House Republicans Going on Two-Month Vacation (Hypocrites)

Republicans in the House can now be called 'hypocrites' with the last session of Congress almost in the books.  They will go down in history as being obstructionists for two years whose primary purpose was to make the President look bad so he would be a one-term President.  All we heard out of Republicans in 2010 was elect us -- we will work for the people unlike the Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi which we now know was a very large pile of Bravo Sierra.

Four years ago, Republicans objected when then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) adjourned Congress for a five-week August recess without bringing up their energy legislation. Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) shouted “Madame Speaker, where art thou? Where oh where has Congress gone?” Now, they plan a two month vacation, even if it means allowing vital programs to expire and working families to suffer.

These group of House Republicans just came back from their 5-week vacation and now are set to take the next two months off leaving a lot of bills on the table as they go back to their districts to try and save their seats.  They would have a better chance of saving their seats if they actually stayed in DC to get their work done.  For their vacation in August they never officially adjourned because they couldn't get the votes but left anyway.

Republicans promised if we elected them in the Majority in the House in 2010 they would run things the right way with transparency, inclusiveness, and plenty of notice about bills that were going to be brought to the floor.  That didn't last long as they became as bad as the previous two years of Democrat rule and in some cases worse.  With voting 33 times to repeal ObamaCare, the House cost the taxpayers almost $50M and yet they want us to re-elect them?

There are a lot members of the House who refuse to work with any Democrats on bills which means they never learned that once elected they represent all people in their district just not Republicans.  I still have not gotten over the 3rd bill of this new House led by Republicans (HR3 -No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act) co-sponsored by 227 Republicans which tried to define rape and to have no exceptions for abortion:

Paul Ryan And Todd Akin Co-Sponsored And Voted For The “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act,” Which Redefined “Rape” As “Forcible Rape” In Order To Limit Federal Funding Of Abortion Procedures.  In 2011, Ryan and Akin co-sponsored the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortions Act. According to the Washing Post, “[a] Republican bill seeking to permanently cut off federal funding for abortions has angered women's groups that say it alters the definition of rape, permitting coverage for the procedure only in cases in which the rape is considered ‘forcible.’

Social issues along with making Obama a one-term President became the most important thing to this group of Republican House members, not the Country.

Nancy Pelosi was reminiscing about working with President Bush and how they didn't agree on a lot of things but did work together for two years unlike today's Republican obstructionists.  The Reagan/Tip O'Neill disagreements are legendary but they did find common ground on what was best for the Country.  Until this group of Republicans took control in the House in January 2011, the opposition party  in the House was able to find some type of common  ground with the President over the years not only on large issues but on smaller issues.

Not this group of Republicans whose sole intent was to oppose the President at all costs to the American people including not wanting to pass bills that would help the economy grow along with jobs.  These Republicans sacrificed what was good for all Americans by putting Party over Country. They don't deserve to be in leadership after what we have been witnessing for the last two years.

This two-month vacation is just another slap in the face to the American people when you look at the bills they are leaving on the table.  If the House Republican Conference had worked with this President like Speaker Boehner was trying, we wouldn't be worrying about a Sequester bill outcome.  Every time Boehner thought he had an agreement, the far right House members would undermine the agreement he had made with the President.  Cantor's sole purpose seemed to be to get the Tea Party Republicans in the House to line up against any agreement with Obama.  Now this group of Republicans is going on a two-month vacation to try and convince voters they should remain in charge while leaving key bills awaiting action: 

House Republicans Plan Two Month Vacation, Leaving Key Bills Awaiting Action  

By Josh Israel on Sep 14, 2012 at 6:34 pm 

House Republican Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) announced Friday that after next week, the House will stand in recess until November 13. His plan for a nearly two month vacation will undoubtedly allow more time for campaigning, but will leave several vital bills awaiting action.\ 

Among the important legislation the House will likely not address before the November elections: 

• 1. Violence Against Women Act re-authorization. Though a bipartisan Senate majority passed the a strong re-authorization bill in April, the Republican House leadership refused to allow a vote on the Senate version of the bill. The House passed a watered down version on a mostly-party lines vote, leaving victims to wait for House action. 

• 2. The American Jobs Act. Republicans have been blocking President Obama’s jobs legislation for more than a year. Though House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) promised in 2010 that a GOP Congress would focus on job creation, he has blocked this bill’s immediate infrastructure investments, tax credits for working Americans and employers, and aid to state and local governments to prevent further layoffs of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other public safety officials. 

• 3. Tax cuts for working families. In July, the Senate passed a bill extending tax-cuts for the first $250,000 in annual income. The Republican House leadership has refused to consider the bill, holding it hostage to their demands for a full extension of Bush-era tax cuts for millionaires. 

• 4. Veterans Job Corps Act. The Senate is currently considering bipartisan legislation to help America’s veterans find jobs. The Air Force Times reports that the Republican House has “shown no interest” in the legislation to support those who served the country. 

• 5. Sequestration. A spokesman for Boehner said earlier this week that stopping budget cuts he voted for last August “topped our July agenda and remains atop our agenda for September.” While House Republicans have complained about the imminent spending reductions and passed a bill that would require President Obama to find offsets for spending cuts they don’t like, Republican Leader Canter could not name a single compromise he was willing to make to get a deal. 

• 6. Farm Bill. Despite strong support for a 5-year farm bill from even conservative groups like the Farm Bureau Association — the House leadership has not scheduled a vote on the bill. The current law expires September 30. Without passage, 90 percent of the work of the Department of Agriculture could be defunded. 

• 7. Wind tax credit. The Senate may act next week to renew an expiring wind energy tax credit. Despite bipartisan support — including from original author Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Examiner notes that the House is unlikely to pass the renewal. Despite GOP calls for energy independence, the expiration has threatened the wind energy industry and already led to job cuts. 

These, in addition to drought assistance, postal service reform, addressing the Estate Tax, cybersecurity legislation, fixes for Medicare reimbursement rates and the Alternative Minimum Tax, and all 12 of the FY 2013 Appropriations Bills remain unaddressed. 

Read More at Think Progress

Some of you might ask why a Republican would use Think Progress for a source but frankly most conservative sites are unwilling to state the truth because it shows Conservatives and Republicans do not have the best interest of the Country in mind.  They prefer to be cheerleaders like Fox News, Rush, Hannity, and others for Republicans no matter the cost to the Country and the American people.  All you have to do is take this one bill that is being obstructed by Republicans in the House that could lead to defunding 90% of the Department of Agriculture to know all they care about is the Party and electing Romney/Ryan.  They do not seem to care about the people of America who would be affected by their obstructionists tactics:

GOP Farm Bill Obstruction Could Defund 90 Percent Of Department Of AgricultureBy Zack Beauchamp posted from ThinkProgress Economy on Sep 15, 2012 at 10:42 am 

The 2012 Farm Bill is still languishing in the House, with GOP leadership in the chamber intentionally preventing action on the legislation for political reasons. According to the New York Times, “House leaders declined to take up either [the Senate or the House] version of the legislation. They are not eager to force their members to take a vote that would be difficult for some of them, nor would they wish to pass a measure largely with Democrats’ votes right before an election.” 

But without a new five-year Farm Bill or at least a temporary extension of current legislation, the Department of Agriculture may be forced to shutter almost all of its operations. 

The Farm Bill serves as a mass funding mechanism for the USDA — it provides funding for roughly 90 percent of the Department’s operations, meaning those operations may have to shut down if the Farm Bill isn’t renewed. According to the National Sustainable Agriculture Commission, the effect of even a temporary shutdown could be long-lasting:

USDA would be forced to occupy a multiple-month holding pattern, temporarily stopping many services and programs. Program administration involves a certain amount of planning and preparation, stakeholder input, rulemaking, and outreach. Even if program opportunities aren’t announced until later in the year, the preparation work that leads up to announcements takes time and certainty. Programs can’t simply be “turned off” and then “turned on” again with the expectation that program delivery and administration will not suffer.

The programs that the NSAC believe would be affected include “all the major programs for beginning and minority farmers, farmers markets, organic agriculture, renewable energy, and rural economic development” and new enrollment in the “the Wetland Reserve, Grassland Reserve, and Conservation Reserve Programs.” USDA programs funded by the Farm Bill are critical to addressing the crippling drought that has spread over four-fifths of the United States. The USDA also takes a lead role in shutting down brutal factory farms and administers the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), a cost-effective food assistance program for needy families. 

This isn’t to say that the House bill is necessarily worth passing in its current form — the House version contains, among other things, deep cuts to critical food stamp programs. But failure to pass at least a stopgap necessary to keep USDA could have dangerous consequences.   

Read More at Think Progress

In some ways this is sad to me as I have been a lifelong Republican going back to knocking doors for Republican candidates as a charter member of the Ohio Teenage Republican Club.  For years I have worked campaigns and defended Republican candidates including in 2010, but this Congress and the nomination of Romney/Ryan has taken off my blinders on the Republican Party.  This is not the party of my parents or myself as I do not condone the actions of the House, the Senate with all their filibusters to keep bills from passing that would help the American people and economy, the RNC who made sure Romney was the candidate, and Romney/Ryan who have a problem with the truth preferring to lie and spin in most cases.

Then you have the so-called Republican/conservative pundits defending Romney/Ryan and Congressional Republicans like Fox News, Rove, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Medved, and others who will spin and lie to get Romney elected along with Republicans in Congress.  Rush has made some of the nastiest remarks against a sitting President I have ever heard.   His comments and those of others are pure trash and show a group of people who hate has become their most important weapon.

We will start to cover Congressional races leading up to Nov 6th in the days ahead.  We need new Congressional leadership in both parties IMHO no matter who takes control.  Tired of the far right and the far left in Congress trying to dictate their views which are outside the mainstream to the rest of us who believe in common sense and what is good for all Americans just not a few.

Chinese Xinhua News Agency Goes after Romney China-Bashing Blasting as 'Ironic'

Just maybe these comments by Santorum are the missing puzzle piece to explain this election and how some Republicans who I thought had better sense jumped on the Romney bandwagon.  Others of us could see right through the Romney facade in 2008, but have to admit he has taken it to a new low in 2012.  This could explain some of the outrageous remarks I see on various websites defending Romney not only on Libya but now his attacks on China which is really dumb since they own a lot of our debt.  Romney attacking China is beyond stupid, it is dangerous to our economy.  These comments by Santorum make me so happy at the last minute I could not cast my vote for him in the primary and threw it away voting for Governor Perry:

Santorum: ‘We Will Never Have… Smart People On Our SideBy Judd Legum on Sep 15, 2012 at 5:20 pm 

Speaking Saturday at the Values Voters Summit, Rick Santorum said that “smart people” would never side with conservatives. Watch it, via RWW. 

Santorum also claimed “the media” and “colleges and universities” would not be “on our side” because “they want to tell you what to do.”  

Rather, according to Santorum, the conservative movement will be supported by “the church and the family.” This summer, however, a group of Catholic nuns have launched a bus tour “to shed light on the effects the House Republican budget would have on the people.

Did Santorum just say that if you are smart, you will never be conservative?  Guess he includes himself in that and after some of his dumb statements in the primary, I would tend to agree.  This makes me even happier that I no longer consider myself a part of today's conservative movement because they are so far right if you don't think and talk like them, then you are considered a 'socialist,' a 'communist,' or even 'un-American.'   They have become and the judge and jury of freedom of speech which only applies to what they and other conservatives have to say.  

Over the many years I have been around politics I have seen dumb and dumber from both sides but this just might take the cake this week with Romney -- first on Libya and Egypt and now taking on China.  First of all it is a long standing tradition that Presidential candidates don't involve themselves in foreign affairs when the Country is in the middle of a crises.  Not only did Romney involve himself in the Libyan crises but he got it wrong while trying to score political facts.  Now the man who while at Bain made millions of dollars from outsourcing jobs to China is attacking China.  If that is not dumb then I don't know the meaning of the word dumb.

You shake your head at the abject stupidity of a man running for President and will also throw in some of the Republicans members of Congress who cannot quit bashing China.  Did the Romney Republican members honestly think they could bash China and sooner or later they wouldn't strike back?

Xinhua said such China-bashing had been "a cancer in U.S. electoral politics, seriously plaguing the relations between the two countries. 

"It has also become a handy tool for U.S. politicians who try to court the votes and support of ill-informed voters by ratcheting up antagonistic sentiment towards China, while truly serious social and economic woes within the United States have been left unfixed." 

Liked the fact that the China News Agency threw it back at Romney that he had made millions from sending jobs to China after Bain closed American plants outsourcing the work to China.  We are dealing with a candidate who not only doesn't believe rules apply to him, but we are supposed to believe everything he says as facts don't matter.  Romney supporters obviously do not deal with reality or they would not be bashing the rest of us for telling the truth.  Hard to believe that any thinking person could support Romney after this last week.

Mitt Romney China-Bashing Blasted As 'Ironic' By Country's Xinhua News Agency

Reuters | Posted: 09/14/2012 3:41 am 

BEIJING, Sept 14 (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's attacks on China and promise to name the country a currency manipulator if elected are foolish and hypocritical, China's official Xinhua news agency said on Friday. 

In a strongly worded English-language commentary, Xinhua said Romney's anti-China rhetoric, if converted into policy upon him assuming office, would trigger a catastrophic trade war and damage the already weak global economic recovery.
"It is rather ironic that a considerable portion of this China-battering politician's wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics," Xinhua wrote. 

"Such blaming-China-on-everything remarks are as false as they are foolish, for it has never been a myth that pushing up the value of China's currency would be of little use to boost the chronically slack job market of the world's sole superpower, not to mention to magically turn the poor U.S. economic performance around." 

Romney has repeatedly pledged to get tougher with China on its trade and currency practices, including pledging to quickly declare China a currency manipulator if elected. 

His opponent, President Barack Obama, has accused Romney, who founded and led private equity firm Bain Capital, of outsourcing jobs to both India and China. 

China says the yuan's exchange rate is essentially set by market forces, and that the currency has appreciated about 30 percent against the dollar since a landmark revaluation in 2005. 

The Chinese government has generally been silent in the run-up to the November presidential poll due to a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. 

But state media has waded into the debate to lambaste what it sees as attempts to play the "China card", in a reflection of official thinking and concern the country's name is being unfairly dragged through the mud overseas. 

(snip)

The United States should "put its own fiscal house back in order, substantially slash its tremendous military expenditure, and optimise its economic structure", it added. 

"It is advisable that politicians, including Romney, should abandon ... short-sighted China-bashing tricks and adopt at least a little bit of statesmanship on China-U.S. ties." (Reporting by Ben Blanchard; Editing by Ron Popeski)  

Source:  Reuters

Is Romney trying to start a Cold War with China like he wants to do with Russia?  This recent chain of events starting with Romney's ill timed lies to score political points even before all the details.  He blamed the President and then Secretary of State for the uprisings in Libya and Eygpt which led to Al Qaeda using the demonstrations for cover to attack and kill four people including the Ambassador at the Libyan consulate.  Santorum, the Romney mouthpiece, is also blaming Obama for the deaths.  The Romney camp including the candidate would not admit for several days the demonstrations were set off by a radical trashy film against Islam which he originally refused to condemn until he saw the tide had turned against him and his comments.   How many Republicans who say they support him are actually going to vote for him on November 6th?

Romney's attacks on Obama and SoS Clinton have now been compounded with his attacks on China as he panders to the far right.  These attacks on China are making his big donors and some fellow Republicans nervous who are now saying behind the scenes that they don't believe he would follow through what he says he would do against China if elected.  Get that -- HE WOULDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH WHAT HE IS SAYS HE WOULD DO AGAINST CHINA IF ELECTED.  This is an admission by the people who know him that you cannot believe what he says.  Imagine that -- been saying that for over a year and in 2008.  What if they are wrong and he does follow through?

And if he did, many analysts say, he’d likely spark a disastrous and counter-productive trade war that would hurt both American consumers and the workers he says he’s trying to protect. But Romney advisers say voters shouldn’t expect him to back off the tough talk if he gets elected, and other experts say fears of a “trade war” are overblown since the Chinese need the American market just as much consumers like cheap Chinese imports.

If the rest of his advisers are as out of touch with the real world as Williamson was about his comments blaming Obama for Libya and Egypt not the film, the Romney camp is in trouble on foreign policy.  It started with the Romney attack calling Russia our #1 geopolitical foe and now these China attacks show a Cold War mentality from not only  his advisers but the candidate himself.  Then there are Rush's comments which the conservative sites along with Fox News picked up saying Al Qaeda gave up Bin Laden to help Obama.  Noted that Rush says something and the next day the Romney campaign takes up the same mantra.

Romney and his campaign need to be so thoroughly defeated that they can never rise from the ashes again with these former Bush/Reagan advisers now working for Romney sent to the trash heap of history with comments like Williamson and others made this week.  Then you have the Rush comments siding with the lies Romney told about Libya and Egypt.  My favorite was Fox News where Sen McCain got in a dust-up with Hannity.  Seems that Hannity, the foreign policy expert (sarcasm), couldn't believe McCain wouldn't agree with him.  Any candidate who hires these foreign policy advisers who work for Romney or follows instructions of the foreign policy experts Rush, Hannity, Beck and Fox News deserves to lose big.

Now some donors and Republicans have doubts about Romney on China.  Maybe it is because they are finally seeing Romney releasing what he would do if elected, and it is not what they expected.  Shame on them for believing anyone who says you have to elect me to see my plans.  That should be an automatic disqualification for any candidate.

Doubts grow on Mitt Romney’s China threats
By BEN WHITE | 9/15/12 4:07 PM EDT 

Mitt Romney is hoping his tough talk on China policy will win him votes — but few of his big business donors or fellow Republicans support what he’s saying or believe he’d follow through if elected. 

(snip)

Also on POLITICO: China: Romney's rich because of us)

The Republican nominee has renewed his sharp line of attack on President Barack Obama’s China policy, arguing in a new ad, on the stump and in a fundraising pitch to supporters that he would take a much brawnier approach to the abusive Chinese trade practices. He’s repeatedly said one of his first acts as president would be to formally label China a currency manipulator and slap punitive tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S.

“I want to make sure that if a nation cheats like China has cheated, we call them on the carpet and don’t let it continue,” Romney said this week in Virginia, returning to what’s been a recurring theme of his campaign. 

That may play well in the Rust Belt, where automobile and other manufacturers are especially vulnerable to China’s trade policies and there’s wariness of Obama’s less confrontational approach. 

But there’s fear that Romney’s threat — if actually carried out — could damage the U.S. economy. The Chinese could retaliate by slashing purchases of U.S. debt, driving up our interest rates. Any new tariffs on Chinese exports would also increase prices for U.S. consumers, who have grown accustomed to cheap Chinese goods filling U.S. store shelves. 

Branding China a currency manipulator also could stop cooperation in other areas of dispute and force all disagreements to go before the WTO, which could take years to reach a ruling of uncertain consequences.

“What would happen is we would badly damage our relations with the Chinese while also raising the question of consistency regarding other nations that also manage their currency,” said Tony Fratto, a former Bush administration economic adviser and spokesman. 

(snip) 

“It is unclear what China’s initial reaction would be [to Romney’s proposed actions]. But none of the scenarios are positive,” the executive added. “Will they ban some of our exports? Maybe. Will there be crippling tariffs? Maybe. It would set into motion a very unpredictable and possibly very damaging series of events.” 

(Also on POLITICO: Romney's new ad whacks China) 

Daniel H. Rosen, a partner at the Rhodium Group and an expert on the Chinese economy, said there would be a wide-ranging effect to the policies the Republican nominee is championing.
“If a Romney presidency starts with aggressive new unilateral tariffs for China, then American firms from General Motors to General Electric and Microsoft should all plan ahead for retaliatory treatment,” Rosen explained.

Read more:  Politico

Maybe Santorum is right that Romney needs the far right that basically is not very smart behind him because those of us who think can see through the con man.  That is one reason why many of us have joined Republicans for Obama to support the President against this 'severely' conservative flawed candidate, Romney.

Paul Ryan's Anti-Abortion Bill Co-sponsor GOP Senate Candidate Akin (MO): Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Won’t Become Pregnant

Turns out it is not only Akin but the new Romney Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan who are part of this hard right view on abortion:

Last year, Akin joined with GOP vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) as two of the original co-sponsors of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” a bill which, among other things, introduced the country to the bizarre term “forcible rape.”

If not for the public outcry, the term "forcible rape" language would have stayed in the bill:

Although a version of this bill passed the GOP-controlled House, the “forcible rape” language was eventually removed due to widespread public outcry. Paul Ryan, however, believes that the “forcible rape” language does not actually go far enough to force women to carry their rapist’s baby. Ryan believes that abortion should be illegal in all cases except for “cases in which a doctor deems an abortion necessary to save the mother’s life.” So rape survivors are out of luck.

Someone must have gotten to Akin from the Senate Republicans or more likely the Romney campaign as he has now released a statement that he misspoke.  Yeah right and there are pigs flying by my window.  The cat is out of the bag as this is not the first time he has made comments about rape as he was part of a group including Paul Ryan in the House of Representatives last year supporting a bill changing the definition of rape to include only “forcible rape.”

More from Michelle Goldberg who explains who Akin and Ryan would likely target:

Under H.R. 3, only victims of “forcible rape” would qualify for federally funded abortions. Victims of statutory rape—say, a 13-year-old girl impregnated by a 30-year-old man—would be on their own. So would victims of incest if they’re over 18. And while “forcible rape” isn’t defined in the criminal code, the addition of the adjective seems certain to exclude acts of rape that don’t involve overt violence—say, cases where a woman is drugged or has a limited mental capacity. “It’s basically putting more restrictions on what was defined historically as rape,” says Keenan.

Akin is against the morning after pill given to rape victims as he sees it as a form of abortion.  In his mind if they won't become pregnant from a rape, how does he call the morning after pill a form of abortion?

Do people like Akin and Ryan want women who become pregnant from rape and incest to have to go back to the back alley abortions which were done away with when the SCOTUS ruled on Roe v Wade?  More importantly do the Republican men who think like this neanderthal want women to leave the Republican Party in droves because a lot of women including Republican women find his comments reprehensible.  If he had any integrity, he would withdraw from the race.  So this is what the candidates from the Koch Brothers/Romney Tea Party Republican Party look like?  They truly have started a war on women!

Women in MO better think twice about voting for Akin for the US Senate or for the Romney/Ryan ticket since Paul Ryan shares Akin's views.  If he the best the GOP has to offer in the Missouri Senate race then Republicans deserve to lose big for choosing a far right winger to run for Senate who has offended women of America with his remarks.   No amount of saying he misspoke is going to change most women's minds because his original comments are so outrageous.

GOP Senate Candidate: Victims Of ‘Legitimate Rape’ Won’t Become Pregnant

By Zack Beauchamp posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Aug 19, 2012 at 5:40 pm 

Senate Candidate and Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) told a local television station on Sunday that “legitimate rape” rarely produces pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin cited conversations with unnamed doctors for the bizarre claim. 

Watch it: 

Akin in coordination with Paul Ryan sponsored legislation that would redefine rape in federal law to limit funding for abortion providers and has a long track record of uninformed and extreme views about women’s health. He has a consistently radical anti-choice voting record in the House, wants to ban the morning after pill, and has expressed concern that criminalizing marital rape gives women “a legal weapon to beat up on the husband” during a divorce.

Akin’s crusade against women’s access to medical services fits with his broader worldview, which is heavily influenced by a particularly virulent group of fundamentalist thinkers described as “Christian supremacists” by the Anti-Defamation League.  

The NY Times shows the same video in their article which has an update from Senator McCaskill:

August 19, 2012, 5:53 pm
Candidate’s Comments on Rape Draw Criticism
By REBECCA BERG 

Comments by Representative Todd Akin, a Republican running to unseat Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, are drawing condemnation after he asserted that victims of “a legitimate rape” have biological mechanisms to prevent pregnancy. 

“If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down,” Mr. Akin told KTVI-TV of St. Louis in an interview that was broadcast on Sunday. 

The comments drew a sharp rebuke on Sunday from Senator McCaskill, who is in a tough fight against the Republican candidate. 

“It is beyond comprehension that someone can be so ignorant about the emotional and physical trauma brought on by rape,” the senator said in a statement. “The ideas that Todd Akin has expressed about the serious crime of rape and the impact on its victims are offensive.” 

Mr. Akin later released a statement saying he “misspoke.” 

(snip)

Mr. Akin has been a staunch opponent of abortion as a lawmaker and on the campaign trail; he also opposes the morning-after pill, which he considers to be a form of abortion. 

Last year, House Republicans, Mr. Akin among them, supported a bill changing the definition of rape to include only “forcible rape.” 

“This is clearly something that he believes,” an aide to Ms. McCaskill said Sunday.  

Excerpt:  Read More at the NY Times

Michigan's Republican Governor Snyder Touts Emergency Manager Law

I am speechless that a Republican Governor would sign this bill into law passed by a Republican Legislature.  The Emergency Manager of the Muskegon Heights school district converted the school district to a charter system run by a private company.  That means someone appointed by the Governor as the Emergency Manager has a right to come into an entity like a school district, oust the school board, and change them from a public school to a charter school.  The Emergency Manager for Detroit schools has set the ceiling of  61 students in a classroom.  How is a teacher in the public schools supposed to handle 61 students.  

Knew that Michigan had economic problems due to the downturn of jobs but this has turned into a dictatorship type governing throwing out elected public officials.  The fact that the Governor has the power to appoint this Emergency Manager blows my mind.  

Yesterday the Michigan Governor Snyder was touting this new law before the Michigan Supreme Court said the petitions could go forward to have an election on this bill in November.  The Election Board had thrown out the petitions because the font size changed.  What is going on with Republicans who were elected in 2010?  Thought Republicans were about democracy but this is an example of someone who never should have been elected which is what some longtime Republicans were saying but the Tea Party came in, spent a lot on ads, and lied about other candidates.  Now I know my initial reaction to Snyder was right.  

When you read this, you are left with wondering how these people can get by with passing a law that takes away the elected officials in a public entity, install one person who can sell and do whatever they want with the entity, and nothing the citizens can do.  Is this what the far right takeover of the Republican Party is all about?  To get their people in place even if they have to resort to removal of duly elected officials?  This is scary that is is happening in Michigan.  What state is next up for the members of the far right Tea Party?

There is an emergency–an emergency for democracy. 

Public Act 4, a law passed by Republican majorities in the Michigan Legislature in March 2011, gives Gov. Rick Snyder power to appoint an emergency manager for any city, town, village or school district in Michigan undergoing a “financial emergency.”The State of Michigan itself admits in official exhibits it released to the court in the Summary of Arguments:

“Con — This bill allows the emergency managers too much power and control over local units of government. Emergency managers can’t be trusted to act in the interests of the local nut and will use the enhanced powers granted under this bill for their own gain. Stripping local officials of the powers is anti-democratic.”

Read more about the challenge to the Emergency Manager Law (Public Act 4) that Sugar Law Center is leading.

Usually when I see the term Social Justice I have a negative reaction but in this instance they are doing the right thing.  No state should have a law on this books like this that gives the Governor way too much power.

Michigan Supreme Court: Put emergency manager law on the ballot 

Fri Aug 3, 2012 2:21 PM EDT 

Delivering signed petitions in February. 

The voters of Michigan will get a say on the state's emergency financial manager law. In a 4-3 decision, the state supreme court ruled today that the petition drive met the requirements and should be certified for the November election. That petition had been challenged by a group based in the office of a member of the elections board that rejected it. The challenge alleged that the type on one line of the petition was not 14 point. The court ruling is remarkably technical (pdf) -- font nerds, skip to page 18 for the time of your lives -- and the most exciting part might be this: 

In the present case, plaintiff used 14-point Calibri font for its petition heading, as attested to by plaintiff's printer. 

Today's ruling means that the emergency manager law will go on ice, after it's officially certified, until the referendum this fall. That has large and potentially confusing implications for the towns and school districts the state has taken over under the law. 

What happens to the Muskegon Heights school district, which a new emergency manager just converted to a charter system run by a private company? Who's in charge in Benton Harbor, where elected officials have been stripped of all power and a blizzard of recall attempts is underway? Do Detroit schools have to keep their new ceiling of 61 kids in a class, as ordered by the emergency manager? For that matter, does Detroit still have to slash its city workforce under the consent agreement they signed to avoid getting an emergency manager? 

However the answers turn out, the campaign to repeal the emergency manager law can now begin. By dragging the matter out this long – the petition could have been certified back in April -- supporters of the law have taken away weeks that the repeal effort could scarcely afford to lose. The repeal side is trails by 10 points in the polls, but there are twice that many undecided voters for their campaign to try to reach.

  

The war on women continues in the Republican Party.  Now we have  a group of male Congressman -- get that MALE, equating the birth-control mandate with Pearl Harbor and 9/11.  Also calling it Catholic bigotry.  Guess they don't understand how many Catholics use birth control.  Most women today don't want to have a lot of children -- they prefer to have the number of children they can handle.  Why should they be made to stay bare foot and pregnant because some idiot Congressmen demand they not be given birth control as part of their health insurance.  Take away Viagara and the rest from the healthcare programs as part of a prescriptions -- let men pay for it since they want women to pay for all birth control.

Note to the idiots -- federal employee health insurance has been paying for birth control for years.  I had three C-Sections and was told a 4th could kill me.  I wasn't willing to take a chance with three small children but my mother-in-law who was Catholic even though I wasn't, blasted me but good and wanted her son to leave the three kids and I because I decided to make it permanent I was having no more children.  I know what bigotry is being a non-catholic in a catholic family.

If this is what today's Republican Party is turning into, I want no part of it because it is a war on women and their rights.  Let's see women are not supposed to get an abortion for any reason even the life of the mother and not supposed to take birth control.  Maybe if men had to go through nine months of pregnancy, they wouldn't be so out of touch.  These statements by members of the House including Boehner's who wants this portion overturned as he panders to the far right for his job, can take and shove it.

After November, I will make the decision on whether to remain in a Party who does not value women or leave the Party I have been part of since a teenager.  This group of people in the House and a few in the Senate are some of the meanest Republicans I have ever seen filled with hate and loathing for anyone who doesn't agree with them.

This is not anti-Catholic bigotry -- not even a little and 80% of Catholic women on birth control will agree.  This is giving all American women the right to have birth control.  If men don't like it, tough!

GOP lawmakers equate birth-control mandate with Pearl Harbor, 9/11

By Elise Viebeck - 08/01/12 01:05 PM ET 

The heated remarks came at a press conference marking the mandate's first day.
House Republicans called the Obama administration's birth-control mandate "religious bigotry" and compared it to the events of Pearl Harbor and Sept. 11, 2001.

"I know in your mind you can think of the times America was attacked," said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), a freshman. 

"One is December 7 — that is Pearl Harbor Day. Another was September 11 — that was the day of the terrorist attack.

"I want you to remember August 1, 2012 — the attack on our religious freedom. That is a date that will live in infamy, along with those other dates."

Starting Wednesday, most employers will have to cover contraception in their health plans without a co-pay.

Republicans have denounced the policy as an attack on the religious freedom of people who object to birth control or consider some forms equal to abortion.

Another freshman, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), said the mandate marks the return of "anti-Catholic bigotry" to American life.

"We thought we were past that," he said, "but the mandate from this administration represents the rearing of its head again."

House Republican leadership, striving to keep its focus on taxes, encouraged the freshmen to take responsibility for the press conference.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) released a statement saying the Health and Human Services mandate "must be reversed."

"On this day, let us renew our determination to reverse the mandate and restore the religious liberty that has been demolished by the Obama Administration’s actions," he said.

The new policy covers a range of preventive healthcare services apart from birth control, including disease screenings and counseling for women who are breastfeeding or are victims of domestic violence.

But the birth-control provision remains the most controversial, and 24 lawsuits have been filed in response.

Under the policy, employees of some religiously affiliated institutions, such as Catholic hospitals and schools, will receive birth control directly from their insurance company, still without a co-pay. Churches and houses of worship are exempt altogether.  

"I know in your mind you can think of the times America was attacked," said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.), a freshman. 

"One is December 7 — that is Pearl Harbor Day. Another was September 11 — that was the day of the terrorist attack.

"I want you to remember August 1, 2012 — the attack on our religious freedom. That is a date that will live in infamy, along with those other dates."

Starting Wednesday, most employers will have to cover contraception in their health plans without a co-pay.

Republicans have denounced the policy as an attack on the religious freedom of people who object to birth control or consider some forms equal to abortion.

Another freshman, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), said the mandate marks the return of "anti-Catholic bigotry" to American life.

"We thought we were past that," he said, "but the mandate from this administration represents the rearing of its head again."

House Republican leadership, striving to keep its focus on taxes, encouraged the freshmen to take responsibility for the press conference.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) released a statement saying the Health and Human Services mandate "must be reversed."

"On this day, let us renew our determination to reverse the mandate and restore the religious liberty that has been demolished by the Obama Administration’s actions," he said.

The new policy covers a range of preventive healthcare services apart from birth control, including disease screenings and counseling for women who are breastfeeding or are victims of domestic violence.

But the birth-control provision remains the most controversial, and 24 lawsuits have been filed in response.

Under the policy, employees of some religiously affiliated institutions, such as Catholic hospitals and schools, will receive birth control directly from their insurance company, still without a co-pay. Churches and houses of worship are exempt altogether.  

Source:  The Hill

Romney’s ‘We Did Build This’ Events Feature Businesses Built With Government Subsidies And Contracts (OOPS!)

In my lifetime it is hard to remember a campaign that is so dishonest as that of Mitt Romney and so non-transparent.  What was the RNC and the so-called establishment thinking getting behind his nomination?  Was it the big donors because they (RNC) needed to fund the Convention and campaign?  Have news for them if they had held fair debates, same rules for all states in the primary, and not supported a culture of win at any costs for the Romney campaign including cheating, we wouldn't be at this spot today.  They would have had the money from honest donors who didn't want anything in return.

Anyone who says a businessman does everything on his own without help to build the business is a buffoon.  Romney told Olympic athletes that they had help which they all acknowledge.  He has given speeches about the help businesses receive from the Government and infrastructure.  Guess the businesses in today's Romney World are different because they did in all on their own using their own hands according to this ad:




OOPS!  There is a slight problem:

In “These Hands,” the Romney campaign repeated the out-of-context quote, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else did that.” Jack Gilchrist, the owner of Gilchrist Metal Fabricating in Hudson, New Hampshire, incredulously asks, “My father’s hands didn’t build this company? My hands didn’t build this company? My son’s hands aren’t building this company? …Through hard work and a little bit of luck, we built this business. Why are you demonizing us for it?”  

In context, Obama’s speech was not “demonizing” small business owners but simply challenging the idea that wealthy and successful individuals have never benefited from government services.

And, as it turns out, Jack Gilchrist is no different. The New Hampshire Union Leader reports today that Gilchrist benefited from millions of dollars of government loans and contracts to get his business on its feet: 

In 1999, Gilchrist Metal received $800,000 in tax-exempt revenue bonds issued by the New Hampshire Business Finance Authority “to set up a second manufacturing plant and purchase equipment to produce high definition television broadcasting equipment,” according to a New Hampshire Union Leader report at the time…

Last year, Gilchrist Metal also received two U.S. Navy sub-contracts totaling about $83,000 and a smaller $5,600 Coast Guard contract in 2008, according to a government web site that tracks spending. 

The businessman now famous for the ad admits he did take Government help to build the business. Nothing wrong with that as that is what these programs are for but what is terribly wrong is to represent that you had no help and built the business with only your hands and hands of family members.  Guess his family built the building where  they are located only with their own hands as well.

Fox News and Rush Limbaugh led the Romney camp in the direction they wanted him to go even it was a total misstatement of what the President said due to the editing of Fox News.  It is like Limbaugh is a puppet for Fox News today and Romney is a puppet for Fox News and Rush.  Romney or his surrogates run out to make fools of themselves routinely parroting what Fox News or Rush has to say with no fact checking.  Fox News is about the last place I would quote today.  If you want to find investigative reporting with links, you now have to use more liberal sites.

It is simply mind boggling what has happened to Conservatives who are backing Romney.  They turn into pretzels and refuse to hear anything negative about the man or positive about Obama.  Facts don't matter today.  The people on the right who yelled the loudest about Obama not releasing his college records (he should have released them) are the ones turning into crickets on Romney's tax returns and Bain Capital.  We are not supposed to go after the "perfect" candidate in their minds.

Is this what happens to a political party when it is taken over by the followers of Ayn Rand, who make up a large portion of the far right and Tea Party, along with big donors like the Koch Brothers?  Truth doesn't matter, it is the narrative?

The Romney's "We Did Build This' Events are not exactly what they imagined as the info below points out.  Seems these business people rounded up by the Romney camp did have help which was exactly what President Obama was saying.  The Romney camp has proved Obama's points were correct when you get passed the redacted Fox News/Limbaugh spin: 

Romney’s ‘We Did Build This’ Events Feature Businesses Built With Government Subsidies And Contracts 

By Aviva Shen on Jul 25, 2012 at 3:12 pm 

Today, the Romney campaign is hosting an entire series of campaign events based on President Obama’s misinterpreted comment about small businesses. While Obama’s full speech made a “no man is an island” argument, the Romney campaign has seized on the quote, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” as evidence of Obama’s disdain for small business owners.

 Romney, ignoring the fact that he has echoed this same sentiment on multiple occasions, organized 24 “We Did Build This” events in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Virginia, Ohio, Iowa, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Nevada. At each event, local business owners are speaking about their self-sufficiency in running a business and how government is hindering their growth. 

But, like the New Hampshire business owner showcased in Romney’s attack ad on the issue, many of these business owners have received significant support from the government, a ThinkProgress analysis finds.

• Ball Office Products hosted the “We Did Build This” event in Richmond, Virginia. The company received a loan of $635,000 through the Small Business Administration in 2012, according to USASpending.gov. The company was also awarded a lucrative $52,525 contract with the General Services Administration just a year after its founding.

• Midwest Tape, a media distributor of Holland, Ohio, was showcased at a local event and has been contracted by the Department of Defense since 2008, earning a cumulative $13,659.

• Columbus Truck and Equipment was featured in a neighboring event and has received $6,643 in contracts with the Department of Defense.

• Cranston Material Handling Equipment Corporation, the owner of which spoke Wednesday morning at a campaign event in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has reaped a total of $61,729 in contracts with the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2007.

• Systems Engineering Co.The owner of Systems Engineering has received a total of $180,200 in DOD contracts, as recently as last year.

• Brady Industries in Las Vegas has received $54,425 in contracts with Veterans Affairs since 2009.

• Pennsylvania business PRL Industries Inc. received a $167,847 contract through the Department of Homeland Security for ship and boat propulsion components for the U.S. Coast Guard in August 2008. Janis Herschkowitz, who spoke on behalf of PRL, Inc. used to be a director of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank, which, defined in Herschkowitz’ own words, was created by Congress “to meet personal, social or business needs, especially in low- and moderate-income communities by forming cooperatives.”

• An Iowa event featured Competitive Edge, Inc. which was contracted by Veterans Affairs for $3,543 to make informational refrigerator magnets.

• J & W Cycles of Missouri was awarded $25,808 in contracts from the DOD and Department of Interior.

• Total Resource, featured in a Sparks, Nevada campaign event, has been a federal contractor since 2010, and received a $11,200 contract from the DOD in 2009.

• Applegate Insulation, which hosted one of the events in Michigan, benefited from an energy saving federal tax credit worth 30 percent of the installation project, up to $1,500.

• Home Instead Senior Care supported Romney in Roanoke, Virginia, even though home health care companies receive 75 percent of their funding from public programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Home Instead franchises in Virginia have received at least $3,613,549 in federal funding through the Department of Veterans Affairs since 2008. Chris Head, who represented Home Instead at the event, has previously lamented the low Medicaid reimbursement rates in Virginia and told the Roanoke Times that he wished state funding had helped save the now-defunct local Mill Mountain Theatre.

• Ed Nagle of Nagle Trucking in Ohio also took issue with Obama’s speech, which mentioned roads and bridges as examples of essential government support. But less than a year ago, Nagle protested an idea to privatize the Ohio Turnpike, noting that the privatized Indiana toll road “has diminished in its quality and it’s become a lot more expensive.”

While the “We Did Build This” event was intended to “allow small business owners the chance to respond to President Obama’s claim,” it is clear that many of these owners exemplify the combined powers of individual effort and government support that Obama — and Romney — have praised. 

Additional reporting by Steven Perlberg.  

Source:  Think Progressive

Once again Romney and his campaign are proving to the American people they will say and do anything for votes even knowing it was a lie from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that started this.  It is the narrative which the Romney campaign plays by and in the process have thrown truth and honesty out the window with the win at any cost mentality.

Does he have an enemies list like Nixon?

Daring to Defer -- Chief Justice Roberts Showed the World Why He was an Excellent Choice

UPDATE 7:10 p.m., 29 June:  Today showed how out of touch the Republican right has become with their lies and now their attacks on the Chief Justice.  I thought Rubio was brighter then what we saw today out of him in his efforts to elect Romney who is the Father of Romneycare.  The CBO has come out with the facts that do not match the rhetoric from the right.  I honestly thought Republicans were more honest then what I saw with their rhetoric today.  Romney lied about people losing their insurance which is different even from what Cantor said.  Romney lied all day about healthcare according to even some Republicans and by the CBO.  It is disgusting.  The GOP has no replacement alternatives only about repealing.  The people who believe the rhetoric of the Republicans today, need to check the facts.

*******

Yesterday showed how fortunate we are that President Bush named John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.  Among all the ranting and raving plus two cable news networks blowing the decision by not reading the ruling, the Chief Justice made the right decision to make the individual mandate a tax not part of the commerce clause.  The ruling also "curtailed the power of the federal government to bludgeon states into accepting a costly expansion of Medicaid" which you did not hear out of the mouths of conservatives yesterday.  


Romney saying he would repeal Obamacare on his first day in office came off as the biggest hypocrite in the Country when his bill Romneycare was the basis for the individual mandate in Obamacare and according to the Florida AG Pam Bondi, he planned to mandate Romneycare in every state.  But there he was yesterday saying he was going to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office.  Someone needs to tell Romney as President you have no power to repeal a law.  This is not an Executive Order which is very hard to repeal but is bill that became law and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  When he said repeal and replace, all I could hear in my mind was he wants him name with Romneycare on the bill instead of the word "Obama" so he can take credit.


Don't like the rhetoric from either side about how the Court rules for Conservatives or Liberals when it rules on the law.  Some rulings that I haven't liked, I discover later on that the ruling followed the law and the original bill was badly written like in Campaign Finance Reform.  


Some of the remarks from conservatives were so far over the top that I couldn't believe what I was hearing like it was the worst day since 9/11, Fox News and CNBC say it is going to ruin the economy but the stock market didn't agree, and then we have Romney going out saying it was going to add $1.75 trillion to the deficit when the CBO said it is not even close.  That is just a few snapshots in some of the most over the top rhetoric ever.  This coming from the same party who in the early 90's wanted a universal healthcare bill with individual mandates -- short memories on the part of Republicans.  


This article about the Chief Justice is the very reason I have such tremendous respect for John Roberts that he doesn't rule on ideology but on the Constitution which showed when he took the individual mandate from the commerce clause and said it was a tax.  It is a tax with no enforcement.  Wonder what some Republicans are thinking today that rushed out to the microphones to demand repeal without reading the ruling?  The words they used were over the top.  If the opinion would have been reversed, you would have seen the same type words out of Democrats castigating the court for being too conservative and bowing to the big donors of the Republican Party.

We have too many members of Congress who have been there for way too long and some new ones who forget their represent America first and Party second.  We have been watching the Senate work more across the aisle in the last few months to get good bills passed.  Isn't it time that the House did the same and answered to their constituents not the special interest groups who are demanding they vote a certain way or they will defeat them.

We have a group of members in the House from both sides who are more interested in running out to the microphones at every opportunity instead of actually working for all of us which is the job they are sent there to do.  Their job is  not to work for the NRA, the Koch Brothers, anti-illegal immigration lobby, Chamber of Commerce, Unions, Soros, etc. -- their job is to work for what is best for all the American people and stop this 'my way or no way' that has become a trademark of the far left and the far right.  What about the rest of  Americans who feel disenfranchised by both political parties and their leadership?  Don't we count?

UPI Photo/Roger L. Wollenberg

Umpiring: John Roberts

Daring to Defer 

For Chief Justice John Roberts, embracing judicial modesty means finding limits in everything—including the role of the Supreme Court. 

By James Oliphant Updated: June 29, 2012 | 9:34 a.m.
June 29, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. 

At the dawn of the week, liberal critics of John Roberts’s Supreme Court had the knives at the ready. In their minds, a twofer—the Court upholding Arizona’s punishing immigration law and striking down some or all of President Obama’s health care overhaul—would confirm what many have grown to suspect: The justices are hopelessly, and predictably, fractured along partisan lines, with the Court now just another divided institution in an era replete with them. 

But you make assumptions about the high court at your peril. The justices largely invalidated the Arizona law, and Roberts himself saved the health care law, breaking from his conservative brethren in unprecedented fashion to join with the Court’s liberal wing to preserve the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. 

In doing so, the chief justice may have demonstrated that he is the jurist that his many admirers thought he was in 2005, when President Bush nominated him. Remember that bit during his confirmation hearing about judicial modesty, about how a justice should be “an umpire”? Those words seemed to ring hollow in the wake of decisions such as Citizens United. Now, Roberts seems to have applied them in two disparate instances, surely disappointing legal conservatives who believed that their movement had gained unstoppable momentum, but reminding observers that most cases at the corner of First and Maryland are decided between the margins, not in them. 

You can sense Roberts’s deft efforts throughout the health care opinion to find a result consistent with his conservative principles, one that mollifies the law’s detractors and its supporters. Both sides ended up with something. The opinion struck down the individual mandate under the commerce clause, but upheld it under Congress’s power to tax. (Woe to news organizations such as CNN that went live after reading just the first few pages of the 190-page-plus ruling.) The Court also curtailed the power of the federal government to bludgeon states into accepting a costly expansion of Medicaid. 

Embracing judicial modesty means finding limits in everything. In that regard, Roberts’s majority opinion goes out of its way to assert that, yes, there is a point at which Congress cannot regulate the everyday actions of Americans, reproaching that body in a manner that likely hasn’t been done since the days of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal. Moreover, as Roberts points out in the decision, Congress’s power to tax comes with inherent limits; the government can’t use it to compel behavior (such as purchasing health insurance), but instead only to sanction.
For a jurist such as Roberts, however, just as important is identifying the limits on the Court itself as a functioning branch of government. 

Roberts is committed to the notion that courts shouldn’t overturn the actions of democratically elected legislatures. Indeed, doing so is the kind of “judicial activism” that conservatives have historically deplored. The inestimable Linda Greenhouse, the longtime New York Times Court correspondent, predicted the result in the health care case, pointing to language that Roberts wrote in a dissent to the Court’s holding earlier this week that states can’t hand out life sentences to juveniles without a chance of parole. Courts, Roberts wrote, “must presume an Act of Congress is constitutional”—and he noted that a “heavy burden” exists for “those who would attack the judgment of the representatives of the people.” 

“He really does believe that if there’s a possible way to read a statute to preserve its constitutionality, the Court should find a way to do it,” says Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. 

As a longtime Washington litigator and a former U.S. deputy solicitor general, Roberts is a full-fledged member of the establishment, which makes him particularly ill-suited to lead a conservative insurgency. He works in subtler ways—but his familiarity with the levers of power means that he should never be underestimated. 

Even though many conservatives are bemoaning the health care ruling, Roberts’s ensuring that the individual mandate will now be rebranded as a tax not only hands the GOP some new ready-to-go talking points but it also means that voters can perhaps express their resistance with greater clarity at the ballot box, rather than at the courthouse steps. Remember, the Obama White House was never comfortable during the health care debate with labeling the requirement to purchase insurance as a tax because of the term’s negative implications. It’s a lousy sell. 

“As long as Congress can acknowledge something is a tax,” Adler says, “then we can let the political process work.” 

It will be tempting in the short term to look at the decision, see Roberts aligned with the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, and wonder whether the chief was briefly possessed by the spirit of a predecessor, Earl Warren. But Roberts knows what he’s doing. In a week when Justice Antonin Scalia’s screed from the bench about illegal immigration made the Court particularly susceptible to the charge that it has become an agenda-first body, Roberts’s move was a means to reassure an increasingly skeptical public that the justices really do try to solve problems in a principled way. He reasserted the importance of courts’ deferring to the will of legislatures, something that should resonate with conservatives, in particular. He helped set limits on the power of the commerce clause and Congress’s spending powers. And he ensured that if President Obama wants to rescue his health care law from the threat of repeal, he will have to defend it as a tax.\ 

All in all, not a bad day at the office. 

This article appeared in the Saturday, June 30, 2012 edition of National Journal.