Breaking: Trump White House Trolls for "Obamacare Disaster Stories"

I've gotten a lot of emails from The White House. The Obama White House, mostly. But apparently, Cheetolini must've inherited the mailing list. And just minutes ago, he used it to push out the most hyper-partisan, push-poll-feeling email I've ever gotten from that source.

"Share Your Obamacare Disaster Story"


That's the subject line. Isn't that nice? It assumes that you have such a story. Or, that if you have an Obamacare story, it must be a disaster. Or, more likely, that they only want stories from people who consider it a disaster. And here, ladies and germs, is a primo example of how the Trump White House differs from Obama's.

Firstly, the Obama version wouldn't have been so ham-handed and obvious about the desire to get only one sort of response. But secondly, the Obama team would have wanted examples of all types. They'd want to know if you have had good experiences or bad experiences. They did so. They helped people who were having difficulties and obstacles with that plan, and other issues. Not Trump! Tell me how awful it is!

In truth, clearly, this is about bolstering the need for (Please Don't Call It) TrumpCare. Trump's claims that it would cover everyone regardless of income, and that it would be cheaper and better are. Not. True. But in Trumpland, that's a minor detail. His followers have been remarkably willing to give him massive latitude on the exact wording of his promises. They will on this as well. And if you give them a few juicy stories to repeat ad nauseam for the next 8 years? Even better.

The letter:

---

Obamacare has been a complete failure since the beginning, and things are only getting worse.

Today, President Donald J. Trump held a listening session to hear directly from Americans who have experienced significant hardship as a result of Obamacare's poor coverage and rising prices.

President Trump wants to hear from hard-working Americans like you. How has Obamacare affected you? Share your Obamacare disaster story.


During the meeting, one woman revealed that she had her health insurance cancelled three times since Obamacare became law. Another attendee had her insurance jump from $17,000 a year to a devastating $52,500 a year for her struggling family, while yet another said her health insurance now costs more than her mortgage.

Obamacare came packaged as the healthcare solution for all Americans. Instead, the country was given hundreds of pages of broken promises.

Millions of hard-working Americans have been impaired by soaring costs, cancelled plans, and overbearing mandates. As one of those innocent Americans, President Trump wants to hear your story about how this disastrous law has affected you and your family.

Share Your Story

---

So, I propose we share all kinds of stories! Who's with me?

ObamaCare Survives Another Round at SCOTUS

Image from source, MSN

What does it all mean!?!

That's where I am with the trickle of SCOTUS decisions happening this month. The decision on the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) was kind of a no brainer, but a no-brain decision was what I was fearing would happen, given the shocks we've gotten in the past (Voting Rights Act, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby). But, whatever you think about the specifics of the ACA, the case was bollocks, and SCOTUS agreed. Good for them.

But given this big liberal victory, what does it say about the still-to-come decision on gay marriage? Or does it say anything at all? Before today, many were confident that SCOTUS would rule in the affirmative for marriage equality, but that the ACA decision was decidedly more sketchy.  That should be heartening, since the tougher of the two went the right way. But what if there was some sort of trade with the conservative justices? I'll give you your ObamaCare, but we get our way on marriage? It could happen. But I hope not.

Nervous and tired of waiting.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court upholds nationwide health care law subsidies

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies underpinning President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, rejecting a major challenge to the landmark law in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans. . . 

Read more at: MSN

Behind the Blogger: Waiting for SCOTUS, and The Other Half

I've resigned myself to blogging much more sporadically than I used to. Discovering--after eight years of doing this--that I'm under no obligation to post anything if not motivated has been kind of liberating. A strong argument could be made for giving up the venture, it being an unpaid, generally unacknowledged effort in the first place. But I enjoy having my own tiny corner of the internets, a place to shout out to the universe about whatever is on my mind.

Though I have much more time this year and this summer to blog, I'm finding that time isn't really the issue. It's a changing world, with social media making it so much easier to consume data, interact and comment on what's going on, and frankly, making it more difficult for me in particular to focus on a single subject at a time. I'm a multi-screen, multi-tasking, fragmented, near-ADD level media consumer these days. I spend far too much time doing all of the above, and with the freedom to do so, I'm still struggling with the whens, the hows, and the whys of having my butt planted in a chair in front of my screens when I could be doing something else.

Even when I force myself to change my venue, going out to get exercise, running errands, working on projects, I find myself with my screens (smart phone, touch-screen car media center) and my headphones, still consuming, still taking in data, stimulation. You'd think that this would spur more blogging activity later, not less. But I have often taken to commenting right there in Facebook, Twitter, the comments section, the letters to the editor. I've found my butt back in that chair when I didn't mean to, and the blog still gets ignored. Sorry about that, dear reader (if you actually exist!).

Summer has begun, and I've got some social obligations on the horizon, so the ramping up of chores and events and errands is about to hit in earnest. The Other Half--currently an absentee around here, as he's still commuting for an indeterminate time--returns after a lengthy time away, at the same time that friends and family are converging at our new home. Also, the Supreme Court of the United States is set to announce life-changing and politically explosive decisions in the space of the next week. Obamacare (of which I may soon be a consumer) and marriage equality (of which I've already consumed!) cases will be decided either Thursday, Friday or Monday.

When The Other Half and I moved to Ohio, we left a state where we were (only recently recognized as) legally married, fully equal to any other married couple, and to a state where we were not recognized. We will also soon be moving into a world where we don't have secured health insurance, with his retirement. So, both decisions are huge for us. It feels odd having such large question marks looming (especially since the question of future careers also loom in front of us), to be decided rather arbitrarily by nine people. Or even one person, if these cases come down to a 5-4 SCOTUS split.

For the most part, I'm relatively optimistic that both cases will be a win for the "liberal" side. I think the ACA/Obamacare case hinges upon a rather obviously partisan, paper-thin argument. A conservative win there would be just as transparently a political decision, more than a well-reasoned legal argument. On the marriage equality argument, a win seems even more certain, with virtually every indicator pointing toward 50-state legal equality for gay couples to marry. But SCOTUS has shocked us before.

Citizens United, Hobby Lobby and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act are all cases that stomp around the edges of my certainty. All of those decisions were WTF moments for people who look at things logically, not just because they were losses for my "side," but because the arguments for them seemed so bad, and the ramifications so obvious. Whenever I see someone say that the court wouldn't decide on my two cases in the conservative affirmative, because of the legal chaos it would create? I think of these other cases, where the chaos was either ignored, or even predicted by SCOTUS as "not going to happen."

If the ACA case goes to the conservatives, millions of Americans could lose their insurance, and people will die, directly because of the decision. That's relatively indisputable when you realize that nobody has a Plan B. If the marriage equality case goes to the conservatives, tens and tens of thousands of gay couples' rights are thrown into question, and the equality of unmarrieds seeking to marry becomes more of a patchwork than it already is. More chaos. But let's face it, would Scalia care?

Still, I'm optimistic. Though the court has in the past made manifestly political decisions, I'm hopeful that with these two decisions, legacy is the more important factor. For some of these justices--given their ages--legacy has got to be important. As they head into the sunset of their careers, do they really want to have deciding negatively on either of these huge cases as the thing they're remembered for? For the relatively youthful Chief Justice, does he want preside over negatively deciding them, only to have to revisit each issue again, and potentially have them overturned, or to have them overturned by the next guy? Either of these scenarios would cloud their legacies. So, that's one hope for me.

Another hope is that both cases will actually be decided on their merits, on legal precedent, and on simple logic. That may be a high hope, but if it happens, we win again. The case against marriage equality is just weak, weak, weak. I've followed this closely for its entire existence, and the one constant is just how bad the legal arguments are against equality. And the ACA case, as previously stated, comes down to intent versus semantics, and there is ample precedent that intent should win out over political sentiment over what "the state" means.

Timing over how these things are released adds to my suspense and frustration, and you have to wonder how much of the SCOTUS calendar is engineered by necessity, and how much is for dramatic effect. From my perspective, gay rights cases in general have been dragged out for as long as is possible by nearly every court. Though it seems like an incredibly fast progressing issue to many, when you follow it, it is glacially slow. But SCOTUS seems determined to wait until as late as they possibly can to tell us their decision. The wait is excruciating. And the timing is going to be momentous either way.

See, religious objectors? Not married in church, but at this
awesome city hall in Palm Springs. No Jesus, no "holy
matrimony." So, chill out.

The Other Half and I got married during the 2008 marriage equality "window," the time period between legal same-sex marriage in California and when Prop 8 shut it down. For five long years, I followed every legal wriggle, and watched the marriage equality progress in other states (including in Nevada where I then lived, and Iowa, The Other Half's home state). And finally, one day before our five-year anniversary--which we were spending back in California with our wedding party in tow--we were fully legal again, thanks to SCOTUS. Now, two years later, I'm waiting again for my home state to join the other two-thirds of the country in recognizing my marriage. And I'm waiting for The Other Half too!

If SCOTUS announces on Thursday or Friday, it will be just ahead of our anniversary again, and right before NYC's gay pride festivities. If it announces on Monday, it will be immediately after The Other Half's return. A positive announcement (hopefully in both cases) will provide a very jubilant summer. A mixed bag is going to hurt, no matter what. My best guess is a slightly mixed bag. I have a feeling we're going to get a mostly liberal victory on both of these things, but somehow tempered by the conservative justices.

With the ACA case, I'm not enough of an expert to know how they'd split the baby. But I'll bet they'll try. With the marriage equality case, I'm betting we get 50 state recognition with--at a minimum--recognition of marriages performed in other states, but possibly leaving in-state marriage up to the states. This would be a loss for our side, but would still have the practical effect of legalizing same-sex marriage everywhere. And that last domino would likely eventually fall. More likely, we'll even win on the "can get married anywhere" side, but conservative justices will muddy the win by tacking on some sort of BS "religious protections," or other minimizing language to coddle the conservatives a bit.

In short (I know, too late), I'm betting that the liberal side gets plenty to celebrate, and a little bit to bitch about, and the conservative side will be dealt big losses, but have a few nuggets to cling to. I hope that my prediction is at least what comes to pass, and that it actually comes out better. A worse case scenario is likely to drag down my summer, and drag me back to some blistering blogging.

Either way, I'm optimistic, but nervous.

Scott Walker Comment Might Save ObamaCare from The Supremes?

Oops. Image from source, Think Progress

Interesting theory. It would be icing on the cake if The Affordable Care Act was cemented by the offhand, callous comment of an extra-douchey conservative hero.

[Excerpt]

How A Stray Remark By A Republican Governor Could Save Obamacare From The Supreme Court
 
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) plan if the Supreme Court reinterprets Obamacare to take health care away from hundreds of thousands of his constituents is to “do nothing,” according to a local news report, even though he and his fellow Wisconsin Republicans have the power to save these individuals from that fate. This may not be a particularly surprising revelation, as Republican elected officials throughout the country have done little to conceal their disdain for the Affordable Care Act, yet Walker’s willingness to admit this fact could have the ironic result of saving Obamacare from the justices. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Et tu, Jonathan Turley?

One of the most frequent charges by Democrats about Democrats regarding their performance in the 2014 election was that they didn't act like Democrats. They played the part of Republican Lite. It's more than annoying. You'll find few on the left who care whether or not Mary Landrieu retains her Senate seat, mostly because--to paraphrase a Republican term--she's a DINO: Democrat in Name Only. Though, truth be told, she's always been a blue dog (at best).

But it's depressing when a person you have semi-idolized and identified with for years shows entirely different stripes. Jonathan Turley is a law professor and legal analyst. I became familiar with him from his frequent appearances on The Randi Rhodes Show on the radio, in the dark days of the Bush Administration. His pithy, smart analysis of the misdeeds of Bush/Cheney were amazing. I'm quite sure I've referenced him on the blog in the early days. Later, Turley would often appear on MSNBC, offering the same sort of spiel. I really liked him. I used to read  his blog daily.

Now, Turley is the unlikely third-in-a-series attorney for John Boner Boehner, in his bizarre lawsuit against President Barack Obama. Over tweaks made to the Affordable Care Act. You know, the dreaded ObamaCare that Republicans want to kill fifty times (and have tried). They're allegedly suing because they're upset that he delayed parts of it!? Why on earth would they care? They don't. It was a random pull-a-reason-from-a-hat excuse to sue, because they'd already said they were going to sue. It's so unbelievably stupid. And I expect a lot better of Jonathan Turley. Then I found out he's been guesting on FOX "News" a lot lately, and all became clear. Dead to me.

[Excerpt]

House Republicans Hire Jonathan Turley to Pursue Obama Lawsuit
 
House Republicans have hired their third attorney since August to pursue their lawsuit against President Barack Obama for allegedly overstepping his authority, tapping George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, according to House Speaker John Boehner’s office. . .

Read more at: Wall Street Journal

Obama: No, I Won't Let Them Repeal ObamaCare

Image from source, Talking Points Memo

A lot of people have pointed out that the GOP won largely on a single rallying cry: "We hate Barack Obama." Beyond that, there really wasn't much of a platform. So, what are they going to do with all this power? Well, impeachment is a possibility. Why? They don't need a why. They'll find a why, like they did with Bill Clinton. And as that episode proved, it doesn't even have to be a good reason.

But it's risky. It only made Clinton more popular. If Al Gore hadn't made the decision to distance himself from Clinton (a lesson Democrats hopefully have now learned by doing the same with Obama), he very well might have won. Or rather, won more decisively, so that SCOTUS couldn't hand it to Bush. I know, I know, get off the tangent. Okay.

So, while I'm sure somebody is going to bring up impeachment, it's far from a sure thing. So, what's next? ObamaCare. Obviously. Even though it's working (after an admittedly fumbled rollout), and millions of previously uninsured people now have insurance. Even though they don't have an alternative. Even though the cry for repeal only really exists at the base level. They've got to reward that base. So, you know they'll at least make some noise about it. I mean, how many times did the House vote for repeal, 50?

Anyway, barring an astounding turn of events, repeal of the whole thing is very, very unlikely. But don't be shocked if they go for some changes. And you know they won't be the good kind.

[Excerpt]

Obama: No, I'm Not Going To Allow The GOP To Repeal Obamacare
 
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would be "open and receptive" to "responsible changes" to Obamacare proposed by the new GOP Congress, but asserted that there were some policies that were off the table. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Mitch McConnell: Kill ObamaCare! Keep Kentucky's Part of it! (WTF?)

Mitch McConnell is talking out his ass again, this time at his debate with Alison Lundergan Grimes. Yes, Yertle seems to think we should eliminate every "root and branch" of the Affordable Care Act, and yet leave Kentucky's Kynect (or just its web site?) intact. The problem, of course, is that Kynect is ObamaCare, it's what it was always supposed to be, one of 50 state-run exchanges. And it worked! And it's popular! So, it puts Mitch in this trick bag.

If Grimes is smart, she'll play this up big time: "Kentuckians, Mitch McConnell thinks you're stupid. He thinks you're so stupid, that you don't know that Kynect is part of the Affordable Care Act. He's hoping you're so stupid, that you'll vote for him, and let him take away your insurance."

I'm not particularly a fan of Grimes. I think she's a calculating, politics first, talking points-based candidate. I think she's hoping that Kentuckians are stupid enough to think she's anti-Obama, because they are stupid enough to vote against her for being an Obama supporter. I think there are better ways to play this, than posturing and fake-outs. But very nearly anyone would be better than Mitch McConnell. The fact that this is even close tells you that the "Kentuckians are stupid" gambit could very well work for either side.

[Excerpt]

McConnell Wants To Keep Obamacare 'Website' But Repeal Obamacare

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on Monday night he wants to repeal Obamacare "root and branch" but keep the law's state-based insurance exchange in Kentucky, called Kynect. "I think it's fine to have a website. Yeah," he said during the first and only scheduled Kentucky Senate debate with Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes, pressed on whether he wants to keep Kynect. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

America the Stupid: GOP Poor Love ObamaCare, Just Not the "Obama" Part

Idiots. Plain and simple. Like those teabaggers who would say, "keep your government hands off of my Medicare," anyone who is enjoying insurance for the first time, on account of the Affordable Care Act, and yet plans to vote Republican anyway. . .is an idiot. Those same Republicans have held how many votes--60?--to try to repeal "ObamaCare." They held a relentless campaign to demonize it, practically from its first formative step, to well after its introduction. They were so successful at making it seem that the ACA is the most evil piece of legislation ever, that even those who like it, hate it, if you just phrase the question right. Why would someone in such a position vote against their best interests? And yet they do. Consistently.

The Rude Pundit

Here's a great piece by Lee Papa, The Rude Pundit, from last week on the subject.

[Excerpt]

Toothless Hicks Agree: We Love Obamacare, Wish a White Man Had Signed It

So the New York Times interviewed people in Kentucky who have taken advantage of one part or another of the Affordable Care Act, especially the expansion of Medicaid. Robin Evans, a 49 year-old with high blood pressure and Graves' disease, is just "tickled to death" to have insurance coverage, which she had gone without for years. Of course, she's gonna vote Mitch McConnell out of office since he has made it his mission to repeal the ACA. Said Evans, "Born and raised Republican...I ain’t planning on changing now. . ."

See more at: The Rude Pundit

ObamaCare Working? Imagine That.

Yes we can! Ha! Image from source, Talking Points Memo

Busy tonight, so not much to add at the moment, except: ha-ha!

[Excerpt]

GOP's Obamacare Nightmare Is Coming True: It's Working

For Republicans, the Obamacare reckoning has arrived sooner than expected. The politics of the health care law have undergone a sea change since its disastrous rollout last fall, when many conservative operatives were salivating at the prospect of a GOP wave in the midterm elections due to an Obamacare "train wreck. . ."

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Is the end of ObamaCare Something Conservatives Should Really Wish For?

Image from source, NewsCorpse

As I wrote in my previous post, the Affordable Care Act is possibly imperiled by dueling lawsuit rulings. Because the results were in conflict, there's not a lot for either side to celebrate. Yet. But Right Wing World was in full swoon before the second ruling came down. Should they be so excited? Doesn't this stick to them like flypaper if it really does undo ObamaCare?

[Excerpt]

Let The Tea Party Begin: 4.7 Million At Risk Of Losing Their Health Insurance
 
Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright; The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light, And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout; For there IS joy in Teaville… …A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled 2-to-1 along party lines that subsidies for health insurance premiums made available under the Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) are only available to those who purchased their coverage in state-based exchanges, invalidating the 4.7 million citizens who used the federal exchange and therefore… …they have been shut out. . .

Read more at: NewsCorpse

ObamaCare is Dead! ObamaCare is Alive! Long Live ObamaCare!

So confusing! First a Circuit Court says that ObamaCare--at least the ability to fund it, in states without exchanges--was invalid, due to a literal reading of the law. See, the law was written with the assumption of 50 state exchanges, and the GOP thwarted that. So, the language is off by a couple of words. Intent? Phooey! We want to ditch this thing!

Then, just a couple of hours later, a different Circuit Court ruled exactly the opposite. It's just as well, Right Wing World was going to hurt itself if it did anymore cartwheels and back handsprings. So, very likely, this is going to go to the Supreme Court. Again. And who the hell knows what they'll do, really.

But I've got to think this has a heavy downside for the right. They're on record for being absolutely focused on eliminating or castrating ObamaCare from the beginning. Everyone knows it, and the case, of course, was initiated for that very reason. So, suppose SCOTUS rules that this part of the ACA is to be tossed out. And suddenly, affordable care is out the window. Poor people, who have had access to insurance for the first time, will be thrown off it. Something like 4.7 million people. I can't see how this is good for Republicans, if it comes down to that.

The amazing part is, conservatives aren't probably really against the ACA itself. It's the Obama part of ObamaCare they hate. They will do anything and everything to rob him of having that as his legacy, even while they trash the thing out of the other side of their mouth.

[Excerpt]

Appeals courts differ on Obamacare; Supreme Court case likely

It was a tale of two rulings -- the best of times and the worst of times for Obamacare in the federal appeals courts. First, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit court of appeals ruled Tuesday against a key component of the law -- the federal subsidies for millions of people who signed up for health coverage. . .

Read more (with video) at: CNN

How President Obama Should Respond to John Boehner

When I heard John Boner Boehner throwing down the gauntlet to President Obama yesterday, saying, "This is a problem of the president's own making," Boehner said. "He's been president for five and a half years. When is he going to take responsibility for something?" I shouted back at the radio, "Bitch, how long have you been in Congress?" I mean seriously, the the guy has been in leadership since 2007! What has he done? Moreover, for a man who is suing the President over executive orders, what's he asking for there? More executive action! He's a drunken tool.

Damn straight. Image found on Twitter, with no attribution.

 

ObamaCare Hits 8 Million

Okay, so if this thing actually turns out to have worked, how long until the "ObamaCare™" name is dropped, and ACA or some other variation becomes the name?

[Excerpt]

Obamacare Enrollment Hits 8 Million

President Obama announced on Thursday that 8 million people have signed up for plans through Obamacare’s new insurance exchanges. Although March 31 was originally the final deadline to enroll in Obamacare, administration officials extended the open enrollment period until April 15 to accommodate the people who may have struggled to complete their applications due to technological issues. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

President Takes Rare Victory Lap on ObamaCare's Successful Start Up

I used victory lap in the title because absolutely everyone is. And maybe it's because Obama doesn't do that very much. It's not that there have been no victories, it's that the news cycle moves so fast, there never seems to be enough acknowledgement of them. So, after an admittedly disastrous rollout of the website, which allowed Republicans to prematurely paint the program as a failure (well, moreso than they would have in any event), I think the Prez is in his right to spike the football (also a popular phrase), now that the first enrollment cycle is successfully complete.

Now, can we please talk about something else? I'm so, so tired of this topic. And please don't say "Benghazi." And yeah, here's a little more Maddow, because she's good at this stuff.
 

ObamaCare™ Failed to Fail

It's a wonder we got here, with the Affordable Care Act's first year's sign-ups done or in some measure of doneness (yes, those still queued up get to finish the process).  What with the botched rollout giving it two black eyes and a lame leg, and obstruction from Republicans every step of the way, it didn't seem like they'd ever get over the finish line. But here we are, and if Rachel Maddow is correct, this is the end of ObamaCare™ as a big national news story.

It'll still be used as a sledge hammer in the primaries and fall election, by Republicans who seem to have it as their only strategy. So you know, there will still be a parade of "horror stories," the majority of which will prove to be frauds. And the Congress will likely vote to repeal it a few more dozen times. But all of these people who signed up will now be customers. Those unaffected will be unlikely to sustain the manufactured rage they've been made to feel about it. And in time, we'll stop calling it ObamaCare­®, and go back to calling it the ACA.
 

The Supremes and Hobby Lobby

For a "creative center," they sure have a boring, boring logo.
Helvetica, really? Image from Crooks and Liars.

The Supreme Court took on the Hobby Lobby case on Tuesday, and many of the news reports were rather alarming to me. The case is ostensibly about the ObamaCare contraception mandate, and whether or not a corporation's religious freedom is violated by it. But the case is potentially much more far-reaching than this one element of the Affordable Care Act.

My first problem with the case is that it assumes a corporation can have religious beliefs. "Corporations are people, my friend," was Mitt Romney's infamous quote, which is a troublesome concept, no matter how you take it. Corporations are actually groups of people, each with individual rights. Claiming that the corporation itself has rights seems like this collection of people has got more rights than a single individual, at least to me. But let's take that as a given, that corporations are people.

Fine then, how do you determine this "person's" religion? Do you go by the CEO? The CFO or COO? Do you take a poll of the board of directors, add 'em all up, take an average, and call that the corporation's religion? What about the employees, do their religious rights and freedoms get automatically trumped by the employer? If so, why? And why on earth should an employer have to follow the boss's idea of what kind of health care she should receive?

It's all such bizarre reasoning, and seems to not even bother imagining what potential pitfalls might follow, if it should prevail at SCOTUS. It also--as many "religious freedom" arguments do--assumes that only Christianity will be the religion in question, to be allowed these exemptions. Nope, if this case wins, every religion from Islam to Wicca to Pastafarians will have a new challenge: finding religious exemptions to laws that they can exploit. What's to stop a lobbying group with an agenda from creating their own religion with a doctrine that matches their list of wants? Suddenly, you have legal chaos. And all because the guy who runs Hobby Lobby really doesn't like President Obama. Crazy.

[Excerpt]

Supreme Court Struggles In Hobby Lobby Case With Question Of Companies' Religious Rights

Justices on the Supreme Court seemed to struggle Tuesday with the question of whether a private company can get out of a federal law by citing the religious beliefs of its shareholders. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Obama Uses Tea Party Imagery: "Don't Tread on My Obama Care"

Brilliant, just brilliant. I love it.

[Excerpt]

Obama Co-Opts Tea Party Slogan For Obamacare Bumper Sticker

President Barack Obama's new Obamacare bumper sticker sure looks familiar. Here's how it looks, as unveiled and promoted at BarackObama.com, which is now run by the president's advocacy group, Organizing For Action. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

President Obama Appears on Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis

In something sure to tick of the right, but tickle his fans--especially younger ones--President Obama appeared on FunnyOrDie.com's Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis. The web series is along the lines of Chris Farley's mock interviews on Saturday Night Live years ago, only with weird and awkward in place of manic and awkward.

The "interview" was a clever way to market the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare™) to younger people, and apparently, that's already paying off. It also let the President show himself to be hip and (kinda) funny. And while the right will never like anything the President does, the truth is, he came off pretty well. I couldn't help but imagine how Dubya would have fared.

[Excerpt]

Zach Galifianakis Interviews Obama, And Twitchy Has Thoughts About It Buried In There Somewhere We Guess

Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis: President Barack Obama from President Barack Obama

Here is a funny “video” of Zach Galifianakis on Between Two Ferns interviewing one B. Barack Obama that you have probably already seen, because you probably did not sleep in until seven a.m. Pacific like some kind of slob jerk who sleeps in all day and then does something else slobby and jerky, we do not even know, this Daylight Saving Time changeover kind of did a number on us, and now we sort of suck at our “job” of typing dick jokes on the Internet and having examples of things that would be slobby and jerky. It is funny! There’s at least two, possibly three, fuck it let’s call it four, good loud laughs in there. Bamz is steely-eyed and pissy, it’s great! . . .

Read more at: Wonkette

Patrick Stewart on The Colbert Report as a Victim of ObamaCare

Hilarious!

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

CBO Report on ObamaCare Continues to be Misconstrued

Over the last couple of weeks, I'll admit to being a little less engaged than usual. I have paid a little less attention to the changing of the news cycle, having my attention pulled in other directions here at home. Even so, I caught that the CBO report on ObamaCare was initially (gleefully) reported by conservatives as a JOB KILLER!!! And almost immediately, the author of the thing said, no, Right Wing World had gotten it wrong. Again.

But here we were on Sunday morning, with the political shows all acting like the original storyline was the correct one. David Gregory used it in one of his "balanced" setups, as though the wrong conclusion was as equally likely as the real, intended one. Chris Wallace on FOX "News" Sunday lead with it, painting it as conclusively true, by the way he phrased it. I didn't have the stomach for the other networks' offerings.

But it looks like CNN may have gotten it right.

[Excerpt]

CNN breaks mold and tells truth about CBO report


 
It is a forgone conclusion that Fox News would misrepresent the latest CBO report. Sadly even Chuck Todd at MSNBC was less than clear in interpreting the report. He was more concerned with how it would be interpreted. He should have been more concerned with his free press journalistic duty. Inform the population objectively. . .

Read more at: DailyKos