As I was driving to the airport today (another hellish travel week ahead), I wondered why the Obamacare health legislation was ignoring gay-related issues. After all, this healthcare legislation has devolved into a series of identity-politics buy-offs.
For example, unions are getting a multi-year break from the “Cadillac” healthcare tax. And we all know about the Nebraska bribe that Senator Nelson secured.
So what’s missing? You got it! The most liberal Congress and Administration in a generation is completely ignoring the impact of healthcare reform on the LGBT community — one of its most loyal identity -politics shills.
With the passage of Obamacare to be decided on less than a handful of House votes, where is Tammy Baldwin or Barney Frank? Why the hell aren’t they standing up and demanding the same kind of treatment for gays and lesbians under Obamacare that union members are getting?
What do I mean? Well, one example is the individual mandate. My health insurance covers my partner, John. But he, like millions of others like him, will be forced to buy health insurance under Obamacare even though he doesn’t need it. This individual mandate is the “Gay Health Tax” as it punishes domestic partners more than any other group in America. Funny how the media hasn’t reported this and Reps. Baldwin & Frank aren’t standing up for us.
If that idea isn’t good enough for LGBT-friendly Democrats, how about exempting HIV drugs from whatever formularies are mandated by the “health exchanges”? Or providing subsidies for HIV drugs regardless of income.
I could go on and on.
The question that American gays and lesbians need to ask: Where were your Democrat friends when the goodies were being handed out in the Healthcare Reform Legislation?
We already know the answer: AWOL.
Idea originated from a comment on Hot Air. Unfortunately I can’t remember who it was who originated it. Hat tip to them with hopefully no ill will.
Like the cartoons? Support the artist!
Alerting us to a weather report showing snow across the interior north of the Bay State, our reporter embedded with the Sons and Daughters of Liberty speculates how that will impact the election on Tuesday:
This is not a big storm, and most of it is going to fall tomorrow, but Tuesday is supposed to be ugly as well, as the snow tapers off to rain, sleet, slush, etc. As a lifelong Boston-area resident, the pattern is interesting. VERY few storms blanket the state this way. Most hit East *or* West, North *or* South but not the whole 150-mile length of the state, top to bottom (see map). As one who believes that God was sending a message with the post-Copenhagen blizzard that hit DC when BHO and Al Gore were returning, I’m not willing to concede this storm is an accident either.
Be that as it may…
Reading the AP report, my mind begins to grind through turnout scenarios (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100117/D9D9L4P01.html): “Turnout is notoriously low in special elections, and Democrats need their loyalists -particularly blue-collar and minority voters who might not be motivated – to show up at the polls. Judging by Obama’s track record in elections since taking office, however, the strength of his political muscle is in
The idea that blue-collar voters would help Martha is wishful thinking. I can see almost nothing about her that would appeal to them. (See previous posts about Catholics not working in hospitals, her overall look, etc.) Blue *blood* is not blue *collar*. Scott, by contrast, is from a “blue-collarish” community. The Schilling call confirms that image.
Who’s more motivated to get up early the morning after a holiday weekend, clear their driveway (or shovel out their car) and get to the polls? Those voting for the closer, and Brown is that. There’s always a lag in peoples’ impressions of what’s going on and I suspect the average Dem voter is just waking up to the fact that this isn’t a coronation. Coakley’s lack of
mailings (and less-than-convincing phone calls) don’t help. (more…)
Once again, our embed lets us “listen in” to his political voicemails:
3:35PM, Sunday — Physician’s PAC, recorded call on behalf of Brown. Sounded like a cross between Charlton Heston and another 60’s-era radio personality whose face I can see but whose name I can’t recall at the moment. Unidentified name and number. Emphasis was taxes and jobs. Very populist. Bound to resonate.
UPDATE: And another call:
About half an hour after the physicians’ PAC call for Brown, another one paid for by his campaign, from his *daughter*. Never gotten a call like that. She sounded very credible. Hitting family-friendly angles, but nothing heavy. Basically: trust my dad; I do; he’s a good man. (I’m paraphrasing).
One wonders if the surfeit of calls will turn people off.
Glenn alerts us to the efforts of some milbloggers for an entirely privately funded effort to get medical supplies into Haiti. Now they’re trying to get a medical team into the nation’s beleaguered capital:
We are seeking more private funding to pay for the plane tickets of a doctor and his 5 assts (3 nurses, one Army reserve combat medic, and a medical asst.) We need to get them to the airport at Port au Prince, where we will pick them up, and bring them to the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) mission. They have a well for fresh water and food provisions, though our teams are carrying in their own.
The total cost for flying in the first med team is about $11,000. The follow-on team is being led by Dr Maurecio Consalter from Masonic Hospital. Dr Consalter has kindly secured thousands of dollars in medical supplies/medicine from his friends in the industry. All he needs are plane tickets for his crew right now.
I just made a modest contribution and encourage you to do the same. Click on Donate.
In receiving a glossy mailer, our reporter embedded with the Sons and Daughters of Liberty in the People’s Republic of Massachusetts Bay State, discovers something about Scott Brown of which most (male) readers of this blog had long been aware:
Saturday’s mail brought a simple but eye-catching glossy color fold-over flyer with return address of the MA Republican State Committee (www.MASSGOP.org). It contains two different full-color pictures of him on inside and out. I’m unregistered with any party so I suspect this may have gone to everyone. Might I add, as a straight man, (without engendering too long a comment thread) that Brown is one seriously handsome dude? By contrast, Martha seems, well… edgy, plastic, desperate… And I can’t recall getting anything from her campaign in the mail.
On the front of Brown’s piece, in white letters, in a red box: “BOLD New Leadership For Massachusetts”
Under that, a calendar page: “January 19” and “vote for Scott BROWN for U.S. Senator.” Two more calendar pages inside. One of the biggest obstacles for the voters he needs is not knowing when the election is. I’m ashamed to say I didn’t know myself until just last weekend. Right next to that, a custom-printed box indicating my polling place — a nice, important, and not cheap touch. That’s another obstacle to voters new to the area and there are a lot of them around Boston.
On the back, three testimonies from major newspapers, and another calendar page with the election date. On the inside, the text (in *big* red caps): “BOLD. NEW. LEADERSHIP.” Periods after each word for emphasis. Simple. Differentiating. No long speech needed.
Bold: nobody likes to identify with cowering. New: goes without saying; it’s the peoples’ seat, not a coronation. I sense Martha is just waking up to that fact and it’s too late to do much about it that’s anywhere near this professional. Leadership. It’s a lot easier to get across than any one issue. People can sense the difference (I hope).
In a conversation at church this morning, I mentioned Brown and Tuesday and the person I was talking with came alive. Her eyes lit up. At least some Brown voters are *clearly* energized. Still don’t have a read on the Coakley supporters but there are still *no* lawn signs and this town usually sprouts ’em like weeds. (more…)
Like many gay activists, Paula Brooks is none too happy with President Obama, scoring him for not keeping his promises to the gay community. Over at her blog Lezgetreal, “A Gay Girl’s View on the World,” she says that if she lived in the Bay State, “I would be telling every LGBT I know… come Tuesday… they should send Mr. Obama a loud and clear message about his dicking around with our civil rights and STAY HOME IN MASS on Election Day.”
Now, while I don’t believe our Scott Brown-supporting readers who live in the Bay State should heed her advice, I do recommend you read the whole thing.
(H/t Gateway Pundit.)
No matter what President Obama does or says tomorrow when he’s in the Bay State, he won’t be able to help his party’s nominee for the U.S. Senate once held by Daniel Webster and Charles Sumner win on Tuesday, January 19, 2010. Oh, she might be able to hold the seat for her party, but she lost the chance to vindicate its ideas when she began her relentless negative campaign, saturating the air waves with mean-spirited and dishonest ads smearing her Republican opponent.
While Martha Coakley has attacked Scott Brown’s position on a number of issues, she has yet (as far as I can tell from my sources in the Bay State the blog/news reports I have read) to run TV ads making the positive case on why the various Democratic initiatives in Congress she supports will be good for the Bay State. In short, she’s not running on issues, but on her partisan affiliation and that party’s antipathy to their political adversaries.
Instead of running on the Obama agenda, she’s running against a president who left office almost a year ago. She and her special interest allies are tarring her opponent as an extremist while obsessing about their ties to a former Governor of a state clear across the country who hasn’t spoken out about this race or ever, as far a I know, even set foot in the Bay State.
I wonder if the Democrats are giving us a little taste of their 2010 strategy. A far cry from the postpartisan kind of politics their party’s standard bearer promised in the most recent presidential campaign.
Democrats may well hold this seat, but they have lost the battle of ideas. And in their own backyard.
From deep within blue America in a town* that reportedly voted by a margin of 9 to 1 for Barack Obama in the fall of 2008, our intrepid reporter, embedded with the freedom fighters in the Bay State [Hey, Dan, didn’t they used to be called Sons of Liberty? –Ed.] Sons (& Daughters) of Liberty, reports on a phone call he received:
Caller ID indicates 202 area code, Washington, DC. I pick up. Silence until
I say “hello”. I think they pay extra for that.
It’s ace Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, talking with a sense of urgency. He immediately goes for the jugular, noting Coakley’s comment about him being a Yankees fan. That’s worse than calling her Satan. If she’s that out of touch about something this basic to the common people of this state, he asks, how out of touch is she going to be in Washington?
He sounded upbeat and credible, in an unscripted-kind of way — like guys might talk watching a game on a Saturday afternoon, which I’m sure many are. It caught me off-guard (in a good way). I knew it was only a recording but it was *Curt Schilling* fergoodnessakes. I wanted to hear him out.
He ended the short call by asking to support “my friend Scott Brown”.
On a long walk with the dog this afternoon, I noted several Brown signs on lawns and — to my *great* surprise in this very liberal town — none for Coakley.
*For security reasons, I can’t identify the town or the precise breakdown of its presidential vote.