Former ACA critic: 'I can't even remember why I opposed it'

When the fight over the Affordable Care Act was at its height, both major parties effectively took a political gamble. Democrats believed that once "Obamacare" became law, and families started enjoying the benefits of the vastly improved system, the overheated controversy would fade and the ACA's popularity would grow.

Republicans, meanwhile, bet on the opposite. The right believed, through a combination of lies, demagoguery, and ridiculous predictions, it could convince much of the nation's mainstream that "Obamacare" would shred the fabric of American life. These attitudes, conservatives assumed, would be quickly ingrained, to the point that the reform law would never receive public acceptance.

Several years later, with the Affordable Care Act's popularity reaching new heights, there's every reason to believe Democratic expectations were more correct than their GOP counterparts. The New York Times has an interesting piece on the attitudes of voters in Doylestown, Pa., where locals didn't like "Obamacare" -- until recently.

[S]entiment here reflects the polls -- and how they have shifted. Many people still have little understanding of how the law works. But Democrats and independents have rallied around it, and many of those who opposed it now accept the law, unwilling to see millions of Americans stripped of the coverage that it extended to them.

"I can't even remember why I opposed it," said Patrick Murphy, who owns Bagel Barrel, on a quaint and bustling street near Mr. Brahin's law office here in Doylestown.

He went on to tell the Times, "Everybody needs some sort of health insurance." In apparent reference to Republicans, Murphy added, "They're trying to repeal Obamacare but they don't have anything in place."

read more

Friday's Campaign Round-Up, 7.21.17

Today's installment of campaign-related news items from across the country.

* There's a little over three months remaining in Virginia's gubernatorial race, and Republican nominee Ed Gillespie has decided he needs strong turnout from Donald Trump supporters if he's going to prevail. "Virginia needs a governor who is eager to work with President Trump, not be at odds with him," he said this week. Trump lost Virginia last year by five points.

* By all accounts, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Director Richard Cordray is preparing to launch a Democratic gubernatorial campaign in Ohio next year. Cordray, before joining the CFPB, was the Buckeye State's attorney general.

* In Alabama's U.S. Senate special election primary, a super PAC supporting appointed Sen. Luther Strange (R) has launched a new ad, highlighting Rep. Mo Brooks' (R) previous criticism of Trump. Viewers are told the far-right congressman is "Wrong on Trump. Wrong for Alabama." The primary is Aug. 15.

* The Washington Post did an interesting analysis of the interviews Trump's done since taking office, which found the president tends to turn his attention to Hillary Clinton, unprompted, very early on in almost every conversation.

* In Ohio's U.S. Senate race, Republican Josh Mandel this week took the unusual step of condemning the Anti-Defamation League and expressing solidarity with right-wing conspiracy theorist Mike Cernovich, who's perhaps best known for promoting the bizarre "Pizzagate" theory.

read more

Senate GOP confirms controversial Trump nominee to appeals court

Asked this week about his party's difficulties in governing, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters, "We have a new Supreme Court justice,"

The point wasn't subtle: the Republicans may be struggling to advance their legislative agenda, but the party is nevertheless moving the federal judiciary to the right. And while this may seem like an argument intended to rationalize failure, McConnell's argument isn't wrong.

Yesterday, for example, Senate Republicans voted unanimously to confirm John Bush, a Donald Trump nominee to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. And who's John Bush? Let's revisit a recent piece from Slate's Dahlia Lithwick:

Blogging under a pseudonym, the Kentucky lawyer wrote more than 400 posts for the website Elephants in the Bluegrass. His wide-ranging and unfiltered commentary has included, for instance, the claim that abortion and slavery are “[t]he two greatest tragedies in our country.” His blog posts have cited conspiracy theories and false information, including references to the claim that President Obama was not born in the United States.

In his Senate questionnaire, he described the vicious 1991 beating of Rodney King as a “police encounter.” As Eleanor Clift notes in the Daily Beast, he has also gone on record arguing that the Supreme Court made a bad ruling in the landmark freedom of the press case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In the Trump era, that’s a feature, not a bug.

During Bush's confirmation hearing, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) asked Bush to explain why he relied on radical and fringe websites like World Net Daily as legitimate sources for information. Bush said that "as a blogger I was finding things in the news that were of note."

World Net Daily, for those unfamiliar with it, is known for peddling ridiculous conspiracy theories, including championing the ant-Obama "birther" cause for many years. The fact that Bush saw WND as credible raises serious questions about his judgment.

read more

An unpersuasive defense of Trump's health care ignorance

Donald Trump's ignorance about health care is obvious. Just this week, the president, while bragging about his expertise on the subject, made plain that he simply doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.

The question, however, is whether Trump's illiteracy is consequential. MSNBC's Hallie Jackson asked Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) about this yesterday, and the Republican senator did his best to defend his party's president.

"In your conversations with him, do you think the President understands the political, the policy intricacies of this bill?" Jackson asked.

"I don't think it's important for him to understand the policy intricacies of this bill," Cassidy replied. "What's important for him is to understand the principle -- his principle is that there should be a replace associated with repeal. And during the campaign he consistently said he wanted to continue coverage for those who had, cover preexisting conditions, eliminate mandates and lower premiums, those are very good principles by which to go."

For now, let's put aside the fact that Trump's purported "principles" on health care have been easily discarded, and practically every promise he made to American voters -- including his vow not to cut Medicaid -- has already been broken.

Let's instead focus on Cassidy's broader point: that the president doesn't really have to understand the substantive details. I can appreciate the motivations behind the argument, but it's still unpersuasive.

read more

Trump-Russia scandal developments raise the prospect of a crisis

There was no shortage of striking developments overnight in the Trump-Russia scandal, but perhaps the most important was the Washington Post's reporting that Donald Trump and his lawyers have had conversations about "the president's authority to grant pardons."

Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the probe, according to one of those people. A second person said Trump's lawyers have been discussing the president's pardoning powers among themselves.

Trump's legal team declined to comment on the issue. But one adviser said the president has simply expressed a curiosity in understanding the reach of his pardoning authority....

Ah, yes, our "curious" president. Trump hasn't decided to start handing out pardons like candy on Halloween; he's just interested in learning more about whether he could -- you know, in case the circumstances should arise.

The same article added that the president was "especially disturbed" after learning that Special Counsel Bob Mueller "would be able to access several years of his tax returns."

It's almost as if Trump has something to hide.

Also overnight, the New York Times reported that the president's team has begun "scouring the professional and political backgrounds" of members of Mueller's team, "looking for conflicts of interest they could use to discredit the investigation -- or even build a case to fire Mr. Mueller or get some members of his team recused."

With both of these articles in mind, the prospect of a genuine political crisis is becoming increasingly real. Congressional Republicans, who've largely been willing to look the other way in response to the scandal, need to start preparing themselves for the possibility of a president not only waging a political war against the special counsel and his investigation, but also issuing highly provocative pardons to derail an ongoing federal investigation.

If GOP officials were to respond to such developments with a collective shrug, the impact on our system of government would be incalculable.

read more