Although the practice of the Federal Gov't regulating VACCINATIONS has been in effect for Decades, suddenly it appears to be a problem because the United States now has a BLACK President.
Sound familiar?
So it was perfectly acceptable for MITT ROMNEY (a WHITE Man) to enforce "ROMNEYCARE" in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, thus requiring all Massachusetts residents to have Health Insurance but...............
When a BLACK Man requires the SAME level of RESPONSIBILITY for each resident & citizen of the United States, suddenly it's an encroachment on Civil Liberties and suddenly it's a CRIME!
Get out of here!
Give me a break!
YES the OBAMACARE roll out was Dreadful & Terrible we all know this to be True.
YES there is some credible Medical Research which documents that there may be some evidence linking AUTISM to VACCINATIONS.
However to encourage Parents NOT to VACCINATE their Young Children from Contagious, Potentially Deadly COMMUNICABLE DISEASES is Politically IRRESPONSIBLE and equates to CHILD ABUSE.
Thus I repeat.
GOP LEADERS USING VACCINATIONS AS 2016 PLATFORM ISSUE TO REPLACE OBAMACARE.
Such Political Schemes reek of the GOP being Desperate to regain control of the White House in 2016.
Even at the expense of the Health of Young Children!
Mexican President-Elect Enrique Peña Nieto spoke to CNN’s Fareed Zakaria this week for an interview airing tomorrow, and in a preview released today, Peña Nieto reacts to our Supreme Court upholding parts of Arizona’s controversial SB-1070 law.
While calling the law “discriminatory,” he acknowledged that the solution was making immigration “a decision and not a necessity for Mexicans.”
Zakaria asked Peña Nieto to respond to the Arizona law and explain how, as president of Mexico, his administration would address the immigration problem, particularly the criminal side of it.
He called the law “discriminatory” and argued that said laws “do not recognize the contribution and the value of millions of immigrants” to the American economy.
He added, however, that as President of Mexico, “I understand that Mexico must facilitate conditions for greater economic development through structural reforms, treasury reform, labor reform… in order to generate jobs and great opportunities in our culture.”
The bottom line for him was to make “immigration a decision and not a necessity for Mexicans.”
Mexico's Enrique Peña Nieto called for a "new debate" on the drug war and said the United States must play an important role in that discussion.
The presumptive president-elect spoke this week to Fareed Zakaria in an interviewing airing on this week's "Fareed Zakaria GPS."
"Yes, I do believe we should open up a new debate regarding how to wage war on drug trafficking. Personally, I'm not in favor of legalizing drugs. I'm not persuaded by that as an argument.
However, let's open up a new debate, a review, in which the U.S. plays a fundamental role in conducting this review," said Peña Nieto.
More than 47,500 people have died in drug-related violence since Felipe Calderon, Mexico's current president, made combating cartels a top priority when he took office in 2006.
Peña Nieto has pledged to focus more on reducing violence and less on catching cartel leaders and blocking drugs from reaching the United States.
"What we seek now in our new strategy is to adjust what's been done up until now. It's not a radical change.
It's to broaden the coverage and above all, the emphasis I aspire to of reducing the violence in our country," he told Zakaria.
"I'm persuaded that if we achieve the specialization in the work carried out by the various branches of the federal police and the inspector general's office, waging war on impunity will allow us to combat crime," he said.
The presumptive president-elect also weighed in on Arizona's immigration law, which allows police to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.
The controversial provision was recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It struck down other parts of the law.
"Clearly, it seems to me that these are discriminatory laws that don't recognize the contribution and the value of millions of immigrants, particularly from my country, who make enormous contributions to the United States' economic development.
It's clear to me that Mexico must facilitate conditions for greater economic development through structural reforms, energy reforms, treasury reform, labor reform, in order to generate jobs and greater opportunities in my country, so that immigration is a decision and not a necessity for Mexicans," he said.
An official tally of returns Friday confirmed Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, as the winner of Mexico's presidential election.
But until the country's electoral tribunal ratifies the results - and challenges are virtually assured - he remains the presumptive president-elect.
Peña Nieto's closest rival, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has vowed to challenge the results, accusing the PRI of vote-buying, and said that he would take his complaints through the legal system.
The federal electoral tribunal, known as TRIFE, will begin to accept complaints Monday of voting irregularities.
The tribunal will have until September 6 to complete its investigation and ratify - or reverse - the official election results.
Authorities in Tempe, Arizona, dismantled a drug trafficking cell associated with Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel, arresting 20 people and seizing three tons of marijuana, 30 pounds of methamphetamine and $2.4 million in cash, police said.
A six-month investigation by Tempe police and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency also concluded with the seizure of an airplane, 10 vehicles and 14 firearms, police said Friday.
The cartel delivered illegal drugs in Tempe and branched out to customers in New York, Alabama, California and other states, police said.
"This operation demonstrated a collaborative effort by state and federal law enforcement agencies," Tempe Chief of Police Tom Ryff said in a statement.
The drug trafficking "stretched across the Mexico border and into Arizona and beyond," said Doug Coleman, special agent in charge of the DEA's Phoenix office.
The Sinaloa Cartel is one of Mexico's most powerful drug-trafficking groups, and cartel leader Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera is widely known as Mexico's most-wanted fugitive.
Forbes magazine has placed him on its list of the world's most powerful people, reporting his net worth at $1 billion as of March.
The sponsors of California's same-sex marriage ban said Tuesday they plan to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a landmark appellate court ruling that struck down the law as unconstitutional.
Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Brian Raum said Proposition 8 backers "absolutely" would take the case to the high court now that it has run its course at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Raum said he expected to get a ruling from the Supreme Court sometime in the fall on whether it would take the case. He did not know if the Proposition 8 defense team would take the entire 90 days they have to petition the Supreme Court.
The move follows a federal appeals court's refusal to revisit a decision by two of its member judges declaring the voter-approved ban to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians in California.
Backers of the ban petitioned the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in February to review the decision instead of appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gay marriage opponents said at the time they would go to the high court if the appeals court declined to rehear the case.
Same sex unions were briefly legal in California before voters passed Proposition 8 in November 2008. Due to the ongoing legal wrangling, it's unlikely the practice will resume in the state anytime soon.
The 9th Circuit said Tuesday a majority of its 26 actively serving judges had voted not to revisit a three-judge panel's 2-1 decision declaring the voter-approved ban to be a violation of the civil rights of gays and lesbians in California.
The 9th Circuit does not often agree to rehear cases, a procedure known as en banc review. Federal court rules reserve the practice for appeals that involve "a question of exceptional importance" or if the original decision appears to conflict with Supreme Court or 9th Circuit precedents.
After voters approved Proposition 8, two unmarried couples sued to overturn the ban in May 2009, and their lawsuit gave rise the next year to the first federal trial to examine if states can prohibit gays from getting married without violating the constitutional guarantee of equality. U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ultimately sided with the couples.
The ban's sponsors appealed, and the split 9th Circuit panel affirmed Walker's finding that Proposition 8 violated those civil rights. But, instead of finding any gay marriage ban would be unconstitutional, the panel limited its decision to California, saying Proposition 8 improperly took away an existing right.
Several other high-profile same-sex cases also are making their way toward the high court. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declared last week that the federal law that prohibits recognition of same-sex couples unconstitutionally denies Social Security and other federal spousal benefits to married gay couples.
After President Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, a group organizing a fundraiser on his behalf suddenly had to find a bigger venue. The event, featuring the pop singer Pink, is one of two LGBT-organized fundraisers Obama is expected to attend on the West Coast on Wednesday.
A CNN analysis of President Obama's biggest fundraisers, known as bundlers, shows that at least 33 -- or about one in every 16 bundlers -- is openly gay. Together, they have raised at least $8 million for the campaign between January and the end of March.
By contrast, in the same period, bundlers from the television, movie and music industry, some of whom attended a recent high-profile fundraiser hosted by actor George Clooney, raised $6.8 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
While campaign finance laws require donors to disclose their full names, addresses, occupations and employers, there is no box to check for sexual orientation.
Nor does the law require candidates to release information about their bundlers. Under prodding from watchdog groups, presidential campaigns have released bundler data in past elections.
Obama's campaign has released its list. Republican candidate Mitt Romney's campaign has not.
In CNN's analysis, only bundlers who have disclosed their orientation in past CNN reporting or in trusted LGBT publications were counted as gay. The Washington Post has reported that as many as one in six bundlers supporting Obama are gay. The Advocate Magazine estimates one in five.
Glancing down the names on the bundlers list released by the Obama campaign for the first quarter, it is easy to find people known for their work on behalf of the LGBT community.
Tim Gill, a software entrepreneur who runs a large Colorado-based foundation that backs gay rights projects, has already contributed $672,800 with his partner Scott Miller to the Obama for America campaign. Fred Eychaner, who owns the Chicago-based Newsweb Corp., has donated $1,220,550 so far.
He co-hosted a $35,800-per-person LGBT organized fundraiser for Obama in February. Kathy Levinson, the former president and CEO of the Menlo Park, California-based Etrade, gave $202,150.
The LA Gay and Lesbian Center Women's Night named Levinson a "Community Role Model" in 2000. She was instrumental in raising money to stop the anti-same-sex marriage law in California.
Donations made after Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage May 9 won't be released until mid-June, when the campaign files its second-quarter reports with the Federal Election Commission.
Many LGBT bundlers have maintained a close relationship with the president throughout his first term.
A state dinner in March was attended by bundlers Gill; Eychaner; Barry Karas, a former Human Rights Campaign board member; James (Wally) Brewster, senior vice president of General Growth Properties, a real estate investment trust that owns and operates shopping malls;
Dana Perlman, a corporate lawyer who has served as co-chair of the Obama/DNC LGBT Leadership Council; Joseph Falk, a Miami mortgage broker and others.
Support for Obama from the LGBT community was challenged after the initial excitement of his first campaign, largely because of what was perceived as his lukewarm support on same-sex marriage. Some say a low point came during the election in 2008, when evangelist pastor Rick Warren asked Obama how he defined marriage and he called it "a union between a man and a woman."
He added: "For me as a Christian, it is a sacred union. God's in the mix." He further angered the community by picking Warren to deliver his invocation at the presidential inauguration.
Actor Alan Cumming wrote in 2010, "We keep hearing that Obama is an ally, that DADT [the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy that kept LGBT people from openly serving in the military] will end under his watch, but what do we actually get? Diddly squat."
Dustin Lance Black, who won a best screenplay Oscar for "Milk," a movie biography of the gay San Francisco politician Harvey Milk who was gunned down because of his sexual orientation, said last year that he had been an Obama supporter before but might sit out the upcoming election.
When President Obama finally signed the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" and "evolved" in his position on marriage by saying he was in favor of it for the LGBT community, both Black and Cumming did more than just say they supported the president. They donated money. They also encouraged others to do the same.
David Mixner, who started one of the first LGBT-themed PACs in the late 1970s, said the community has come a long way in being accepted in electoral politics. "We had some candidates who wouldn't take our money back then because they didn't want to be associated with anyone who was gay," Mixner said.
He said he believes that changed with the Clinton administration, which the PAC raised $4 million to support. "Now the community knows how to raise money and contribute on their own and we are more than welcome at the table."
The LGBT community is such an important part of this president's re-election effort that the Obama for America campaign hosts a special section for it on its website. It includes a video discussing the president's support for LGBT issues narrated by actress Jane Lynch, who is openly gay.
It also offers Obama merchandise like T-shirts and drink koozies to bring to Gay Pride events this summer.
The president has already attended several LGBT-organized fundraisers, including one in New York hosted by openly gay singer Ricky Martin, the Futuro Fund, and Obama for America LGBT Leadership Council.
Another event in Washington, hosted by Karen K. Dixon and her partner, Dr. Nan Schaffer, was rumored to have raised more than a million dollars for the campaign, although the Obama team won't comment on the record about fundraising.
Tickets for one of the California events were selling so well the campaign had to find a larger venue. There also is great interest in a Chicago fundraiser co-hosted by LGBT bundlers Brewster and Bob Satawake. The couple has already raised $288,663, according to the CNN analysis.
"I think there has always been a strong base of support from LGBT people for the president," said Michael Cole-Schwartz, spokesperson for the Human Rights Campaign, whose incoming president Chad Griffin is a bundler.
"He earned even more respect from the community -- from repealing 'don't ask, don't tell,' to signing the hate crimes law giving the first civil rights protection for us in federal law, to coming out against DOMA," the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage for federal purposes as unions exclusively between a man and a woman.
"Now, with his saying he believes in full marriage equality, we have another reason for people in our community to be generous with their time and money."
It is difficult to know if there are any openly gay bundlers for the Republicans, because Romney has not disclosed his bundler list.
The Republican candidate has, however, voiced his opposition to civil unions and supports a federal amendment to the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.
But some gay Republicans say Romney is not totally close minded on LGBT issues. "On gay issues, where Romney stands is not as black and white as it seems," said R.
Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, an organization for gay and lesbian Republicans. "One thing he has been consistent on, as governor and as a candidate for president, is he has spoken in broad terms about ending discrimination in the workplace. He has said there is no room for it."
Cooper said the Log Cabin Republicans haven't decided yet if they will endorse Romney. That announcement will come sometime this fall. He does believe, though, that there are gay donors to Romney's campaign. They just might not be as outspoken.
"We joke that at Pride (festivals), the question we most often ask other Republicans we see there is, 'Are you out?' Meaning 'out' about your politics yet."
The Fox News host had a fiery brawl on the "View" couch with hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar. Did anyone come out looking good?
Fireworks erupted Thursday on "The View," when co-hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar briefly stormed off the set during an argument with Fox News personality Bill O'Reilly.
The source of the much-discussed blowup was the proposed Park51 Islamic center in lower Manhattan which O'Reilly said was "inappropriate" to build "because Muslims killed us on 9/11."
"I am not Bill O’Reilly's biggest fan," but Joy and Whoopi "looked like immature brats," says Emma Brady in Babble. If they disagree with O'Reilly that it is "inappropriate" to build a mosque near Ground Zero, they should at least have shown their guest enough respect to listen to his views.
By walking off, "the truly inappropriate behavior came on the part of the ladies from 'The View.'"
Behar and Goldberg did what they had to: "Girlfriend, please," says Mary McNamara in the Los Angeles Times. "O’Reilly has built a very successful career on his patent refusal to have a conversation," and other than walking out, there is nothing "short of physical violence" that Goldberg and Behar could have done to pierce "his oratorical fusillade." But the goal was never dialogue, it was "puttin' on a show," and in that sense, everybody won.
We all lost a shot at airing an important discussion: Yes, "genius television, ladies," says Melissa Bell in The Washington Post. But if you look "past the yelling and stomping and showmanship," the conversation O'Reilly and the "View" ladies could have had is important, and one that has been percolating "for some time: What do you call terrorists?" Is it right, or smart, to link Islam and terrorism? I guess we'll have to discuss later.
Things got so heated between Bill O'Reilly, Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg on "The View" that the co-hosts walked off the set of the show.
The incident occurred during a fiery exchange about the proposed Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero. O'Reilly said President Obama's qualified support of the center was evidence of the "gulf" between him and the American people. Goldberg and Behar objected strongly to O'Reilly's claim.
"This is America!" Behar said.
"Listen to me because you'll learn!" O'Reilly interrupted her, to gasps from the audience.
Goldberg asked if O'Reilly was saying that Americans were not smart enough to agree with Obama's position.
"We're Americans! We agree with him!" Behar added.
Story continues below "70% of Americans don't want that mosque there. So don't give me the we business!" O'Reilly replied.
More heated crosstalk followed, until O'Reilly said, "Muslims killed us on 9/11!" That really set Behar and Goldberg off.
"Oh my God!" Behar said.
"That is such bullshit!" Goldberg said. "Extremists did that!"
Behar then stood up, saying, "I don't want to sit here now. I don't! I'm outraged by that statement."
She and Goldberg proceeded to walk off the set to loud applause. After it died down, Walters cut in, admonishing her co-hosts.
"You have just seen what should not happen," Walters said. "We should be able to have discussions without washing our hands, and screaming, and walking offstage."
Walters also criticized O'Reilly for his statements about Muslims.
"You cannot take a whole religion and demean them because of what some [did]," she told him.
Behar and Goldberg returned to the set following a commercial break. O'Reilly also apologized for his comments, saying, "If anyone felt that I was demeaning all Muslims, I apologize."
Last December, Goldberg almost walked off the set after proclaiming she was "bored out of my gourd" with a segment on Tiger Woods.
Sources: ABC, Babble, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News, Huffington Post, NY Daily News, O'Reilly Factor, The View, Yahoo News, Youtube
N.C. State law says some neighbors' concerns about a proposed Affordable Housing project in Ballantyne doesn't matter when it comes to voting for approval or denial.
N.C. Senate Bill 810 was signed into Law by Gov. Bev Perdue last fall.
The new Legislation says a development can't be denied simply because it contains Affordable Housing.
It means meetings like one held past Monday at Harrison United Methodist Church are good for airing concerns -- and that's about it.
He listens to his constituents, but says his hands are tied on the vote, thanks to the New Law.
"We run the risk from either side, depending upon what the vote is of Legal Action, saying you didn't do this right," said Cooksey.
Warren Cooksey says the evaluation whether it's an appropriate land use is the issue, not the impact on neighboring property values and not potential concerns about crime.
Police say some of the most crime-ridden areas in Charlotte are Affordable Housing neighborhoods.
At Ballantyne Crossing, about one-third of the 86 units are proposed low-income.
"If crime is perceived to be a shorthand for a perception of Affordable Housing, we are prohibited from Discriminating against Affordable Housing in a land use decision," Cooksey said.
To ease neighbors' concerns, the city says they can request conditions to the agreement, like requesting improved roads, sidewalks, green space and lighting.
People who are in favor of the Ballantyne Crossing complex say there's a need for Affordable Housing for people who work in Ballantyne, who want to live there as well.
The meeting started inside while people were still lining up outside. Hundreds showed up to hear more about a proposed public housing complex in the Ballantyne area. One by one, they fired questions and comments at the developers, Republic Development Group:
"What experience do you have creating something like this?"
"Can you not find a more suitable place than what is the southern gateway to our community?"
"Where I'm coming from is I don't want it here.
My house is over one million dollars and I don't want the crap next to me."
The project took a hit Monday afternoon when the Charlotte Housing Authority issued a statement that it would not participate in the mixed income housing development.
"Questions about certain aspects of the project's structure, including its Density (the total number of apartment units relative to the cost of the land) and funding, prompted our decision," said Jennifer Gallman with the Charlotte Housing Authority.
"We keep going," said Stuart Proffitt of Republic Development.
Proffitt says he still hopes to build the 86 unit complex with another affordable housing developer. A representative from the Crosland Company told News Channel 36 the developer has asked if Crosland would manage the property if it were approved.
One man, who asked not to be identified, said he believed this was a case of "not in my backyard." "I live on the West side and this will be pushed to some other part of town," he said.
But opponents say that's not the case. They point to the fact that the proposed site, south of Ballantyne, off of Johnston Road, has no easy access to public sidewalks, little public transportation and already overcrowded schools.
Cynthia Jennings lives in the Ballantyne area. "People who live in low income housing want the same thing we all do. A nice place to live for their families. But the way the developer came in, through the back door, was sneaky and shady," she said.
A proposal to build 90 apartments for working class families is drawing criticism and resentment from homeowners who would live near the development.
More than 4.5 acres of land near the northeast corner of Westinghouse Boulevard and South Tryon was purchased for the rental homes last December.
About 200 residents of the Ayrsley community filled a meeting room Tuesday evening for what the project's developer called a "courtesy meeting".
Several of the homeowners carried signs which read "Save Ayrsley" and "No Low Income Housing"
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership, a non-profit agency, would build the two and three-bedroom apartments for families who make less than $32,000 per year.
"We don't have people who are just goofing off," said Patricia Garrett, the agency's president. "They have jobs. They go to school."
Garrett said neighbors are often misinformed about affordable housing communities. She said her managers often screen prospective tenants more thoroughly than at other, privately-run apartments.
Still, some Ayrsley homeowners told NewsChannel 36 they are concerned about the potential impact of more rental units in a community with an abundance of vacant apartments and town homes for lease.
"Build more when you have vacancies all over? "It doesn't make sense," said homeowner Monica Ainslie.
Because another 52-unit apartment community for low-income families, Summerfield, is less than a half-mile from the proposed site, developers must ask Charlotte's city council for permission to build the new apartments. The city's development rules are designed to prevent a heavy concentration of subsidized housing in one neighborhood.
"Nobody here is opposed to Subsidized Housing," Ayrsley homeowner Lauren Widrick told NewsChannel 36. "It's the violation of city council's policy in regard to clustering subsidized housing."
Garrett said her agency believes an additional 90-unit apartment community is not unreasonable for the area and is needed to provide housing for families who cannot afford to lease a home at the market rate.
Vacant apartments in Ayrsley are not eligible for the federal and state tax credits which would pay for most of the $10 million project, she said.
Council is expected to vote on the apartment community next month. An exact date has not been set.
Charlotte City leaders will also be asked to approve $1 million from the city's Housing Trust Fund for the development.
Council member David Howard is a vice-president with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership and part of the development team for the proposed apartments. He said Tuesday he will recuse himself from council's decision.
Some of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist’s top fundraisers are warning that they will no longer support him if he bolts the Republican Party to run for the Senate as an independent.
It's not entirely clear what his intentions are, but with his Veto Thursday of an Education Reform bill favored by Republicans and repeated refusal all week to say whether he still would seek the GOP nomination, Crist has ratcheted speculation to a fever pitch.
He has until April 30 to decide whether he’ll stay in a primary in which he trails former state House Speaker Marco Rubio by over 20 points or pursue a third-party candidacy.
If he abandons the GOP race, a group of his most prominent supporters indicate they will not follow him.
“I’m a Republican and I’m going to support the Republican candidate,” said John Rood, the state GOP finance chairman, a former ambassador to the Bahamas and one of Florida’s biggest contributors to Republican causes.
Rood, who noted that he was a supporter of the education bill the governor vetoed, said he was hopeful that Crist would stay in the GOP and would be “very disappointed” if he left the party.
“I’m loyal to Republicans,” he said.
Al Cardenas, a former state GOP chairman and Crist backer, also said he wouldn’t back the governor as an independent but went even further, suggesting that Crist should consider dropping out of the race.
“The most dignified posture from my perspective is to acknowledge the primary is not going to happen and keep his options open for the future. At this point, that’s what’s best for him,” said Cardenas, who is close to former Gov. Jeb Bush—Rubio’s mentor. “I imagine it’s a great struggle for him. If you give a recent unbiased analysis of the race, barring anything unforeseen, it’s hard to figure out a game plan where the governor would win the primary.”
Other top Crist donors are torn between their longstanding loyalty to the party and their friendship with the governor.
“I’m in kind of an awkward spot,” explained Al Austin, one of country’s top GOP donors and a Tampa developer who attended Crist’s 2008 wedding.
Austin initially said: “Right now I’m still leaning toward supporting my friend, Charlie.”
But pressed, he concluded: “I’d either probably stay neutral or—I don’t know what I’d do.”
Austin, though, may have an easy out—he’s working on bringing the 2012 GOP convention to his hometown and said he may just focus his attention on that project.
“Most of my energy is involved in that,” he said.
Other Crist supporters are equally torn, if less expansive.
Jordan Zimmerman, a Boca Raton advertising executive and co-owner of the Florida Panthers hockey team who has hosted a fundraiser for Crist in his home, paused and audibly sighed before answering a question about what he’d do if the governor bolts the GOP
“I think I’d rather not comment at this time,” Zimmerman said.
But asked if he would prefer Crist stay in the primary and run as a Republican, Zimmerman didn’t hesitate: “Oh absolutely, yes.”
Sarasota-area Rep. Vern Buchanan, who came out for Crist early, was also non-committal.
“We are waiting to see what Charlie does,” said a Buchanan spokeswoman.
When he was asked about his decision again Friday in Miami, Crist again demurred.
But his comments at a Tallahassee rally Thursday following his veto may have revealed his intentions—and perhaps marked the unofficial launch of his independent bid for the Senate.
“It is the voice of the people that was heard this week, and that’s what’s so important in this country,” Crist said before a group of teachers, students and a pep band outside a high school. “The most important thing is to do things right for the right reasons. Vetoing this legislation today was about trying to do what’s right. I don’t always get it right. But hell, I’m always going to try to do what’s right.
His veto cost him the support of his one-time boss and mentor, former GOP Sen. Connie Mack, who resigned his post as Crist’s campaign chair. Mack’s move surely stung Crist and carried considerable symbolic weight in Florida political circles.
But Crist’s calculation in deciding whether to run as an independent candidate will be made less on the basis of sentimentality than on a cold-eyed assessment of whether he can win in a three-man race. A Quinnipiac University poll released this week showed him with a slight lead over both Rubio and Rep. Kendrick Meek, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee.
Part of Crist’s analysis will surely factor in whether he can capture—or retain—key institutional endorsements.
And a spokesman for the Florida Education Association lauded Crist for the veto and said that it could play a role when the teachers union makes an endorsement recommendation later this summer, but remained non-committal.
“I would guess that Gov. Crist would seek our recommendation,” said FEA spokesman Mark Pudlow. “He’s a popular guy right now amongst our ranks, so I think that would certainly play into it. We haven’t agreed with everything he’s done. But certainly the veto of that bill is on the foremost on everyone’s mind.”
There would, however, be immense pressure from top national Democratic and labor officials on the FEA to support Meek.
Crist would, though, retain support from the state’s largest gun-rights group if he decided to leave the GOP.
“We support where a candidate stands on our issue, based upon their record on our issue,” said Marion Hammer, an influential lobbyist for the National Rifle Association. “We have always said we are non-partisan. It is not about the party. It is about where the candidate is on our issue.”
She added: “What he does politically with regard with this race and the party has nothing to do with where he’s always been our issue. He’s always been with us.”
But as the perpetually upbeat Crist grapples with a decision sure to remake his political career, few of those in his orbit seem to know exactly what he’s thinking—even as they acknowledge appears increasingly likely that he will run as a third-party candidate.
One adviser, plainly baffled, repeated three times: “I don’t know what’s going on.”
Another longtime friend said simply: “You can’t ever count on what Charlie Crist is going to do.”
This friend predicted Crist would “wait until the last minute to see what changes.”
Sen. George LeMieux, for years Crist's closest adviser and a former chief of staff appointed by the governor to the Senate in September 2009, surprised Florida insiders when he said in an interview with POLITICO Thursday that he disagreed with the governor’s decision to veto the education bill.
But perhaps as revealing to Florida and Washington party operatives engaging in Crist Kremlinology, was what LeMieux noted after asserting that the governor would be a GOP candidate for the Senate.
“That’s my belief," he said. “I have no information to lead me to any different conclusion.”
The very idea that LeMieux might be out of the loop as to the governor's thinking on a career-altering move is telling. Whether he's actually been cut out of the Crist inner circle or just signaling as much for public consumption, it could easily be interpreted as an attempt to insulate himself from the inevitable political fallout and protect his own future political ambitions in the event he needs to buck his patron.
After nearly derailing the health care bill that passed the House on Sunday, the abortion issue is poised to make a political comeback, returning the familiar wedge issue to the campaign trail after a brief hiatus.
Both abortion-rights and anti-abortion groups say the experience of health care reform has served as a reminder of the stark consequences of elections — and of the need to elect reliable allies who will work hard to advance and defend their agendas.
The Family Research Council, which has already spent nearly $2 million this cycle backing anti-abortion candidates across the country, is now considering wading into battles against anti-abortion Democrats like Pennsylvania Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper, Virginia Rep. Thomas Perriello, Indiana Rep. Brad Ellsworth and West Virginia Reps. Alan Mollohan and Nick Rahall — all of whom voted for the health care bill Sunday.
“Because of what pro-lifers see as betrayal, it’s personal now,” said Tom McClusky, vice president of governmental affairs for the Family Research Council. “There’s passion, but we want to make sure that passion is directed in the right place.”
NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan told POLITICO that the lesson learned from the health care battle was that the abortion-rights movement, which has lacked the votes needed to shut down abortion funding language from anti-abortion Democrats throughout the health care reform push, needs more allies in Congress.
“From our point of view, we are concentrated on changing those numbers,” said Keenan. “We absolutely will be taking a look at those anti-abortion lawmakers, and if we can, we will take a run at them.”
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), an abortion opponent who led the fight for restrictions on federal funding of abortion until cutting a deal with the White House that cleared the way for final passage on the bill Sunday, may find himself at the center of the storm.
In the hours after Stupak announced his compromise, the nine-term Michigan Democrat came under fierce attack from both sides of the abortion debate, including onetime ally Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion group which stripped Stupak of its “Defender of Life” award.
“Stupak has not only failed to stand strong for unborn children but also for his constituents and pro-life voters across the country,” SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement.
Abortion-rights organizations, meanwhile, accused Democrats of advancing language restricting abortion rights in the health care legislation.
“On a day when Americans are expected to see passage of legislation that will make health care more affordable for more than 30 million citizens, it is deeply disappointing that Bart Stupak and other anti-choice politicians would demand the restatement of the Hyde Amendment, a discriminatory law that blocks low-income women from receiving full reproductive health care,” Keenan said in a statement.
Already, Stupak’s Upper Peninsula district is witnessing a surge in election activity linked to Stupak’s role in the health care debate. The National Organization for Women and MI List, a Michigan-based group that aims to elect women who support abortion rights, have weighed in for former Charlevoix County Commissioner Connie Saltonstall, who recently announced her Democratic primary challenge to Stupak.
Keenan hinted that NARAL would be announcing its plans for participating in the race in the days ahead.
“I have gotten support from people all over the country,” Saltonstall told POLITICO on Monday, noting that she had raised $75,000 since entering the race earlier this month. “It’s been phenomenal the response we’ve gotten.”
On the Republican side, Dan Benishek, a Republican surgeon who is running against Stupak, saw a wave of interest in his candidacy after Sunday’s vote. Once considered a long-shot candidate, Benishek was scheduled for an appearance on conservative talk radio host Mark Levin’s show Monday.
The Family Research Council’s McClusky said there was little question that his organization would wade into the Stupak race.
“His actions hit the hardest,” said McClusky. “It’s time for him to leave Congress.”
In a brief interview prior to the vote Sunday, Stupak acknowledged that he and other anti-abortion Democrats had become a target from both sides of the debate.
“I’m sure pro-life organizations are not happy,” said Stupak. “Will they give us grief? Yeah. Yeah. We stood on principle.”
In the run-up to Sunday’s vote, both sides of the abortion fight sought to frame their positions in terms of popular support. SBA List held a conference call with reporters to unveil polling the organization conducted in a slew of districts held by anti-abortion House Democrats, while NARAL unveiled a five-page polling memo detailing voter support for abortion.
“Pro-choice Democratic women led the fight against the anti-choice forces led by Bart Stupak. One thing was made incredibly clear, and that is with more pro-choice Democratic women in Congress, the way this debate unfolded could have been remarkably different."
EMILY’s List President Stephanie Schriock said in an e-mail. “As we celebrate all the benefits included in the bill for American women and families, EMILY’s List is more determined than ever to elect women who will fight to protect women, their health and reproductive freedom.”
Veteran Michigan Rep. Dale Kildee said he was confident fellow anti-abortion Democrats would weather the storm from outside groups.
“They’ll probably get some grief, but I think they’ll be able to override it,” Kildee told POLITICO outside the House chamber Sunday evening. “You face it every year. They want total purity. But they’ll be able to handle that.”
Republicans have also signaled they’ll wage an aggressive fight over the divisive issue, with the National Republican Congressional Committee slamming Democrats in conservative seats for voting for a bill that they charged would weaken restrictions on abortion.
“Chris Carney, Not a Pro-Life Democrat Anymore,” read one NRCC press release Sunday, referring to the Pennsylvania congressman who signed on to the Stupak compromise.
And as they waged a last-ditch effort to derail the health care bill Sunday, Republicans sought to duplicate Stupak’s efforts last fall — when he was considered a strong anti-abortion ally — to strengthen the provisions restricting abortion funding in the bill.
Stupak stood before the House and bluntly accused Republicans of playing politics with abortion.
“For the Republicans now to claim that we send the bill back to committee under this guise of protecting life is disingenuous,” said Stupak. “This motion is really to politicize life, not prioritize life. We stand for the American people. We stand up for life.”
As our year long debate on health care comes to a close there’s a lot of misinformation flying around. Case in point: a recent headline suggesting that health premiums would increase under the President’s health care plan. The suggestion of this article was that maybe Americans would be better off and end up paying less if we ditch reform just continue to do nothing.
In fact, the opposite is true. Most people would pay less—in many cases a lot less. Let’s look at why:
In the absence of reform, health premiums are expected to continue skyrocketing. Those 20, 30 and 40% increases that you’ve heard about lately – they’ll be the rule not the exception.
The real question, then, is whether the President’s plan would lower the cost of premiums from what they would be or increase them. Here, we don’t have to rely on hearsay or news articles – the Congressional Budget Office has offered its official view on the question.
According to the CBO, Americans buying the same coverage they have today in the individual market will see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent compared to what they would pay without health insurance reform. This results from two important things that reform will do:
* First: The President’s Proposal introduces greater competition in the insurance market by establishing state-based exchanges where insurers will need to compete for business. In addition, the proposal streamlines administrative costs by standardized forms and reducing the paperwork burden of providers.
CBO assumes that competition and administrative savings in the reformed market will generate significant savings, which will reduce average premiums for a comparable package of benefits by 7 to 10 percent compared to the cost of such benefits without reform in the individual market.
* Second: As a result of insurance market reforms that will be in place in the individual market and because of the individual responsibility requirement for coverage, CBO assumes that millions more people will have access to the individual market. According to the CBO, the impact of bringing these new people – many of whom are younger and healthier – into the market will help reduce premiums by 7 to 10 percent in the individual market.
But wait, maybe you’ve heard opponents saying that CBO actually found that premiums would go up? Again, the facts matter here.
The CBO assumes that under President Obama's Proposal individuals purchasing coverage in the reformed individual market will have access to a wider range of health benefits than they have in today’s individual market. So people may choose to buy better coverage. Some may pay more because they are getting more for their money.
And let’s not forget that the President’s plan includes the largest middle class tax cut for health insurance in our nation’s history. Critics also fail to point out that the majority of people purchasing coverage in the individual market will receive tax credits that on average will cover two-thirds of their premium.
Once the impact of these new tax credits are taken into account, many people in the individual market could see their premiums drop by almost 60 percent compared to what they would have paid without health insurance reform.
Dan Pfeiffer is White House Communications Director
Buyers, beware: President Barack Obama says his health care overhaul will lower premiums by double digits, but check the fine print.
Premiums are likely to keep going up even if the health care bill passes, experts say. If cost controls work as advertised, annual increases would level off with time. But don't look for a rollback. Instead, the main reason premiums would be more affordable is that new government tax credits would help millions of people who can't afford the cost now.
Listening to Obama pitch his plan, you might not realize that's how it works.
Visiting a Cleveland suburb this week, the president described how individuals and small businesses will be able to buy coverage in a new kind of health insurance marketplace, gaining the same strength in numbers that federal employees have.
"You'll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool," Obama said. "And that will lower rates, it's estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you're currently getting. That's money out of pocket."
And that's not all.
Obama asked his audience for a show of hands from people with employer-provided coverage, what most Americans have.
"Your employer, it's estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent," said the president, "which means they could give you a raise."
A White House press spokesman later said the president misspoke; he had meant to say annual premiums would drop by $3,000.
It could be a long wait.
"There's no question premiums are still going to keep going up," said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. "There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today."
The statistics Obama based his claims on come from two sources. In both cases, caveats got left out.
A report for the Business Roundtable, an association of big company CEOs, was the source for the claim that employers could save $3,000 per worker on health care costs, the White House said.
Issued in November, the report looked generally at proposals that Democrats were considering to curb health care costs, concluding they had the potential to significantly reduce future increases.
But the analysis didn't consider specific legislation, much less the final language being tweaked this week. It's unclear to what degree the bill that the House is expected to vote on within days would reduce costs for employers.
An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office of earlier Senate legislation suggested savings could be fairly modest.
It found that large employers would see premium savings of at most 3 percent in 2016, compared with what their costs would have been without the legislation. That would be more like a few hundred dollars instead of several thousand.
The claim that people buying coverage individually would save 14 percent to 20 percent comes from the same budget office report, prepared in November for Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. But the presidential sound bite fails to convey the full picture.
The budget office concluded that premiums for people buying their own coverage would go up by an average of 10 percent to 13 percent, compared with the levels they'd reach without the legislation. That's mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.
For most households, those added costs would be more than offset by the tax credits provided under the bill, and they would pay significantly less than they have to now. However, the budget office estimated that about 4 in 10 customers shopping for an individual policy would not be eligible for tax credits — and would face higher premiums on average than without the legislation.
The premium reduction of 14 percent to 20 percent that Obama often cites would apply only to a portion of the people buying coverage on their own — those who want to keep the skimpier kinds of policies available today.
Their costs would go down because more young people would be joining the risk pool and because insurance company overhead costs would be lower in the more efficient system Obama wants to create.
The president usually alludes to that distinction in his health care stump speech, saying the savings would accrue to those people who continue to buy "comparable" coverage to what they have today.
But many of his listeners may not pick up on it.
"People are likely to not buy the same low-value policies they are buying now," said health economist Len Nichols of George Mason University. "If they did buy the same value plans ... the premium would be lower than it is now. This makes the White House statement true. But is it possibly misleading for some people? Sure."
Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released an analysis (pdf) of the Senate version health insurance reform – and it contains more good news about what reform will mean for families struggling to keep up with skyrocketing premiums under the broken status quo.
Like other recent analyses, the CBO report finds that lower administrative costs, increased competition, and better pooling for risk will mean lower premiums for American families. Among the findings:
* Americans buying comparable health plans to what they have today in the individual market would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent. * Those who get coverage through their employer today will likely see a decrease in premiums as well. * And Americans who currently struggle to find coverage would see lower premiums because more people will be covered.
In addition to the welcome relief on costs, the CBO reports that Americans will also have better insurance options. The CBO assumes that many people will take advantage of these better options and "buy up" to purchase better plans than are currently offered in the individual market.
Not surprisingly, some of reform's opponents have already started trying to distort that finding to make false claims that reform will raise costs. So let's be clear: where the CBO does see premiums rising, it's not because Americans are paying more for the same coverage – it's that they’re making a choice to purchase better plans that weren't previously available to them.
In keeping with that finding, the CBO affirms the effectiveness of the grandfather policy, which will allow you to keep what you have if you like it. The report reads, "Moreover, if they wanted to, current policyholders in the nongroup market would be allowed to keep their policy with no changes, and the premiums for those policies would probably not differ substantially from current-law levels."
Finally, it’s worth nothing that for all the good news in the CBO report, the analysis doesn't even take into account all of the bill’s measures to control costs and improve coverage. So if anything, it understates the positive impacts of reform. For example, the CBO does not take into account policies like the catastrophic option available to young adults, and reinsurance provision, that would reduce premiums even further.
It also does not incorporate potential effects of the proposal on the level or growth rate of spending for health care. For instance, CBO’s analysis does not fully capture the effects of the excise tax on high-cost plans, which will bend the cost curve over the long-term. But it did provide a snapshot: for plans affected by the tax in 2016, premiums would be 9-12 percent lower than under current law.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
