Some of our friends on the left seem bound and determined to turn the hullabaloo over the contraception mandate into a Republican War On Women.  But, there are quite a few pundits on the right (would it that there were more such politicians) who understand what’s really at stake.

The problem with the contraceptive mandate, writes the Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner

is not the contraceptive part — it’s the mandate. The new health-care law requires every employer with 50 or more employees to provide their workers with health insurance. It also requires every American who doesn’t receive health insurance through work or a government program to buy insurance themselves or face a fine.

But simply providing or buying insurance is not enough to fulfill the mandate. The insurance must satisfy the government’s definition of what qualifies as proper insurance, including a long list of benefits that the government thinks you should have.

Read the whole thing.  The focus of this debate should be the simple question:  do we want the federal government to make our health care decisions for us — and to determine what kinds of health care plans we must own.

What if someone just wanted a plan to cover emergencies?  Well, under Obamacare, that’s just not possible.

Perhaps, if one of the Republican candidates laid the out in terms so clear, without getting distracted by a discussion on the merits (or demerits) of contraception, he would not only command the assent of his party, but turn the debate into a clear winner for conservatives.  And not just on this particular mandate.

Last night, I had planned a followup post on the Sheriff Babeu hullabaloo quite different from the one I am about to write.  I changed my mind when most of the stories I tracked down boiled down to “he said/he said” versions of events; I did not want to delve into the man’s private life.

So, instead, I’ll wonder at the media coverage of the matter.

To that end, I was greatly helped by reader Peter Hughes who e-mailed me a link to this post critiquing Don Lemon’s commentary on the matter. Despite his political angle, the late-coming out CNN anchor got a few things right in his attempt to use the story against the GOP. He, for example, pointed out that the Sheriff “has never denied being gay, or to our knowledge has he ever pushed for anti-gay measures.”

And, to be fair, he reminds us that “there are Democrats like Jim McGreevey who were pushed out of the closet.”

McGreevey, as you will recall, stayed on as Governor of New Jersey even after acknowledging using his position to promote a young man he was interested in romancing.  Not long thereafter, he emerged on the cover of the Advocate, a new hero to our friends in the gay media.  He received a largely sympathetic treatment, with many worrying about the struggles a gay politico has to face.

It’s too bad Lemon only referenced McGreevey in an aside; he could have performed a real service by comparing the media treatment of McGreevey to that of Babeu.  The men are in similar situations–though the evidence of the Democrat’s wrongdoing was far more clear cut.

Our friends in the media did give the Democrat a benefit of the doubt — a benefit they don’t seem to be offering to Sheriff Babeu.

ADDENDUM:  There is an error in the article linked.  Colorado Congressman Jared Polis is a Democrat, not a Republican.  And they left one openly gay Democratic Congressman, Rhode Island’s David Ciciline.

Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds linked an Andrew Breitbart video that, well, I just can’t get out of my mind.  I’m not sure I share the new media pioneer’s hypothesis, but others have offered opinions similar to his, namely that the administration crafted the Fast and Furious program in order to create “a narrative that they could use in America to try and thwart our Second Amendment constitutional rights.”

Until Attorney General Eric Holder releases the documents requested by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, we won’t know why the Justice Department went forward with this plan.  We still don’t know why the project’s planners failed to include two components of a similar program, Operation Wide Receiver, namely that that Bush era program (1) “did involve an attempt to track the firearms, while Fast and Furious did not” and (2) that  “Operation Wide Receiver was run in conjunction with the Mexican government, while Fast and Furious was kept secret from not only Mexico, but [also] from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) attaché to Mexico, Darren Gil.” (more…)

As gay conservatives, we know all too well about many liberals’ ignorance of (or is it willful blindness to) the basic tenets of modern conservative and the underlying philosophy of Reagan Republicanism. All too many lefties (but fortunately not all and maybe not even most) seem to believe that the essence of conservative ideology involves suppressing the “Other,” you know, people who differ from the norm because of their race, religion, “gender” or sexuality.

So many of these folks, many with college educations, indeed, a good number on college faculties, have a prejudiced view of conservatives in general and Republicans in particular. Yesterday, Sarah Hoyt offered an extended rant on a recent manifestation of a related ignorance, something many of us have witnessed as well:

Over the last few days it’s been impossible for me to log on to Face Book without being assaulted by postings on the “Republicans War On Women” from my female Face Book Friends most of whom are educated and many of whom work in a profession that, at least in broad theory, requires them to have the capacity for original or individual thought.
. . . .

But no one is discussing banning contraceptives or even abortion. The contraceptive issue was introduced in a Republican debate by George “Supine” Stephanopoulos as a means of painting Republicans as being against contraceptives.

. . . .

What kind of enormous, unyielding, painful daddy issues have you got to have to think that Uncle Sam has to force a CHURCH to pay for your contraception?
. . . .

A war on women – a war on everyone – means forcing people to pay for things they believe are a sin, and which they think will cost them eternal torment.

Via Glenn Reynolds who quips, “Democrats are worried, so they’re playing the Republicans Will Steal Your Ladyparts!!!! card. And the knees are jerking as hoped. Women, you’re being played. Again.”

Why do some very intelligent people spend so much time venting against idea, policies and arguments they just don’t understand — or deliberately misrepresent?

* (more…)

Just caught this on Facebook:

Maybe Miss Prejean would have earned more support for her comment if she had declared her affiliation with Mr. Obama’s party.

According to the White House, what the Democrats dub “The Affordable Care Act will bring down costs, improve the quality of health care delivered to all Americans and expand coverage to 32 million Americans.” We on the right prefer to call that act, “Obamacare.”  For those like myself — and the roughly 14 million other Americans who purchase their own health insurance, it has made health care even less affordable.

Since the president signed the bill into law, the cost of  my monthly premium has increased by 47%.  Yes, that’s right, 47%.  And this a new plan I had purchased in order to cut my costs.

In the Orwellian world of the Obama Democrats, bringing down costs means increasing the price.