Mitt Romney faces a huge problem if he wants to be the GOP Presidential challenger to Obama for 2012. That problem is RomneyCare. Why is that a problem, you ask? Because his own health-care reform law that he signed into law in Massachusetts included a mandate, which is the heart of the Conservative/Tea Party criticism of Obama’s health-care reform law, and they are waging war against it right now. He didn’t even mention Obama’s health-care bill at CPAC this year after going all red meat on the crowd. Mitt Romney just wrapped up his speech at CPAC, and for someone who threw around all kinds of red meat attacks about the President — the “Obama Misery Index,” “Obama’s Hoovervilles,” etc. — it’s awfully strange that he said virtually nothing about the big one: “Obamacare.”. — He’s tried various ways of getting around this vexing problem. He’s argued that the mandate is a “conservative” solution, which makes it even more amusing that he avoided health care today. He has also cast the state-based mandate as a freedom-solution of sorts, arguing that while the federal mandate is borderline tyranny, state governments should have the right to pursue ideas as they see fit. These haven’t washed with the right. Implicit in this morning’s right-leaning Tweets is the suggestion that Romney decided it would be easier not to talk about Obamacare today, in order to avoid calling attention to his Romney-care conundrum. But, amusingly, this has only succeeding in drawing more attention to it. Yes, he’s drawn more attention to it himself, but Conservative writers aren’t helping either as they continually bring up RomneyCare when they try to handicap the Republican primaries. So Romney is facing a conundrum: What should he do about RomneyCare? Here’s what he came up with. It’s the Doctor Moreau defense . ” Our experiment wasn’t perfect – some things worked, some didn’t, and some things I’d change,” Romney acknowledged in speaking to conservative activists at the Carroll County Lincoln Day Dinner in Bartlett, N.H. “Our approach was a state plan intended to address problems that were in many ways unique to Massachusetts,” he said. “What we did there as Republicans and Democrats was what the Constitution intended for states to do – we were one of the laboratories of democracy .” Andrea Mitchell asked in the above video if Mitt’s newest ploy passed “the laugh test.” It doesn’t. Experimenting on the health of the good people in MA is his defense? OMG. I fell off my chair when I saw this. There are at least 6,593,587 citizens living there using figures from 2009, and now he’s calling the state one-big-laboratory . Wow. And he defended the individual mandate to the hilt as recently as 2011: On the kick off to his “No Apology” book tour Mitt Romney is on message – refusing to apologize for the Massachusetts health care law that, like President Obama’s federal legislation , requires citizens to buy health insurance. “I’m not apologizing for it, I’m indicating that we went in one direction and there are other possible directions . I’d like to see states pursue their own ideas, see which ideas work best,” Romney told me . See, no apology necessary for Mittens because he’s the doctor. So his ‘I was for it, but now I’m against it’ defense hasn’t held up and he’s now a weird scientist who experimented on the human guinea pigs who voted for him. Good luck with that, Herr Doktor.
Continue reading …“State Republicans seek more limits on voters” warned the front page Washington Post headline for Peter Wallsten's March 7 article. “GOP says the push targets fraud; Democrats call it a power play,” added the subheader. The online version of the article had a decidedly less-loaded headline , but Wallsten's article skewed towards the Democratic complaint (emphasis mine): New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're “foolish,” Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Mike Huckabee smiles like a nice guy and looks like a nice guy, but when it comes to his views on being a single mother, he’s not such a nice guy. You’ve probably heard about his remarks concerning Natalie Portman having a baby, but Heavens to Betsy, she’s not married… During her speech, Portman thanked “Black Swan” co-star turned fiance Benjamin Millepied for “the most wonderful gift,” — their baby, due later this year . Huckabee took issue with that statement, and the entire premise of her pregnancy, in an interview with conservative radio host Michael Medved on Monday. After a set up from Medved saying that most wonderful gift should have been “a wedding ring,” Huckabee slammed the star actress — and then all single mothers. You know Michael, one of the things that’s troubling is that people see a Natalie Portman or some other Hollywood starlet who boasts of, ‘Hey look, you know, we’re having children, we’re not married, but we’re having these children, and they’re doing just fine.’ But there aren’t really a lot of single moms out there who are making millions of dollars every year for being in a movie. And I think it gives a distorted image that yes, not everybody hires nannies, and caretakers, and nurses. Most single moms are very poor, uneducated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death and never have health care. And that’s the story that we’re not seeing, and it’s unfortunate that we glorify and glamorize the idea of out of children wedlock. You know, right now, 75 percent of black kids in this country are born out of wedlock. 61 percent of Hispanic kids — across the board, 41 percent of all live births in America are out of wedlock births. And the cost of that is simply staggering. He failed to mention that Natalie has a fiance, but forget the facts, Huckabee needed a platform to become the new Dan Quayle and trot out his insipid Murphy Brown argument all over again so he could attacks single mothers everywhere. That didn’t work out too well for Qualye, who was being groomed by Bill Kristol to become a “Ken Doll” matinee idol for Conservatives. Huckabee released a statement that was pretty much the same thing he said on Huckabee’s weekend FOX show. Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar and I am glad she will marry her baby’s father,” Huckabee said. “My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can’t get a job, and if it weren’t for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death. That’s the story that we’re not seeing, and it’s unfortunate that society often glorifies and glamorizes the idea of having children out of wedlock.” So after being called out on it, he tried to downplay what he said, heaped lavish praise all over Natalie, but said he was only talking about the problems single mothers face. Back to reality, how does Portman’s acceptance speech glorify and glamorize having children out of wedlock? It’s ludicrous and anyone that could draw that analogy is seriously delusional. The assault on women continues with great fury by conservatives since the Tea Party got popular, and it’s a f**ked up thing to be doing.”The family,” which Huckabee says is the true form of government, is being tarnished because of Natalie Portman? In other words, he took the cowardly way out. He must have been truly offended by Portman being pregnant and not married so he should have backed up what he said. We all make mistakes, but being as public a figure as he is, this was calculated. He apologized for his “Obama is from Kenya” crap earlier last week: On Monday, the ex-governor mistakenly suggested in an interview that President Obama had grown up in Kenya. Huckabee later insisted he had simply misspoke, saying Kenya when he had meant Indonesia, and he slammed the media for the “sensationalized” way reporters covered his remarks. Notice the victim-apology. In the end, he’s really the victim because the media reported what he said which is a typical ploy. David Neiwert busted him on that twisted crap too last week. Click here to view this media Huckabee just digs that hole in Kenya deeper. Why not just admit he got his misinformation from Fox? Of course, it didn’t exactly help his cause that he blatantly lied on O’Reilly’s show, claiming he had described Obama’s Indonesian childhood in his book — which has no mention of it at all! Why are these supposed Christian Conservatives so frakkin’ nasty? Why do they need all these lies to make their arguments?
Continue reading …The great battles of this turbulent era will keep going on for years to come. The ideologues who want no check whatsoever on the power of big business have declared war on the middle class, and want no one to get in their way. Governors like Scott Walker and John Kasich will brook no compromise in trying to destroy unions. Right-wing politicians who have long wanted to do away with Social Security and Medicare and pretty much all safety nets for the poor are getting more and more brazen: Speaker Boehner made clear last week his plans to go after Social Security and Medicare sooner rather than later. And it is not just economics: the extremists are coming after not just a woman’s right to choose, but even birth control itself with their attempts to shut down family planning funding. The good news is that, as I wrote in The Washington Post this weekend, these attacks on the things we hold dear are putting the “movement” back in the labor movement (and the women’s movement, and the progressive movement). We are going to march and demonstrate, we are going to recall Wisconsin legislators and, once a year has passed, the Governor. We will win a citizen’s veto ballot initiative fight in Ohio. And we will take on the ultimate patrons of conservative politicians, the billionaire extremists like the Koch brothers and the Wall Street bankers who are providing the money and pulling the strings for this attack on the middle class. Getting less attention than the open warfare in Wisconsin and other states, one of the most important fronts in the fight for a better economy and a stronger, rather than decimated, middle class is to keep challenging the banks. This past weekend, National People’s Action has been in D.C. taking on Wall Street because the big banks’ corrupt and broken business model is at the heart of what has brought our economy to its knees, and until it gets fixed, the economy won’t be fixed either. You would think these bankers — whose fraud and speculation inflated the housing bubble and then crashed our economy, who came to the American taxpayers for a bailout when they got themselves in trouble and then arrogantly rewarded themselves record bonuses while attacking any kind of regulatory reform — would at least pretend to be a little humble right now. Absolutely not. Wall Street billionaires like Pete Peterson are braying about the need for senior citizens to tighten their belts because the $14,000 the average retiree gets from Social Security is just a little too extravagant. Wall Street money is backing Republican efforts to slash Head Start and education funds, and to break the unions in Wisconsin, Ohio, and other states. These are the guys who broke the economy, but they don’t want anyone to think about that, so they are pumping money into blaming teachers, cops, and firefighters for the fiscal problems of the states and federal government. Meanwhile, when someone does try to regulate the Wall Street guys just a little, the big bank lobby loses it entirely, whines to high heaven, and begins spending money all over the place. Elizabeth Warren is under daily attack by the bankers in her very reasonable, thoughtful efforts to look out for consumers on financial issues, and the Wall Street boys’ mouthpiece in the Senate, Dick Shelby, is threatening a holy war with the White House if she is nominated to run the agency. Whether the White House caves to Shelby and Wall Street’s pressure will be one of the biggest signals going forward of how strong they will be in terms of taking on the big banks. The big bank lobby also is gearing up a massively funded campaign on the swipe-fee issue, and this to me is a very telling story of just how much power Wall Street has in Washington, D.C. I got involved in this issue during the financial reform fight when Dick Durbin introduced an amendment to have the Federal Reserve regulate this previously completely unregulated economic bonanza for the big banks. They make $45 billion a year almost purely in profit, using their dominance to charge whatever they want to restaurant owners, hardware stores, cab drivers, non-profit groups, and every other business that takes credit and debit cards. I got involved because a little bit of regulation had the potential to save a lot of struggling small businesspeople a ton of money, with savings hopefully partially passed onto consumers. I figured moving money from the profits of big banks to the Main Street economy was a good thing to do, so I started working on the issue with retailers and other businesspeople, as well as consumer groups like U.S. PIRG. This coalition ended up getting 63 votes for Durbin’s Senate amendment, and we kept good compromise language in the final financial reform conference committee bill. I was worried that the Fed — whose regulators are notoriously close to the banking industry — would try to gut the regulations, but they came out with a reasonable and fair proposal. Because the proposal was fair, though, the Wall Street lobby went right through the roof — and got the money flowing. I talked to one retail lobbyist the other day who said he recently went to a fundraiser for a Republican House member. There were 42 banking lobbyists there with money for the Congressman, and most of the conversation was about the swipe-fee regulation. The banks are spending massively on internet advertising, on direct lobbying, on PR related to the issue. And their effort is having an effect. At a congressional hearing on the issue the other day, most of the members attending appeared to have their questions and talking points fed directly to them by the bankers. Here’s the most striking thing, though: the retailers and other business groups working on this issue are not exactly chopped liver. The resistance is not coming just from populists like me and a couple of consumer groups against the big banks — some of the businesses on our side are huge ones like Walmart and Home Depot. But Wall Street is the master of the Washington universe, and when they say jump, politicians tend to do it. Even a populist like Senator Jon Tester from Montana, who you’d think would love to be fighting against Wall Street bankers on behalf of small Montana businesses, is said to be getting ready to drop a bill on the banks’ behalf. There is growing talk that the Republicans want to take up financial reform again on the swipe fee and derivatives issues, and if that happens — Katy bar the door — the whole financial reform bill could unravel. Wall Street bankers, billionaire oilmen like the Koch brothers, and other big business special interests that are funding the Republican assault on labor and the middle class, have way too much power already. They commit financial fraud, wreck the economy, violate pollution standards, and gouge other businesses, and it never seems to matter. If labor is crushed, if middle class incomes are driven down, if even basic regulations are overturned, this country will be in a world of hurt. Let’s put the movement back in our movement, and fight these bankers and moneymen who act like every day is a holiday made just for them.
Continue reading …It seems as though the thirty or so years that American neocons have poured money into right-wing political movements in Canada is really paying off. Not only does Canada have a conservative prime minister, he seems to think that he and the government are equivalent . L’État, c’est moi! But the Liberal party is fighting back: OTTAWA — Federal Liberals are moving swiftly to capitalize on public outrage over Conservative attempts to rebrand the government of Canada as “the Harper government.” They’ve produced a radio ad that will begin running Saturday in Quebec, expressing shock at the Tories’ effrontery in equating the government with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. “Like you, I am profoundly shocked,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says in the ad. “It’s totally unacceptable. The government of Canada is not the government of Mr. Harper, it’s the government of citizens, the government of all the citizens of Canada.” The Canadian Press revealed Thursday that a directive was sent late last year to public servants, advising them that “government of Canada” should be replaced in all federal communications with the words “the Harper government.” The story — which included fierce criticism from some public administration experts, including former clerk of the Privy Council Mel Cappe — spread like wildfire through social media. The reaction appeared to be predominantly negative. In the Commons on Friday, Tory MP Andrew Saxton defended the branding exercise as “a longstanding practice across various governments.” He said the former Liberal government of Jean Chretien used to do the same thing. “This terminology is widely used by journalists and the public. In fact, Mel Cappe, who was quoted in these stories, approved many of the releases when he was clerk using the term ‘Chretien government,”‘ said Saxton. The Prime Minister’s Office later supplied examples of such releases but only three — involving the government of Paul Martin — actually personalized the government in the same way the Tories are attempting to do. The releases during Chretien’s tenure are all headlined “government of Canada” and use those words throughout. The only reference to the “Chretien government” comes in quotations from ministers.
Continue reading …In a short video on the New York Times's website, Brian Stelter, the paper's media reporter, comments on the “interesting” trend of cable news reporters “taking sides” in the Wisconsin budget battle – with Fox News on the right and MSNBC on the left, of course – and supposedly twisting facts to fit partisan narratives. Asked about commentators “looking for a certain narrative on the way in” – even when the facts don't support those narratives – Stelter singled out Bill O'Reilly and Ed Schultz as indicative of the trend. But he needn't look so far from home. The Times's own partisan pugilist, Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman, has consistently twisted facts in an effort to fit the Wisconsin debate into a leftist narrative. Some such efforts have reached near-comic levels of absurdity. Krugman has accused Wisconsin Republicans and Gov. Scott Walker of trying to “make Wisconsin — and eventually, America — less of a functioning democracy and more of a Third World-style oligarchy.” Got that? Democratically-elected officials carrying out a legislative agenda through legal channels constitutes an effort to make the state – and eventually the entire country – look like Egypt. Some of Krugman's less hysterical claims still don't pass the smell test. He alleged in a February 24 column that a provision in Walker's budget repair bill to sell state power plants without a formal bidding process was evidence that the governor was bought and paid for by Koch Industries. But the power plants in question are in such disrepair and have such poor records of compliance with environmental regulations that their value may even be in the red. The head of Wisconsin's Sierra Club chapter put it this way : “How the governor thinks he can put lipstick on that pig and sell huge financial and environmental liabilities to someone else, good luck.” Rather than make an attempt to examine the facts, however, Krugman opted to opine on the Vast Koch Conspiracy. A flat denial from Koch Industries was further evidence that they were behind the push to reform public sector union laws, by Krugman's telling. “Indeed, there are enough suspicious minds out there that Koch Industries…felt compelled to issue a denial that it’s interested in purchasing any of those power plants,” he wrote. Powerline's John Hinderaker had this to say : The idea that Koch Industries is supporting Governor Walker in order to get access to some broken-down, environmentally inadequate, unprofitable heating and cooling plants for Wisconsin's universities and prisons is so silly that it could be believed only by the likes of [ThinkProgress blogger] Lee Fang and Paul Krugman. In fairness, whether Krugman actually believed it is a wholly different question from whether he thought it worthy of print space in his Thursday column. Another Krugman column on the situation in Wisconsin took a different approach, and tried to link all sorts of problems at the state level with conservative fiscal policy: And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average. At first glance those statistics are striking. But Krugman's facile statistical analysis purported to show a causal effect between low taxes and low spending without actually making that connection. He failed to consider a host of other factors that could reasonably contribute to those statistics, such as Texas's massive immigrant population, high poverty rate relative to other states, or high percentages of black and hispanic residents (both groups tend to fare worse in high school graduation rates and health indicators). But Krugman had no interest in delving deeper into those statistics, since on their face they support his political stance ( Iowahawk's examination of education statistics in Wisconsin and Texas reveals that they actually contradict Krugman's claims). He went into the column with an agenda, and subordinated factual analysis to it. All of this is to say that the trend Stelter highlighted can be seen in his proverbial backyard. The Times may want to get its own house in order before criticizing commentators at Fox or MSNBC for subordinating the facts to an agenda.
Continue reading …• Reports that Bin Jawad has fallen to pro-Gaddafi forces as unrest in Libya continues. • Gaddafi loyalists marching Ras Lanuf, with air strikes reported. Follow live updates here 10.40am: The rebel National Libyan council said have said there is no room for broad dialogue with Gaddafi’s government, and any talks must be on the basis he quits. Jadallah Azous Al-Talhi, a Libyan prime minister in the 1980s who is originally from eastern Libya, appeared on state television reading an address to elders in the rebel city of Benghazi calling for national dialogue to end the bloodshed. Asked about the address, rebel official Ahmed Jabreel told Reuters: “Talhi is a close acquaintance of mine and he is widely respected in Libya as a man who stood up to Gaddafi. But we have made it clear all along that any negotiations must be on the basis that Gaddafi will step down. There can be no other compromise.” 10.15am: Good morning, welcome to the Guardian’s live coverage of the continuing unrest in Libya. • Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi have reportedly retaken the previously rebel held town of Bin Jawad and are advancing on the oil refinery town of Ras Lanuf . The Libyan army was seen moving down the strategic Mediterranean coastal road east of the Bin Jawad, heading towards Ras Lanuf some 60 km (40 miles) away, witnesses told Reuters. “I went to Bin Jawad and about 20 km (13 miles) beforehand I saw Gaddafi forces, a large truck and army vehicles, and a fighter jet, they were coming slowly in this direction,” Ahmed al-Araibi, a driver said, with two other witnesses confirming similar movements. The taking of Ras Lanuf had represented a major victory for the rebels on Friday but their advance towards Gaddafi’s hometown of Sirte on the road to Tripoli was stopped in its tracks at Bin Jawad where rebels retreated under fire. • The UN secretary general has called for an end to indiscriminate attacks on civilians in Libya and warned of “carnage” in the days ahead . Ban Ki-moon has also dispatched a team to Tripoli to assess the humanitarian situation in the wake of the Libyan regime’s “disproportionate use of force”. Ban’s intervention on Sunday came as rebel forces continued to battle Gaddafi’s troops for control of key towns and cities, and Britain assessed the embarrassing fallout from the botched SAS mission to establish contacts with rebel leaders. • Libya’s rebel commanders have freed two MI6 officers and six SAS soldiers captured by farm guards on Thursday morning, after the British government vouched for their identities . The group was immediately flown to the frigate HMS Cumberland, which remains stationed off the coast of Libya. Seven of the group had been dropped by helicopter into farmland near the rebel capital Benghazi on a mission to establish contact with anti-regime forces. The eight Britons had been detained and questioned since Thursday by rebel leaders who had suspected they were mercenaries. • Elsewhere in the Middle East public protests have been banned in Saudi Arabia following demonstrations by minority Shia groups. The ruling comes after two weeks of Shia demonstrations in Saudi Arabia, during which 22 people were arrested. A statement issued by the country’s council of senior clerics said: “The council … affirms that demonstrations are forbidden in this country. The correct way in sharia [law] of realising common interest is by advising, which is what the Prophet Muhammad established. “Reform and advice should not be via demonstrations and ways that provoke strife and division, this is what the religious scholars of this country in the past and now have forbidden and warned against.” Arab and Middle East protests Libya Protest Egypt Tunisia Yemen Bahrain Adam Gabbatt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Any time I hear the word “serious” out of one of these politicians, the words “stick it to the working class” come to mind because that’s usually what they’re talking about. Of course asking the rich to pay more in taxes or ending these military occupations would be considered very “unserious” because we can’t have that, now can we? That might dry up their campaign contributions. And as Dave Dayen noted, Biden — who is supposed to be heading negotiations — is leaving town for the week: Biden, Supposed to Be Lead Negotiator on Continuing Resolution, Headed to Europe for a Week : Good thing the White House is taking the imminent government shutdown so seriously. President Obama designated Joe Biden as his lead negotiator with Congress on a long-term plan to set spending for the rest of the year. They had a meeting Thursday, and I’m not certain they followed up on Friday. And now, Biden’s headed to Russia, Finland and Moldova for a week. All that this week will accomplish, then, is a bunch of back-and-forth shouting in the media. And that started on the Sunday shows today. The likely scenario is another two- to three-week stopgap that includes the $6 billion in cuts proposed by the White House, while negotiations continue. You’re starting to see a pattern emerge. Democrats offer small cuts. Republicans take them and ask for more. Democrats offer more small cuts. Lather, rinse, repeat. And pretty soon, the small cuts add up to everything the Republicans wanted in the first place. I hope he’s wrong but given the administration’s track record “negotiating” with Republicans, it sure looks like where we’re headed. Here’s more from CBS News. — McConnell: Obama not serious about budget : The leading Republican Senator said the White House is not intent upon addressing government spending and debt, and disputed a Democratic Senator’s accusation that the GOP budget plan was “reckless.” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that Republican control of the House and Democratic control of the Senate means it is the “perfect time” to tackle budget matters, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, if both sides embrace a solution before the 2012 elections. “I haven’t given up hope, but frankly I’m not optimistic,” he said. When asked if he thought Mr. Obama was serious about getting something done with regards to the budget battles between Republicans and Democrats, McConnell said, “No, I don’t. I have now had a number of private conversations with the president and the vice president. I was hopeful that we would step up to the plate here, if you will, and use this divided government opportunity to do something big about our long- term problem. When asked why he thought the administration was not serious, McConnell said, “I’ve a number of conversations with people who count at the White House, and I think that so far I don’t see the level of seriousness that we need. For example, they’re in denial about Social Security. They are saying Social Security is not a problem. The Congressional Budget Office said it’s running a $50 billion deficit this very year. Medicare, Social Security are unsustainable. Medicare, Medicaid is unsustainable.” [,,,] McConnell disputed Kerry’s assertion that the Republican plan was “reckless.” “What’s reckless, Bob, is the $1.6 trillion deficit we’re running this year,” McConnell said. “What’s reckless is the $3 trillion we’ve added to our national debt. Our national debt is now the size of our economy. We begin to look a lot like Greece. And this doesn’t even deal with our long-term unfunded liabilities in Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, [adding] up to over $50 trillion of promises we’ve made to future generations that we cannot meet. McConnell said the negotiations have only come “about one-sixth of the way to where House Republicans are, and where I am the majority and hopefully all Senate Republicans are.” McConnell also compared unemployment rates between government workers and the private sector, and said that while “the American people have shed millions of jobs,” the government has added 100,000 jobs during the Obama administration. “Our priorities are out of whack. When my friend John Kerry says cutting government spending is reckless, I’m wondering, what planet is he living on?”
Continue reading …Presenting the same-sex marriage debate in Maryland's state legislature as one about “marriage equality,” openly gay MSNBC host Thomas Roberts discussed the matter with Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart, who is also openly gay. The segment, entitled “Cold Feet In Maryland?” aired today at 11:17 a.m. EST. “Supporters of Marriage Equality Wavering on Bill” the lower-thirds caption read as Capehart described how supporters of same-sex marriage are a few votes shy of passing the bill in Maryland's House of Delegates. A similar bill has already passed the Democrat-dominated Maryland Senate and Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) has pledged his signature should the bill reach his desk. Capehart singled out as “most galling” the “turnabout” of one freshman Del. Sam Arora (D-Montgomery County) because he was a co-sponsor of the legislation and campaigned successfully on the issue in 2010, but has now said that he will vote for final passage on the House floor but hopes the law will go to voters in November 2012 as a ballot referendum. In effect, Capehart is annoyed that the wavering Democrat hopes Maryland voters have the final say at the polls on redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. Capehart noted that some polls show most Marylanders favor same-sex marriage but worried that that would not necessarily play out in the privacy of the voting booth on Election Day.
Continue reading …