issues are real, it’s truly strange that they have so often taken center stage in recent years. We are, after all, still living through the aftermath of a once-in-three-generations financial crisis. America seems, finally, to be recovering — but Bowles-Simpsonism had its greatest influence precisely when the United States economy was still mired in a deep slump. Europe has hardly recovered at all, and there’s overwhelming evidence that austerity policies are the main reason for that ongoing disaster. So why the urge to change the subject to structural reform? The answer, I’d suggest, is intellectual laziness and lack of moral courage.

About laziness: Many people know what John Maynard Keynes said about the long run, but far fewer are aware of the context. Here’s what he really said: “But this long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean is flat again.” Quite. All too often, or so it seems to me, people who insist that questions of austerity and stimulus are unimportant are actually trying to avoid hard thinking about the nature of the economic disaster that has overtaken so much of the world.

And they’re also trying to avoid taking a stand that will expose them to attack. Discussions of short-run fiscal and monetary policy are politically charged. Oppose austerity and support monetary expansion and you’ll be lambasted by the right; do the reverse and you’ll be criticized and maybe ridiculed by the left. I understand why it’s tempting to dismiss the whole debate and declare that the really important issues involve the long run. But while people who say that kind of thing like to pose as brave and responsible, they’re actually ducking the hard stuff — which is to say, being craven and irresponsible.

Which brings me back to the president’s new budget.

It goes without saying that Mr. Obama’s fiscal proposals, like everything he does, will be attacked by Republicans. He’s also, however, sure to face criticism from self-proclaimed centrists accusing him of irresponsibly abandoning the fight against long-term budget deficits.

So it’s important to understand who’s really irresponsible here. In today’s economic and political environment, long-termism is a cop-out, a dodge, a way to avoid sticking your neck out. And it’s refreshing to see signs that Mr. Obama is willing to break with the long-termers and focus on the here and now.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"Conservatives think religious freedom gives them the right to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs. They're wrong ..."

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  I've had it with these clowns! We Atheists should take over this country and declare religion illegal. We foolishly thought the separation of church and state would keep everything fair. We didn't realize how untrustworthy religionists truly are. They are thieves and traitors.
*  This is the 'Christian' version of 'Sharia Law.'
*  Tolerance is a virtue in the New Testament. God, if there is one, will judge all. So, why worry, Christian? Just spread the word of love as YOU ARE COMMANDED TO DO BY YOUR LEADER JESUS and leave the driving to Him. Pretty f32king elementary.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Religious Freedom Gives Me the Constitutional Right to Violate Your Constitutional Rights, Right?
By Ian Reifowitz, February 2, 2015

Conservatives just love the Constitution -- or at least they say they do. The thing is that they don't seem to have any idea how it works. At least that's a more charitable explanation than saying they don't care how the Constitution works and merely use it as a fig leaf while they undermine the rights it guarantees. And I'm a charitable kind of guy, so I won't say that.

When the Supreme Court recognizes that marriage equality is a constitutionally guaranteed right, one part of the battle will be over. But conservatives have already begun to fight on another front, namely how to implement (or not) that right. Republican state legislators in Texas, Oklahoma, Utah, and both Carolinas (South Carolina was first!) have this year proposed various bills that would give government officials who perform civil marriage ceremonies and/or issue marriage licenses and other related documents the ability to refuse same-sex couples if it would violate a "sincerely held religious belief."

Additionally, Oklahoma State Rep. Todd Russ proposed to take civil officials out of the marriage business altogether and force prospective couples to be married by "an ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church to which he or she belongs to preach the Gospel, or a rabbi." Not a Christian or a Jew? Out of luck, apparently, although Rep. Russ says anyone else who wants to get married can "fil[e] an affidavit of common law marriage with the court clerk." Small problem: The state of Oklahoma doesn't recognize common-law marriages, although courts have recognized some on a case-by-case basis. I'm sure Hindu and atheist couples will be just fine with that.

Even if they were adopted, such laws almost certainly would be struck down as unconstitutional. Nevertheless, they are instructive because of what they say about the conservative concept of religious freedom. John J. Kallam is a Baptist minister in North Carolina. He also served for 12 years as a magistrate judge in Rockingham County, in which capacity he officiated at numerous civil marriage ceremonies. Last October he quit after he was told he could not "opt out" of performing same-sex marriages.

"I felt, and still feel, that that is stepping on my right of religious freedom," said Kallam. He brought up the matter of a Sikh soldier in the U.S. Army who successfully argued that religious freedom gave him the right to wear a turban and grow a beard, as mandated by his faith. Kallam asked why he should not have the freedom to act on the basis of his faith as well.

Let's take Kallam's argument seriously for a moment, in order to demonstrate why it is wrong to conflate these two examples as being equally deserving of legal protection under the framework of religious freedom. First, the Sikh American soldier's turban and beard are an act of expression that affects only himself, whereas a North Carolina magistrate judge refusing to perform a marriage directly affects other people, specifically by denying them a right that, as of last Oct. 10, they possessed as citizens of that state. The soldier's turban and beard do not violate anyone else's rights; therefore they merit protection.

Religious freedom means that Kallam has every right to believe that marriage ought to be restricted to a man and a woman, or, for all I care, three men and a baby. (What ever happened to Steve Guttenberg, anyway?) But Kallam cannot act on those beliefs -- especially not as an officer of the state -- if doing so would deny others their constitutional rights.

And this rejection of the clear distinction between expressing one's faith and acting on it to discriminate against others is at the heart of the conservative concept of religious freedom. Last October, Gordon Klingenschmitt celebrated John Kallam for having stood up to "tyranny." Klingenschmidt, by the way, also expressed the belief that LGBT activists "want you to disobey God so that you go to hell with them" and added that the judges who declared bans against same sex marriage to be unconstitutional are "demonic judges who are imposing the devil's law upon the people."

Who is Gordon Klingenschmitt? A few weeks after making those statements on his Pray in Jesus' Name television program, he won election and became a brand-new Republican state representative in Colorado. It's a struggle between freedom and tyranny, folks.

In addition to pushing laws that would allow government officials to discriminate in the name of religious freedom, conservatives are also pushing laws that would allow private businesses to do the same thing, mostly in support of bakers, florists, and photographers who refused to provide services to customers putting on a same-sex marriage. According to Jim Campbell of the Alliance Defending Freedom, this is about "religious liberty." He added, "We believe the Constitution protects the right of all citizens including business owners to live in a way consistent with their faith." (Judges in Colorado, New Mexico, and Washington have already ruled against business owners in such cases. The business owner in the New Mexico case appealed to the Supreme Court, which declined to intervene.)

Along lines similar to Campbell and Kallam, South Carolina Republican State Sen. Lee Bright argued that laws allowing this kind of discrimination are not only right but constitutional because "we have similar language for folks that work in health care that don't want to participate in abortions" due to their religious beliefs. At first glance, this might seem a potent argument. However, it's little more than sleight of hand. Medical professionals are not allowed to say, "I perform abortions, but only for heterosexuals." That would be discrimination, and that's exactly what florists, bakers, and county magistrates would be doing if they provided their services to some but not others.

Here's the one I'd like to run by conservatives who talk about religious freedom in these terms: Think about someone whose religious beliefs state that women must not work outside the home. Now imagine that person having authority over hiring decisions at his job. Do his religious beliefs allow him to discriminate against a female candidate for a position? Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of both religion and sex. I'd like to see a conservative argue that religious freedom gives the man in this scenario the right to reject, out of hand, all women candidates seeking employment.

This is not about religious freedom. All Americans are guaranteed the right to their religious beliefs, the right to worship (or not) any deity they choose in the manner in which they choose. That is a bedrock principle of this country, and progressives would fight tooth and nail to preserve it, should it ever be endangered. The thing is that it's not in danger, other than from conservatives themselves, from people like Bryan Fischer, who, last September, said that all immigrants should be forced to convert to Christianity. Fischer remains connected to the American Family Association, an organization closely allied to the Republican National Committee.

It's really simple. Conservatives think religious freedom gives them the right to discriminate on the basis of their religious beliefs. They're wrong, because, to paraphrase Zechariah Chafee, their right to practice their religion ends where my nose begins.
...................................................................................................................................................................

"House Republican leadership is finding that it’s a mixed bag, having an expanded majority."

...................................................................................................................................................................
The Pitfalls of a New Majority
So far, the GOP hasn’t accomplished as much as it would have liked.
By Susan Milligan, February 2, 2015

It should have been a time of triumph for congressional Republicans, a chance to show their ability to lead. After spending all of President Barack Obama’s six years in office with one or both chambers in Democratic control, now the GOP had its opportunity – and at an opportune time, to boot. With a more muscular majority in the House and a new majority in the Senate, Republicans were ideally poised to pass legislation, dare Obama to veto it and cast the Democrats as the obstructionists who couldn’t manage to get things done when they were in power.

Less than a month into the 114th Congress, the reality is: not so much. House Republican leadership is finding that it’s a mixed bag, having an expanded majority. A bigger caucus naturally tends to create more factions within that group, and those minority-within-the-majority factions themselves feel more empowered to make demands.

In the Senate, Republicans are reminded that they are subject to the same frustrations and political pressures Democrats had when they were in power. Now, it’s the Republicans (with 54 seats) who need to muster the 60 votes needed to stop a Democratic filibuster. Several blue-state Republicans are facing the same landscape in 2016 as red-state Democrats did last year, and know they will be called to account for a party-line vote that doesn’t please their less-than-conservative constituents.

The majority “is a good place, because you get your ideas up for a vote. It’s a good place to be to drive your issues,” says Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. But “at the end of the day, you need collaboration,” Graham adds, or the Senate will remain as Democrats complained it operated when they were in the chair – paralyzed by a minority that won’t allow votes on bills that would pass with a simple majority.

In the House, where the Democratic minority is virtually powerless because of the chamber’s more majority-friendly rule book, Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is tangling with irritations in his own party. His first few weeks have been marked by an intraparty fight over abortion, as well as an abandoned effort to pass a border control bill.

Boehner acknowledged the glitches but wrote them off as growing pains.

“We wanted to get off to a fast start this year and, as a result, taken bills that have passed in the past and put other bills together, in spite of the fact that committees in many cases have not had their organizational meetings,” Boehner told reporters after meeting privately with his caucus last week. “And so, yeah, there have been a couple of stumbles, all in our effort to show the American people that we’re here to listen to their priorities.”

The “stumbles,” as Boehner called them, started early. The House Republicans came right out of the gate with what could have been a great message-bill: a measure to ban abortions after 20 weeks.

But women in the Republican caucus balked, arguing against a provision that made exception for rape victims, but only if those victims reported the assaults to police. Critics say that provision unfairly punishes women who have been raped and who may already be afraid to come forward.

The measure was symbolic anyway: Democrats almost certainly would have filibustered it in the Senate, Obama would presumably veto it and it’s unclear whether it would have passed court scrutiny. In the end, House Republican leadership pulled the bill, leaving the party with no message at all, save a talking point for 2016 Democratic candidates eager to make women’s issues a bigger deal.

Immigration, too, was meant to be a rallying point for the newly empowered Republicans. But GOP leaders pulled consideration of a measure that would require the Department of Homeland Security to have “operational control” over the border to prevent illegal crossings.

Officially, the bill was pulled because poor weather prevented needed congressmen from making it to the vote, but conservatives say the measure didn’t go far enough because it didn’t undo Obama’s executive action extending temporary legal status to millions of immigrants in the country illegally. And the measure would have had an uncertain fate in the Senate, even with Republican control.

“I’m really concerned that there might be an impression that once this bill is passed, everything is taken care of,” says Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

The Senate, too, has gotten off to a rocky start. New Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., points out that the Senate has had more roll-call votes on amendments in the first few weeks than it did in the whole of last year. But Democrats are also complaining that McConnell shut down members of their party seeking to offer amendments on the floor (ironically the same charge Republicans levied against Democrats when they ran the Senate).

Several lawmakers offered amendments to a measure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline and were not offered a chance to speak on their own proposals before the amendments were tabled.

“It’s not surprising, but I hope it doesn’t represent the way we go forward,” says Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., whose bipartisan amendment on home heating assistance was not allowed even a discussion.

Piqued over the majority’s refusal to permit a debate and vote on amendments, as McConnell had pledged to do in principle, Democrats blocked a vote on the Keystone bill. The Senate did approve Keystone later in the week, but Obama has pledged to veto it.

Asked if Democrats would adopt the same strategy they themselves criticized – holding up bills that had majority support – Reed says, “My hope is that we don’t get there,” and that the majority will allow votes.

The GOP has another wrinkle, as well – Republican senators up for re-election in 2016 may need to display their moderate sides. Unlike their last election cycle, the GOP wave of 2010, these senators will be running in a presidential year, possibly with a Democratic nominee who could galvanize female voters and Democrats overall.

The disruption on the Hill, meanwhile, has enabled Obama to keep doing what he has been doing since the Democrats’ big November losses: go ahead on his own and make policy by executive action and federal rule-making. Obama recently proposed protecting more of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from oil and gas drilling, while offering to allow drilling in the Atlantic – a compromise that does not satisfy Republicans.

“The president may want to have it both ways, but there is a huge disparity between what he is taking off the table for American energy security … for the small amount he’s putting on [the table],” says Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo.

The table, for the moment, is Obama’s to set, as long as Republicans are still adjusting to their new status on the Hill.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Sunday, February 1, 2015

"It’s worth noting that, even when he was running in 1993, Walker was not considered 'fresh.'"

...................................................................................................................................................................
Not So ‘Fresh’: Political Careerist Scott Walker Has Been Running for a Quarter-Century
By John Nichols, February 1, 2015

When Mitt Romney, who is anything but a fresh face in the Republican hierarchy decided to forgo a third run for the presidency, he announced, “I believe that one of our next generation of Republican leaders—one who may not be as well-known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started—may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee. In fact, I expect and hope that to be the case.”

Full-on Republican presidential contender Scott Walker just presumed that the man who Republican primary voters rejected in 2008, and who the rest of the American electorate rejected in 2012, was talking about a certain governor of Wisconsin.

Never mind that, in his book, Unintimidated: A Governor’s Story and a Nation’s Challenge, Walker ripped the party’s 2012 campaign—and, by extension, its nominee—for doing a “lousy job of presenting a positive vision of free market solutions to our nation’s problems in a way that is relevant to people’s lives.” Never mind that Walker griped just days before Romney quit the race that a 2016 run by the 2012 loser would be “pretty hard” to justify. Never mind that Walker, one of the most relentlessly negative campaigners in contemporary American politics, was more than ready to beat up on Romney if that was necessary to advance his own 2016 run. With Romney’s decision to sideline himself, Walker chirped, “I would love to have his endorsement.”

Walker actually went a step further, going on Twitter to suggest that he was precisely the sort of “next generation” leader Romney was referring to. “Had a great conversation w/ @MittRomney,” Walker announced. “He’s a good man. Thanked him for his interest in opening the door for fresh leadership in America.”

There’s only one problem with this calculus.

Scott Walker isn’t fresh.

The governor is a political careerist who has sought office—as a winner and loser—more times that Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul and Ted Cruz combined.

In a permanent campaign that began a quarter century ago—when he quit college and launched a losing state legislative campaign against future US Congresswoman Gwen Moore—Walker has run 24 primary and general election races. That doesn’t include a 2006 bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in Wisconsin, which he scrapped after national party officials elbowed him aside in favor of another candidate, or his all-but announced 2016 presidential run.

Hyper-ambitious yet strikingly disciplined, Walker has used every office he has ever held as a platform from which to run for the next. Even when scandals have led to the arrests, indictments and convictions of campaign donors, campaign aides and official staffers, Walker has maintained a steady focus on climbing the political ladder that is perhaps most comparable to that of former President Bill Clinton.

As a state legislator, Walker backed an effort to recall the sitting Milwaukee County Executive and then jumped into the race for that job. After winning his first full term as county executive in 2004, Walker immediately began running for the 2006 Republican gubernatorial nomination.

When that run was scuttled, Walker sought and secured a second term as county executive in 2008, only to immediately begin running for the 2010 Republican gubernatorial nomination. After securing the governorship, Walker quickly began positioning himself on the national stage—not just by picking high-profile fights with Wisconsin unions that would, ultimately, lead to a rare gubernatorial recall challenge but by jetting around the country to court the wealthiest campaign donors and to appear in the first caucus state of Iowa and the first primary state of New Hampshire.

Before his 2014 reelection race was complete, Walker was already visiting Las Vegas with other 2016 Republican presidential prospects seeking the favor of billionaire campaign donor Sheldon Adelson. Despite the fact that he said during that 2014 race that he intended to serve the full term he was seeking—“I want to be governor and that’s the only thing I’ve been focused on,” “My plan—if the voters approve—is to serve as governor for the next four years”—Walker was already actively preparing a 2016 run. He even wrote (well, sort of wrote, with the help of a politically connected DC insider who had worked as a speechwriter for George W. Bush) an autobiography/manifesto that was so transparent in its ambition that Glenn Beck’s The Blaze described as “the archetype of a book for a future Presidential candidate (written) without ever so much as hinting as to any intent to run for president Walker is now well beyond the hinting stage. And they run is going well, so far, with governor beginning to climb in the polls. One survey even puts him in first place among Iowa Republicans, one point ahead of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul and further ahead of prominent prospects such as Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. No surprise there: Walker has a lot more experience contending for public office than most of the other Republicans who are preparing to run in 2016.

Walker ran his first campaign for elective office four years before Jeb Bush and eight years before Rubio. Walker was an elected official in Wisconsin seventeen years before Rand Paul was elected in Kentucky, and nineteen years before Ted Cruz was elected in Texas. Walker was running even before party elders such as Mike Huckabee, who won his first election in Arkansas in the summer of 1993—a month after Walker was first elected to the Wisconsin legislature.

It’s worth noting that, even when he was running in 1993, Walker was not considered “fresh.” When it endorsed him that year, the conservative Milwaukee Sentinel referred to Walker not as a newcomer but as what he already was decades ago: “an active Republican insider.”
...................................................................................................................................................................

"... Huckabee's views on gay marriage are at odds with the beliefs of a majority of Americans." Then the majority of Americans need to be sure that Huckabee doesn't become President!!

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Well, isn't that magnanimous of the old coot.
*  Huckabee sounds like a fundamentalist preacher with delusions of being a real Christian.
*  And Republicans wonder why Americans have given up on them...
...................................................................................................................................................................
Huckabee compares being gay to drinking, swearing

Asking him to accept same-sex marriage 'is like asking someone who's Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli'

By Dylan Stableford, February 1, 2015



Possible Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee says homosexuality is a lifestyle choice like drinking and swearing — which is why he can accept friends who are gay, despite his religious convictions.

"People can be my friends who have lifestyles that are not necessarily my lifestyle," Huckabee said in an interview with CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday. "I don't shut people out of my circle or out of my life because they have a different point of view. I don't drink alcohol, but gosh — a lot of my friends, maybe most of them, do. You know, I don't use profanity, but believe me, I've got a lot of friends who do. Some people really like classical music and ballet and opera — it's not my cup of tea."

Still, there's no chance the former Arkansas governor will ever accept gay marriage — whether he runs for president or not.

"This is not just a political issue," Huckabee said "It is a biblical issue. And as a biblical issue — unless I get a new version of the scriptures, it's really not my place to say, 'OK, I'm just going to evolve.'"

Asking a Christian to accept same-sex marriage, Huckabee said, is "like asking someone who's Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli."

"We don't want to do that — I mean, we're not going to do that," he said. "Or like asking a Muslim to serve up something that is offensive to him, or to have dogs in his backyard. We're so sensitive to make sure we don't offend certain religions, but then we act like Christians can't have the convictions that they've had for 2,000 years."

But Huckabee's views on gay marriage are at odds with the beliefs of a majority of Americans. According to a May 2014 Gallup poll, 55 percent of those polled said same-sex couples should have marriage rights like everyone else. Forty-two percent said they should not.

"I'd like to think that there's room in America for people who have different points of view without screaming and shouting and wanting to shut their businesses down," Huckabee said Sunday. "What worries me in this new environment we're in, it's not just that someone might disagree. They don't want to argue with me, even take a different point of view. They want to close someone's business down."

The interview drew some immediate scorn on Twitter, where users mocked Huckabee's comments.
Because it's super fun? RT @cnnbrk: Huckabee compares being gay to drinking, swearing. http://t.co/fCYFX3rPSX pic.twitter.com/QvbqM7a5ES
— Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) February 1, 2015

Mike Huckabee is right. Being gay is like drinking and using profanity -- it's something Jesus never said he was against.
— LOLGOP (@LOLGOP) February 1, 2015

It happens. Sincerely, the Jews. MT @TPM: Huckabee: I'll oppose gay marriage until I see "new version" of Bible http://t.co/VSTGoZ1UQn
— David Frum (@davidfrum) February 1, 2015
Huckabee's comments come as he is considering another presidential run.

In an appearance on the "Daily Show" last week, Huckabee said it is “very likely, very possible” that he will run for president in 2016. He vied for the GOP presidential nomination — and lost — in 2008.
...................................................................................................................................................................

Businesses are gradually accepting the Affordable Care Act. So what's your next move, GOP?

...................................................................................................................................................................
Obamacare’s not so bad after all, business leaders say
By Bill Hethcock, February 1, 2015

How's the Affordable Care Act working out for you?

That was the question that Dallas Business Journal Publisher Tracy Merzi put to panelists at a recent manufacturing summit in Dallas.

"Actually, it's a little bit better than we thought it would be, strangely enough," said Mike Winemiller, president and CEO of Briggs International, a Dallas-based industrial equipment dealer.

"We have a bunch of Republicans sitting on the board," he added. "We were all pessimistic … but I think overall it's a very viable option in the marketplace."

The Affordable Care Act has put a focus on wellness in a way that's beneficial to businesses, said Winemiller, who told me after the panel discussion that he lost 67 pounds in the past year, motivated in large part by incentives stemming from the ACA.

The Federal Reserve surveys employers about the impact of the Affordable Care Act, and businesses are gradually accepting it, said Jesus Canas, business economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

"At the beginning of the health care act there was a lot of uncertainty, and they were really concerned about the effects," Canas said. "But as time has passed they have changed their attitude about the health care act."

The Federal Reserve has specifically asked whether the ACA will cause employers to change their hiring plans, and most say the act is not affecting those decisions, Canas said. Nor are employers cutting workers' hours to less than 30 per week to avoid being forced under the act to provide health insurance, he said.

Paul Mayer, CEO of the Garland Chamber of Commerce, said health care providers, insurers and employers are coming together in ways that wouldn't have happened without the Affordable Care Act.

The ACA has forced businesses and their employees as well as physicians and insurance carriers to pay attention to health care and the associated costs like never before, Mayer said.

Employers and insurers, for example, are adding teeth to their wellness programs to control health care-related costs, Mayer said. Little steps such as switching to generic drugs instead of name brands can add up to big savings, he added.

"It's a long-term cultural shift, and I think the catalyst for it was the Affordable Care Act," Mayer said.

Employers such as Baylor Scott & White Health Care System won't hire smokers or people who use tobacco in any form, Mayer pointed out. He expects other businesses to follow suit.

Mayer added that he, at age 65, lost 80 pounds in the past year, changed his diet and started working out, and his impetus was the focus the ACA has put on people taking charge of their own health.

"I'm part of that movement that realizes it's my responsibility," he said.

Now, businesses need consistency in health care regulation, Mayer and Winemiller agreed.

"Let's don't wait three years and then change the whole darn thing," Winemiller said. "That, to me, is idiotic. We've got to make sure the government stays consistent."
...................................................................................................................................................................

Yet another reason why the Iowa "experience" is premature.

...................................................................................................................................................................
COMMENTS:
*  Big deal.  Iowa is where the cream de la Republican crazies meet to choose their champion lunatic. That's why Santorum won the Iowa straw poll in 2012.  This time, though, they chose a lunatic with Koch backing:  Scott Walker.   He's a very dangerous politician for anyone who cares about the United States.
*  Got to hand it to cons, at least the descending order goes from off the wall to absolute loon.
*  Iowa only speaks for the hard core Evangelical vote - hardly a real determinant as to whom will get the GOP nomination much less national vote.  With Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee, and Ben Carson in the Top Five one can easily see that Iowa is making itself a national laughingstock.  None of them stand a chance in a national forum.  Once the GOP gets past Iowa and South Carolina then the seriousness of the election will become evident, but certainly not during the "God Guts, Guns and Gravy" mentality.
...................................................................................................................................................................
Jeb Bush is already toast in Iowa: Poll

There's a new front runner in Iowa -- and it's not the expected favorite

By Salon Staff, February 1, 2015

Jeb Bush has some work to do in Iowa.

The former Florida governor, and the 2016 favorite of the GOP’s establishment and Wall Street class, is struggling in a new poll, with favorability and unfavorability numbers roughly even.

There’s also a surprising front-runner on the move. That’s Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, riding a wave of energy off a well-received speech last weekend at a “freedom” conference sponsored by Rep. Steve King.

And there’s bad news for Chris Christie below, who has the highest negatives of any Republican in the poll.

Here are the results of the latest Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register poll:

Scott Walker: 15 percent
Rand Paul: 14 percent
Mitt Romney: 13 percent
Mike Huckabee: 10 percent
Ben Carson: 9 percent
Jeb Bush: 8 percent
Ted Cruz: 5 percent
Rick Santorum: 4 percent
Chris Christie: 4 percent
Marco Rubio: 3 percent
Rick Perry: 3 percent
Bobby Jindal: 2 percent
Carly Fiorina: 1 percent
John Kasich: 1 percent:
Donald Trump: 1 percent

The poll was taken before Romney decided not to be a candidate in 2016. But when Romney’s supporters were allocated to their second choice, it did not give Bush a bounce. Walker, Paul, Huckabee and Carson remained the top four, while Jeb moved up from 8 percent to 9 percent.
...................................................................................................................................................................