It is that penchant for unvarnished spleen that has earned Uygur the following he has, but has also led to some backlash among liberals. He doesn’t apologize for it, and frequently warns viewers that they’re going to get that unfiltered view, no matter the subject. For what it’s worth, I’d rather know what someone honestly thinks than not, but in this case, Cenk is jumping the gun a little bit, and goes too far, and in the wrong direction, in his criticism of the President.

Cenk cites polling data that shows overwhelming (58%) support for the Preventive Services Mandate among Catholics, with 52% supporting its application to religious employers like hospitals and schools. Another survey shows that 99% of reproductive-age women have used contraception, and 89% of fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant are currently practicing it. His conclusion is that this is an “enormously winning issue,” so “why on God’s green Earth” would the administration compromise?

Uygur played a clip from Tuesday’s Morning Joe, in which senior Obama adviser David Axelrod talks about such a compromise, and he’s right on target throughout 99% of the segment, concentrating on the need to extend the protections of the Preventive Services Mandate to all women, while respecting the “concerns” and “prerogatives” of religious organizations. The competing interests here are equal protection for millions of women, versus religious accommodation, not religious liberty. The First Amendment does not grant churches the right to impose their beliefs on employees who serve the general public.

Where Axelrod slips up is in saying that “we certainly don’t want to infringe on religious liberty,” which tacitly validates that disastrous, fallacious frame. There’s nothing wrong with accommodating the wishes of these organizations, as long as the rights of women aren’t also compromised. Conceding this “religious liberty” argument is the problem. It is this argument that makes this a losing issue for the President, and it is the administration’s failure to seize the framing of this issue as an equal protection argument from the outset that has led to this controversy.

Even greater than the administration’s failure, though, is the mainstream media’s, in the same regard. Even when they’re pushing back against it, the “religious liberty” frame is still the dominant reference point in this discussion, because squeaky religious wheels are getting all of the ink. If every mainstream newscast explained the mandate the way Cenk did at the beginning of this segment, and if the cable networks sought guests who are among the women being denied these services (surely, they exist), this thing would be playing out quite differently. Right now, it’s a reverse witch hunt, with religious leaders (and lots of their left-leaning followers) tying themselves to stakes of their own making.

The fact is, aside from Axelrod’s slip-up, the White House has consistently, if not aggressively, responded to this controversy with the appropriate set of priorities. As long as any eventual compromise recognizes those priorities, there’s nothing wrong with it. Unfortunately, there’s no compromise that will turn this into a win (the mainstream media has turned this into Obama vs. Church, rather than Church vs. Women), but if one can be reached, it’s the generous thing to do.

Here’s the clip, from Current TV:

The Gingrich campaign, in addition to claiming that Newt Notes weren’t written by (their) Newt (hmmm, sounds familiar), defended the newsletter’s praise of Romneycare by pointing out that it was also critical of the measure, but that criticism was really not about the mandate. Their biggest problem with it was that it prevented insurers from profiting off of poorer customers by selling them junk insurance that doesn’t cover anything, but satisfies the mandate requirement.

What’s really embarrassing about this, though, is the fact that the Newt Note contains a quote that’s nearly identical to one that the Gingrich campaign tries to hang Mitt Romney with in an oppo memo that was just released last night. “Everybody in our state has to have health insurance. We`re not going to have free riders…And that’s a model which I think has some merit more generally,” the memo quotes Romney, from a June 2006 interview with PBS. Now, it looks like Romney may have, in fact, been quoting Gingrich (or some other Newt). Here’s the portion of the newsletter that relates to Romneycare:(emphasis mine)

Newt Notes

The most exciting development of the past few weeks is what has been happening up in Massachusetts. The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system.

We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans. Individuals without coverage often do not receive quality medical attention on par with those who do have insurance. We also believe strongly that personal responsibility is vital to creating a 21st Century Intelligent Health System. Individuals who can afford to purchase health insurance and simply choose not to place an unnecessary burden on a system that is on the verge of collapse; these free-riders undermine the entire health system by placing the onus of responsibility on taxpayers.

The Romney plan attempts to bring everyone into the system. The individual mandate requires those who earn enough to afford insurance to purchase coverage, and subsidies will be made available to those individuals who cannot afford insurance on their own. We agree strongly with this principle, but the details are crucial when it comes to the structure of this plan. Under the new bill, Massachusetts residents earning more than 300% of the federal poverty level (approximately $30,000 for an individual) will not be eligible for any subsidies. State House officials had originally promised that there would be new plans available at about $200 a month, but industry experts are now predicting that the cheapest plan will likely cost at least $325 a month. This estimate totals about $4000 per year, or about 1/5 of a $30,000 annual take-home income.

While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)

In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.

While the Commonwealth’s plan will naturally endure tremendous scrutiny from those who assert that the law will not work as intended, Massachusetts leaders are to be commended for this bipartisan proposal to tackle the enormous challenge of finding real solutions for creating a sustainable health system. I hope that Massachusetts’ initiative to provide affordable, quality health insurance for all continues to ignite even more debate around the subject of how to best address our nation’s uninsured crisis and the critical problems within the health system at large.

Just to be clear: the problem Gingrich has with Romney’s plan is not the mandate, but rather, the cutoff for exemption from it, and even that objection stems only from the fact that state regulations prevent insurers from selling junk insurance to satisfy the mandate. The Gingrich campaign is spinning the newsletter as a critique of Romneycare, but that simply isn’t true; it’s a glowing endorsement, hampered only by the effectiveness of Massachusetts’ existing insurance regs.

Still, if voters are desperate for a candidate who truly, sincerely, deep-down opposes the individual mandate, there’s always this guy. I hear he’s running for president, too.

RELATED: Republicans: Meet The One Leading Presidential Candidate Who Took Stand Against Individual Mandate

Romney, along with chief rival Newt Gingrich, has been running as hard as he can away from his prior support for a national individual health insurance mandate, but the subject comes up in interview after interview. When Chuck Todd asked Romney about it one more time, the former Massachusetts Governor did the dance that has become familiar to voters, with a new step thrown in.

The individual mandate is such poison to GOP voters that it’s not enough for Romney to convince them that he never advocated it as a national policy (which is a bald-faced lie). He must also convince them that, even though he thinks it was a good idea for his state, he doesn’t think it’s a good idea for other states. It’s like threading a needle with a gym class rope.

RELATED: Tense: Bret Baier Confronts Mitt Romney Over Health Care Mandate

MSNBC’s Chuck Todd zeroed in on this hairball of contradictions, asking Romney about his description of the mandate as a conservative idea, rooted in “personal responsibility.”

“Do you still believe a mandate is a conservative idea, the idea of the personal responsibility aspect?” Todd asked.

Romney responded that “there were two options in my state. One was to continue to allow people without insurance to go to the hospital and get free care paid for by government, paid for by the taxpayers,” while the other was his Romneycare mandate. “Given those two options, the option that we chose was a more conservative approach.”

RELATED: Jay Carney Quotes Mitt Romney Saying Individual Health Insurance Mandate ‘A Conservative Idea’

The “two options” laid out by Romney, though, are the same for every other state. Federal law mandates emergency care, regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. Logically speaking, Romney should be advocating that solution for all states, if not on a national level.

Todd asked Romney to explain a major flaw in his state-by-state approach. “Are you concerned, though, that that could create, and I know this is an awkward term to use, sanctuary states, where some states are going to just cover more people than other states? Massachusetts versus a Mississippi, say?”

This is where Romney runs into some trouble, as he seems to explain that a state-by-state approach is okay because of the emergency care mandate he just got done denouncing. “Well, that’s something that would be worth looking at for any state to consider. People have to look at Massachusetts and to see what the record has been of its experience. But my own understanding is that, under federal law, people are able to get covered. Virtually in any state in America, someone that is seriously ill can go to the hospital and get treated even if they can’t pay for it.”

Perhaps noticing what he’s done, Romney adds, “In my opinion that’s a big government solution.”

“So how do we stop that?” Todd asked. “That’s how the mandate came in, right?”

Here’s where Romney seems to suggest government-run clinics, although it’s unclear if he means on a federal or state level. “That’s how it arose, how do we get individuals to take responsibility for their own care. There are a lot of different models. One is to have clinics where people are treated at low cost or no cost. The other is to do as I suggest, which is to have, if you will, tax breaks given to people who have insurance.”

Unfortunately, Todd didn’t get to follow up, but since Romney was talking about solving the “problem” presented by the federal emergency care mandate, it’s fair to assume he meant the clinics as a national solution, either federally or state-by-state. It’s a decidedly “progressive” solution, but I don’t think even the most liberal Democrat would propose having Americans get free health care from government-run clinics. Romney might be on his own on this one.

Here’s the clip, from The Daily Rundown:

RELATED: Shocker: Bill Clinton Agrees With Bill O’Reilly That The Media Favored Barack Over Hillary

Beginning the interview with a discussion on the Simpson-Bowles commission report, current tax rates, and whether Democrats were campaigning on a “class warfare” agenda, O’Reilly then shifted gears to ask President Clinton about Obamacare, and whether the Supreme Court would overturn the individual mandate. “I don’t think so; I hope not,” Clinton responded. The rest of the first segment focused on immigration and other issues particularly.

Clinton told O’Reilly he believed that President Obama appeared more vulnerable now that he will in the general election because “he’s out there running against himself out,” though O’Reilly countered that he believed 2012 would be a referendum vote. That said, O’Reilly turned to Gingrich, and his relationship with the former President.

O’Reilly didn’t mince words in asking, “do you respect him as a man?” Clinton responded that he did not “disrespect anybody who works with me in good faith,” adding that Gingrich was a “scorched earth politics” sort of actor and he saw much of that during his tenure. That said, Clinton did note that he “eventually hammered out a really productive relationship with him.” His ultimately good relationship with Gingrich aside, Clinton answered fairly strongly that he would not vote for Gingrich, but because “I’m going to vote for Obama,” and that he could not take the Democratic vision for the country out of the equation to judge whether he would vote for Gingrich.

The hypothetical vote questions continued, as O’Reilly asked Clinton whether he would vote for Mitt Romney in New Hampshire. Clinton answered that he was “not going to get in that Republican Party” with a chuckle, but later recanted and added that he liked Jon Huntsman, and argued “he arguably has the most consistently conservative economic record of anyone running.”

RELATED: Gingrich Doubles Down On Ignoring Judicial Decisions: ‘Are Judges Above The Rest Of The Constitution?’

O’Reilly then pushed him to answer why he believed the media supported more liberal candidates– in 2008, to the detriment of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton hesitated to answer, instead adding, “nothing I say will be helpful on this,” and after some repeated questions arguing that he did not believe the media was consistently liberal. That said, he repeated with humor, “nothing I say will result in anything good happening in America.”

O’Reilly’s full interview with Clinton via Fox News below:

I know, Republican voters must be thinking that this is too good to be true, and maybe it is. Let’s meet this anti-mandate candidate:

Yes, the one leading presidential candidate who consistently opposed the individual mandate is the guy who signed it into law. Then-Sen. Barack Obama didn’t just oppose the mandate, he ridiculed it, and used it to attack his primary opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. Once elected, President Obama was ostensibly pulled to that position by his party.

It is supremely ironic that Gingrich and Romney are trying to get elected by running away from a political position about which they were both 100% correct, while trying to beat the guy who was so completely wrong about that same issue. As Jay Carney pointed out earlier this year, Mitt Romney eloquently defended the individual mandate as a conservative idea:

“Not only have lower courts upheld (the law’s) constitutionality,” Carney began, “but the fact of the individual mandate being both constitutional and wise policy is an opinion shared across the ideological spectrum. A former governor of Massachusetts just said, the other day, ‘The idea for a health care plan in Massachusetts was not mine alone. The Heritage Foundation, a great conservative think tank, helped on that. I’m told Newt Gingrich, one of the very first people who came up with the idea of an individual mandate, did that years and years ago. It was seen as a conservative idea to say, you know what? People have a responsibility for caring for themselves if they can. We’ll help people who can’t care for themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you gotta take care of yourself and pay your own bills.’”

“That’s the former governor of Massachusetts describing the individual mandate, and why it’s smart policy, and we certainly agree.”

The individual mandate is only a hated liberal idea compared to the status quo. In the arena of health care reform, it is a desperate Hail Mary bulwark against a truly universal system like single-payer or Medicare for all. What Republicans ignore about that mandate is exactly what Hillary Clinton knew about it in 2008: it was absolutely key to preserving private insurance companies, while allowing for the prohibition of preexisting condition clauses. You can’t forbid insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions unless everyone is required to have insurance.

I’m absolutely certain that candidate Obama knew this, too, but also knew that a mandate would be an easy to demagogue, political non-starter. He elected to sell the teaspoon of sugar, and let the medicine take care of itself later. While Hillary Clinton was absolutely right about the need for an individual mandate, Obama’s campaign against it proved that it would have derailed any candidate who proposed it. It’s fair to criticize his pivot to the mandate as President, but that criticism would mostly come from liberals like me, who would have much preferred a public option to an individual mandate.

This Robamaneycare issue may be good for riling up the conservative base, and the GOP nomination may just end up going to the guy who can best convince voters that he’s “come to Jesus” on the mandate, but it will be interesting to see them convince a general electorate that they’ll be better off if health insurance companies can deny them coverage for preexisting conditions. Even more amusing is that they will be campaigning against a President who never wanted that mandate to begin with.

RELATED: Jon Huntsman Zings Herman Cain: ‘I Thought [9-9-9] Was The Price Of A Pizza’

Perry’s question for the frontrunner was shorter than most that went around the table, noting simply that Romney’s former economic adviser said his health care plan was Obamacare, and asking for him to “respond to the criticism of your signature legislative achievement.” While Perry wasn’t particularly aggressive in delivering the question, Romney responded in kind, happy to discuss the issue. “I’m proud of the fact that we took on a major problem in our state,” responding that Romneycare did not touch people who were already insured, while Obamacare “doesn’t just deal with the people without insurance; he tries to take care of everyone.” He then went straight at Perry, noting that, thanks to Romneycare, “we have the lowest number of kids as a percentage uninsured of any state in America– you have the highest.” Perry attempted to interject, but was cut off by the moderator, and Romney concluded his point (after shouting “I’m still speaking” at Perry a few times) that Romneycare had done his state much good, and Massachusetts overwhelmingly approves of it.

RELATED: GOP Debate: Jon Huntsman Calls Out Rick Perry Over Mitt Romney Mormon Controversy

The segment via Bloomberg TV below:

Sharpton began with a recap of points on the campaign trail that he considered proof Republicans were courting the Tea Party vote– even Mitt Romney, whose universal health care plan in Massachusetts is considered by many the frontrunner to Obamacare. “The guy who gave Massachusetts health care is embracing the Tea Party,” Sharpton lamented as his introduced Dennis. Dennis at first agreed with Sharpton that Romney’s appeal to the Tea Party felt disingenuous, as many of the issues important to the group– among them global warming and religion– fell outside of the realm of agreement with Romney. Dennis refused to say Romney was “lying,” but that he had an uphill battle with his group. He tried to explain it wasn’t about party as, “if Democrats decide to embrace religion and become fiscally sane,” he would vote for them.

With that in mind, Sharpton turned to attacks from Karl Rove, wondering whether “you worry about what you’re doing to the Republican Party.” Dennis went after Rove, calling him the “architect of Republican disaster,” and accused Sharpton and the Republicans of “fear[ing] the Tea Party, because you know we’re coming to change the game.”

That led to a contentious exchange between the two, where Sharpton hammered away at the point that “the American people have clearly said they have a different view of you,” while Dennis lost his earpiece (“I don’t think I could listen to any more of your insanity”). Sharpton kept attacking, however, claiming Dennis was “proud” to “protect billionaires and go after Grandma” and accusing him of “smirking” (Dennis did seem to be enjoying watching Sharpton go at it.”

Dennis shot back, however, arguing that Sharpton wanted “to turn America into Venezuela” and “reward the moochers of America,” arguing that the spending problem was much worse than the revenue. It led Sharpton to conclude with a bit of a cession: “I am afraid of you guys; I’m afraid you won’t hang around long enough till next year. Get your night’s rest, and do your exercise.”

The segment via MSNBC below:

While Colbert’s explanation is certainly a joke designed to mock the overly simplistic verbiage used to describe complex political and economic situations, it is not difficult to imagine this video clip going viral in some sets of Internet users who do not see the fake newsman’s ironically detached delivery.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of Comedy Central:

After giving a rather standard speech about the recent gridlock within the Beltway (that sounded an awful lot like a stump speech), Obama took a few questions, one of which focused on medical marijuana. The President took a somewhat oblique angle in his answer by bringing up “obamacare,” saying
“I have no problem with folks saying ‘Obamacares.’…I do care.”

Astute readers will point out that the term in question is “Obamacare,” not “Obamacares,” and while some will view this like a kid answering playground bullies by saying, “Yes, I am a homo…a homo sapien,” the President seemed genuine in his dismissal of the term. After all, the notion that a president should care about his constituents shouldn’t be considered such a bad thing, right? Though the President’s detractors would quickly opine that it has nothing to do with “care,” and more to do with fiscal responsibility.

Either way, there is at least one thing that we can take from the following clip: he feels our pain.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of C-Span:

(H/T Jake Tapper)

Given an open-ended question on how she would confront the stock market plunge today, Rep. Bachmann noted that the first thing she would do as president is “the Treasury Secretary has to go… if your economic team isn’t working, you’ve got to get someone in who knows what to do.” She also suggested calling Congress back into session to fix the problem, and reforming entitlement programs.

O’Reilly challenged her on this last point, asking for specifics on how to reform Medicare specifically. “It needs to be tied more to the market, which it isn’t now,” she argued, which got her a follow-up: “Would you raise the age to qualify?” Her answer was only clear on a few points: “crystal clear” that “no one who is a current recipient” can lose their benefits, even if they are younger than the new qualifying age. She also noted that repealing Obamacare was important because “President Obama’s plan for Medicare is that they’ll all go into Obamacare.”

This wasn’t much of a yes-or-no answer, and O’Reilly told her so, claiming she was “dodging the question” and noting that he didn’t even think Obamacare was worth discussing because of how far into the future its implementation is and the fact that he thinks courts will repeal it. Plus, O’Reilly answered, “every Republican candidate wants to repeal Obamacare.” “There’s a difference between someone who will sign the [repeal] bill,” Rep. Bachmann advised, “and someone who will go out and campaign for it.” While the disagreements between the two were mostly in the details, it served for an interesting, surprisingly wonky debate between the two.

The segment via Fox News below:

The topic of government mandated health care for women has brought the issue back into debate in the last few days, primarily championed by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, or “Papa Bear,” as he is affectionately referred to by Colbert. In fact, just last night, O’Reilly and FBN’s Lou Dobbs discussed this very subject in a manner that would likely have ended up on the Colbert segment had the timing worked out. O’Reilly believes that this sort of mandate “spooks investors” which he earnestly addressed in his Talking Points segment last night as well.

At issue is role of the federal government creating regulations that help create a healthier and happier populace, or if this is the sort of issue that should be solely left to private companies and “free marketeers.” It doesn’t really matter to Colbert, who went on agree with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that this is a disastrous plan, stating that since free birth control will clearly wipe out the human race, America’s insurance companies should only cover necessary medical expenses. Like boner pills.

Watch the clip below, courtesy of Comedy Central:

O’Reilly used the debt ceiling bill as a launchpad for his “Talking Points Memo” tonight, noting that it saved America’s credit rating, but that “there is little else good in the debt deal and the stock market knows it.” Simply put, he argued, “there is no confidence in the American leadership on the economy. None.” Much of that, he noted, was due to President Obama, but Congress had done its share to cause tension in the market. “Extremists on both sides, the left and the right, are scaring investors,” he noted.

He gave far more time to the “far-left loons” whose “self-destructive and insane” thirst for more government spending was inscrutable to him, but pointed out that those on the right were causing a whole other set of problems. “On the far right,” he said, “there are people who say, ‘Let’s blow up the entire economic system and start all over again.and then theres congress, extremists on both sides, the left and the right, are scaring investors… Extreme views are heard loudly on cable and talk radio and they are spooking the investment community.”

As for the Obama administration, O’Reilly suggested that their actions were driven by the “liberal tenet of social justice,” which defines compassion in some extents and making the government help the poor. Case in point: Obamacare, which O’Reilly argued would damage businesses significantly because so much of their money would now have to be invested in health care. “The world’s financial community doesn’t want the USA to become Sweden… they don’t want the most powerful economic engine on Earth to become a nanny state,” he concluded. While O’Reilly ceded that “sane people know” that regulation is necessary to a certain extent, he implored the Obama administration to “knock off the nanny state lunacy” and let the free market grow.

The segment via Fox News below:

The National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine recommended this change in insurance policies on the tails of last year’s historic health care law. Obamacare recommended that the administration review the all preventative services insurance offered without deductibles for women. The above list is the result of said review.

While this list is not set in stone yet, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called the committee’s recommendations “historic” and “based on science and existing literature”. So, it seems like she at least will be in support of passing the reforms and she has a pretty significant voice in health care. The Post noted that these conclusions were “generally expected” but because we’re talking about something that can conceivably be linked to abortion, people are getting upset.

Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum joked that this is “yet another sign of the encroaching Muslim Kenyan socialist Sharia law hellscape that is Barack Obama’s Amerika” but there are certainly some people that might actually agree with his statement. The Post found one:

Jeanne Monahan, director of the Center for Human Dignity at the socially conservative Family Research Council, said that many Americans may object to birth control on religious grounds. “They should not be forced to have to pay into insurance plans that violate their consciences. Their conscience rights should be protected,” she said.

Conscience rights, in case anyone has forgotten, were a legacy of the Bush administration that enabled almost anyone in the health profession to refuse to provide care that they felt went against their moral or religious beliefs. An example of this law could be a Catholic OB-GYN recommending a patient who required a therapeutic abortion to a colleague. Another example of this law could be a pharmacist refusing to sell a college student Plan B because he morally disagreed with the concept of emergency contraception, or a doctor refusing to treat a gay man with AIDS because he doesn’t support homosexuality. The Obama administration considerably narrowed the scope of this law.

That being said, conscience rights appear to still be a part of our health care discussions. This current insurance coverage discussion is also being inflamed by debates about emergency contraception. Under these new recommendations, insurance could start covering drugs like Plan B and Ella, which prevent fertilized eggs from implanting. The people at the Center for Human Dignity consider this abortion.

Very few insurance companies currently cover emergency contraception and their high costs (some pills run for as much as $55) might discourage women from pursuing that option. The Post includes a Guttmacher study that concludes that 50% of pregnancies are unplanned, so perhaps adding emergency contraception to insurance plans is not such a bad thing, especially considering that the cost of birth control is significantly lower than the cost of actually having a child. Similarly, as the Post notes and Mother Jones snarks at:

“A Guttmacher study found that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women and nearly 100 percent of evangelicals have used contraception at some point, compared to 99 percent of women overall.” If that number is right, it sure doesn’t sound like very many people actually object to birth control on religious grounds, as opposed to pretending they object, does it?

This issue comes at an intriguing time for women’s health care. Remember all that drama about Planned Parenthood? Almost all the women’s health care issues that Planned Parenthood addresses that were so problematic a few months ago will have to be covered by insurance under this new reform. This will be a huge step towards protecting women’s health rights after a particularly unsupportive season.

Regardless of your feelings on the issue, it should be interesting to see how this discussion evolves and where the 2012 candidates weigh in. It’s no secret that the GOP hasn’t exactly embraced Obamacare with open arms, so perhaps this latest reform will become a jumping off point for further criticism of the new plan.

(h/t Washington Post via Mother Jones)

O’Donnell began the segment by crowning Pawlenty the most libertarian of all candidates for suggesting that any function or service one could find a link to on Google should not be conducted by the government. “This is the most libertarian, anti-government statement of anyone running, including actual libertarians,” such as Rep. Ron Paul and Rep. Bachmann. The problem with Pawlenty’s statement– and Rep. Bachmann’s anti-government claims– is that, Minnesota “thrives on handouts from the federal government,” specifically the Department of Agriculture, and that “there is no sector of the economy more ripe with socialism” than agriculture.

O’Donnell highlighted the many times Rep. Bachmann spoke of socialism in public appearances, and especially her argument that Obamacare “is the crown jewel of socialism.” “Like every one who rants about socialism in this country, she doesn’t know what socialism is,” O’Donnell argued. His point may have been stronger if he had not immediately followed it by stating there was “good socialism and bad socialism,” and that the farm subsidies Rep. Bachmann supports are “the worst kind of socialism,” a kind of socialism that even Sean Hannity would not support, placing, O’Donnell noted somewhat bashfully, Hannity on the same side of the argument as himself.

O’Donnell’s point that direct intervention in the free market is socialism, while some may call extreme, is well-taken. At the very least, no true libertarian would support such subsidies (and the ethanol subsidy he notes Rep. Bachmann supports at the beginning of the segment is precisely the one Pawlenty told Iowans he opposes). While many who know or have grown up around people from countries with allegedly “socialist” governments would strongly argue against the existence of anything that could be labeled “good socialism,” given that O’Donnell self-identifies as a socialist and often cites the existence of any government programs as socialist in nature, parsing this comment may not lead anywhere. “Good socialism” to O’Donnell is likely not the Great Leap Forward, but Social Security or Medicare. But to undermine the horrors of socialist policies around the world by arguing that frivolous agricultural spending is “the worst” socialism has to offer is an affront to the victims of true socialism around the world.

Take, for one, the most prominent form of socialism in the 20th century– that practiced by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that led to the deaths– through hunger or slaughter– of millions. Fans of Godwin’s law may argue that that “national socialism” stuff from the 1940s may be “the worst kind of socialism,” given the millions that died while that was a popular theory, as well. Even at its mildest, socialism in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Peru since the 1980s has created inflation and poverty statistics that would make any American’s head spin (President Alan Garcia‘s first term– the left-wing one, he recently finished a stint as a right-wing president– concluded with a 7000% national inflation rate). To state that the “worst socialism” is an American construct that has caused all of zero deaths is like saying the “worst capitalism” is the Ryan Medicare Plan– and not, say, the deeply segregated Pinochet-era Chilean economy. It betrays an ignorance that stems from living in the world’s greatest ivory tower, the United States, where our Constitution dilutes even the most extreme philosophies into moderate and palatable ideologies. Sure, it does nothing to exonerate Rep. Bachmann of her alleged hypocrisy, but it certainly brings into the question O’Donnell’s credibility on the matter.

The segment via MSNBC below:

Appearing on Meet the Press, Gingrich discussed a number of different topics and made a few comments that he seems to be walking back on. He called Paul Ryan’s budget plan “radical” and “too big a jump,” saying that he didn’t find “right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering.” However, a spokesman for his campaign assured The Weekly Standard that Gingrich’s issues with the plan were merely “in design but not substance.”

One comment the candidate made, though, prompted a full YouTube video. On the show, Gingrich explained how he opposed “Obamacare” but host David Gregory played a clip from 1993 in which he enthusiastically supported the idea of an individual mandate that would make health insurance a legal requirement, one of the most controversial elements of the health care law. Gingrich’s present-day response to being shown the clip led some to believe he still held some of those beliefs.

From the Meet the Press transcript:

MR. GREGORY: Now, I know you’ve got big difference with what you call Obamacare. But back in 1993 on this program this is what you said about the individual mandate. Watch.
(Videotape, October 3, 1993)
REP. GINGRICH: I am for people, individuals–exactly like automobile insurance–individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.
(End videotape)
MR. GREGORY: What you advocate there is precisely what President Obama did with his healthcare legislation, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: No, it’s not precisely what he did.

…

REP. GINGRICH: Well, I agree that all of us have a responsibility to pay–help pay for health care. And, and I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond…
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
REP. GINGRICH: …or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.
MR. GREGORY: But that is the individual mandate, is it not?
REP. GINGRICH: It’s a variation on it.

The YouTube video released today finds no such “variation” gray area on the subject with Gingrich telling the camera that he is “against any effort to impose a federal mandate on anyone because it is fundamentally wrong.”

Below are both the Meet the Press clip and the YouTube video. Decide for yourself if Gingrich has made a 24 hour flip-flop.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney‘s future as a potential GOP nominee may hinge on how he handles comparisons between his “Romneycare” in Massachusetts and the “Obamacare” plan reviled by Republicans. In a speech Thursday, Romney tried to draw distinctions. “Our plan was a state solution to a state problem,” he said. Obama’s program “is a power grab by the federal government to put in place a one-size-fits-all plan across the nation.”

What Romney did not do in his speech–designed to address the issue before a formal campaign announcement–was to back away from the plan he passed as governor:

“A lot of pundits around the nation are saying that I should just stand up and say this whole thing was a mistake, that it was just a bone-headed idea and I should just admit it,” Romney told a room of college Republicans. “There’s only one problem with that: It wouldn’t be honest. I, in fact, did what I believe was right for the people of my state.”

The speech–and the GOP field–was discussed this morning on NBC’s TODAY. Watch it here, from NBC News:

The editorial eviscerates Romney, disputing not only his statements about the success of the healthcare program in Massachusetts, but also whether he has a basic understanding of how government works. The Wall Street Journal argues:

Mr. Romney now claims ObamaCare should be repealed, but his failure to explain his own role or admit any errors suggests serious flaws both in his candidacy and as a potential President. . . . Like Mr. Obama’s reform, RomneyCare was predicated on the illusion that insurance would be less expensive if everyone were covered. Even if this theory were plausible, it is not true in Massachusetts today.

The rejection of Romney’s candidacy continues as the newspaper believes Romney’s experience with healthcare is a “fatal flaw” in his core argument that he knows how to revive the free market economy. In the final dismissal of Romney, the Journal concludes:

The debate over ObamaCare and the larger entitlement state may be the central question of the 2012 election. On that question, Mr. Romney is compromised and not credible. If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.

With criticism like that from the conservative-minded Journal editorial board it looks like Romney’s potential campaign might be in some serious trouble.

Check out the full editorial at the Wall Street Journal.

Although he voted for the bill – or, as he phrased it, he voted to “try and accomplish the things that were good in the bill, and then hope to change those things that were either absent or needed to be corrected in the bill” – he admits he has some qualms with it, particularly with the notion that it will keep health care costs down:

The real issue that was not addressed, Laura, that you’ve raised now, and I think appropriately, is the cost, the cost to both the government and to your listeners. We need to take steps now to get the costs of health care under control. That was not dealt with really in an aggressive way in this legislation. I think it now needs to be.

Have a listen to the segment, courtesy The Laura Ingraham Show:

Hatch’s description of “Obamacare”:

“Every state has different demographics, every state has different problems. It’s good to allow them to work out their own problems rather than a one-size-fits-all federal government stupid, dumbass program.”

Hatch apologized if people thought that was a swear, and backpedaled only
slightly, instead suggesting “Obamacare” is an “awful piece of crap.” The idea that more power should be shifted to the states and away from the federal government is certainly a strong belief of the Tea Party, and most Republicans fearful of Tea Party primary challenges (like Hatch) can probably be expected to be sounding very similar in the near future.

Watch the clip from local affiliate KSTU-FOX 13 below:

(h/t Real Clear Politics)

Rush’s opening shot at Mediaite, in response to an article by Jon Bershad:

“They wrote about [Rush calling Obama's reaction to the healthcare ruling 'lawless'] as though I’m some kind of a kook – which is fine. They think the whole idea that the Constitution might be in crisis here is silly.”

Given that Rush claims to operate with “half his brain tied behind his back” in order to make it fair, I’m amazed that he has the power to deduce from Bershad’s completely objective and non-judgmental article that somehow Bershad truly believed Rush’s idea was silly. However, not to disappoint Rush, I will go on the record now and tell him unequivocally, yes, the idea is silly.

A constitutional crisis is a circumstance where the constitution is unable to resolve a problem and where a breakdown in the operation of government results. Think the Civil War, or more recently, the Supreme Court decision of Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court could have dismissed the case as a “political question” beyond their jurisdiction to decide, but instead justified deciding the President specifically to avoid a constitutional crisis. In other words, regardless of Rush’s suggestion, “spitting on the Constitution” prior to exhausting the potential remedies available from each branch of government does not in and of itself rise to the same level as a constitutional crisis.

Rush read from a CNBC article for support and dares us, “go ahead and make fun of pointing that out if you wish. Let’s see if the Mediaite people go after this guy.”

However, what Rush glosses over are several key facts, first of which, that there are now two trial court decisions supporting the individual mandate of the healthcare reform bill, in addition to the two opposed to it. Admittedly, U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson goes further to suggest that the whole bill is void absent a severability clause; however, given that Vinson explicitly did not issue an injunction to halt implementation of the bill and given that federal district courts in different states should be entitled to the same level of respect, Obama’s moving forward with implementation, for the time being, cannot be deemed “lawless.” Instead, given that the Supreme Court exists for the very purpose of deciding constitutional questions and settling differing interpretations amongst the lower courts, until the Supreme Court rules, then and only then would Obama’s defiance be deemed a constitutional crisis.

Regardless of this rather long diatribe over what amounts to a dispute over semantics, when Rush’s “the regime is ignoring the court” hyperbole is peeled away, underneath lies a legitimate argument. Does it really make sense to continue to waste time and money with implementation of the healthcare reform bill if its constitutionality is essentially an unpredictable jump ball to be decided by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy?

Check out the clip below from The Rush Limbaugh Show:

In fact, when asked whether or not he would present his health care plan the same way again, Romney admitted that he’d definitely do things differently, adding that “you learn from an experiment.”

Romney also had quite a bit to say about Indiana governor Mitch Daniels‘ recent comment that China’s continued growth and rise in power could be a positive thing for the U.S:

First of all their trade policies have been patently unfair. They steal our intellectual property, which is one of our greatest exports. They have artificially manipulated their currency to try and hollow out our manufacturing base and they have made it very difficult for our businesses to be successful in China without having to hand over to Chinese owners trade secrets as well as in many cases ownership. So, they have been a very difficult participant in the world trade effort.

Later on in the interview, Romney went so far as to call China’s growth and trade policies a potential danger:

I think the emergence of China with the trade policies they’ve pursued has not necessarily been good for us, and I think it poses a danger in the future. We’re going to have to recognize that.

Take a listen to the full interview, courtesy The Laura Ingraham Show.

Hannity began with the good news– at least for both he and Coulter. Based on, among other things, the Federalist Papers and the Commerce Clause, a federal judge has ruled last year’s universal health care law unconstitutional, a conclusion with which both Coulter and Hannity are overwhelmingly happy. “It doesn’t work without forcing people to buy insurance,” Coulter explained, and continued to note that, if Congress can “force all citizens to buy a product,” they should force them “to purchase a gun and a Bible.”

After a bit of chat on that subject, Hannity turned to the far graver situation in Egypt, a topic on which he called Secretary of State Hillary Clinton utterly incoherent and expressed concerns that Muslim radicals would take over in current leader Hosni Mubarak‘s stead. “I could not agree with you more,” Coulter replied, highlighting that, while she is not an expert on Egyptian politics, “I’m a bit of an expert on mobs and a bit of an expert on liberals,” and was outraged at the level of support these protests have gotten in comparison to those in Iran two years ago. She also noted the lack of women out on the streets, arguing that “a mob that is mostly men has never led to something good” (unfortunately for her point, a shot of several women protesting appeared on screen at that precise moment).

While she did call Mubarak “brutally unfair” and refused to support him, she shared in Hannity’s view that it was possible the “democratic motivation of some of the protesters” was in danger of being “hijacked” but fundamentalist muslims.

Hannity and Coulter’s discussion via Fox News below:

On Fox News, Shepard Smith and Judge Napolitano discussed the implications of today’s decision, and how Shep was convinced this was major news since he had never before seen so many urgent news alerts related to one subject appear on his computer screen. Given that today’s decision involved governors and attorneys general from 26 states, today’s decision is certainly significant. With today’s decision, now two lower courts have ruled the healthcare bill constitutional and two have ruled it as beyond the scope of what Congress has the power to enact.

Yet all roads lead to the Supreme Court, and Napolitano predicts it will be ruled on by the Supreme Court in about three years, which is definitely shaping up to be a hugely anticipated case and quite possibly the most political one since Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Watch the clip from Fox News below:

Bachmann continued, “this is why we were sent here and we will not stop until we repeal a President and put a President in the position of the White House who will repeal this bill.” In case you were confused what Bachmann’s ultimate intentions are, she repeats the phrase “repeal this bill” so many times that all members of Congress might go along with her simply to stop hearing her say it. Though at least she does raise one point worthy of debate, that the rising costs of healthcare associated with the bill are likely to “break the bank.”

Despite Congressman Steve Cohen being worried about Republican lies related to healthcare, Bachmann is not one to back down from passionately defending her position and using whatever hyperbole necessary in the process.

Watch the clip from C-SPAN below:

(h/t Real Clear Politics)

Nugent, who has advertised his love of fitness and is a well-known advocate of keeping healthy, took a detour from criticizing last year’s health care bill to scold America for not taking better care of their bodies. “Instead of squawking about health care,” he chided, “why doesn’t America start caring about their health?” His outraged turned against people who “treat their sacred temple with such disrespect,” Nugent called for a leader to talk “in serious terms to their constituency– take better care of yourself.”

Childhood obesity in particular flustered the boisterous rocker, who had previously noted, as Cooper recalled, that “our kids have a layer of blubber,” which sent Nugent on another tangent– “if your kids have blubber, you are a rotten, soulless parent.” He blamed them as well as anyone without a good health regiment for America’s “emergency in health care” and implored Americans to realize that “you’re killing yourselves out there.”

Paul Begala, meanwhile, who was on deck to discuss politics with Cooper and Nugent as well, took the opportunity to defend First Lady Michelle Obama‘s health initiatives… and point out that Nugent’s political pal and fellow “fitness buff” Sarah Palin wholeheartedly opposed her attempts to get children to eat healthy. Nugent defended his “friend” by sitting strongly on the fence, calling for leaders to tell people to be healthy while opposing health “being pushed and forced by the government,” which one would interpret as support for telling people to be healthy without banning unhealthy products or behavior– more of a Newark than a San Francisco approach.

Nugent’s rant and the subsequent discussion from last night’s Anderson Cooper 360º via CNN below:

On Fox & Friends Tuesday morning, incoming House Republicans laid out their plans to take apart President Obama‘s landmark legislation on healthcare, with Rep-Elect Bobby Schilling of Illinois describing the plans in simple terms: “We’re gonna rip it out by its roots.”

“This is all about accountability, about a big tax bill that had a few pieces of reform attached to it,” said Schilling, who was part of a Fox & Friends panel of incoming GOP House members.

On the question of how Republicans plan to “rip it out by its roots,” Rep-Elect Chuck Fleischmann said “we’ve got to attack” the healthcare bill “from all angles. It’s bad law, it’s flawed Constitutionally,” and Fleischmann said one angle of attack would be moving to defund the “bureaucratic army that this bill would require.”

Watch it here, from Fox News:

Columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer is often the conservative contrarian and sometimes referred to as “a brilliant man,” therefore Republicans are often very interested to hear his advice. While many Republicans in the House of Representatives are eager to return to Congress in January so they can start defunding Obamacare, Krauthammer urged they put the brakes on such plans.

While Krauthammer still favors a symbolic repeal of Obamacare in the House (symbolic only since the measure would fail to pass in the Senate), he would prefer Republicans attack the bill through hearings rather than waste energy trying to defund it. Krauthammer elaborates:

I am skeptical about taking away the funds because what it will do, it will poke holes in the system. It will make it more chaotic . . . and in the end, if healthcare collapses or if it becomes utterly unworkable, the Democrats will have a way of saying ‘well, it was all these injuries inflicted by the Republicans that made it not work.’ I think the smarter approach is to simply expose to the American people what’s in the bill. All the arbitrariness, all the incredibly increased expenses, all the contradictions in it, also the inherent corruption in it.

Krauthammer, who recently claimed Obama “snookered the GOP into a second stimulus” with the tax compromise, is again provocatively suggesting that the best political strategy for Republicans is to keep their hands off Obamacare and, in his estimation, let it fail on its own.

Watch the clip from Fox‘s Special Report below:

Gibbs also stated that eleven cases challenging the constitutionality of some portion of the healthcare bill have already been dismissed, and that still two other federal courts upheld the same provision Hudson just deemed unconstitutional. Of greater concern than any potential conflict of interest, Gibbs seemed more troubled by the amount of media coverage this one decision was receiving. Gibbs concluded, “the notion . . . there is some historic crack in [the healthcare law] is not held up by what the judge actually ruled.”

Watch the video from C-Span below:

O’Reilly’s beef centered around a pro-health-care-reform ad Griffith shot for the Obama administration; specifically, this claim:

“This year, like always, we’ll have our guaranteed benefits.”

The problem: the site FactCheck.org took issue with that claim, and a White House blog post that discussed the ad when it was released. That post said, “Under the Affordable Care Act…Seniors’ guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same.”

But, FactCheck said, not exactly: “As we wrote most recently last December, about 10 million Medicare Advantage recipients could see their extra benefits reduced by an average of $43 per month, according to the Congressional Budget Office.” O’Reilly took this and ran with it, discussing the matter with Fox News contributors Ellis Henican and Leslie Marshall.

Neither Henican nor Marshall seemed too outraged over the ad, but going against O’Reilly when he has a non-partisan fact-checker on his side – and is clearly relishing every moment – is a tough battle to fight. One thing we’ll say, though – this ad came out four months ago (Check the date on this post again.) Why no segment on it back then? In any case, video of last night’s segment below.