This Isn't working.

The actions of Tennessee's senior US senator got me to thinking. In the August 2 edition of his daily poll, podcaster and CNN broadcaster Michael Smerconish asks whether viewers agree or disagree with the proposition "It is in the political best interests of Democrats to publicly give Pres. Trump credit when he accomplishes something with which they concur." (Most respondents went with "agree," as did Smerconish himself.) But that might be the wrong question to ask.

In an interview with Newsmax

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., on Friday accused Democrats of having “devised a scheme that would hurt President Trump personally and end the campaign” for the White House in 2016.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard last week released what her office claims is “overwhelming evidence” that former President Barack Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and other high-ranking Democrats “politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump” after he was first elected in 2016.

And the video linked to by the tweet has her adding

I thought it was so incredibly interesting that the Democrats cannot accept the will of the American people. They cannot accept the outcome at the ballot box. And of course we're seeing it even today because they lost at the ballot box. They've lost in the courts.  

Now, what are they trying to do ? They're trying to resist and obstruct everything that President Trump and his Administration and the Republican-led House and Senate are doing on behalf of the American people.

GOP Senator on 2016 election: "I find it so incredibly interesting that the Democrats cannot accept the will of the American people. They cannot accept the outcome at the ballot box." @atrupar pic.twitter.com/sbohjUs3Md

— The Intellectualist (@highbrow_nobrow) August 2, 2025

Annoyed that Democrats would not unquestioningly accept  the agenda of a duly-elected president,  Senator Blackburn appears to advocate unilateral surrender of the Democratic Party to anything and everything Trump.. That would create a tyranny of the majority, which James Madison and other Founding Fathers were determined to avoid by creating a federal system and separation of powers at the federal level.

Blackburn, Representative Tim Burchett, Representative Mark Green, and Bill Haggerty (elected 11/24 and not sworn in at the time) are Tennessee Republicans who on January 6 each denounced the riot of that day. However, when national journalists asked them of their opinion of the pardons Trump handed out, none responded. So J. Holly McCall of Tennessee Lookout contacted them, but only Hagerty responded, defending the President; The other three failed to reply.

Tennessee has become one of the most reliably Republican state in the country, and so little can be learned by the blind loyalty to Trump of its most prominent national officials. However, it is fairly typical of Republicans nationally. Here is Politico in late January proclaiming that "several" Republican senators had criticized President Trump for pardoning violent January 6 protesters. Those "several" included S. Collins of Maine, L. Murkowski of Alaska, M. Rounds of South Dakota, and T. Tillis of North Carolina. That's 4 out of 53- not much of a rebuke.

And there are always a few Republicans willing to buck Trump on any one issue, as long as the numbers are insufficient to make an impact.  A prime example was President Trump's megabill, passed by the Senate and the House just in the nick of time, as requested, for Trump to make a show of signing it on July 4.

The GOP could afford no more defections in the Senate. It voted  51 to 50 in favor of a bill which had been amended from the one the House had passed on a procedural vote. But instead of going to committee as is the custom in such cases, the House passed the bill, unchanged. There, the GOP could afford only one more defection because the final vote was 218-214. Convenient- especially because it was approved on July 3, an Independence Day gift for Lord and Savior Trump..

Similarly, Jeannine Pirro was approved by the Senate on Friday to be U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. The vote was 50-45, allowing three Republicans to miss the vote. Interestingly

Pirro’s opponents had hoped Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) would have voted against her, given her election denialism. Tillis opposed Trump’s first pick for the office, Ed Martin, for defending the January 6 attacks on the Capitol. But Tillis voted to advance Pirro’s nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee and again for it on the floor. 

Tillis, who has announced his retirement, voted against the President's one big, ugly bill, no doubt in part because his vote wasn't needed. Here, he was the 50th vote in favor of the President's nominee.

But that's the game they're playing, and why the primary issue should not be whether Trump should be given credit where credit is due. Obviously, the President is the ringleader. Nevertheless, he could get nowhere without the members of his gang. They include the Republican United States Representatives and Senators, who play a critical role in the game he's playing. 

Democratic members of Congress frequently attack President Trump and Cabinet members. That is necessary, yet not sufficient. They repeatedly tell the media that lots of Republicans are with them on this issue or that but fear retribution from Trump. It's not working. Enough already.

This strategy has been a complete failure. It's sufficient to get one or two Republicans to vote in favor of the national interest but it's never quite enough, and that's not by coincidence.

Stop publicly sympathizing with the Republicans whom they imply (but never quite say) are intimidated by Donald Trump. Note that in bowing to Trump's evil wishes, they do not have the courage of their convictions.

Alternatively, accuse these Republicans of being covert Trump allies. Perhaps, like Marsha Blackburn and those other Tennessee Republicans who condemned the 1/6/21 attempted coup only when it was politically correct to do so, they are actual extremists who agree with the self-proclaimed King.

But do something. Passivity is over, at least for the Republican Party, and they seem to be doing quite well these days.

Share |

No Counterattack

The morning following unexpected release of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's unpopular draft opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell strategically tweeted "by every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left's ongoing campaign." Senator Marsha Blackburn tweeted  "I have no doubt that the Chief Justice will work to root out the radical activist" (who)  must be immediately removed from their position and exiled from the legal community."

McConnell and Blackburn both speak as if it is understood that the culprit is of the left, with Blackburn assuming also that he or she is a lawyer. The latter is unclear, the former far more doubtful. The remarks of U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas best encapsulate the GOP's strategic tactics of distraction, ad hominem, and straw man remarks.  At 1:06 of the video below, he charges

Let's be honest. What this leaker probably believes is that they're gonna be made a martyr. They're gonna get a great gig on MSNBC. They might be disbarred but they're gonna get a great gig on the left. They're gonna become a spokesperson for the pro-abortion movement....

We know a couple of things, one of which is "they're gonna." Also, that Republicans will be- already are- dictating with careful, yet scorching, language the terms of the debate. Crenshaw surmises that the leaker of Alito's draft majority opinion is someone of the left, who then will get "a great gig with MSNBC." 

It likely that the leaker was of the right, with anti-abortion rights activist and right-winger Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, the most likely culprit. However, we probably will never learn the identity of the leaker because Chief Justice John Roberts would prefer he or she remain anonymous. The New York Times reports

Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix The Court, a nonprofit group that pushes to make the Supreme Court more accountable to the people, said the leak investigation amounted to a massive task for the Supreme Court marshal, a job he described as ​​“more administrative than investigatory” in nature.

“The marshal’s like the C.O.O. of the Supreme Court,” Mr. Roth said. “They concern themselves with overseeing the police, overseeing hirings. They’re involved in the budget proposals that are released every year. They’re involved in ensuring decorum is maintained during an open Supreme Court session.”

Consequently, it's a no-risk proposition for Republicans to allege, with affected certainty, that the culprit is a leftist. They knew Democrats would not challenge the narrative.

Two can play at that game but it's only one when Democrats are unwilling to charge that a member of the GOP is at fault. Democrats can defend themselves only by reversing the charges, a risk worth taking. Conservatives have stronger motives than liberals for the draft opinion to be leaked well before the elections in November.  Yet, they are demonizing the Democratic Party as the villain and the subject of the smear has not responded..

Crenshaw additionally refers to the pro-choice position as "the pro-abortion movement," both in the clip beginning at 1:04 and when he alleges (at 3:45) ".... and you noted something about the- they call it the pro-choice movement. It is a pro-abortion movement."

Very few people are actually pro-abortion. You know it, they know it, but anti-abortion ideologues do not, and demagogues are going to demagogue. There is no way to stop the right from invoking the spurious term "pro-abortion."

Nor is there a way to stop conservatives, who generally oppose universal pre-school, paid family leave, and low-cost birth control for the needy, from calling themselves "pro-life." So the left should refer to anti-choice people as "pro-forced birth." That has the advantage not only of being a negative characterization but also of being accurate.

The opinion that was released prematurely on Monday may or may not mirror the actual decision when it is handed down.  What surely won't change, though, is the GOP's effort to vilify the left, whether as criminals or as baby killers.  "When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama once stated. That was bad advice then and is even worse advice now.

Share |

Jackson Was Right

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once declared ""The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The phrase long ago was bastardized, and popularized, as "you can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater." 

The concept has been contradicted more than once by the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, it still is oft-cited by individuals arguing that government can, when facts of a matter indicate, establish a limit to free expression.

However, it turns out that in some circumstances, you can be hostile, noisy, and threatening with virtual impunity.. Upon questioning of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., pressed Jackson on her views about abortion, arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

She quoted from a filing Jackson made in a case that referred to a group of anti-abortion rights activists as "noisy" and "hostile." She then asked Jackson whether, when she saw anti-abortion rights women at her church, she viewed them the way the women in the filing were described.

"Do you look at them thinking of them in that way, that they're noisy, hostile, in your face? Do you think of them? Do you think of pro-life women like me that way?" Blackburn asked.

Jackson said the line Blackburn quoted was part of a brief filed on behalf of a client, not a statement of her own opinion.

"That was a statement made in a brief I made on behalf of my client," Jackson said.

But Blackburn found the response insufficient.

"I think even zealous advocacy doesn’t allow that kind of rhetoric on a free speech issue," Blackburn said.

Shame on anyone, a judge or a layman, to call a conservative "noisy" or "hostile."  It seems it's not only the left which is appalled at "microaggressions." 

An Associated Press fact-checker explains

Asked about the brief on Tuesday and Wednesday, Jackson said she worked on the case after joining a private law firm that represented a group advocating for a buffer zone. She said the Massachusetts law was not directed at abortion rights opponents but rather women and men protesting on both sides. The Supreme Court in later years struck down the law after the buffer zone was widened to 35 feet.

The law was struck down in 2014 by a unanimous, 9-0 vote. Yet as PBS legal consultant Nina Totenberg noted upon reporting the ruling, in Massachusetts "two people were shot and killed and five others were wounded at abortion clinics in 1994. After first trying a moving, 'no approach' buffer zone, the state in 2007 adopted a fixed, stationary 35-foot buffer zone outside clinics."

At the time, there were five conservative, and four liberal,  judges on the Court. A majority opinion and three concurring opinions were issued by the Justices because their reasons for deciding against Massachusetts varied.

The scoreboard now stands not at 5-4 but at 6-3. Whether Roe v. Wade is completely overturned- as is widely speculated- soon, we now can turn Oliver Wendell Holmes' wisdom on its head: when it obstructing women's reproductive health freedom, you can yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater.

 

Share |

What, No "Bolshevism"?

In 2018 Taylor Swift urged voters to reject the bid for the U.S. Senate of Republican Marsha Blackburn in favor of Democrat Phil Bredesen. Blackburn won easily but not before Swift had blasted her in an Instagram post, remarking

I cannot vote for someone who will not be willing to fight for dignity for ALL Americans, no matter their skin color, gender or who they love. Running for Senate in the state of Tennessee is a woman named Marsha Blackburn. As much as I have in the past and would like to continue voting for women in office, I cannot support Marsha Blackburn. Her voting record in Congress appalls and terrifies me. She voted against equal pay for women. She voted against the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, which attempts to protect women from domestic violence, stalking, and date rape. She believes businesses have a right to refuse service to gay couples. She also believes they should not have the right to marry. These are not MY Tennessee values. I will be voting for Phil Bredesen for Senate and Jim Cooper for House of Representatives.

Taylor hit (almost) all of the (relatively safe) cultural g-spots- supporting equal pay for women, same sex marriage, and racial civil rights while opposing domestic violence, date rape, and discrimination against gay individuals.  She left out reproductive freedom and discrimination rationalized by alleged religious faith, but, hey, she has a career to protect.

So now the Tennessee Senator has taken to denouncing Swift:

Marsha Blackburn appears to be confusing socialism with Sharia. Is there an IQ test you have to fail to be a Republican politician? https://t.co/pMLxE7U5a0

— Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) July 9, 2021

Taylor Swift may oppose rule by the wealthiest .1%, but it's not a priority, unless those rulers are from an unapproved racial or sexual group. Although Senator Blackburn is describing Sharia, she probably is aware that Swift's beef with her is not over monopoly, anti-trust, government deregulation, or taxation or anything obstructing the lower or working classes. 

Nonetheless, Blackburn ends her attack on Swift with "They don't allow protection of private intellectual property rights."

Private. Property. She is singing from the old GOP playbook in which one economic class is entitled by divine right to rule over the others.

It may be no coincidence that President Trump's once sobriety-deprived quack of a doctor is going the same route:

Rep. Ronny Jackson describes Democrats as "socialist communist Marxist" pic.twitter.com/C5owdD9wHv

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 9, 2021

Republicans promote anti-minority policies, the most notable and significant being voter suppression. However, they often are afraid of confronting the culture wars directly.  The "socialist" thing is safer because it shields Republicans from being labeled "misogynistic" or, worse yet, "racist." so over the next 16 months, there will be more of this.

Democrats are not defenseless. Try"if helping mothers with child care...," "if regulating Big Tech...." or "if public education of our children...."  Otherwise, there is the old standby: "Republicans used to call Social Security and Medicare 'socialist.'"  Sometimes, truth is the best defense and offense.

Share |

If Only She Had Been Referring to Donald Trump

As almost everyone has heard or read:

Adam Schiff is hailing Alexander Vindman as an American patriot.

How patriotic is it to badmouth and ridicule our great nation in front of Russia, America’s greatest enemy?

— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) January 23, 2020

Personally, I'd lean a little further south, even below Mongolia, to come up with our "greatest enemy" but your mileage may vary. However, I'll bite and recall reading in May 2017

President Trump revealed highly classified information to the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week, according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.

The information the president relayed had been provided by a U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted even within the U.S. government, officials said.

The partner had not given the United States permission to share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security Agency.

“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”

Were Donald Trump a private citizen, he'd be known by the word spy. Instead, one of his toadies, this one from Tennessee, suggests that President Bone Spurs is more patriotic than a Purple Heart recipient who served in Iraq.  It's tempting to say "can Republicans go even lower?"  However, the answer is the same as it would be to "will Republicans go even lower?"  Yes.

Share |

Don't Call It Treason

Circumstances change so quickly in the Trump era that by the time something is published, it's almost out-of-date.  Scholars at Stanford University have issued a report citing methods which could be used to protect the democratic process and on Tuesday the Washington Post editorial board wrote

Measures also could be taken to hamper Russia’s efforts to manipulate the American public online. Foreign states and individuals should be barred from purchasing online advertisements intended to influence the electorate, even when they are not expressly advocating for or against a candidate. Something like the Honest Ads Act is also necessary to require that platforms reveal who paid for political ads that do run — using the names of responsible individuals, rather than only opaque organizations. Social media sites should establish an official body to coordinate with each other and the government about threats, which might require a law lowering the barriers to sharing information.

All this is only a start, and it represents but a handful of those 45 recommendations the Stanford report authors have to offer, yet it is still bounds beyond what the government has managed so far. The United States has not given Russia or any other would-be meddler any real reason to stop meddling. It would help, of course, to have a president willing to admit the problem instead of papering it over with the chief perpetrator. It is a dereliction of duty for Congress and the administration not to take up on a most urgent basis the defense of the nation’s democratic process.

The President is no longer "papering it over." The very next day we learned that President Trump, asked by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos whether he'd take information offered to him about a campaign opponent by a foreign nation, had stated

It's not an interference, they have information -- I think I'd take it. If I thought there was something wrong, I'd go maybe to the FBI -- if I thought there was something wrong. But when somebody comes up with oppo research, right, they come up with oppo research, 'oh let's call the FBI.' The FBI doesn't have enough agents to take care of it. When you go and talk, honestly, to congressman, they all do it, they always have, and that's the way it is. It's called oppo research.

It's not "papering over" when a candidate practically begs a foreign power for dirt on a political candidate. Similarly, Congress cannot be cited for "dereliction of duty." On Thursday, Republican senator Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee stated “All of us know, if you were to ever be contacted by a foreign entity, your first call is the FBI. I don’t care if it’s Russia, Norway, China, whomever."

If it is Donald Trump receiving the information, however, the above is inoperable. Then she

blocked an effort to pass a bill requiring political campaigns to report to the FBI any offers of foreign assistance.

After President Donald Trump said he would welcome information from a foreign government about his opponents in the 2020 election, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) tried to pass the bill on the Senate floor via unanimous consent. Blackburn prevented unanimous consent by raising an objection to the measure....

It’s already illegal for electoral campaigns to knowingly accept help from a foreign entity or power. Warner’s bill would also mandate that campaigns report such an offer of foreign assistance to federal authorities.

Blackburn objected to the legislation, however, arguing that it would pose an “overbroad” burden on campaigns. The senator claimed that it would apply to campaign workers on “so many different levels” ― from vendors to door knockers to phone bankers. And she said she worried about how the bill would affect Dreamers ― undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children ― who sign up to volunteer for political campaigns.

Blackburn added that, of course, “no one wants foreign interference of any type” in U.S. elections.

Warner responded by calling his colleague’s reading of the bill “not accurate.”

“The only thing that would have to be reported is if the agent of a foreign government or national offered something that was already prohibited,” he said.

Can you imagine a GOP politician lying?  Donald Trump has set the standard and it's going to be impossible for a member of his party to catch up. That applies even to Marsha Blackburn, who has a questionable history, having probably met with Alexander Torshin and other Russian nationals in her home state, and not to discuss the Tennessee Titans defensive line.

It's time for The Washington Post or other news outlets to recognize that "fair" no longer is balanced or accurate. One party in Washington condones foreign interference in American elections.  One politician in Washington, supported wholeheartedly by his party, asked Russians to interfere with the last presidential election and on Wednesday invited them to do so again.

It's not as if the Republican officials are committing treason. They are not giving aid and comfort to an enemy, because Russia is not a declared enemy of the USA. But they've decided that they cannot, as the USA currently is constituted and increasingly will be constituted, win free and fair elections. They are not traitors, merely proxies for Russia.

Share |

Maybe, On Our Terms, If We Feel Like It

For readers in the greater Philadelphia, Pa. area, the news came with their morning coffee or commute to work. "Obama roars ahead with no compromise," read the Philadelphia Inquirer headline, an analysis by veteran Washington Post reporters Karen Tumulty and Juliet Eilperin.

The problem lies not in the headline- which accurately reflects the tenor of the story- but in the analysis itself, which reflects the prevailing perspective in the Fourth Estate.

One problem, Tumulty and Eilperin indicate, lies in the Executive order the President apparently will be issuing on immigration reform.  You remember the bill establishing comprehensive reform, approved by the U.S. Senate in June, 2013 by a vote of 68 to 32, including the support of 14 Republicans.   On June 30 of this year, announcing he'd prefer "permanent fixes" rather than "administrative action," the President warned he was "beginning a new effort to fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress."  Time is running out.

There also has been considerable consternation in the conservative media, including the mainstream portion of it, over Obama's public support for net neutrality, spurred by his recognition that internet service providers "have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business."  The 41 members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, who recently signed sent a letter to the Federal Communications Commission opposing any action to ensure neutrality, evidently believe that ability to pay should determine access to the Internet.

We see a slightly different, somewhat improved Obama from the guy who, following the 2010 off-year elections, assertedhis party had been "shellacked," thereby himself claiming for the GOP a mandate.. By contrast, on November 5 of this year, the President maintained "To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you, too." Although Obama's declaration was partly motivated by strategic concerns, it was an acknowledgment that government of the people, by the people, and for the people ought to work for all Americans, a novel concept insufficiently elitist to many of the President's critics.

Even if the President's statement were meant to mollify the base of his party, it's a base which accepts compromise, as Obama always has. A post-election Pew Research Center poll revealed more Democrats want Obama to "work with Republicans even if it disappoints some Democratic supporters" than want him to "'stand up' to Republicans even if it gets done even if less gets done in Washington."  Unfortunately, 66% of Republicans and Republican leaners favor a different approach, preferringt the GOP to "stand up' to Obama even if less gets done in Washington."

It's not surprising. Now, not satisfied with 54 votes to weaken and/or destroy the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans (reports The Hill) "are mulling a hearing over ObamaCare consultant Jonathan Gruber’s remark that the 'stupidity of the American voter' contributed to the law’s passage."   And Republicans are aghast at the likelihood of an executive order pertaining to illegal immigration primarily because; in the words of Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, "he was not elected king," notwithstanding Obama's paltry use of executive orders compared to every President going back to Benjamin Harrison and including Saint Reagan.

(The content of the expected Order is not wise policy- more on that at a later date. Suffice it to say, if the Obama government instead embarked on a process of deporting more illegal immigrants than previous Administrations, the Republicans would complain about his immigration policy. Wait- it did, and they did.)

If it's Obama, it's bad, as illustrated by the cartoons below from the Miami Herald's Jim Morin and as described by Steve M..   Like a Robert Frost character, the GOP has two choices in that, as Firedoglake's Jon Walker puts it, "They can try to get a few items approved in a deal with Obama now, or they can bet on trying to create a possible climate for a GOP win in 2016. That would give them full control of the federal government and allow them to advance many of their priorities. At the moment it seems many Republicans would prefer to second option."

Share |

Die Now, Die Later, Or Just Go Away

Speaking at the Port of New Orleans on Thursday, President Obama implored Governor Bobby Jindal, who has rejected Medicaid expansion, to accept free money:

We want to work with everybody, mayor, governor, insurance companies -- whoever it is that wants to wants to work with us here in Louisiana to make sure even if you don't support the overall plan, let's at least go ahead and make sure that the folks who don't have health insurance, let's make sure we do that. It's the right thing to do.

But the Louisiana governor would have none of it, responding (according to The Huffington Post, punctuation included)

We will not allow President Obama to bully Louisiana into accepting an expansion of Obamacare. “We have rejected Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in Louisiana because it would cost Louisiana taxpayers up to $1.7 billion over the next ten years and move nearly 250,000 Louisianians from private coverage to Medicaid. “The disastrous rollout of Obamacare is a case in point that we don’t need top-down, one-size-fits-all federal mandates, and instead should continue to focus on health care solutions that make sense for Louisiana. “Obamacare needs to be repealed. The dysfunction of the website and the President’s broken promises on being able to keep your health plan are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the problems with this law.

The big 'bully' says "take our money- or else I'll give a speech," and Bobby Jindal quakes. Obviously, "Obamacare" is anything but a "one-size-fits-all-mandate," given that states can set up their own (private insurance) marketplace, allow their citizens to participate in the federal (private insurance) marketplace, or collaborate with the federal government in establishing a (private insurance) marketplace. And then the individual may choose from among a range of (private) insurance companies, as planned by the Socialist president.   Of course, an expansion of Medicaid would move Louisianans from costly private coverage to Medicaid, for which Louisiana taxpayers would have to pay a whopping 10% of the cost beginning in 2016 to insure its poorest citizens. That's after paying 0% until 2010.

Bobby Jindal wants to repeal Obamacare and continue the system in which residents of his state in 2009 paid $6,795 per capita for health care, lower than in most states but approximately twice as great as that of the 34 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development as of 2010.

Bloomberg recently released a study of health care systems world-wide on, as The Huffington Post, explains

three criteria: life expectancy (weighted 60%), relative per capita cost of health care (30%); and absolute per capita cost of health care (10%). Countries were scored on each criterion and the scores were weighted and summed to obtain their efficiency scores. Relative cost is health cost per capita as a percentage of GDP per capita. Absolute cost is total health expenditure, which covers preventive and curative health services, family planning, nutrition activities and emergency aid. Included were countries with populations of at least five million, GDP per capita of at least $5,000 and life expectancy of at least 70 years.

The map below illustrates how the U.S.A. fared on one of the measures of cost:

Cost per capita in this nation are exceeded only by those in Switzerland, which ranked first in the world in health care efficiency, which put it 45 places ahead of the U.S.A. of the 48 nations studied by Bloomberg:

In its 2010 update of the study (entitled "Mirror, Mirror") of the health care systems of Australia, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the U.S.A., the Commonwealth Fund found that our nation ranked last overall... as it did in 2007, 2006, and 2004. But Bobby Jindal knows what all those analysts don't, that prior to the Affordable Care Act, the U.S.A. had an efficient, humane health care system with access to all and malice toward none.

In September, 2009 then- (and again) U.S. Representative Alan Grayson of Florida presented on the floor of the House a visual display slamming the G.O.P. approach to health care.   He explained "if you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly."

Two Tennessee Republicans were horrified.   Jimmy Duncan exclaimed "That is about the most mean-spirited partisan statement that I've ever heard made on this floor and I, for one, don't appreciate it." Professional liar Marsha Blackburn whined "it's fully appropriate that the gentleman return to the floor and apologize."

Grayson declined to apologize and, truthfully, not all Republicans want every sick American to die.  But if you're poor, or elderly and out of funds, and are sick, Governor Bobby Jindal and those Repub governors who are declining to expand Medicaid have a request: Take your time, or hurry. But just die.

Share |

For A Government Shutdown Before She Was Against It- Or Not


You can't expect most Democratic members of Congress, and even fewer Republicans, to be forthright.  But one of two Repub members is at least almost there.

We might expect it easy for Senators to call out U.S. Representatives, given the animosity of one group to the other.  But it is uncommon, nevertheless. But on Wednesday on Today, GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska stated "This should not be about someone's speakership.  This should not be about the next election. This should be about, really, the future of our country. It ought not be about the politics of the game or whether or not someone keeps their leadership. I want to support John Boener in any way that I can, but we need to be pragmatic."

It remains to be seen whether whatever solution Murkowski favors is "about, really, the future of our country."  Still, it's refreshing to see any Republican, suggesting flexibility, say "I want to support John Boehner, but..."

Honesty in particular escapes one member of Boehner's caucus in the House, unfortunately. When MSNBC's Thomas Roberts on Tuesday interviewed (video, from Crooks and Liars, below) Representative Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, Politico implied the main issue was the nature of the host's question, "Congresswoman, let me ask you though, when it comes to Obamacare: Do you hate Obamacare more than you love your country?"

But more revealing, as they sparred, was Blackburn's response: "Listen to yourself. Just listen to the way you're sounding. My goodness. We didn't want a government shutdown. We don't want a government default.

My goodness, and aw, shucks.  As Politico, as faithful to its style, failed to note, Blackburn on October 1 revealed in the friendly confines of  GOP TV "You know, I think you may see a partial shutdown for several days. But (Fox and Friend co-host) Steve (Doocy), people are probably going to realize they can live with a lot less government than what they thought they needed..."

To be sure, Marsha Blackburn isn't the only Repub who has supported a shutdown of the federal government.  One of the others has been Minnesota's Michele Bachmann, who proclaimed it "just what we wanted." Still, it should be no point of pride to stand arm-in-arm with the woman who has labeled the Affordable Care Act the "crack cocaine of government dependency."   Nor is it of great distinction to support a government shutdown on Fox News and then on MSNBC to deny your support.

But Marsha Blackburn did avoid lying about something else: she never did answer whether she hates the ACA more than she loves the U.S.A.






Share |