Obama is such a Republican.

Anonymous wrote:This is also what puzzles me about Obama. Why does he put himself through this when apparently these types of compromises aren't that difficult for him to come up with? His image as a leader would be much stronger if he or those advising him exercised some forethought on matters such as these.

I think you're taking it from the wrong angle. The Dems start with compromise or more, but it is always portrayed as extremism, so they bend over even further. They're too dumb and/or unprincipled to start from a strong bargaining position, like the Reps do. Dem senators and presidents don't care what the final result is, b/c the base keeps voting for them regardless b/c the Reps keep getting crazier. (And the media keep referring to rampant partisanship, etc., as if it's on both sides.)

Thanks once again to Bill Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does this man have the courage of his convictions on anything? I think not. God help this country with the choice between him and whichever right-wing nut is the GOP nominee. Please, a dark horse candidate I can vote for and who isn't the lesser of the other two evils.

This is not about conviction, this is accomplishing your goal without pissing off too many people unnecessarily. My one dissapointment is that the administration did not think of their "accomodation" before, in which case the outroar would not have been as vocal.

I think they had to go through this so that the wingnuts would be satisfied with the final outcome. If they offered it for "free" before, everyone would have said "hey, we're paying for this, just indirectly".

Anonymous wrote:It is a step down. It gives further to tailoring the laws of the land to religious right.

Can you imagine if the Westboro Baptist Church had setup a hospital? and gotten public money?

If you want to run a hospital for just Catholics, sure, just don't take public money that everyone pays for.

If they aren't allowed to hire based on religious discrimination, why can they discriminate on their employee policies? (Or are Catholic controlled hospitals allowed to discriminate on hiring?)

No, they still end up paying for it because they pay the insurance carriers. Where do you think the insurance companies will get the money to buy the contraceptives. Welcome to the word "fungible".

Now the Bishops get to pretend they aren't paying for it, because they don't see the bills. And the Catholic women get to pretend they aren't taking it, even though they somehow stop having babies at one or two.

Anonymous wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-announce-accommodation-religious-organizations-contraception-rule-120516299--abc-news.html

Thanks for all the public outcry. The government has no right to FORCE religious organizations to offer something that it deems immoral. All the atheists on DCUM can now go back to laughing at people of faith.And as usual the President of no morals or principals is shown as an emperor with no clothes.

How do you feel about the "compromise" now that you know the details?

Anonymous wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-announce-accommodation-religious-organizations-contraception-rule-120516299--abc-news.html

Thanks for all the public outcry. The government has no right to FORCE religious organizations to offer something that it deems immoral. All the atheists on DCUM can now go back to laughing at people of faith.And as usual the President of no morals or principals is shown as an emperor with no clothes.

Oh, you poor far-right religious zealots! I weep for you. Okay, really I'm laughing at your self-pity and persecution complex.

This is not about conviction, this is accomplishing your goal without pissing off too many people unnecessarily. My one dissapointment is that the administration did not think of their "accomodation" before, in which case the outroar would not have been as vocal.

This is also what puzzles me about Obama. Why does he put himself through this when apparently these types of compromises aren't that difficult for him to come up with? His image as a leader would be much stronger if he or those advising him exercised some forethought on matters such as these.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Compromise is the cornerstone of this democracy, people. We can't demand all-or-nothing every time.

It's a reasonable compromise.

Anonymous wrote:Does this man have the courage of his convictions on anything? I think not. God help this country with the choice between him and whichever right-wing nut is the GOP nominee. Please, a dark horse candidate I can vote for and who isn't the lesser of the other two evils.

This is not about conviction, this is accomplishing your goal without pissing off too many people unnecessarily. My one dissapointment is that the administration did not think of their "accomodation" before, in which case the outroar would not have been as vocal.

It is a step down. It gives further to tailoring the laws of the land to religious right.

Can you imagine if the Westboro Baptist Church had setup a hospital? and gotten public money?

If you want to run a hospital for just Catholics, sure, just don't take public money that everyone pays for.

If they aren't allowed to hire based on religious discrimination, why can they discriminate on their employee policies? (Or are Catholic controlled hospitals allowed to discriminate on hiring?)

Here is the "compromise": Religious institutions won't have to offer contraceptive coverage but insurance companies will have to offer it to the employees free of charge. That just means the coverage will be built into the pricing rather than a separate line item.

I don't see this as much of a step down by Obama.

Does this man have the courage of his convictions on anything? I think not. God help this country with the choice between him and whichever right-wing nut is the GOP nominee. Please, a dark horse candidate I can vote for and who isn't the lesser of the other two evils.

My guess, for what it is worth, is that he will announce that they don't have to offer it directly, but that it will have to be offered (perhaps by the insurance companies, not by the religiously affiliated organization) as a voluntary add-on purchase that the individual can choose (or not choose) to buy at full cost (with no subsidy from the organization).

Anonymous wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-announce-accommodation-religious-organizations-contraception-rule-120516299--abc-news.html

Thanks for all the public outcry. The government has no right to FORCE religious organizations to offer something that it deems immoral. All the atheists on DCUM can now go back to laughing at people of faith.And as usual the President of no morals or principals is shown as an emperor with no clothes.

I would wait until you hear what he has to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-announce-accommodation-religious-organizations-contraception-rule-120516299--abc-news.html

Thanks for all the public outcry. The government has no right to FORCE religious organizations to offer something that it deems immoral. All the atheists on DCUM can now go back to laughing at people of faith.And as usual the President of no morals or principals is shown as an emperor with no clothes.