Good morning, NOW nation. In case you missed yesterday's segment with Glenn Greenwald, it was a great one. Be sure to check it out, and let us now what you think. On the show today:
Ezra Klein, The Washington Post/msnbc Policy Analyst (@ezraklein)Josh Green, Senior National Correspondent, Bloomberg Businessweek (@joshuagreen)Megan McArdle, Columnist, Bloomberg View (@asymmetricinfo)Bob Herbert, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Demos (@bobherbert)
First Up, just 75 days away from the implementation of key elements of the Affordable Care Act, we remain pretty much where we've been for years: with an opposition party fighting tooth and nail for its repeal, and a public largely oblivious to the whole thing. To counter on both fronts, the White House is stepping up it's game, launching a full-court PR press to get the message out that the ACA is working, and working well. Better late than never? Meanwhile, the GOP continues to push its "train wreck" narrative, employing a new found regard for the "ordinary American", and some dubious logic:
By delaying last week a requirement that employers with a workforce of 50 or more offer their workers insurance, the White House gave a break to big business. But it isn’t granting a similar reprieve to ordinary Americans by postponing the law’s unpopular requirement that individuals obtain health insurance or face a fine.
How badly do these delays hurt the President's message, and ultimately his legislative agenda?
Next up, CVS, Walgreens, and Rite Aid are but a few of the major retailers that has refused to sell the August issue of Rolling Stone, which features Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on its cover. Some have argued the cover is tantamount to giving Tsarnaey the "rock star treatment", traditionally reserved for the likes of Jim Morrison. However, Rolling Stone has a history of controversial covers, including a 1970 issue featuring Charles Manson. In an interview with NPR, the magazine's Managing Editor defended its decision:
This is a person who is the same age as many of our readers, who to his peer group seemed like one of them. And that’s what we thought made this story so powerful and disturbing. And it’s in no way to endorse or glorify what he did. I think the opposite. I think to understand it.
Is the cover provoking a discussion, or elevating a terrorist?
And finally, because .02% of the American electorate demanded it, The Ron Paul Channel will soon be a thing. Is Paul's "refusal to retreat quietly to the farm" hurting Rand's 2016 chances? Will the channel have a cooking show?