Welcome To Liberal America

Barack Obama, gay marriage, weed, and a new focus on climate change. This is the country, and the Republican Party has to adapt.

Posted Nov 7, 2012 2:36am EST

President Barack Obama’s sweeping victory in the 2012 election, his party’s wide win in the Senate, and the first ever triumph of marriage equality at the polls cemented the reality of a changed America that emerged in 2008.

The shape of that changed country was obscured by the Republican revival of 2010, but the 2012 vote means both the survival of Obama’s policy project and the clear emergence of a new demographic picture and electoral map.

The first post-baby boomer president was returned to the White House with the widest, clearest re-election win since Ronald Reagan won 49 states in 1984, yet a smaller mandate than his own his 2008 victory. And Democrats now have, in Obama, their Reagan: A figure both historic and ideological, who can carry, if not quite fulfill, a liberal vision of activist government and soft but sometimes deadly power abroad that will define his party for a generation.

Obama lacks Reagan’s sweeping victory, and presides over a more deeply divided country than when he took office. But the breadth of his accomplishments have been validated by Tuesday’s vote. ObamaCare is now a firmly rooted component of the nation’s social compact. Americans appear to have accepted his campaign’s argument that he deserves more credit for a nascent economic recovery than blame for it’s slow pace.

And the vision of a conservative resurgence appears to have fallen short. The best the Republican party could muster was a Massachusetts moderate masquerading as “severely conservative.” The Tea Party is a memory, an embarrassment to a party that didn’t even mention it at its national convention in Tampa. And the network that led the conservative resurgence, Fox, suffered a sort of televised meltdown as the results came in, with Karl Rove berating host Megyn Kelly for calling the election, he said, prematurely.

Republicans have warned of a more liberal Obama over the coming term, an outcome Democrats hope for and consider likely. But the scale of the decisions facing the country will create an intense pressure for compromise, and now on Democratic terms.

But the 2012 election marked a cultural shift as much as a political one. Ballot measures that had failed for years — allowing the marriage of two men or two women in Maine and Maryland; legalizing marijuana in Washington State and Colorado — were voted into law. The nation’s leading champion of bank regulation Elizabeth Warren handily defeated moderate Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts, and the nation’s first lesbian senator, in Tammy Baldwin, was elected in Wisconsin. Even climate change, which was absent for nearly the entire campaign, came roaring back with Hurricane Sandy, and was the subject of endorsements for Obama and harsh attacks on Romney.

These measures were passed, and Obama re-elected, by an American electorate that Republicans had dismissed as a fluke of African-American pride and youth enthusiasm, and which a generation of pundits — Michael Barone, George Will — wrote off as a fantasy.

The Romney campaign, in fact, bet its last weeks on modeling showing a more Republican, older, and more white electorate — the reversal of the younger, diverse crowds which propelled Barack Obama to the White House four years ago. But in fact the share of 18-29 year old voters increased by a percentage point, while the number of white voters declined by two. Their votes were more balanced this time, but the change has been unmistakable and irreversible.

The groups on whom Obama depended are the ones that are growing; white men, the core Republican constituency, are a shrinking minority. For the first time In 2011, minority births surpassed white births in the United States, and the longer demographic trend places white Americans in the minority by 2041.

The Republican party will spend much needed time in the wilderness after this election, even as the open race for unofficially 2016 kicks off today. The future of the Grand Old Party will be determined by how well it adapts to the brand new Liberal America — indeed the Obama America — that is now here to stay.

Link

Sadly, the old, white men in the House and Senate in the Republican Party still don't get it. The Democrats are going to have to fight these guys on their terms. They need to learn to use the media as well as the right; Democrats simply don't seem to know how to message and for too long we've run away from issues that have long formed the basis for our party. Democrats did well this time because they didn't run from these issues--abortion, gay rights, immigration reform, and climate change. they were forced by circumstances to stand up and defend these issues and they won.

I hope they can work together and recognize that each side has to give a little for us to succeed. I am just tired of the Democrats constantly giving in on important issues, then having Republicans filibuster it or vote no anyway. The President needs to call them out when they play games and Harry Reid needs to grow some you know what and learn how to use Senate parliamentary rules as effectively as McConnell. If they fight back, I think the Republicans will finally decide to work as a team. We can only hope!

God have mercy on our country

My son posted a comment on FB yesterday I thought was funny.
"If Romney wins I'm going to leave the country, if Obama wins I'm going to leave the country. This has nothing to do with politics - I just want to travel."

Seriously though - yes, I'm glad Obama won. Now this is the problem, House of Representatives is all democratic & the Senate is republican. Are they still going to battle with each other, as they have done the past 4 years? Obama has to get forceful with them & tell them all "the games are over". Hope Obama can beat them all on the head and say "let's get going to help this country recover!"

Cindi, think you meant House is Republican lead--not all GOP by any means but they are the majority and the Senate has a Democratic majority, again not enough to counter the Republican's never-ending filibusters. If the Republicans decide to double down and continue to vote no on everything, we are sunk.

I am really tired of hearing how the President didn't try to work with them, that he wasn't bipartisan. He compromised a great deal during his first term, giving in on many bills only to have them vote no anyway. All they care about is winning. Since they lost, maybe they'll come to the table now.

Harry Reid tweeted that "filibuster reform is coming" or was quoted as saying it...not sure which but I saw it on the news feed.

playfuldeb wrote:God have mercy on our country

Under his leadership, redistribution of wealth and mandated national healthcare. Welcome to socialist America.....

Better have your lifejacket handy.

Women In Senate: 2012 Election Ushers In Historic Number Of Female Senators

WASHINGTON -- The 113th Congress will have 20 female senators, the most ever in U.S. history.

Joining the Senate will be Republican Deb Fischer (Neb.) and Democrats Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.).

All six Democratic women up for reelection -- Sens. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (Mich.) -- won their races.

Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.) lost her Senate race to incumbent Dean Heller.

Five Republican female candidates lost on Tuesday. Wendy Long ran against Gillibrand, Elizabeth Emken went up against Feinstein and Linda Lingle ran against Hirono. Linda McMahon in Connecticut and Heather Wilson in New Mexico also lost.

There are currently 17 female U.S. senators, which had also been a record number. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) are both retiring, meaning the next Congress will have just four female Republican senators.

Female candidates were a key part of the Democratic Party's strategy to keep the Senate, with candidates like McCaskill, Baldwin and Warren in some of the most competitive races in the country.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), consistently touted the fact that it had recruited a record number of female candidates.

"When we started this campaign, no one, and I mean no one gave us a chance," said Murray on Tuesday night. "But we went out and built the best Senate campaigns in the history of the country. We recruited some of the highest quality candidates, including a record number of women. Democrats never let up and now we will retain our majority in the United States Senate."

"Democratic women in the Senate were the first line of defense against the Republican war on women," added EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock in a statement. "Voters saw the role they played, and they trust them to lead on the issues that matter to women and families. That's why they sent every single Democratic woman up for re-election to the Senate back to Washington. It’s an incredible testament to the good work these women do in Washington."

Issues that disproportionately affect women -- from reproductive rights to Medicare to jobs -- were front and center of the 2012 campaign. McCaskill, in particular, was facing a steep uphill climb to reelection, until her opponent, Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), caused a national uproar over his remark that women who have been victims of "legitimate rape" are physically able to prevent themselves from getting pregnant.

"When women are part of the negotiation and are part of decision-making, the outcomes are just better," Gillibrand told The Huffington Post last year, discussing the importance of having female representation in the chamber. "When we have our dinners with the women in the Senate -- the Democrats and Republicans -- we have so much common ground. We agree on so many basic principles and values. I think if there were more women at the decision-making table, we would get more things done."

For a map of which women voters elected last night and where, see our infographic on HuffPost Women.

This article has been updated to include results from North Dakota's Senate race.
Link

Lakin460 wrote:

playfuldeb wrote:God have mercy on our country

Under his leadership, redistribution of wealth and mandated national healthcare. Welcome to socialist America.....

Better have your lifejacket handy.

Lakin - I don't fully understand the politics involved being that Im an Aussie, but can you please summarise what mandated national healthcare means, is this the policy of making sure that every American has access to healthcare, or health insurance? Just curious as we have a government run Medicare system here (not sure if that's ideal either) and also the option to have private health insurance, where you can pick your own dr, hospital etc (very expensive so out of reach of a lot of families). Appreciate if you could explain. Thanks

the minis,

I know your question was addressed to Lakin, but I live in Massachusetts, where we've had mandated healthcare for years. It was Romney's signature policy when he was governor here, and it's been a great success. His plan was basically the blueprint for Obamacare, the president's national health plan. The idea is that it covers the people who make too much money to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but don't make enough to purchase insurance privately; these people are often underinsured or take a chance on not being insured at all, which means if something bad happens to them, they are either bankrupted by hospital bills or the taxpayers end up footing the bill.

Basically, everyone is required to have health insurance. If it's offered through your employer, great. If it's not, you can purchase private insurance, or go through one of several government backed plans to purchase insurance (which are typically cheaper than private companies). If you still choose not to buy insurance, there is a tax penalty. It cuts down on health care costs in the long run because people have the ability to access preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies, to catch serious illnesses in the early stages. It also means people can see a doctor when they have a cold, and don't have to wait until they have double pneumonia and their only treatment option is the emergency room, which is super expensive and taxpayers typically end up paying for; if a person can't afford insurance, they probably can't afford an expensive hospital bill.

Obamacare also covers pre-existing conditions, so you can never be denied health insurance. It allows children to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26. It prevents health insurance companies from placing a cap on expenses for chronically ill children, so families with children who have cancer or cystic fibrosis, or anything else that requires long term care don't lose everything to make sure their kid has treatment.

As someone who works in a field that is highly rewarding and lowly paid, who has had to gamble on not having health insurance from time to time and just crossed my fingers nothing terrible happened, it's plusses all the way around. This is how a civilized country treats it's citizens. Although I get the feeling Lakin feels differently...

As far as a redistribution of wealth goes, I have no problem with it being redistributed down, as opposed to Romney's plan of taking all the money and giving it to his 1% buddies. People who don't feel they should have to pay taxes are entitled to their opinion, but then they should be willing to give up those services that taxes pay for, like police and fire protection, and paved roads.

Oh, and meant to add: anyone who can look at this capitalist, profits-driven, Wall Street-worshiping country and declare it socialist just doesn't understand the term.

Taking care of all our citizens, even and especially those who can't take care of themselves, isn't socialism. It's a moral imperative.

I'm hoping Lakin that you were kidding. How anyone can say that Obama's policies to date or his suggestions for moving forward have anything to do with socialism is beyond me. And, if you are serious, please tell me how he has redistributed wealth? The only thing he has tried to do is to let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest among us--the top 1% only--expire so that they will pay the rate they paid when Clinton was in office--a period of time when that segment of our population made a lot of the wealth they have today.

Bush and the Republicans put us into 2 wars and didn't pay for them. They weren't ever included in annual budgets. They're now complaining about budget deficits and the debt, which they are basically responsible for. You cannot make a dent in that debt without an increase in revenue. People will have to pay for the privilege to live in a country that provides all of us with so much. And, the wealthiest--those so-called job creators--they reap the benefits of living in this country the most. Since many business icons (Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc.) have all said they should pay more, I simply do not understand the Republican view that this is somehow "redistributing wealth." Especially since none of those who will be affected are actually really paying even the lower tax rates they have now. They are probably paying about 14%. I don't know about you but I pay between 28%-34%, depending on how well my business is doing.

Second, the whole, Obama raised my taxes accusation is a lie. He lowered taxes. We're paying the lowest taxes we've paid since the 1950's. I own a small business. My taxes have decreased and my employees have had much less taken out of their paychecks thanks to his tax break for them.

Obamacare is a wonderful start for this country. Every other mature Democratic country in the world has universal healthcare. I know people who have never been able to get insurance because they have pre-existing conditions. My cousin has juvenile diabetes and has never been able to get insured. My best friend had breast cancer in her 20's and has never had health insurance. I have a friend who's child has had to have several heart surgeries since she was a baby. She had already surpassed her lifetime insurance benefits and she's four years old. What would you have her do?

Thanks to Obamacare, all of my friends now have insurance because the only thing that the bill does is REGULATE the insurance industry and it is about time too! They must now insure people with pre-existing conditions. It doesn't tell you what doctor you have to see. It doesn't tell you what insurance you have to buy. It does mandate that if you can afford it, you must buy insurance (a Republican idea that was put into the bill at their request to try and get them to support the bill). If you can't afford it, you are provided with assistance and can choose from insurance companies that have been grouped together by each state. I for one am relieved to have Obamacare and can't wait for the meat of the bill to actually go into effect.

17 of 21 of Romney's advisors were former Bush advisors. Most of the advisors that got us into Iraq and Afghanistan were advising him. His economic plan was basically Bush 2. Since that plan almost ruined not only this country's economy but much of the rest of the world's economy, I'm sorry I simply don't know how anyone could vote for that man.

I'll get off my soapbox now but to anyone who suggests or believes that the President is not a citizen or Christian, I question if that is really what you believe or is that what you are saying to cover the fact that the only reason you don't like President Obama is that he is black? And, as Missa said, although he is a Christian, I find it disgusting that by implying he is not, you are also suggesting that if he weren't that would somehow be a bad thing. I know many evangelical Christians don't believe that Mormons are Christians. But I didn't hear anyone questioning Mr. Romney's religious beliefs. The people in this country need to grow up. Change is coming whether you like it or not!

Thanks Missa - that is a great explanation, to me Obamacare sounds like it would really help out a lot of people who need it. I had private health insurance from age 18 to 40 as back in the day once you turned 18 you were off your parents plan and had to go on your own or have no insurance. In those years I had a total of approx $80k in medical bills and operations, I was out of pocket only $15k which is a good chunk of money, but the ability to see a specialist straight away, have my procedures done straight away was more beneficial.

Our Medicare public health system is such a nightmare in too many ways to mention, its the waiting for appts/results/followups, some waiting lists for procedures can be up to 2 years - there are a lot of gaps in our system. There is also a tax penalty for not having health insurance if you earn over $50k as a single person, but the penalty is about the same or less than than what you would pay for a years worth of private health insurance. Of course, in this country the more people that have private health insurance, the less pressure on the taxpayer funded Medicare system, hence the tax penalty.

As far as I'm aware only very very few companies in Australia offer employees health insurance or even subsidised health cover, its normally up to the individual to pay for this luxury!

Wow Minis it sounds difficult. And, like here, it sounds like medical costs are way too high. When I look at the cost for various procedures, it is ridiculous. And, my insurance company negotiates with them supposedly so that a $30,000 bill somehow miraculously becomes $7500. That's the problem here; the hospitals/doctors know the insurance companies are going to push them to lower the bills so they over charge and anyone without health insurance is sunk!

Bilderberg Group calls the shots.
One presidential stooge over the other. The demographic minority liberal who's given credit for getting rid of the nation's enemies, resuscitating the auto industry in Ohio, & picking up the pieces left by his predecessors...



Alas, US is officially $16 TRILLION IN DEBT TO COMMUNIST CHINA... & GROWING.

I think China might enjoy having you visit Wolfgang. I'm sure several of the people on this board might be willing to pool our redistributed wealth and buy you a one way ticket!

that's a mean thing to say if you're not joking. I agree, one day China might just own part of the US when we cant pay off that debt to them.

I too worry about our growing debt to China Deb but frankly find Wolfgang's sarcasm a bit hard to take.

A few facts about our Chinese debt: The bulk of the $14.3 trillion U.S. debt - $9.8 trillion in all - is owned by the American people and our government. While China is the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt, they own about 8 percent of publicly held US debt. So while we should be concerned about our debt to them, I would suggest we should be more concerned about the fact that because we all seem to think we have the right to cheap consumer items, we no longer make anything in this country.

We outsource even some of our defense contracts to China. And when did this all begin? Under Reagan. The Republican Party needs to have an enemy or enemies to survive. It used to be Japan. Now it's China. And yet, it is the Republicans and their supporters who have sold out to China. They love to talk about our debt but if they really cared they wouldn't introduce tax breaks for corporations who outsource their manufacturing there. They wouldn't protect companies like Walmart who make everything there. Why do you think the most of the American corporations who make their products in China support the Republicans?

And, for the time being, I would suggest to you that we have very little to fear from China because they need us more than or at least as much as we need them. If we didn't buy all the stuff they made, they'd be in big trouble. Their economy is already taking a hit because so many Western countries are suffering economic downturns and we can't afford to buy as much stuff. In addition, their workforce is getting smart; they're tired of being used as slave labor and demanding more pay.

So, while I realize it's much easier to believe the BS that the right wing media love to sell, it's not as clearcut of a situation as you believe. And frankly, the hypocrisy of the people who are responsible for most of the debt and who have sold us out to the Chinese--the Republican Congress under Newt Gingrich--would be funny if it weren't so sad!

And yes, I was joking obviously...however, I find Wolfgang's humor to be sarcastic at best.

OofOof wrote:Wow Minis it sounds difficult. And, like here, it sounds like medical costs are way too high. When I look at the cost for various procedures, it is ridiculous. And, my insurance company negotiates with them supposedly so that a $30,000 bill somehow miraculously becomes $7500. That's the problem here; the hospitals/doctors know the insurance companies are going to push them to lower the bills so they over charge and anyone without health insurance is sunk!

Hi Miz, just to give an example, the government here (like yours I suspect) sets a scheduled fee of say 87.00 per half hour for me to see a private specialist, however this particular private specialist and 99% of them are allowed to charge whatever they like over that scheduled fee - mine charged 220.00 per half hour. With private health cover I got back an amount anywhere from 50% to 70% - the rest was seen as an out of pocket expense. I was lucky in that without insurance I could not have afford to see him at all. Nothing is fully covered 100% here, even using the public health system, there are still some costs, but it is a significantly cheaper option and one that many here on low incomes have no option but to use, understandably. And you are right, same situation happens here, drs overcharging their patients and the insurance companies, don't even get me started on why some life-changing medicines are unavailable to a lot of people unless you have a ton of money in the bank!!

It's the same in the UK. We all have to pay money to the government for healthcare (national insurance it's called) and in return you more or less get free or subsidised healthcare.

It doesn't always work perfectly, you usually end up paying something and you have to wait much longer to be treated and treatment options are more limited.

That said, it does mean that if you're ill or in an accident in the UK, the first thing the doctor will ask you is "where does it hurt?" and not "do you have a credit card?"!

Our UK National Health Service is the envy of the world. That's why so any people come to live here.

I paid approx 6% of my salary during my working life into the government pot, which covered free health care and contributions towards my State pension.

I've had very good service and value for money from our NHS
over the years, and my husband has too.
I was fast tracked through the system for cancer treatment, 2 weeks from diagnosis to admission to hospital for brilliant radical treatment
and a 3 month wait for a hip replacement.
And that was all free.....apart from the hospital car park charges for out patient visits and visitors to in patients. Lol

Wolfgang Gunnerson wrote:Bilderberg Group calls the shots.
One presidential stooge over the other. The demographic minority liberal who's given credit for getting rid of the nation's enemies, resuscitating the auto industry in Ohio, & picking up the pieces left by his predecessors...



Alas, US is officially $16 TRILLION IN DEBT TO COMMUNIST CHINA... & GROWING.

Yes it is and you can thank George W. Bush for that! HIS policiies drove the American and the European markets OFF THE CLIFF with his deregulation of the markets and banks.....NOT Barack Obama!

George W. Bush started TWO WARS and not only didn't bother to pay for them....HE DIDN'T INCLUDE THEM IN THE BUDGETS EITHER...hence everyone's surprise to find out that those costs were rising daily at ONE million dollars a day.....NOT Barack Obama....when he got into office HE PUT THEM ON THE BUDGETS SO EVERYONE COULD SEE THE COSTS OF THE WARS! What a novel concept!

It was also George W. Bush that put Medicare B into practice AGAIN without paying for it or putting on ANY Budgets....NOT Barack Obama...so let's keep the information HERE at least HONEST! I can't control the conservative media from NOT telling their viewers the truth but I'll be DAMNED if I'm going to let the same LIES stand here! YOU don't get to have different FACTS than the rest of the world....face the truth for a change.

NONE of those things suddenly DISAPPEARED FROM THE BUDGETS GOING FORWARD into the future costs to run the country because that was already LAW.....hence the sudden DEBT!

It's not sudden.....YOU didn't know what was going on under the Bush Administration ala Dick Cheney who thought you didn't need to know! NOT Barack Obama!

Joanna wrote:Our UK National Health Service is the envy of the world. That's why so any people come to live here.

I paid approx 6% of my salary during my working life into the government pot, which covered free health care and contributions towards my State pension.

I've had very good service and value for money from our NHS
over the years, and my husband has too.
I was fast tracked through the system for cancer treatment, 2 weeks from diagnosis to admission to hospital for brilliant radical treatment
and a 3 month wait for a hip replacement.
And that was all free.....apart from the hospital car park charges for out patient visits and visitors to in patients. Lol

YES Jo, your healthcare system is definitely a model to hold up for the world...healthcare shouldn't be something that people can have ONLY if they can afford over priced insurance....basic healthcare should be the right of every citizen to expect from their govenment. A HEALTHY work force is a productive work force but those neocons don't get that concept either....any more than they understand economcis I'm afraid! Hence our problems trying to keep our population healthy and not dying of every disease under the sun because of lack of healthy well check ups and normal maintenance which keeps people healthy and minimizes diseases by catching and diagnosing them EARLY.

Healthcare shouldn't be controlled by a PROFIT industry like the insurance and healthcare industries....they are ALL in the business of MAKING MONEY which not at all altruistic in their approach to keeping this country healthy. Certain things must be done BY GOVERNMENT in order to keep PROFITEERS in private industry from ruining the services that should be given in order to keep their BOTTOM LINE PROFITABLE!

Mitt Romney thinks that even DISASTER RELIEF should be PRIVATIZED....can you imagine New Jersey, New York and Connecticut having to PAY PRIVATE COMPANIES to clean up after the hurricane? Or be responsible for ensuring clean water and sewage for their citizens....with them constantly WORRIED ABOUT THEIR BOTTOM LINE? PROFIT is what matters to EVERY private company and they don't do CHARITY WORK!

The Republican Party is having it's "come to Jesus" moment.....

BOSTON -– Republican Party leaders on Wednesday began picking up the pieces of their movement, trying to figure how to put them back together.

The GOP was blindsided Tuesday, but also revealed. The Democrats' ground organization was beyond anything they'd imagined, pulling in new voters with stunning effectiveness. It exposed a major weakness in the Republican approach to winning elections, practically and intellectually.

"I don't think anyone on our side understood or comprehended how good their turnout was going to be," said Henry Barbour, a Republican committee man from Mississippi. "The Democrats do voter registration like a factory, like a business, and Republicans tend to leave it to the blue hairs."

But President Barack Obama's triumphant get-out-the-vote program also pulled back the curtain on the GOP's looming demographic demise. The exposure was so severe that there will be few inside the party who can deny the need to work toward immigration reform, as well the need to make a broader effort to communicate to parts of the electorate that the party has not tried to in the past.

There was a quick move to embrace the need for change, from the ranks of the party's next generation of elected leaders, as well as from its online flame-throwers.

"The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them," said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla).


Erick Erickson, founder of RedState.com, a conservative blog, said Republican candidate Mitt Romney's approach to Hispanic voters was "atrocious."

"Frankly, the fastest-growing demographic in America isn’t going to vote for a party that sounds like that party hates brown people," Erickson said.

However, the day after was not all self-reflection for those on the right. Some struck a far more combative tone.

"We are in a war. We're in a war to save this nation," said Michael Needham, chief executive of Heritage Action, an arm of the conservative Washington think tank, The Heritage Foundation.

Needham spoke in a direct-to-camera video as martial-sounding music swelled in the background. Persuasion as a political strategy did not appear to be on his mind.

Similarly, an assortment of conservative groups sent representatives to the National Press Club to vent their anger at the Republican Party "establishment."

"The battle to retake the Republican Party begins today," railed Richard Viguerie, a veteran of the conservative movement, who called on "the failed Republican leadership" to resign, and then named the leaders of the GOP in the House and Senate, as well as the head of the Republican National Convention.

However, figures like Viguerie have limited influence within the GOP these days. The real lightning bolts being thrown on Wednesday were by the party's super donors, who played a historic role in this election after a 2010 Supreme Court decision allowed them to give unlimited amounts to outside groups.

Many of the lightning bolts were aimed at none other than Karl Rove, the former Bush administration political genius who oversaw the deployment of nearly $400 million in campaign spending through outside groups American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS toward the presidential race and toward numerous Senate and House races.

"The billionaire donors I hear are livid," one Republican operative told The Huffington Post. "There is some holy hell to pay. Karl Rove has a lot of explaining to do … I don't know how you tell your donors that we spent $390 million and got nothing."

Rove even suffered the indignity of being insulted on Twitter by the blustery Donald Trump, who had attended Romney's election night party here on Tuesday night, but left early after it was clear that Obama had won a second term.

"Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money," Trump tweeted, inaccurately.

Crossroads GPS spent money in the Nevada Senate race, where Republican incumbent Sen. Dean Heller defeated Democratic challenger Shelley Berkley. The group also spent money on numerous House races.

Rove was forced to defend his group's expenditures live on Fox News on Tuesday night, and will hold a briefing with top donors on Thursday, according to Politico.

There were plenty of attacks on Romney himself, as well, with Erickson saying that he "stood for nothing and everything at the same time," and that his advisers were " outside charlatans, many of whom will now go work for Republican Super PACs making six-figure salaries, further draining the pockets of rich Republicans when not on television explaining how awesome and expert they are."

Ben Domenech, a conservative author, described Romney's candidacy as having "a message without music, delivered by a candidate with little or no personality, saddled with enormous advantages in life which become disadvantages in the world of politics."

There was also talk of a new conservative populism, an explicit admission that the GOP has lost all connection to working-class and lower-income voters, as well as minorities.

"We need to think creatively about big issues, philosophy, and how we can relate conservative values to the needs of a wider range of voters," wrote Ed Morrissey, a blogger at HotAir.com. "This will require a new set of national leaders for the Republican Party and conservatism. We need men and women who can think creatively, produce a positive agenda that isn’t defined by an oppositional nature, and who can eloquently communicate that agenda and the values that drive it."

The realignment inside the GOP won't just be at the level of its public faces. The party will have to confront a consultant culture that has stilted innovation and growth in winning elections.

"I think there was a big bomb that just went off in the party and people need to see where the bodies lie and let the dust settle," said the Republican operative. "The party needs to find the Rove of 1996, rather than Karl Rove who created George Bush and got him reelected twice and spent $500 million in the next two cycles."

Link

Joanna here's an interesting story about a Romney supporter coming to terms with our former inefficient healthcare system and the TRUTH about the new one under President Obama.....it's very enlightening! She actually underscores my point about "profiteers" running the healthcare system and why that's a problem.

Mitt Romney Supporter Turns To Obamacare

Melissa Littlewood of Sarasota, Fla., voted for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney because she thinks the government is becoming too expansive, too intrusive, and too burdensome for small business owners such as herself.

At the same time, President Barack Obama's health care law, reviled by conservatives as an expansion of big government, may be the only way for Littlewood to get affordable health insurance.

"I think we're in a society that is on a runaway train," Littlewood said. "I think I'm about to see what that is all about."

Polls show that Americans, collectively speaking, are as ambivalent about the law as they are about the president himself. Under Obama's watch, the Affordable Care Act's major provisions are supposed to take effect in 2014, extending insurance coverage to 30 million Americans whether they like it or not.

Littlewood knows from personal experience that the health care system's status quo is no good. She has owned an automotive accessory business for 34 years. She said her company's group health insurance policy, which covers her and one employee, costs $1,460 per month. If she renews the policy for another year, its monthly premiums will go up to $1,553.

She said she can't afford it anymore, but she has no other choice for obtaining coverage, since no insurance company will offer an affordable plan to a 59-year-old breast cancer survivor.

"I think I'm being discriminated against," she said. "I am healthy and I am tired of getting beat up each year with the high insurance costs."

Thanks to Obamacare, Littlewood is now considering other options. If she's willing to spend six months uninsured, she can qualify for a little-known new program called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. In Florida, the PCIP's monthly premiums range from $376 to $505 per month.

"That's a substantial savings," Littlewood said. "It's a heck of a lot better than what I'm paying now."

Fewer people have enrolled in the PCIP than the Obama administration expected, and its costs per enrollee have been much higher. Yet for many of the 80,000 Americans who have signed up, the program is a lifesaver. The Huffington Post has followed several people who have actually canceled their private insurance in order to spend six scary months uninsured so they can qualify.

The program will be phased out 2014, at which point the insurance industry will no longer be allowed to exclude sick people from coverage. At the same time, people with lower incomes will receive government subsidies to purchase health plans, and people who don't buy insurance will have to pay a penalty to the IRS.

Littlewood said she voted for Obama in 2008, but voted for Romney Tuesday because of her frustration dealing with the state and federal government as a business owner. Plus, she said, she figured Romney would not fully follow through on his promises to repeal Obamacare.

She said she would decide whether to drop her insurance just as soon as her doctors can confirm her cancer is still in remission.

"I will make up my mind in about 30 days when I have my final test," she said. "And then I will probably go for it."

Link

AARP Warns Lawmakers About Potential 'Fiscal Cliff' Deal

With hints that party leaders may soon seek a deal on taxes and spending, AARP is warning lawmakers to stay away from a Social Security cut that has been popular on Capitol Hill.

The powerful seniors lobbying organization has long suggested openness to Social Security changes that reduce benefits, but not in the context of a "Grand Bargain" deal designed to reduce the federal budget deficit. Social Security is projected to run a shortfall in 2033, but its finances are considered separate from the federal government's budget.

"On behalf of millions of members nationwide and all Americans age 50 and older," AARP CEO A. Barry Rand wrote in a letter to lawmakers Thursday, provided to HuffPost, "AARP writes to reiterate our opposition to adopting a chained consumer price index to calculate the Social Security cost of living adjustment for the purpose of reducing the deficit."

In particular, the organization doesn't want congressional negotiators to use an alternate measure of inflation for calculating Social Security's cost of living adjustments, known as COLAs. The alternative measure, called the chained Consumer Price Index, would reduce the amount of COLAs over time. In October, the Social Security Administration announced a 1.7 percent increase in Social Security benefits -- which average $1,235 per month for seniors.

"If Congress had already adopted CCPI, the 2013 COLA would be even less, at only 1.4 percent," Rand wrote (click HERE for a PDF of the letter). "However, adopting a chained consumer price index to calculate Social Security COLAs is not a small benefit change -- it will compound benefit reductions dramatically over time, resulting in an annual benefit that is roughly $1,000 (2012 dollars) lower by the time a beneficiary reaches age 85."

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) suggested on Wednesday that Republicans may be open to "new revenue" as part of a deal to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" looming at the end of the year. Boehner and President Barack Obama reportedly negotiated such a deal in 2011, which included new taxes as well as chained CPI.

At the end of 2012, a host of tax cuts and spending provisions are set to expire, and defense and discretionary spending cuts are set to take effect. Some economists have called it a "fiscal cliff" that could send the U.S. economy into a recession. (Progressive economists scoff at the notion that there would be instantaneous economic consequences for not changing current law, arguing that it is more akin to a fiscal slope.)

Erskine Bowles, co-chair of a deficit commission created by President Obama during his first term, urged Congress on Wednesday to avoid the cliff with a deficit deal that includes Social Security in the near term. Bowles and deficit commission co-chair Alan Simpson previously recommended Congress adopt the chained CPI.

AARP's letter suggested the organization won't give lawmakers any breathing room to include Social Security cuts in the negotiations, even if the organization is not opposed to changing the program outside of a debt deal.

Link

There's never a perfect solution to everything. Heck, even here on a Clooney fansite a handful of posters need to agree to disagree at times . . . could 300 million Americans be able to agree the best way to solve the ongoing economic crisis?

Lighter THANK YOU! The fact that facts don't seem to matter in this country makes me crazy. I am obviously a liberal but that doesn't mean that I believe everything I hear from news sources that have a liberal bent (although I would like to say that when you look at what is labeled the liberal counterpart to Fox or rightwing radio there is a distinct difference in the way they do their programming, I.e., they generally base their views on facts) I get my news from a variety of places and when a person on the left says or does something ridiculous...I don't believe him/her, simply because I like what they are saying or like the network.

That seems to be the case with people who watch Fox or listen to Rush. Almost nothing they say is true. They frame every issue as an us against them problem and the them are anyone of color, anyone under 40, anyone who is poor and anyone with a working vagina.

The whole Obama is not a US citizen and is a Muslim stems from one thing and one thing only; racism (not to mention being unable to accept losing). I can tell you without doubt that Fox and all those right wing fallers know it's bull. But they continue peddling their lies because they make lots of money of lying to culpable people.

It's fine if you don't like Obama. I didn't like Bush. But I accepted he was the President and I didn't denigrate him the way the right does Obama. Dislike Obama but do it honestly. Don't accuse him of being a Socialist, Communist, radical who has raised your taxes and taken your guns and increased regulations beyond belief because that is not true! He's a moderate, sometimes to a degree that makes this liberal crazy! He lowered taxes. He's sadly done nothing on gun control and he's decreased regulations in the federal gov't.

And, for all our sakes, accept you lost the election, in spite of a five to one difference in PAC spending, and let's all try to work together.

You're welcome O...if I can call you that?

I don't trust ANYTHING I hear or read from media outlets...I READ everything for myself, always going to the source documents if I can; that way I can ensure that I'm getting the truth and not being spoonfed some propaganda or spin which is meant to confuse and obfuscate the truth for someone else's personal gain.

Integrity is a "precious commodity" in this day and age and I don't see a lot of it in any of our media. I trust my own eyes and I do my DUE DILIGIENCE and read for myself what people are actually DOING and I don't pay as much attention to what they are saying. It's too easy to bend the truth to fit your own agenda. Much harder to do with an informed electorate and oh lord, how I wish we had one of those!

As I've said before here, I have a simple mind.
I've always been amazed by the healthcare system in USA ever since a friend visited her brother in the 60's and came home saying that he and his wife could not afford to be ill.
Our NHS may not be perfect, with problems in waiting times often dependent on which part of the country one lives. But it really is fantastic most of the time.

Obviously we have a private healthcare system too which supplements the NHS and people who can afford to pay for their healthcare can use it or they can join a Company Health Care scheme at their place of work.
I've heard it said that without this option the NHS would be in real trouble and overwhelmed by numbers of people needing treatment.
Some people criticise the private option, but I've always taken the view that it helps to keep the NHS waiting lists down.


I don't understand why people in USA are opposed to the changes Pesident Obama has or is creating....which enables more people to get their health looked after in a more economical way for them....have I got
that right ?

Maybe someone can enlighten me in simple terms please ?

I agree that the British NHS system is probably the best system available even though it's far from perfect.

I do think it should be means-tested though. The cost of medication and treatments has rocketed since the NHS was launched and it's moved a long way from what it was created to do, which was offer affordable and universal healthcare to those who previously had had no access to it (ie: the poor).

Means testing is something I think we should look at for Medicare and Social Security as well.

My parents could have afforded to pay more for their Medicare and didn't need their Social Security. The problem is that their generation and the one after, feels pretty strongly that, no matter how wealthy they are, they should get everything they paid into Social Security. And, to give them credit, that is how it was designed so that the whole country would support it. You pay in and you get what you paid into it. Problem is that as our older population rises and the younger, working population decreases, it won't keep up forever.

Lakin460 wrote:

playfuldeb wrote:God have mercy on our country

Under his leadership, redistribution of wealth and mandated national healthcare. Welcome to socialist America.....

Better have your lifejacket handy.

Ah yes the sky is falling - our society will descend into anarchy blah blah.

Best thing about all those old white men in Washington is that they are eventually all going to die off. Then maybe more people who can strive for prosperity yet still can be compassionate human beings will take over and make this country even greater than it ever was before.

Katiedot wrote:I agree that the British NHS system is probably the best system available even though it's far from perfect.

I do think it should be means-tested though. The cost of medication and treatments has rocketed since the NHS was launched and it's moved a long way from what it was created to do, which was offer affordable and universal healthcare to those who previously had had no access to it (ie: the poor).

In a sense it is means tested as the percentage of NI contributions paid by employees is based on the individual employees salary . The NI contributions are compulsory and collected directly from salary. The employer also pays a contribution.

Just to clarify...

Salary up to around £7,500 no compulsary NI contributions are collected.
Salary from that amount up to around £42,000 NI contributions
are collected at 12%.
An extra 2% NI contribution is collected on the amount of salary
above that figure.
Upon retirement, NI contributions cease.

I think this is the most cost effective way of paying NI contributions through our Pay as you Earn system.

OofOof wrote:Means testing is something I think we should look at for Medicare and Social Security as well.

My parents could have afforded to pay more for their Medicare and didn't need their Social Security. The problem is that their generation and the one after, feels pretty strongly that, no matter how wealthy they are, they should get everything they paid into Social Security. And, to give them credit, that is how it was designed so that the whole country would support it. You pay in and you get what you paid into it. Problem is that as our older population rises and the younger, working population decreases, it won't keep up forever.

That's another one of those things that benefits the wealthy. There's a cap on how much of a person's income can be taxed for Social Security. Anyone who makes over $110,000 per year pays no additional Social Security taxes. If that cap was lifted, and everyone paid SS taxes on the entirety of their income (sort of like the system Joanna described for NHS contributions), Social Security would be solvent in perpetuity. Good luck trying to make any changes to that system, however. A politician can't so much as mention the term without people getting up in arms.

Absolutely right Missa but the plain truth is that no politician in this country even has the nerve to fight for at least raising the ceiling on the salary cap substancially if not completely. It goes up marginally but not enough to keep the program solvent because of the disparity between the number of baby boomers who are now retiring and the younger generation coming up, with nowhere near the numbers we need paying into the program to keep it solvent past 2033, as it stands now. We must do something to raise the revenue paid into the system but once again you have "big business interests" standing in the way because of the "employer portion" of the funding for the program, since employers have to match what is deducted from their employees salaries each quarter with their quarterly payroll tax returns.

What gives me hope is that Harry Reid has already reminded everyone that Social Security does not add one single dime to the deficit, it was set up as a self funding program and there is NO WAY Social Security cuts will be on the table during the deficit talks, which are already underway.

They need to take this to the people in a series of advertising campaigns and send the President out on the trail, explaining to America how we can protect what we have set up in the current "safety net social programs" and get the voters on the Dems side BEFORE the other side has a chance to demonize what they are trying to do.

Let the voters speak directly to the "representatives" in DC with phone calls and emails telling them to "play nice and get it done"...that's one way to turn the table on all the obstruction from the past 4 years.

Missa wrote:the minis,

I know your question was addressed to Lakin, but I live in Massachusetts, where we've had mandated healthcare for years. It was Romney's signature policy when he was governor here, and it's been a great success. His plan was basically the blueprint for Obamacare, the president's national health plan. The idea is that it covers the people who make too much money to qualify for Medicare/Medicaid, but don't make enough to purchase insurance privately; these people are often underinsured or take a chance on not being insured at all, which means if something bad happens to them, they are either bankrupted by hospital bills or the taxpayers end up footing the bill.



Basically, everyone is required to have health insurance. If it's offered through your employer, great. If it's not, you can purchase private insurance, or go through one of several government backed plans to purchase insurance (which are typically cheaper than private companies). If you still choose not to buy insurance, there is a tax penalty. It cuts down on health care costs in the long run because people have the ability to access preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies, to catch serious illnesses in the early stages. It also means people can see a doctor when they have a cold, and don't have to wait until they have double pneumonia and their only treatment option is the emergency room, which is super expensive and taxpayers typically end up paying for; if a person can't afford insurance, they probably can't afford an expensive hospital bill.

Obamacare also covers pre-existing conditions, so you can never be denied health insurance. It allows children to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26. It prevents health insurance companies from placing a cap on expenses for chronically ill children, so families with children who have cancer or cystic fibrosis, or anything else that requires long term care don't lose everything to make sure their kid has treatment.

As someone who works in a field that is highly rewarding and lowly paid, who has had to gamble on not having health insurance from time to time and just crossed my fingers nothing terrible happened, it's plusses all the way around. This is how a civilized country treats it's citizens. Although I get the feeling Lakin feels differently...

As far as a redistribution of wealth goes, I have no problem with it being redistributed down, as opposed to Romney's plan of taking all the money and giving it to his 1% buddies. People who don't feel they should have to pay taxes are entitled to their opinion, but then they should be willing to give up those services that taxes pay for, like police and fire protection, and paved roads.

Well said!